6 ms·

It can be useful to speculate, but I think you're not that familiar with what meditation in the Abrahamic religions looks like. Meditation in the biblical sense

It can be useful to speculate, but I think you're not that familiar with what meditation in the Abrahamic religions looks like. Meditation in the biblical sense is to think deeply about something. Meditation in the eastern religion sense is to not think about anything. Those two are basically polar opposites and the psychological / neurological effects of the latter cannot be achieved by practising the former. (various sects have arisen that do eastern style meditation, but those have always been fringe minorities, and neither Jesus nor Mohammed shared any characteristics with them) Also, in the gospel the story of the temptation in the wilderness comes after, not before, Jesus' recognition of his divine origin and mission. He was already baptized and pronounced to be God's son before ever going there. What's more this recognition has already come to him in childhood. And even if the order of events had been correct, then the nature of the events does not match, because when he was in the wilderness, Jesus was basically put to the test by the devil, who was trying to distract him from his divine commission, rather than being commissioned by God.

cambaceres 6y ago
The Bible was written 300 years after Jesus lived, so some of these things might have been confused...
- hudon 6y ago
  1. “The Bible” is not one text and is actually a collection of books each written by different people at different times over the course of centuries. Most of these books were written before Jesus was even born. 2. The books probably relevant to this discussion—the Gospels—are generally believed to have been written before the turn of the first century. Some argue that Mark and Luke were written as early as the 50s, 20 years after Jesus died. [0] [0] https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-written.html https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-wr...
  - froh 6y ago
    the path from oral tradition in some languages (Aramaic, hebrew, then also greek and latin) to writeups in various languages (greek, latin, then some hebrew) to what we happen to hold in our hands today is a bumpy ride, which in and by itself makes clear that "the bible" is a temporary and local consensus which has changed in the past and will evolve in the future. the books we see today are translations of heavily copyedited and consolidated writeups of oral traditions. scholars like Bart Ehrmann have been very helpful to see that whatever the word of god was, it's deeply hidden behind the words we hold in our hands, and the.words are by no means a historically accurate, literal "truth", but a consensus on what the author's and editors over centuries hold dear as spirtual and religious "true" foundation.
    - pure_simplicity 6y ago
      That's a common misconception that perhaps Ehrmann deliberately pushes. He himself says that no core doctrines of Christianity were changed by the variants and that the books we have today are essentially the same as the originals, though not word for word identical.[1] Few who cast unwarranted doubt upon the New Testament realize how extremely sceptical they would have to be about every other piece of ancient writing, because none of them even comes close to the new testament in terms of: 1) number of copies 2) being written close to the time of the actual events [1] https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/ https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhm...
      - morpheos137 6y ago
        I know it is not "in fashion" today but the description of Megan's illness, resistant to antipsychotics as it was, "arguing with Jesus" calling her self "evil," etc, pretty much matches up with the traditional accounts of demonic possession. Suppose there are anti-human intelligences in another plain of reality and that they can metaphysically sense a "vacant" vessel, like somebody in deep meditation. Such individuals would be at elevated risk of demonic possession.
froh 6y ago
in contrast this the Christian raised Buddhist scholar Kenneth S Leong would juxtapose his analysis that Jesus' teachings were indeed like Zen teachings and that Jesus' form of prayer was the silent prayer very much equivalent to Eastern meditation. book: kenneth s leong the zen teachings of jesus https://g.co/kgs/79Znnu https://g.co/kgs/79Znnu the silent prayer was also.identified with the "desert fathers" who have shaped much if the foundations of early Christianity. silent prayer is a "come and see for yourself" approach, shifting the ownership of religious truth from the teacher as nd the church defining it to the individual discovering it through "discernment of the spirits", "in Christo". silent, contemplative prayer is dismissed by some literalist and evangelical Churches as "satanic", "diabolical", "umbilical", but hey, what isn't :-)
- pure_simplicity 6y ago
  Jesus' teachings are best understood in their historical, cultural, and geographical context. The superficial analogies that are drawn in the Zen Teachings of Jesus are an ad hoc theory imposed on rather than derived from the teachings of Jesus. It is similar to how some astrologist writers seek to put an astrological spin on the gospels to siphon off some of the star power of Jesus. It's religious parasitism. Jesus adhered to the Hebrew religion and comfortably stayed within that tradition. His emphasis on 'silent' prayer, was simply in contradistinction to the hypocritical performative prayer of certain religious leaders that did not come from pure motives. The reason why prayer was silent, was not because it was in any way meant to be a mystical eastern style meditative experience leading to some kind of emotional ecstasy or zen or any other psychological manifestation, but rather because it was meant to emphasise the true goal of prayer i.e. maintaining a personal relationship with God through verbal communication. Believers were encouraged to approach God like they would a friend or father and speak to him about their lives and not consider their human needs too lowly to concern a deity. Eastern meditation on the other hand is characterised by emptying of the mind, the polar opposite of how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. Jews and Christians throughout history have believed that on the other end of a prayer is a personal God who is responsive to our petitions whereas buddhism has no concept of a personal God but instead concerns itself merely with the human mind. For Jews and Christians the efficacy or power is not in the act of praying, but in the voluntary act of God. For Zen buddhists the efficacy or power is inherent in the act of meditation. Communal prayer was still considered appropriate and was encouraged, Jesus just didn't want anyone showing off to their religious friends as a means to gain status without truly caring about God, His righteousness, etc. Prayer by itself was also not considered a method to discover truth. There is a heavy emphasis on seeking truth in the study of the word of God which runs throughout Jesus' teachings, which was already present in Judaism and continues to this day in Christianity. The desert fathers, as well as mystical sects in judaism and islam are outliers, and their religious practices are amalgamations of mystical traditions of other religions with their respective host religion (christianity, islam, judaism). Theirs is a religious phenomenology that draws on the religious verbiage and concepts of a familiar religion, without concerning itself with the authoritative source of said religion, but rather with seeking a mystical experience. It is not just literalists and evangelicals that consider eastern style meditation and associated religious concepts as foreign to mainstream historical christianity and judaism, it's most reputable scholars in the fields of NT studies, Church History, etc.
n4r9 6y ago
> Meditation in the eastern religion sense is to not think about anything. I'm not completely sure about this. Certainly it is to do with letting go of ruminations, worries and distracting thoughts. But there is a lot of talk about focus and insight, and this seems similar to the western concept of meditation.
- pure_simplicity 6y ago
  I'm using coarse / imprecise language for brevity. Certainly in eastern meditation there is a lot of reflection being done on the meditative experiences and their import or significance, which can lead to perceived insight. However, such reflection (as the word implies) is post hoc. Similarly, the focus that meditation requires is a discipline of not getting distracted by the outside world or by the sea of thoughts and emotions that resides in our mind, but it is not a focus on any particular idea or concept. Rather, it is a focus on (achieving) a certain state of mind or experience. Meditation in the Biblical sense is deliberative, logical, active and always involves freely thinking about a certain topic or set of ideas. It does not seek to constrain/limit itself beyond the level of focus required for reading a book, for example. Meditation in the eastern sense seeks to 'transcend' logic and emotion and does not require or depend on any logical or emotional processes. Actually, logical and emotional processes hinder meditation.
im3w1l 6y ago
> Meditation in the eastern religion sense is to not think about anything. There are many forms of eastern meditation. E.g. Vajrayana deity visualization meditation

cambaceres 6y ago

The Bible was written 300 years after Jesus lived, so some of these things might have been confused...

hudon 6y ago
1. “The Bible” is not one text and is actually a collection of books each written by different people at different times over the course of centuries. Most of these books were written before Jesus was even born. 2. The books probably relevant to this discussion—the Gospels—are generally believed to have been written before the turn of the first century. Some argue that Mark and Luke were written as early as the 50s, 20 years after Jesus died. [0] [0] https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-written.html https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-wr...
- froh 6y ago
  the path from oral tradition in some languages (Aramaic, hebrew, then also greek and latin) to writeups in various languages (greek, latin, then some hebrew) to what we happen to hold in our hands today is a bumpy ride, which in and by itself makes clear that "the bible" is a temporary and local consensus which has changed in the past and will evolve in the future. the books we see today are translations of heavily copyedited and consolidated writeups of oral traditions. scholars like Bart Ehrmann have been very helpful to see that whatever the word of god was, it's deeply hidden behind the words we hold in our hands, and the.words are by no means a historically accurate, literal "truth", but a consensus on what the author's and editors over centuries hold dear as spirtual and religious "true" foundation.
  - pure_simplicity 6y ago
    That's a common misconception that perhaps Ehrmann deliberately pushes. He himself says that no core doctrines of Christianity were changed by the variants and that the books we have today are essentially the same as the originals, though not word for word identical.[1] Few who cast unwarranted doubt upon the New Testament realize how extremely sceptical they would have to be about every other piece of ancient writing, because none of them even comes close to the new testament in terms of: 1) number of copies 2) being written close to the time of the actual events [1] https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/ https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhm...
    - morpheos137 6y ago
      I know it is not "in fashion" today but the description of Megan's illness, resistant to antipsychotics as it was, "arguing with Jesus" calling her self "evil," etc, pretty much matches up with the traditional accounts of demonic possession. Suppose there are anti-human intelligences in another plain of reality and that they can metaphysically sense a "vacant" vessel, like somebody in deep meditation. Such individuals would be at elevated risk of demonic possession.

froh 6y ago

in contrast this the Christian raised Buddhist scholar Kenneth S Leong would juxtapose his analysis that Jesus' teachings were indeed like Zen teachings and that Jesus' form of prayer was the silent prayer very much equivalent to Eastern meditation. book: kenneth s leong the zen teachings of jesus https://g.co/kgs/79Znnu https://g.co/kgs/79Znnu the silent prayer was also.identified with the "desert fathers" who have shaped much if the foundations of early Christianity. silent prayer is a "come and see for yourself" approach, shifting the ownership of religious truth from the teacher as nd the church defining it to the individual discovering it through "discernment of the spirits", "in Christo". silent, contemplative prayer is dismissed by some literalist and evangelical Churches as "satanic", "diabolical", "umbilical", but hey, what isn't :-)

pure_simplicity 6y ago
Jesus' teachings are best understood in their historical, cultural, and geographical context. The superficial analogies that are drawn in the Zen Teachings of Jesus are an ad hoc theory imposed on rather than derived from the teachings of Jesus. It is similar to how some astrologist writers seek to put an astrological spin on the gospels to siphon off some of the star power of Jesus. It's religious parasitism. Jesus adhered to the Hebrew religion and comfortably stayed within that tradition. His emphasis on 'silent' prayer, was simply in contradistinction to the hypocritical performative prayer of certain religious leaders that did not come from pure motives. The reason why prayer was silent, was not because it was in any way meant to be a mystical eastern style meditative experience leading to some kind of emotional ecstasy or zen or any other psychological manifestation, but rather because it was meant to emphasise the true goal of prayer i.e. maintaining a personal relationship with God through verbal communication. Believers were encouraged to approach God like they would a friend or father and speak to him about their lives and not consider their human needs too lowly to concern a deity. Eastern meditation on the other hand is characterised by emptying of the mind, the polar opposite of how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. Jews and Christians throughout history have believed that on the other end of a prayer is a personal God who is responsive to our petitions whereas buddhism has no concept of a personal God but instead concerns itself merely with the human mind. For Jews and Christians the efficacy or power is not in the act of praying, but in the voluntary act of God. For Zen buddhists the efficacy or power is inherent in the act of meditation. Communal prayer was still considered appropriate and was encouraged, Jesus just didn't want anyone showing off to their religious friends as a means to gain status without truly caring about God, His righteousness, etc. Prayer by itself was also not considered a method to discover truth. There is a heavy emphasis on seeking truth in the study of the word of God which runs throughout Jesus' teachings, which was already present in Judaism and continues to this day in Christianity. The desert fathers, as well as mystical sects in judaism and islam are outliers, and their religious practices are amalgamations of mystical traditions of other religions with their respective host religion (christianity, islam, judaism). Theirs is a religious phenomenology that draws on the religious verbiage and concepts of a familiar religion, without concerning itself with the authoritative source of said religion, but rather with seeking a mystical experience. It is not just literalists and evangelicals that consider eastern style meditation and associated religious concepts as foreign to mainstream historical christianity and judaism, it's most reputable scholars in the fields of NT studies, Church History, etc.

n4r9 6y ago

> Meditation in the eastern religion sense is to not think about anything. I'm not completely sure about this. Certainly it is to do with letting go of ruminations, worries and distracting thoughts. But there is a lot of talk about focus and insight, and this seems similar to the western concept of meditation.

pure_simplicity 6y ago
I'm using coarse / imprecise language for brevity. Certainly in eastern meditation there is a lot of reflection being done on the meditative experiences and their import or significance, which can lead to perceived insight. However, such reflection (as the word implies) is post hoc. Similarly, the focus that meditation requires is a discipline of not getting distracted by the outside world or by the sea of thoughts and emotions that resides in our mind, but it is not a focus on any particular idea or concept. Rather, it is a focus on (achieving) a certain state of mind or experience. Meditation in the Biblical sense is deliberative, logical, active and always involves freely thinking about a certain topic or set of ideas. It does not seek to constrain/limit itself beyond the level of focus required for reading a book, for example. Meditation in the eastern sense seeks to 'transcend' logic and emotion and does not require or depend on any logical or emotional processes. Actually, logical and emotional processes hinder meditation.

im3w1l 6y ago

> Meditation in the eastern religion sense is to not think about anything. There are many forms of eastern meditation. E.g. Vajrayana deity visualization meditation