With palms together,
There is an interesting article in the N Y Times today about a stone tablet found amid the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apparently it suggests that the notion of a suffering messiah who would rise in three days was a common belief in the century prior to the Christian Jesus.
The article suggests:
If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.
Hmmm. The death and resurrection myth prior to Jesus' birth? It would seem this adds to the notion advance some decades ago by a Jewish scholar suggesting this whole Jesus script was a scheme to get Jesus recognized as the Messiah, that Jesus was aware of the things that needd to happen before they happened in order to meet the criteria.
And later:
Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.
But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.
“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”
Strange.
Link
Be well
Why isn't it pure? Maybe it comes down to the answer to why are we here? What is your purpose in life? How did you get here and where are you going? My answers would all be God centered. He's the end all to a Christian. It's about Him, not us. I do agree tho with your last statement. When we do good we are honoring our creator.
Well I can tell you it's definitely not fear based. When we come to Christ in the first place sometimes it can be out of fear. We don't wish to go to hell. Mind you this is the avenue some take to accepting Christ. Fear meaning not wanting to pay the consequences for sin. But once you've had the relationship with Christ for a while and you've grown in it it's no longer fear but love. Scripture says "love casts out all fear." We are not bound by fear but love.
So we do what we do out of love not out of fear. But having said that, we do wish to hear "well done good and faithful servant." So although I do what I do for the cause of Christ and his benefit I also do want to hear my creator say those words to me someday. But I don't do what I do for praise either. It really is love motivated, not fear or praise motivated.
all the Christian principles/virtues are based on love. Humility, virtue, integrity, patience, kindness, genteness, faith, truth. It's not to show off how good we are, but to show others how Good our God is.
It can be summed up with the two greatest commandments which we've covered. I think the OT prophet covered it when he wrote this:
"With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you O man what is good. And what does the Lord require of you?
TO ACT JUSTLY AND TO LOVE MERCY AND TO WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR GOD." Micah 6:8
Thank you both, Lula and KFC, for these lists and sources. These maxims, values, virtues, etc., however, are common among religions. I am getting the sense that such principles are made Christian by virtue of the fact that they were taught by the authors of the Hebrew scripture and recapped by Jesus.
Purity of motive, however, is important, I think. While, on the one hand, it is good to be good to please God, pleasing God, in such a context becomes something added to the equation. It makes moral behavior something contingent.
If we say, "its all God" then how is that fundamentally different from saying we are virtuous because virtuosity is an aspect of God and by being virtuous, surrendering our selfishness to Godliness we are allowing God to manifest in (or through) us?
I think Christians get stuck obsessing about ownership. Perhaps theologically they must? Rather than understanding the various ways/aspects of God being made manifest through differing understandings of Him.
A list of virtues or values such as the Six Perfections in Zen Buddhism (generosity, morality, diligence, patience, meditation, and wisdom) , or a core virtue in Christianity such as "love" have corresponding places in all religions I am aware of. What often changes in their relative axiologic rank. In Buddhism, the core value of compassion is much like (arguably the very same thing as) Christian love. In both cases it is the selfless manifestation of either God or Buddha-nature.
I would think all religious adherrants would be happy that people would manifest such values and principles in the world rather than getting caught in the need to say one ownwership is somehow better, different, or holier than another.
Lastly, secular virtue is virtue regardless of its source. Secular people, humanists, atheists, agnostics, can be (and often are) very virtuous. Love, sacrifice, generosity, patience, tolerance, these exist apoart from any religious source. They exist because we human beings have evolved to include them through natural selection: they are beneficial to the species.
Be well.
Another point. In Judaism we often speak as if God needs our praise. I really don't think this is true, although a case can be made that Man and God need each other and are in symbiotic relationship. I do think that if it were the case, it doesn't speak well of God and says far more about our ability to understand Him than His actuality itself.
Very nice, KFC. Nice use of mythic structure. (I mean that in a very positive sense as myth is what we use ti make sense of our world.) However, if sin messed us up, as you say, then our creator was far from perfect...or likes a good drama...and on top of all that is a praise addict. I suspect sin is a product of a point of view. A product of a discriminating mind. In other words, a human creation.
On this you or Jesus is clearly mistaken. The sabbath is honored by Jews through a cessation of work, but also, and most importantly, study and prayer. We step out of time on Shabbat. We become one with God on Shabbat. Besides, its not the Jews, but the Torah itself that spells out the rules. The ten commandments are but an executive summary of the 613.
As to divorce, the Torah is clear that it allows divorce, eh, that would be God's word. However, there is an interesting discussion on Matthew's take on it here:
http://www.moshereiss.org/christianity/06_mathew/06_mathew.htm
See ya.
Regards 360: See Lula, I tell ya we are getting just a little closer. Be well.
If we wish to evolve as a species, we must step away from ancient texts and their interpreters which seem to give permission to continue a primitive set of actions. The Torah does prohibit murder, but it also demands killing under certain circumstances. Does this mean we should do it?
We must use the Torah, its commentaries, and modern responsa only as guides. Christians are fond of pointing out we should seek the spirit of the law rather than the letter. They do this in some circumstances better than others, admittedly, but it is, non-the-less, wise advice.
Modern sensibilities have changed, dare I say, evolved, over time. Our world has become closer, far more tightly knit. We are much like a family with bickering factions than sets of nations. Those who remain on the outskirts, the fundamentalist, anti-modernists, such as radical Muslims or Ultra-orthodox Jews, or seriously fundamentalist Christians, are not only out of touch with modern sensibilities, but they actually see them as a threat to their old ways.
Spiritual progression must take a Middle Way, a balance between the letter and the spirit. We must be willing to examine and re-examine doctrine, often opting to set it aside when proven wrong by science, for example, or improving conditions of the species, or worsening conditions of the planet's environment.
Our creator endowed us with a mind, with a heart, and with determination. These ought not be at war with each other, but rather, they should be in-service to one another.
Old myths like the Myth of the Eternal Return, resurrection myths, Adamic Redemptive themes, must be cast in contemporary terms. Reform Judaism, for example, has revisited the Messiah myth and re-stated it as a "Messianic Age". So, we are not looking for a person, a hero, who will make everything peachy keen, but rather a working together of mankind to create an enlightened world.
Text in such circumstances must be read with different eyes. Eyes wiling to see text as symbolic expressions of a deep desire to get close to God and to make ourselves Holy.
Sometimes we must allow for each other's deficiencies in order to get to the common good. The problems we have in this form of communication can lead to tons of head butting, each convinced the other is right or wrong. Moreover, as I think I said earlier, its also a problem with text criticism. We agree, Leauki, that the text we are examining must first be understood in its original language, then we should look at context in terms of an array of areas, cultural, religious, anthropological, etc., then look at how differing eyes take the context and text and apply it through the ages, forming essentially different religions or certainly sects: a complex, but rewarding task. And not everyone is in the same place at all. So be it.
I seek to find common ground whenever possible, although I admit I am not above giving my own jabs from time to time. Still, we should each look to find value in the dialogue, don't you think?
I see us as a Catholic (Lula), a Christian fundamentalist (KFC) , a Jew (Leauki) , a JuBu (myself), and a mystic of sorts (Nightshades), having a discussion mostly about Jesus and Judaism, but also about things much deeper. Others chime in from time to time. Frankly, I think we're doing pretty well.
See ya!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
