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
Lula,
After reading your apology for the CC and her restrictions as regards reading material, one wonders how you can allow yourself to transgress by reading these posts? Your words are inflammatory and devisive, I feel. They are the very definition of narrow minded and unenlightened. Thoughts regards truth such as yours are more appropriate to the dark ages, a Catholic induced phenomonon, I might add.
Is it possible for you to posit a positive aspect of CC without denigrating other faith traditions?
I wonder.
Be well.
Hello Again,
Sorry to contradict you, but even Catholicism is "man made". Lets assume that your Jesus was God incarnate, which of course, he was not. He was a Jew wanting other Jews to follow his way of being Jewish. He did not create Christianity or the Catholic Church. That was the apostles. Or perhaps you think the apostles weren't men?
Judaism, on the other hand, follows the revealed word of God and is loyal to His word. It had to adapt after the destruction ogf the Temple just as the Church adapted when Jesus failed to show up again.
Truth is much larger than you think.
Wow. An passive aggressive attack on Christianity. On the internet. By someone from your, uh, cohort. In 2008.
Can I tell you how original you are? The sheer creativity is quite frightening, really.
Hello Lula, In such times donkeys were a common conveyance and work animal. Nothing special. Signs and symbols are only signs and symbols, not to be confused with reality, regardless of how the church interprets them. And if they are, indeed, signs and symbols they are open to numerous alternative interpretations. On the other hand a donkey just may a donkey.
You have faith in your church because it demands it and to think critically about it would appear as a crack in that faith. If I were a Catholic I might do the same, but then, I don't know...I understand American Catholics aren't so willing to toe the party line.
You and KFC seem to think the Bible is a highly symbolic script. You would, apparently, be lost without it. But it is, afterall, just a book with words, ancient words, printed in it. The real Torah, the real Holy Scripture, is life itself. And life is in constant motion. Constantly evolving, changing, processing. To attempt to interpret thousand year old texts in a way that makes sense today without being in touch with the Infinite is an exercise in futility and, I believe, an insult to God. Scripture is, at best, a guideline or gateway to Oneness.
To be fair Jews do much the same. Seeing the entire universe in the Torah. I see this interpretive focus, when obsessive, to be as blind to the truth as any blindness could be.
A truly spiritual life is a life lived with an open heart, a heart open to the entire universe as it speaks to it, often in whispers, sometimes in text, but more often not.
Dear Daffy, Who and what post are you referring to? There are no passive-aggressive attacks here. They are pretty straight forward.
See ya.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
