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
No disrespct taken, KFC. We clearly see and understand scripture and faith practice differently. I would object to the "lie" part, though...we have different understandings honestly come to.
I do not know how focusing on the Godliness of humanity is the same as taking one's eye off the model. Jesus asked you to follow him, did he not?
We are all to become holy, God has commanded us to do so. The question is how? Jews believe we become holy through a meticulous adherence to scriptual commandments on he one hand, and contemplative practices, on the otherhand, those these days, these are much less well known.
I do not know how God's breath which gave us each life is not a part of us. You seem to reject this scriptual view. No worries.
Be well.
And no where does he argue that we derive from apes, just that organisms move from the simple to the complex and that through natural selection, differences arise. His Descent of Man was an eloquent description not of what has become a caricature, Social Darwinism, but more the power of cooperation and mutual aid within species.
I disagree. Its not God's breath that was breathed into us. This is a confusion caused by anthropomorphism. God doesn't have breath. It was God Himself. Be well.
The story in chapter two of Genesis is very interesting, isn't it? It offers many challenges, even challenges to a contemporary understanding of the nature of God. There are two aspects of import, it seems to me. First is temptation itself, which, I think, is the real issue, not the effect of eating what might have been forbidden.
In this context, what's interesting is that Eve didn't exist when God commanded Adam not to eat. So, Eve was innocent, in more ways than one, by taking the fruit. Of course, we could argue that ignorance is no excuse, but then, to be fair, we must keep in mind, Adam and Eve both were very simple. They had no ability to discern right from wrong, nor did they have knowledge or wisdom. so why would God be sooo upset?
It was their succumbing to temptation, I suspect. Yet God knew very well they would succumb if tempted: he made them that way, afterall.
In spite of what the serpent argues, they will not become as Gods or divine beings. This was his lie. He argues they possess the ability to discern what is right and wrong, good nutrition, and have the ability to gain wisdom. God, on the other hand, has told Adam if he should eat of the fruit he will die. Interesting, isn't it?
In a very real sense, Adam and Eve were not complete human beings. They could not distinguish between right and wrong, in other words they had no moral autonomy, they lacked any sort of judgement, and by today's standards they would be complete morons, with a functional IQ of zip.
So, what are we to make of this? God punishes two people who were not capable of discerning right from wrong. One of these people did,'t even know she wasn't to eat.
Once they ate they did not die, in the sense we ordinarily think of it. Their innocence died. They became aware. They awakened, so to speak.
But they did not become divine in the sense we ordinarily think of it.
I suspect God's children had to grow up. It is, afterall, what children do. One way of looking at the so-called "fall" is that the children of God helped God by completing His work. Partnering with Him to set the stage for the drama to follow.
My Torah translation uses "dust" not slime. And both use "breath of life." Now just what do you suppose that is when we are talking about a non-corporeal God? Answer, His spirit, which I believe is the more appropriate translation of ruach. In any event, Lula, God is not a being who breathes. The text is as it is for human understanding at the level we were able to understand at the time.
It may appear that way, but in one case I am using the same metaphor as the Torah does, in the second case, I am explaining it.
Exactly, It is the serpent who is instructing and enticing Eve, not God. Maybe Eve is just repeating what Adam had to say, but the Torah does not show God instructing Eve as she was not made when God instructed Adam on the subject.
How can someone who is not competent to discern right from wrong be anything other than innocent? I really want to know.
Well everyone, its time for me to go to Temple to welcome the Sabbath bride.
Shabbat shalom.
Leauki,
Good Shabbos.
My sense of this material in post 914 is that human beings tend to anthropomorphize their fears and hopes. Stories, such as the biblical creation stories, are our attempts at understanding and teaching. Human beings use devices like "God" as a being and the "Adversary" as a being, to play out the drama in our lives. Much as the Greeks and Romans did with their pantheon.
In trying to undersand God it seems, historicaly, that we must do these things. Judaism's kabbalists did this with the ten seferot, aspects of the Divine reflected in man, Torah, etc.
Catholicism does this with the trinity and a pantheon of angels and saints.
We just have a very hard time with God is One. Nor do we really have the language for it. So we use metaphors such as "the hand of God" or the "breath of God" to discuss what we wish (or think) is His relationship to us and the universe.
We get in trouble when we make the metaphor real, because the hand becomes an object and an object is bounded: instant dualism. Or, as Lula is fond of saying, "error".
Hi KFC, I am really puzzled then. Moral action is contingent upon the ability to discern right from wrong. As I understand the story, it wasn't until after they ate of the tree's fruit that they posessed these attributes. God's commandments are moral imperatives. So, it seems to be suggesting that God held the couple accountable before they had the ability to be accountable.
How do you see these people, completely ignorant of the difference between right and wrong, with no...that is, zero...wisdom to be capable?
God's "breath".
I am not arguing that she did not "know" the rules, although I don't see where she actually received them from God. An idiot can recite a rule verbatum, but not have an iota of understanding as to what the rule actually means. I am arguing just that: Adam and Eve, according to scripture, were moral and ethical imbiciles.
In your analogy to children, the problem is we are being taught nearly from birth, concepts such as right and wrong. Adam and Eve were born "adults" so to speak, minuse the ability to discern right from wrong or build an aggregate of wisdom based on their experience. This came with the fruit of the tree.
Believe what you want about the pair, the timing of the text suggests otherwise. One cannot chose to make a moral (or immoral) decision without moral judgement (or a lack thereof) being brought into play.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
