Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tony Buglass" <tonybuglass AT fish.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:34:53 -0000

John wrote:
There is a closer relationship between the Aramaic 'meshia' and the
Aryan Maitreya. And this is where there is overlap between Isaiah's
'anointed' and the Zoroastrian Maitreya. Maitreya means 'friendly,
loving' and is derived from maitri which is the Sanskrit form of
Mithras.
Semantics is all about 'pointing to' as a means of communicating
concepts. Maitreya points to the same concept as Mashiach: An
anointed manifestation of Atman or the life principle.

I cannot comment on the cognate relationships between Aramaic and Sanskrit,
although I am naturally suspicious of alleged links between languages of
different families. We could be dealing with what I knew in the far-distant
days when I was studying French as "faux amis" or false friends - words or
ideas which looked similar, and thus encouraged the positing of a link which
was in fact non-existent.

Atman has already been defined for us as the "life-principle", and so it
functions in various branches of Hinduism. Referring to John's second
paragraph in my extract from his post, a manifestation is usually rendered
by the Sanskrit word "avatar" - thus Krishna is described in certain Hindu
traditions as an avatar of Vishnu. It is a temptation for Christians
therefore to use the idea of avatar to explain to Hindus their understanding
of the significance of Christ, thus falling into the trap of "faux amis".
"Incarnation" and "avatar" are superficially similar, in that they both
concern a god who becomes flesh. They are different in that the
philosophical frameworks giving rise to each are very different.

I would personally be very cautious therefore about making firm connections
between atman, avatar, and Greek or Hebrew ideas of any sort. I suggest
that the Hebrew mashiach is so specific to Hebrew thought that the nearest
we would find in Zoroastrianism is a similar idea: a chosen or dedicated
one; "Maitreya" as defined doesn't seem to meet the case.

Rev Tony Buglass
Superintendent Minister
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
W Yorks







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page