cynthiaphillips

Has anyone else read the novel "The Red Tent" by Anita Diamant? If not, I recommend it highly-- it tells this Biblical story from Dinah's point of view. In any case, it has shaped my view of this story permanently, and left me with even less respect for Jacob than I had before. It is hard to tell what, exactly, happened to Dinah. Anita Diamant imagines her as an empowered young woman, newly overwhelmed by the emergence of her adolescent sexuality. Incapable of comprehending that their sister might have desired and entered into consensual relations with Shechem, the brothers interpret the situation as a rape, and react with cold-blooded deceit and violence. As for Jacob's silence, well, I suppose he never grew out of his days as the retiring little "indoors" boy whose mother fought his battles and solved his problems. And as for what he should have done... I don't hear Dinah being asked for her opinion? True, there are extraordinary cultural differences between their veiw of women and ours, but perhaps someone worth killing for is worth consulting?

I don't think any of them were spiritual in the way we think of the word spiritual. Remember, these people are only one and two generations removed from the original discovery by Abraham that there exists a God; a God named I AM. I don't see this concept of God's identity absorbed into their beings. They live in a polytheistic culture that worships capricious gods, and I think they treat the "God of Abraham" the same way, perhaps not realizing what they are doing. Rebekah-- who, unlike Isaac, was not the daughter of someone who knew and worshipped "the God of Abraham"-- clearly expects God to be able to answer her question, and intuits that the jostling of her sons means more than merely "boy, those are active little babies". However, she is manipulative and flippant. She never expresses a desire to please or to worship God, only to extract prophetic information from him. At one point she says to Jacob something along the lines of "If Isaac is going to curse you, fine, let the curse fall on me". On top of that, she was racist, and complains bitterly about Esau's Hittite wives. You could argue that this was centuries ago, when racism was not an issue in the minds and the hearts of the people, but it seems nonetheless that Rebekah's intolerance of the Hittite women exceeds that of anyone else. Isaac-- I see him as someone dreamy, gullible, passive, submissive. He sees injustice happening before his eyes, (e.g. the stew incident), and does not even protest, let alone refuse to take part. Perhaps he would have been able to take back the blessing, but it is just not in his character to do so. The same character of submissiveness is shown in his response to the people who kept trying to take over his wells. Maybe this is the inevitable character of one nearly slaughtered by his own father in an act of sacrifice? In the end, people like him, and he responds favorably to their requests to live peacefully with him. He is sensuous, and vulnerable. He loves Esau on a deep, emotional level; a level evoked by the smell of the outdoors on the ruse-garment worn by Jacob. I don't see the same genuine feeling between Rebekah and Jacob. I like Isaac. I think he is the closest thing to what we think of as spiritual. Jacob-- I think he is one of my least favorite Bible characters ever. I mean, he is compelling, and that's why I am here, studying his story. But I can't stand the man. There is not one ounce of reverence in his body. Notice even the way he refers to God-- he calls God "the Lord YOUR God" to his father. He professes no relationship with God, of his own. The experience with the dream of the ladder totally takes him by surprise. Even then, he is not moved to submission by the mere presence of God. He strikes a deal. An if-then deal! He says something like "God, first you have to take care of me etc, and THEN, you will be my God." Esau-- I have trouble wrapping my head around him. His actions are beyond unwise-- they make no sense! Maybe there was something wrong with him-- maybe he had a cognitive disability of some sort. Otherwise, how would he have brought himself to selling his birthright for a bowl of stew? (And how would Jacob have even thought to ask him?) If this is the case, I can't judge him for making bad decisions, and it makes me despise Jacob all the more.

I hope that by "pushback", you mean "honest and compelling question". :-) Here, we find ourselves among those "folks" who are asking it. :-) The willingness of the disciples to die violent deaths for their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead does not prove the resurrection. It only proves that the disciples *believed* in the resurrection. However, this is far from insignificant. This piece of evidence challenges the assertion that "resurrection beliefs developed gradually, and were not fully in place until about A.D. 400". Now we have a group of disciples with a belief in the resurrection so strong that they were willing to die for it. How are they similar to, or different from, the Muslim and Jim Jones believers you mentioned in your question?

As mentioned by many posters, the disciples were completely stunned and demoralized by Jesus's death. On this point, however, proponents of the "vision" and "hallucination" theories agree with us (literalists). In fact, the disciples' state of utter desolation is fertile ground, it is argued, for an altered state of reality to appear more real, whether that be a visual hallucination or a firm conviction of a spiritual presence; an "aliveness" of Jesus that endured beyond the grave. For other reasons, the hallucination theory is weak (how could 500 people have the same hallucination, etc.) It is with the vision theory that we must contend. One other member mentioned the speed of the emotional turnaround experienced by the disciples. I find this to be a very compelling point.

As for motivation, well-- what motivates any of us to adopt the beliefs that we have, other than to sincerely represent and articulate the truth as we know it? I imagine that many a "liberal scholar" adopts his or her skeptical views rather wistfully; sure, they would love to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but this is just not the conclusion at which they have arrived. For an analogy, imagine being asked "what motivates you to reject the belief that God always rewards adequate faith with bodily healing and blessings of wealth?" As you suggest a counterexample to defend your critical view, the questioner comes at you with "Don't you believe that God heals? Don't you believe in prayer? You have no idea how good God is! You just don't get it, and you'll never get it, because you lack faith!" Faith is not the same thing as credulity, and having more beliefs, or more "counterintuitive" beliefs does not amount to being a more faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Having said all this, just because the liberal scholars are sincere, does not mean that they are right. I'm following this study precisely because I hope they are wrong, but at the same time, I envy the disciple Thomas's opportunity to see the evidence for himself!

There are some differences that can be chalked up to "one gospel writer decided to mention it, and the others didn't". For example, Matthew describes the thunder that accompanies the arrival of the angel, and the subsequent fear in the guards. The others don't discuss this matter, and simply mention the presence of the angel(s). However, other differences are a little more awkward. For instance, consider again the matter of the angels. Matthew and Mark include only one angel in their story. Matthew goes to all the trouble of describing how the angel enters and where he sits down. Mark specifically describes what the women saw as [i]a/i] young man, sitting on the right side. Neither of these writers actually spell out that there was "one and only one" angel, but the level of detail applied to the one angel they do describe makes it inappropriate to assume that there were in fact, two. This kind of analysis often makes people go "Come on! You're missing the main point, here. Jesus is risen!" And they are right. However, the differences do illuminate an important perspective on the nature of the gospels, an possibly of scripture in general: You can't acknowledge these differences, and then go on to claim that the Bible is "completely inerrant, word for word". The spirit of the message may be in fact true (and I believe that it is), but the details have a certain human-ness about them. This, as pointed out by previous post-writers, can in fact be seen as a strength, protecting the scriptures from suspicions of collusion.

Such a good question! I have never pondered this one before. I am torn between two ideas: 1. We are reading too much into the I AM part (I mean, we are reading it too grammatically). It is meant to identify Jesus with God, not as the embodiment of resurrection, whatever that may mean OR 2. We should not expect to retain our individuality when we devote ourselves to Jesus. In a sense, we have life, but we have HIS life: we are identified with Jesus, and live the same life he is living. Like "soul fusion" with Jesus. I am definitely open to other suggestions, as I am not sure that I like my own ideas!

I realize that this does not specifically answer the question. However, two thoughts: Our idea of "progessive revelation" assumes that new information is always more reliable than older information. I'm not sure about that. I imagine I might have sympathized with the Sadducces in wondering "where did that notion come from" Second, supposing that there is such thing as heaven (which I surely hope), can you imagine how awful it would have been for those who lived before the revelation-- to lose loved ones and eventually, your own life, all while believing that they were headed for a dreary place?