Sodaiho Sodaiho

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

▼

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

staging a messiahship

from JoeUser Forums

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

 

 

 

 

religion
922,973 views 969 replies
Reply #826 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
My Douay Rheims version which St.Jerome translated from the Latin and the Latin from the Hebrew has it as "earth". That's all I need to know. When that is put together with the rest of the Genesis account that describes the underground cataclysmic power of that event plus the evidence from outside of Sacred Scripture, then it makes perfect sense that it was indeed a world-wide event. If the Flood was local, why were the birds included on the Ark...they would have simply flown away. Certainly people had migrated beyond Mesopotamia by the time of the Flood. That means if it was a local flood, then those people beyond the area wouldn't have been affected by it....yet, Scripture tells us that the Flood was God's judgment on all the people for their sins.


SoDaiho posts:
Yet, Lula, you must try to understand the translations in terms of the knowledge of the translators at the time of the translation.


OF Sacred Scripture this is what I understand...that there is no need for the sacred writer to understand the full import of the words which he/she wrote under Divine inspiration. When the text was originally written, only God could know the full dimension of the passages. Certainly the prophets themselves didn't see all the implications of what they were writing.

In terms of translations of Sacred Scripture, I wasn't just name-dropping by saying I've got the very best translation available in the Douay Rheims translated by St.Jerome in 405AD. That's why I have no problem with its use of the word "earth" so many times in Genesis.

Leauki posts #811
The word "eretz" is used a lot in the Bible and is variously translated as "earth" or "land", but it always meant the same,



If Leauki thinks it means "land", well that's OK too. After that, we must take the word "earth" or "land" and look for its meaning---that is-- what God intended the text to mean. To discover the meaning of the word, whether it is "earth" or "land", we need to keep very much in mind the unity and content of passage itself, then of the chapter and then of the whole of Scripture, (and for me, the living Tradition of the Church and faith), along with the benefit of outside historic and scientific information.

Read "eretz" literally and you don't get a world-wide flood.


I reiterate, when all the other passages are added and that is put in the full context of Scripture, then the Flood seems to have been a world-wide event.


If one just looks at the word here or there, without taking anything else into consideration, then it's easy to see that one might come to the conclusion that it was a local event.

lula posts:
My Douay Rheims version which St.Jerome translated from the Latin and the Latin from the Hebrew has it as "earth". That's all I need to know.



You really don't read what I write, do you?

I told you that "earth" didn't mean a few hundred years ago what it does today.


Ok, here is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
Please explain what Genesis 1:1 meant to those people hundreds of years ago if it doesn't mean what it does today. To me, Genesis 1:1 use of the word "earth" means the God created the entire planet.

Also, just to assuage my curiosity, what is the word Hebrew word for "earth" of Genesis 1:1 and is that the same or different from the earth in Genesis 7:7,22 "Ands he was 600 years old when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. 22 And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died"?


Reply #827 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
My Douay Rheims version which St.Jerome translated from the Latin and the Latin from the Hebrew has it as "earth". That's all I need to know.




SODAIHO POSTS:
What a translator's work says should never be "good enough" for you, as if to say, "case closed". The case for knowledge can never be closed. Always new things are being discovered and learned.


Always new things are being discovered and learned.


For me, it is "cased closed" as far as thinking the Douay Rheims is the very best, most accurate translation to be found anywhere on this planet. St.Jerome's work is good enough for me.

Now, interpreting that translation's meaning is a whole different thing for not all interpretations are equally valid. I just interpreted Genesis 1:1 above...now we'll see how others interprete it.

Can anybody convince me that Christians today (some of them) are not exactly doing that, thinking they know enough?


No doubt this stems from what I said about trusting the Douay Rheims translation enough not to question it or seek a "better" translation.

Truthfully, I've never met a Christian who thinks they know enough when it comes to understanding the meaning of Scripture. It's truly a lifelong learning trip.

Do Christians "know enough" to say that Christ is God, or Jesus is the Messias or there are three Persons in One God with all assuredness. Yes, they do. Their knowledge is based upon supernatural faith, the highest level of knowledge there is.




Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #828 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, here is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
Please explain what Genesis 1:1 meant to those people hundreds of years ago if it doesn't mean what it does today. To me, Genesis 1:1 use of the word "earth" means the God created the entire planet.


Yes, but only because land cannot be created without creating the planet.

The duality "heavens and earth", however, refers to "earth" (as in "land") and "heavens" (as in "that thing above the land").

The "waters" (same root as "heavens" in Hebrew) were the borders of land as well.



Also, just to assuage my curiosity, what is the word Hebrew word for "earth" of Genesis 1:1 and is that the same or different from the earth in Genesis 7:7,22 "Ands he was 600 years old when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. 22 And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died"?


It's always the same word. And it always meant "earth" as in "land".

The word for the entire planet is "haKol 3olam", which is also used in the Bible, namely when the entire planet is meant specifically.

And as I said before, the English word "earth", until a few hundred years ago, also meant "land", "soil", "ground", not "the entire world" or "the planet earth". And the same applies to Latin "terra". ("Tellus" is the Latin for "planet earth".)

Reply #829 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well I saw a rainbow today. Do you know what the rainbow symbolized in scripture Leauki? If this was as you say, a local flood instead of global one, why do I see the rainbow here? Shouldn't the rainbow be a local one? Shouldn't it just be seen in Iraq?


Maybe it was a rainbow in America.

I don't think there is an obvious reason to assume that a rainbow you see in America should only be visible in Iraq. In fact, if I asked millions of random people I wouldn't be surprised if not a single one of them spontaneously assumed that a rainbow visible in America should only be visible in Iraq.

Reply #830 from JoeUser Forums Top

I mean obviously there was no one living here in the States yet.


What about the Indians?
Reply #831 from JoeUser Forums Top

For me, it is "cased closed" as far as thinking the Douay Rheims is the very best, most accurate translation to be found anywhere on this planet. St.Jerome's work is good enough for me.


So why don't you accept them?

The Latin text uses the word "terra", which means "land" but NOT "planet earth".

And the English translation uses the word "earth", which back then did NOT mean "planet earth".

Reply #832 from JoeUser Forums Top

I've never met a Christian who thinks they know enough when it comes to understanding the meaning of Scripture.


Congratulations. You are the first I met.

Reply #833 from JoeUser Forums Top

If Leauki thinks it means "land", well that's OK too. After that, we must take the word "earth" or "land" and look for its meaning---that is-- what God intended the text to mean.


But that's the point.

It's not only I who thinks it means "land".

The Hebrew word means "land".

The Latin translation ("terra") means "land".

The English translation ("earth") means "land".

Only in the last few hundred years did the English word "earth" change its meaning to "planet earth". And only in the last hundred years did the Latin word "terra" mean "planet earth".

If G-d had wanted us to distinguish between "planet earth" and "soil" He would have used two different words.

(And it doesn't help that the English translation merges "eretz" and "adama" into one word "earth" either.)

Reply #834 from JoeUser Forums Top
Incidentally, the Latin version translates "eretz" as "terra" even when the English version translates it as "country".

And to remind everyone again:

"Terra" is Latin for "land", "soil", NOT "planet earth". The Latin for "planet earth" is "tellus". The Latin translation translates "eretz" ("land") as "terra" ("land").

"Earth" in English meant "land", "soil", NOT "planet earth" until the last few hundred years.

"Eretz" means "land" and was CONSISTENTLY, in Latin and English translated using words that also mean "land".

Only in the last few hundred years did the English word "earth" change its meaning to include "planet earth".

Reply #835 from Stardock Forums Top

Well I saw a rainbow today. Do you know what the rainbow symbolized in scripture Leauki

Symbols are not literal. Rainbows existed prior to the flood.  If it raind on the N. American continent...or any place...and the sun's light was in the right angle, there would be a rainbow.

What Lula is saying is Jerome, who was very proficient with the Hebrew language chose to put earth instead of land. No diff in my book.

Here's where we must try to learn and discover, insteaed of saying "case closed" as Lula argues.  We should ask ourselves why Jerome would "choose" this way to translate.  It seems to me that the Church at this time was seriously into the growth stage.  The early founders of Christianity wanted the text to have a universal appeal.  What better way than to universalize the language?

Be well.

Reply #836 from JoeUser Forums Top

We should ask ourselves why Jerome would "choose" this way to translate.


Sodaiho,

I apparently failed to explain this well enough.

Jerome "chose" the right word: "terra". "Terra" means "land".

The English translator also "chose" the right word: "earth". But "earth" didn't mean "planet earth" back then. It meant "ground" or "soil" (or "land").

Hebrew has two words for "earth".

"Eretz" means "land, the surface".

"Adama" means "land, the material".

In English the word "earth" has three distinct meanings.

1. "earth, the surface". That's where the adjective "earthy" comes from.

2. "earth, the material". That's the meaning that is used in the word "aardvark" ("earth piglet").

3. "earth, the planet". This third meaning is relatively new and didn't yet exist back when the translations were written.

The English translation uses "earth" (2) for "adama" and "earth" (1) for "eretz". The third definition is new.

And it is this third definition that Lula focuses on. She thinks that since "earth" NOW means "planet earth" that must have been what the author of the Bible had in mind. And that despite the fact that the Latin translation chose "terra" rather then "tellus" to translate "eretz". ("Tellus" is the latin word for "planet earth".)

Jerome "chose" a word that means "earth, the surface" because he translated a word that means "earth, the surface". That's all. That's why.
Reply #837 from Stardock Forums Top

Leauki,

 

Thanks.  I am getting somewhat lost in this.  I was under the impression that the book Lula was referring to used "world".  Is the text Lula referring to an English translation of Greek or Latin?

 

Reply #838 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is the text Lula referring to an English translation of Greek or Latin?


I don't know if her English translation is from Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

But the only Latin translation I know says "terra" ("land") and not "tellus" ("planet earth").
Reply #839 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rainbows existed prior to the flood. If it rained on the N. American continent...or any place...and the sun's light was in the right angle, there would be a rainbow.


SoDaiho, I'm not sure where this comes from. From the Torah my understanding is that water coming from the sky didn't happen before the flood (Gen 2:5-6) and then the bow mentioned in the cloud in (Gen 9:12-17). Can you help me understand where you are coming from?

Shalom
Reply #840 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hello AD, 

I am not suggesting that the Torah mentions a rainbow existing prior to the flood, but rather, that rainbows must have existed prior to the flood without being mentioned.  The Torah does point to a mist rising from the ground.  Gardens were planted, fields planted and harvested, and so on.  I think, outside of scripture, it would be naive in the extreme to think that it didn't rain before the flood of Noah's time. My guess is that God assigned a meaning to a common phenomenon.

IMHO, we cannot take scripture as a linear history.  Stories are placed and used as teaching mechanisms.

Be well.

 

Reply #841 from JoeUser Forums Top
The "waters" (same root as "heavens" in Hebrew) were the borders of land as well.


Interesting that you mentioned this. Is the word for water that you are thinking of "mayim"?

Genesis 1:6-10 where the word "water" is also with the word "firmament" and "Heaven".

"And God said, "Let there be a firmament made admist the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. 9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven be gathered together into one place; and let the dry land appear


lula posts:
Also, just to assuage my curiosity, what is the word Hebrew word for "earth" of Genesis 1:1 and is that the same or different from the earth in Genesis 7:7,22 "Ands he was 600 years old when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. 22 And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died"?

It's always the same word. And it always meant "earth" as in "land".

The word for the entire planet is "haKol 3olam", which is also used in the Bible, namely when the entire planet is meant specifically.


Thanks.

If G-d had wanted us to distinguish between "planet earth" and "soil" He would have used two different words.


Now consider Genesis 1:9-10

"God also said: Let the waters that are under heaven be gathered together into one place; and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. 10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

Compare the word "earth" (eretz)used in Genesis 1:1 meaning the planet earth, with the word "land" and "Earth" as used in verses 9 & 10. I'd say that in 1:1, God meant "earth" as the planet, and here in 1:9-10 land and Earth as being the ground or soil.

Reply #842 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not suggesting that the Torah mentions a rainbow existing prior to the flood, but rather, that rainbows must have existed prior to the flood without being mentioned. The Torah does point to a mist rising from the ground. Gardens were planted, fields planted and harvested, and so on. I think, outside of scripture, it would be naive in the extreme to think that it didn't rain before the flood of Noah's time. My guess is that God assigned a meaning to a common phenomenon.


Thanks for answering SoDaiho. This was the first time I had really heard this.
Reply #843 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki posts:
Jerome "chose" the right word: "terra". "Terra" means "land".

The English translator also "chose" the right word: "earth". But "earth" didn't mean "planet earth" back then. It meant "ground" or "soil" (or "land").


Sodaiho posts:
Thanks. I am getting somewhat lost in this.


I hope my post #842 clears this up at least from my pov.

Ok, here is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
Please explain what Genesis 1:1 meant to those people hundreds of years ago if it doesn't mean what it does today. To me, Genesis 1:1 use of the word "earth" means the God created the entire planet.


We see in the case of Genesis 1:1, "eretz" DID mean the planet earth back then in Moses' day when it was written in original Hebrew, then in St.Jeromes' day in 405 when he translated eretz into Old Latin Vulgate and then when the English translaters of the Douay Rheims translated it into "earth".

The word "earth" in Genesis 1:1 most definitely meant what we today, becasue of the benefit of science and astrology, identify as the planet. That just goes to show that true science is in complete agreement with Scripture written in Moses' day!


Reply #844 from JoeUser Forums Top
Symbols are not literal. Rainbows existed prior to the flood. If it raind on the N. American continent...or any place...and the sun's light was in the right angle, there would be a rainbow.


And how do you know this? The first mention of a rainbow anywhere in history is in Genesis. So where are you getting your information? It has to be an assumption right?

Did you know that bible scholars pretty much agree there was most likely no rain prior to the flood? So that's what made this whole flood thing even more incredible.

I think, outside of scripture, it would be naive in the extreme to think that it didn't rain before the flood of Noah's time. My guess is that God assigned a meaning to a common phenomenon.


So what you're saying Sodaiho, if I'm correct here, is that you're basing your belief on non-evidence? And then you say this for what we should believe....

IMHO, we cannot take scripture as a linear history. Stories are placed and used as teaching mechanisms.


Why can't we take scripture as history? What else do we have? Thousands of years later when Christ walked the earth he pointed to the OT scriptures as absolute truth. Shouldn't we, especially as Christians, as well? I have no reason NOT to believe and I don't think it's wise for me to assume or take non-evidence as truth.

I mean we can either guess or assume as you are with what you said above or we can take this written history backed by a historical figure much later on. To me it's an easy choice.







Reply #845 from JoeUser Forums Top

And how do you know this? The first mention of a rainbow anywhere in history is in Genesis. So where are you getting your information? It has to be an assumption right?


It's common sense. And Genesis is not the only report of times past.

The Sumerian Gilgamesh epic mentions a rainbow. And that's a lot older than Genesis. Of course, Genesis is based on Sumerian legends.

Many cultures have legends that mention rainbows. It's a common occurence.
Reply #846 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Sumerian Gilgamesh epic mentions a rainbow. And that's a lot older than Genesis. Of course, Genesis is based on Sumerian legends.


and how do you know this?

Reply #847 from Stardock Forums Top

KFC, The Torah is hardly evidence. Its words on paper, intitial transmitted verbally from memory.  I am not basing my statements on "assumptions" but on geologic evidence, biology, and essentially common sense. Moreover, rainbows do not need rain.  They can occur in mist.

Are you really suggesting that gardens and fields grew without rain?  That dinosaurs lived without rain? Really?  Give me a break.  The formation of this planet took millions of years.  Certainly it rained before man was here to see it, let alone float on it s accumulation in a boat.

I have no reason NOT to believe and I don't think it's wise for me to assume or take non-evidence as truth.

Actually you do, thousands and thousands of years of geological and fossil records. the geophysics of planet formation, and well, just plain common sense.

link

Moreover, a recent study suggests acid rain weathered earth's minerals some 4 billion years ago.  A tad before Noah.

Link

Be well.

Reply #848 from JoeUser Forums Top
recent study


If evidence is planted on you, a recent study might convict you of murder.
Reply #849 from JoeUser Forums Top

and how do you know this?


They found inscriptions of Sumerian legends, texts that are much older then the oldest copies of the Torah we have and older than the Tora itself claims to be.

Genesis itself reports that the events of Noah happened in the land that was then Sumer.

I know you don't understand physics and biology well enough to know what fossils prove or how carbon-dating works. (Although you probably do use electricity produced by nuclear power plants, a method that wouldn't work if the theory carbon-dating is based on were wrong, but I digress.)

I'll probably write an article about the Sumerian connection. Alas, I don't know much about Sumerian history and I don't know anything about their language (except that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European).

But with all the attention Sumerian legends are now getting in these last 2000 years, perhaps it worth looking at the more closely.

If it's in the Torah, surely it must be important?

I would like to _know_ what the word "shana" (noun for the root "alter") meant before Exodus. I assume it meant "month" (In the last 3000 years it meant "year".)

I have noticed, for example, that while the plural of "shana" ("year") is "shanim" ("years"), which is in itself odd, since "shanah" should be feminine and the regular plural would be "shanot" (but it's not), the plural used before Exodus is "shana" (not "shanim").

My hypothesis is now that shana/shanim means "year" while shana/shana meant "month". People later intepreted shana/shana to mean "year", but I'll check what a more literal reading ("shana" as noun form of the verb "alter") gives me. If shana/shana means "alteration" it would explain why the plural is the same as the singular (like English "information") and its value would depend on location and culture.

Incidentally, the dual of shana/shanim would be "shnaim" which exists as a word. It means the number "two".

Whoever wants to know more about whatever truth is behind the Bible should follow the article when I write it.

Stop-religionists, i.e. stop who stop doing research once a result they like is reached, should avoid my article then.

Reply #850 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Torah is hardly evidence.


That I disagree with. The Torah is absolutely evidence that something happened. It's just not evidence that something didn't happen.

If the Torah says that Noah saw a rainbow that's good enough for me. (I would in fact be surprised if Noah never saw rainbow in his lifetime.)

But the Torah is not evidence for rainbows not occuring anywhere else, especially since there is other evidence, other people's legends, that also speak of rainbows.

If only the Christiand and Muhammedans hadn't taken Jewish legends and made them into world religions...