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
Hello Leauki,
I understand your point. However, legend, which most of Torah is (in my opinion) written down after being orally transmitted for hundreds of years, is evidence of the weakest kind. It amounts to heresay at best.
Place names and events are not evidence of authenticity of a story. Writers construct stories all the time using actual places and events, but these do not make the stories true.
Be well.
AD, the Midrash Raba for Genesis says that a mist arose from the ground. And as anyone can atest, it does not take much mist in the air for light refraction to take place. This said, I find it highly unlikely that from the legandary time of Adam to the time of Noah, what had to be millenia, there was no rain. Without rain there is no vegetation, period. Besides this there was tons of water vapor in the air.
But let's take Lula and KFC's point here. Suppose that for the centuries (or in my estimation, millenia) between the time of Adam and the time of Noah, there were huge bodies of water on the earth. Let's assume that there were. And let's assume thatthe ambient temperatures are pretty much as they are now, or even a few degrees cooler...where did all that evaporated water go? Clouds form, but never dissapate? Good grief.
This is a case were science and common sense come up against a scriptual story and for some, the story wins. No matter how nonsensical it might be.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
