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 All,
The evolutionary questions will not be settled. One side argues from faith, the other side, reason and data. If you want to argue these points, so be it, but I am not clear as to what the value of the discussion will be.
One side completely dismisses any dating evidence and can't seem to consider the scriptural stories of creation to be anything other than the literal truth, so when faced with this sort of rigidity and irrationality, very little emerges of use.
Scientists and progressive religionists, like the Dalai Lama, can find ways of reconciling religion and science. We tend to see the hand of God everywhere and in everything, including how life and this planet evolved over time.
I have little faith in fundamentalist's ability to be open and receptive to evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of their bibles. So, maybe we shouldn't go there.
Be well.
KFC, I think it is the mix of those attending to this blog that are making it so very interesting. I cannot take credit for that.
I think Leauki has something when he talks about "stop religion" or "stop science" I agree that you are one ofthe more interested and curious of the "fundies" I've come across.
As to me coming over to fundamentalist Christianity? I could not. I can admit that I admire Jesus alot. He pointed to a spirituality in practice that was very much needed. A sort of "corrective" if you will. I believe he was God made manifest, just as I believe you are, Lula is, and I am. As I have taught before, we are all manifestations of the Absolute.
I also believe, and history clearly bears out, that the church, Catholic and otherwise, has seriously distorted Jesus' message. It has veered away from true spiritual practice in favor of the very thing Jesus was opposed to, a rigid, fundamentalist understanding of God's word.
Leauki, please let us know when you post these new articles as the religion forum category no longer exists on the forums page.
Is this from his Guide?
LOL. Zen is the most difficult spiritual practice there is, its what people say about it that can be pretty flaky indeed.
Sometime when you have time, check out Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's book, Meditation and the Bible. He makes a strong case, based on text analysis, that meditation (Zen) has been a part of Judaism dating back to Abraham. We know, as well, its a basic aspect of Hasidic practice, with roots in kabbalah. Now, talk about "flaky" , kabbalistic texts are pretty "out there" by contemporary standards.
KFC, Interesting, this. I just wrote something that might be on point. As you may be aware I am a retired psychotherapist and have been very interested in cognitive psychology. I know that our minds are quite complex and there is a seriously complex interaction between what we actually see and what we beloieve about what we see. In other words, our minds are a storehouse of images and assumptions, we might call these "core beliefs" (or as Buddhists sometimes refer to them as store consciousness). These core beliefs acts as filters to our senses. So, we must practice very hard to actually experience what is before us without the distortion from our experience, or as some might say, our pre-existing knowledge.
My point is that people of faith may have a seriously difficult time by-passing those filters and seeing their evidence clearly. Just so, an athiest scientist may have the same difficulty with spiritual matters.
Another good reason to develop a disciplined spiritual practice of meditation.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
