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
Let's talk a little about this. I agree completely that no one can impose Catholocism on another. The Church, however, for millenia, had different ideas. The Church, as well as protestant countries, often made it illegal to be anything other than a Christian. You come to this with a modern take. Great. I support that. But don't think that a people who suffered under the tyranny of religious persecution will easily let go of that memory and say, OK, things have changed.
I think its one thing to offer your love, another to try to gain converts through that love. If a Christian must "testify" so be it. I have a right welcome him in and offer to discuss it. In the past this hasn't worked out to well. Love is rather contingent, it seems, on accepting a point of view.
We Buddhists take a vow to not be greedy, especially with the Dharma. I do not take this vow to mean that I should approach total strangers and teach them, unasked, the wisdom of the Buddhas. Just so, as a Jew, I have an obligation to do acts of loving-kindness. This does not give me permission to try to convert someone to monotheism If I truly love someone, I love them for who and what they are, human beings who share the universe with me.
Be well.
KFC, this isn't limited to the CC. What about the likes of Jim Bakker and the rest of those true mega church evangelicals who fall from grace only to beg to be forgiven. In South Carolina I witnessed the phenomonon of the eternally self rejuvenating virgin. After an affair women would make themselves virgins again...all pretense, of course, but you take my point. Baptists do the bathtub thing or the river thing and all is clean again. No, the Catholic Church just made a ritual element of the process.
See ya.
Hi All,
This morning at Talmud class we discussed a portion of Tractate Ketubot. This tractate deals with women and marriage, and all sorts of related issues. The rabbis, in the portion we were studying, were trying to figure out why a court had been lenient in a ruling regarding a divorce decree. One rabbi says he thinks its because the rabbis of that court were part of a liberal group who said it was OK for Jews to use the oil of non-Jews, a big no-no. It seems that much of the talk around non-Jews by Jews in the Talmud have to do with keeping Jews both separate and ritually clean. We were not to touch things that were unclean and since non-Jews did not keep kosher, big problem. Well, the rabbinic courts tossed this ruling out as it impeded commerce between Jews and non-Jews and chose a more liberal interpretation.
The point is, the Talmudic effort is an effort to do two things at once: keep Jews Jews and discover how we can adapt to changing cultural norms. I don't see how this is much different than today as we raise our children and send them out into the world. We want to adapt, that is, be modern citizens, but at the same time, not surrender our values.
Nightshades, very interesting reply. It sounds like something from the the Gospel of St. Thomas on the one hand and quite in keeping with Jewish mystical tadition on he other hand
Lula, Exactly. And if Christians have their way in the United states taking down the wall separating Church and State we are left with this threat once again. The Inquisition wasn't a small thing, no little stick. It was a massive effort that spread like a cancer throughout Europe. Jews were and will always be heretics according to Church doctrine, or at least until of very late.
What were Jewish towns and communities to do under siege from the Inquisitors? What were they to do when they were forced to relocate, to flee to other countries under expulsion? enjoy the loving-kindness of Christians? This was the context wherein Jews wrote comments about and discussed their Christian oppressors. And you think words are the problem? Goodness.
You dare compare the centuries of killing, torture, and unspeakable horror perpetrated against a people for its faith to a court, like the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin had a brief history and was focused on issues related to Jews, not Gentiles. Hardly an inquisition by any possible stretch of the imagination.
The Inquisition was just a dramatic point. There are two millenia of records of anti-Jewish hate, oppression, and malicious conduct, all by otherwise loving gentiles, often in the name of the Christian God and its faith.
You don't expect some degree of suspicion to remain in the hearts of Jews?
The something rotten is sanitation of history. I spent some time last night reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia as regards Heretics, the Inquisition and under a separate search Jews. Most interesting. Heretics were those "believers" who spoke doctrine opposed to true doctrine, but secondly, those who refused to accept Christianity. And who were the targets of the Inquisition, heretics. Hmmm. Doesn't leave a lot of room for Jews. Jews aere expelled from country to country. Some became conversos, not for gain, but to remain at home and alive. The Church protected Jews alright:
Goodness. And this wasn't limited to the Catholics, the Byzantine Empire did similar things and our friend, Martin Luther, says:
A very welcoming community, those Christian communities.
For a timeline on anti-Jewish conduct by church and state look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism
After examining this, tell me how it should'nt take a rocket scientist to wonder why Jews might not trust Christians.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
