Advice For Bible Students Beware Of The Scholars

[sojourner]

Reminds me of what Jesus said @ Luke 10:21.... if you don’t have Jehovah revealing His Word to you, helping you understand, you’re basically just wasting your time.

This would require we recognize, as did the Ethiopian Eunuch, that we need to be “guided” by those who have Jehovah’s spirit. — Acts of the Apostles 8:30-31.

Except none of that takes under consideration the need for exegesis.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time.

You know what we lack? The conversation. You would think all those impressed rabbis would've mentioned the little prodigy.

Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples.

This would explain how they could claim things happen in the "OT" that clearly don't.

The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

And then he went from being an overt predator to a Trojan Horse.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus

Not without merit if you can read what goes on without blinders.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

Yeah, this had nothing at all to do with avoiding Roman crackdowns against Jews. LOL.

Also, Paul rejected his Jewishness at the drop of a hat when arrested, demanding civil rights afforded to Roman citizens, of which he was one.

Ah, but you see, you don't read the soul is immortal in the Bible.

Is the "carrot" for Christianity NOT the promise of "everlasting life"?

I'll bet your parents are glad they didn't pay for it!

I pay school taxes. I pay for the pleasure of seeing people not know things.

I don't even have children.

it is imbedded with his fear of technology and a false equivalency between technology and evil

He gets it from the bible. Technology was invented, per Genesis, by Cain's lineage. It has this NEED to take digs at civilization on every page. Must be why they were always so desperate to conquer cities instead of staying nomadic "nobodies". Wait ...

Hey their is zero punctuation in a lot of the ancient writings no spaces even allputtogetheranditmadefordifficultreading.

Ok, that's true.

Jesus was not proud of ignorance.

Yes and no. Does not the NT brag about how the learned stay away but a bunch of idiots who can't fact check believe them?

we can still have the definition of the books deemed reliable by the early churches

Can I trust their assessment without evidence?

Jesus is rejected mainly due to the fact that Judaism back then is in the hands of the Pharisees.

Since the Romans are the ones who executed him, I have to wonder just how "rejected by Jews" really mattered.

A new body.

I want one. Mine needs more maintenance than I can afford.

 

[Brickjectivity]

He gets it from the bible. Technology was invented, per Genesis, by Cain's lineage. It has this NEED to take digs at civilization on every page. Must be why they were always so desperate to conquer cities instead of staying nomadic "nobodies". Wait ...

Plows are Ok in the bible just not swords.

 

[pearl]

I see the teachings of Q-lite

But 'Q' remains a hypothetical, a construction, created assuming a common source used by Mt and Lk not found in Mark.

I see the teachings of Q-lite as the teachings of a tantric-mystic type of teacher who places himself in the centre as a realised Master who is at one with the Father.This is by no means similar to the Jesus of the gospels because the christian Jesus is seen as being a messianic divine saviour through his death and resurrection

Two predominating cultural influences which shaped each New Testament document: [a] the historical Jesus dressed in the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer".
The historical man named 'Jesus' was an eschatological Jewish prophet whose original disciples(A.D. 30's) knew him only as such, and whom the post-apostolic (i.e. non-apostolic) Hellenistic church (late first century A.D.) deified as the Son of God: "Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God...,...the kerygma of the Hellenistic church proclaimed Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ"
I think when one peels back the many layers of theology and Christology in the NT this same Jesus surfaces.

 

[siti]

But 'Q' remains a hypothetical, a construction, created...

...by Ian Fleming and portrayed on the big screen by Desmond Llewellyn.

 

[pearl]

...by Ian Fleming and portrayed on the big screen by Desmond Llewellyn.

Oh, I thought it was 'Q' in Skyfall

 

[siti]

Oh, I thought it was 'Q' in Skyfall

Same character different actor - Desmond Llewelyn - the original Bond movie "Q" died about 20 years ago. The character was also played by John Cleese (would you believe) a couple of times I think.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to the Jewish Scriptures, Jesus is not the messiah and since Christianity came from Judaism and tries to justify its messiah using Jewish Scriptures, it's fair to say he wasn't. You don't just get to redefine the term and then accuse the people who came before you, who own the Scriptures, of being wrong and misled.

Can you imagine if some stalewarts came along and did that with the Christian Bible as it is at present and created their own new religion out of it?

 

[siti]

You don't just get to redefine the term and then accuse the people who came before you, who own the Scriptures, of being wrong and misled.

Yes you do! Isn't that what "Moses" did? And then "Jesus"...and then "Muhammad"...I mean that's the problem with revelation - it just keeps on happening over and over again - doesn't it?

 

[kiwimac]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

Are you seriously arguing that someone's ignorance of the Biblical MS is better than a scholar's knowledge?

 

[Marcion]

But 'Q' remains a hypothetical, a construction, created assuming a common source used by Mt and Lk not found in Mark.

Two predominating cultural influences which shaped each New Testament document: [a] the historical Jesus dressed in the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer".
The historical man named 'Jesus' was an eschatological Jewish prophet whose original disciples(A.D. 30's) knew him only as such, and whom the post-apostolic (i.e. non-apostolic) Hellenistic church (late first century A.D.) deified as the Son of God: "Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God...,...the kerygma of the Hellenistic church proclaimed Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ"
I think when one peels back the many layers of theology and Christology in the NT this same Jesus surfaces.

I believe the eschatological sayings were constructed only secondarily by aMatthew and copied by one of the authors of gLuke.
That leaves only the master of spiritual (mystic) and missionary instruction type of historical Jesus in the Q-lite collection.
These sayings are not specifically Jewish except for the odd reference to the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Rival]

Yes you do! Isn't that what "Moses" did? And then "Jesus"...and then "Muhammad"...I mean that's the problem with revelation - it just keeps on happening over and over again - doesn't it?

No, that's not what Moses did.

 

[sojourner]

Same character different actor - Desmond Llewelyn - the original Bond movie "Q" died about 20 years ago. The character was also played by John Cleese (would you believe) a couple of times I think.

He came over to Q Branch from the Ministry of Silly Walks.

 

[sojourner]

Can you imagine if some stalewarts came along and did that with the Christian Bible as it is at present and created their own new religion out of it?

Like the Gentiles did, the Protestants did, and the Mormons, and the...

 

[Earthling]

I thought you were suspicious of scholarship or research.

Of course I am, as well as my own inclinations, interpretations. What I'm saying is that people who ask for your credentials seem to imply that their superior education is infallible and your estimation is of lesser importance as if you couldn't access the same resources as they could without the formal education. It's snobbery at the least and potentially misleading since often scholars and formal education in the subject at hand are traditional.

 

[Earthling]

According to the Jewish Scriptures, Jesus is not the messiah and since Christianity came from Judaism and tries to justify its messiah using Jewish Scriptures, it's fair to say he wasn't. You don't just get to redefine the term and then accuse the people who came before you, who own the Scriptures, of being wrong and misled.

This is an example of what I warn against in the OP. The implication that modern day Jewish thinking is superior to any other is patently absurd.

 

[Earthling]

So basically, do your own thing.
I suspect that's why we ended up with so many Christian denominations.

No. The divisions you see in Christendom are fairly well established and due to theological differences. The independent thinking Christian theologian or if that is perhaps not noninclusive enough, the nondenominational, is a new phenomenon.

In a sense I do mean do your own thing, as in not subjecting yourself to the traditions of men that seem nonsensical or unfounded to you, but not in order to reject scholarship but not to make the assumption that it has a monopoly on knowledge. You can easily research the apostasy in modern day traditional Christianity. You don't need a formal education or Jewish ancestry in order to do such a simple task. It isn't brain surgery. But it also isn't about stubborn intellectualism or world view. Challenge everything, including scholarly opinion as well as your own.

 

[Earthling]

Romans 11:26, Isaiah 59:20 - for a Bible student you're not very adept at picking out scripture references.

Often atheist read something on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and without giving it much thought throw a vague likeness of the KJV at me expecting me to comment upon it. Sometimes I ask for more, like a specific reference to something that may be subject to interpretation, tradition or - well, ignorance and laziness.

 

[Earthling]

I love these "my one-time skim is as good as your years of study" type claims.

In all likelihood you haven't done years of study. Therein lies part of the problem. I can access the same points you may claim to have learned in years of study in a one time skim, sure, I've done it countless times. I've done it with Hebrew professors, with their publications as well.

 

[Rival]

This is an example of what I warn against in the OP. The implication that modern day Jewish thinking is superior to any other is patently absurd.

It's based off the scriptures, so it cannot be absurd.