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
Searching for the truth is always a good thing. I commend your effort. Yet, an authentic spiritual seeker does not look for signs and symbols, but rather the truth itself. Searching scripture, as Christians too often do, for something that corresponds, looks like, or has parallels to something else, is not seeking the truth, in my opinion. Its tea leaf divination.
The scripture is written in such a way that it is entirely open to wide and disparate interpretation. One cannot go to it to verify anything and have that verification be sound. One should not study scripture as if it is a window to the future. Scripture has a context. There are lessons within that context, but it is an error to lift them out of context.
An authentic spiritual seeker leads a disciplined spiritual life examining what is right here, right now. This is done through practice; the practices of study, prayer/meditation, and acts of loving-kindness.
Be well.
Dear Lula,
This text outlines the criteria for a prophet, not a particular prophet, among the nation of Israel. Any prophet should be like Moses, coming from the people and speaking God's word on behalf of God. The second test of a prophet should be whether his prophecy comes to pass. A false prophet is subject to the wrath of God. (BTW, an excellent resource for understanding the Tanakh is "The Jewish Study Bilble" Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press)
Responding to Christian Evengelicals in Israel, but apropos, Rabbi Emanuel Feldman says the following:
"In Judaism, the Messiah will not be a divine creature but a man born of a man and woman; he will inaugurate an era of universal peace, spirituality and enlightenment, and will gather in all Jewish exiles to the land of Israel, as outlined in Isaiah 11."
"Jesus has not fulfilled any of these prophecies. Furthermore, he is worshipped as a deity by another faith."
"We welcome genuine evangelical love and friendship and cherish evangelical support for the State of Israel. But evangelicals must realize that words like "love and friendship" are very hollow when they come at the price of apostasy and betrayal of the millennia-old faith of the Jewish people."
Lula, you are beating a dead horse. The Talmud is not "anti-Christian" It has nothing to do with Christianity. Comments in the Talmud regarding gentiles are tangential at best and have more to do with Jewish survival in a hostile Christian world than anything else. As to blasphemy, it is not blasphemy to deny the divinity of a Jesus, from a Jewish POV its just plain common sense.
There are lots of former Jews, apostates, who are now Christian, who have their own axe to grind. They are no longer Jews and their word about Judaism is always suspect, as any apostate's word should be.
As Leuki suggests, please go to the original source, but to do so would mean you would have to learn something about how the Jewish mind works. Dialogue in the Talmudic discussions, for example, are filled with what is called pilpul, a playful giva and take, weaving through time and multiple texts, to get at the real meaning of something. You cannot take anything on a literal level in spiritual contexts, ever. Which is how fundamentalists get into such trouble with the bible. So, open your mind, get one of the 27 volumes of the Talmud and take an honest look.
Lula, let me add this. Just like you say we Jews who deny Jesus' messiahship and divinity are "anti-Christian," we might say those who cannot accept that Jews might have a different, but equally valid, point of view are anti-Jewish. Does this rise to the level of anti-semitism? No. However, a constant malignment of the Jewish clergy, its holy texts, and practices, comes very close.
I have never said you are wrong to be a Catholic, but you say consistently I am wrong to be a Jew. What am I to make of this?
Lula, many primitive societies, including the Ancient Israelites, referred to themselves as "men" or "the people" and looked down upon -- or feared -- outsiders. That is the context the rabbis wrestle with, the context of when the Torah itself was written. But even so, Jews have always welcomed strangers and have very open rules about relating to them. In the end, as the ancients matured so to speak, they came to terms with civilized life and its necessities. They argued ways in which it would be OK to do business, for example, with the goyim. Understand, the prohibitions against contact with idolaters was very serious. Christians were considered idolaters. But this has not been the case for a long time. As I said several times, Judaism has continued to evolve, partly due to its deep respect and love for learning and dialogue, and partly due to necessity.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
