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, Yes. Unfortunately, due to a severe stream of anti-intellectualism and suspiciousness of education here in the US, among other factors, our textbooks are dumbed down incredibly. We teach to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, I have read both the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. And have a pretty good understanding of historical notions of evolution, as well as its distortion with the advent of what have come to be known as "Social Darwinists". The notion of survival of the fittest is greatly exaggerated in terms of Darwin. He was much more interested in the diversity within and between species, their variability, and rates of growth, as well as key interdependence issues, how beings within and across species cooperated for survival and speaks often of these (in terms of Man) in Descent. If you were to do a word search of Descent, for example, you would see very few references to "the fittest", "aggression" and the like. More common phrases would be "mutual aid", "love" and "cooperation".
Actually, I believe "chance" has little to do with natural selection. You are correct in assuming many branches on that tree. I would say trillions of branches over millions of years.
If you haven't already, I would urge you to read these works.
Leauki, check your Noah article for a comment by my rabbi friend.
Be well.
Lula! Your theology is getting stranger and stranger! Are you a monotheist or a polytheist? Jesus was not "in Abraham", for goodness sake. Jesus wasn't born for another couple of thousand years! If you say Jesus was with God in heaven, then God is two, not one.
Boy, this says a lot. I actually agree, but I am sure not as you understand your words. We have eternal life, each of us, already. We are part of the vast material that comprises this eternal universe. We know that msatter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, only exchanged. The path is the Way. It is laid out by the Torah itself, a path to holiness; it is laid out in many other religions. The Buddha taught the very same Greatr way. Even Master Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen Buddhism in the 13th century taught that practice was actually "practice realization". In other words, the moment we practice as buddhas we are buddhas.
Love has been a part of Judaism from day one, Lula. Christ did nothing but expound on an existing precept. Charity is a pillar of Judaic faith and practice. Apparently you do not know enough about the parent of your faith to speak intelligently about it. I wish, Lula, that people who so easily espouse their views of a faith actually gotto know that faith before opening their mouths.
Your last sentance was not Jesus' idea, I am certain. Jesus was a Jew concerned about the spirituality of Jews. It was only later that the Church decided to try toi build itself on the backs of pagans.
The trinity is polytheism, plain and simple, if you don't take the time and develop the practice of looking deeply. You cannot talk about Jesus as God, a person, and God as what (?) , and God's spirit, as if they are three things, three entities, without falling into polytheism. Yet, when we take the view that God comprises the universe and all that is in it is a manifestation of Him. that's pure monotheism: one God, period. Then He manifest in everything, Jesus, spirit, you, me, and yes, KFC, my teacup.
Says you and, perhaps Christianity. Jews do not necessarily look sat it this way. Messianic thought was not about eternal salvation anbd bnever was. It was about getting right with God so that we would prosper and be happy. The prophets pointed fingers as we moved away from the Torah, urged us to return to the Way God gave us in His Torah. The messiah has legand, it has hope, but ultimately, it is the People who are the messiah, partners with God.
And Christian's don't suffer? Everyone suffers Lula, its part of being alive and attached to things. The messiah did not come as evidenced by the facts: continued war, contnued suffering, a continued diaspora. Jesus was a false messiah. Believe what you want. I am happy for you.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
