By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[ElishaElijah]

Such is your claim. Jesus preached to the Jews. Paul changed that message and preached to the Gentiles. Since Paul never met Jesus (except in visions), his views are, at least, suspect. This is especially true since those that knew Jesus disagreed with Paul.

And you claim atheists are arrogant? What your 'family' knows is a distortion from the original. This is to be expected since the original doesn't have a message that appeals to those who are not Jewish.

Understanding comes *before* belief, as does skepticism and testing. ANY doctrine that insists on belief prior to testing is automatically doubtful.

Bro, you need a pre-requisite class or something because you’re talking out of ignorance.
Go read the whole Bible story from beginning to end so you get the whole story, it’s progressive with different covenants for different times.
Read the whole Book of Acts for example about what Jesus told Paul, what Peter and Paul talked about and what they did in regards to Jewish and Gentile believers.

 

[Polymath257]

Bro, you need a pre-requisite class or something because you’re talking out of ignorance.
Go read the whole Bible story from beginning to end so you get the whole story, it’s progressive with different covenants for different times.
Read the whole Book of Acts for example about what Jesus told Paul, what Peter and Paul talked about and what they did in regards to Jewish and Gentile believers.

I have read the Bible from beginning to end. But I did so from a skeptical position, not relying on it to convey truth at every stage. And what i found is a LOT of propaganda from the priests, a lot of very bad poetry, a lot of horrid morality, and a story in the New Testament that shows the development of a legend with almost no connection to the original. I have also read the archeology of the Old Testament and know that the Biblical story isn't reliable. I have read the history of how the New testament was put together and why. So I also know that the reason many of the books are there is because of 4th century Roman politics.

The difference is that you read thinking it must be reliable. I read it as I would any collection of ancient writings: with skepticism and an attempt to understand the cultural and historical context of the writings and how they changed over time.

I might suggest you read the Bible from beginning to end in the same spirit you would the Koran. You might see it in a different light.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Understanding comes *before* belief, as does skepticism and testing. ANY doctrine that insists on belief prior to testing is automatically doubtful.

A person has to have this right here or why would you ever call out to God in the first place and will be in the place where you’re at:
”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.“
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭3‬, ‭6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have read the Bible from beginning to end. But I did so from a skeptical position, not relying on it to convey truth at every stage. And what i found is a LOT of propaganda from the priests, a lot of very bad poetry, a lot of horrid morality, and a story in the New Testament that shows the development of a legend with almost no connection to the original. I have also read the archeology of the Old Testament and know that the Biblical story isn't reliable. I have read the history of how the New testament was put together and why. So I also know that the reason many of the books are there is because of 4th century Roman politics.

The difference is that you read thinking it must be reliable. I read it as I would any collection of ancient writings: with skepticism and an attempt to understand the cultural and historical context of the writings and how they changed over time.

Well, you sure are missing the mark as far as understanding things, it’s not a matter of whether or not you believe anything about the Bible it’s do you understand what’s being communicated and the progression of things. Clearly you don’t by what you’ve said.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you sure are missing the mark as far as understanding things, it’s not a matter of whether or not you believe anything about the Bible it’s do you understand what’s being communicated and the progression of things. Clearly you don’t by what you’ve said.

On the contrary, I can read perfectly well and understand the cultural and historical context. You have a particular position that, I believe, is simply not supported by the texts you have adopted. I also find those texts themselves to be untrustworthy.

What i understand is that the views described in the Bible changed over time, from YHWH being a mountain God specific to a particular people, to a creator God that is vengeful and rather has the morals of a 3 year old, to a merging with Hellenistic culture, specifically Platonism and mystery religions. I see how the 'discovery' of texts in the time of the kings supported the power of the priests and the kings. I understand how the unending praise verses actually say nothing at all, except that people should believe what they are told. I understand how many of the stories were written well after the times they claimed and used as propaganda value to keep a people together. I understand how Jesus was a *Jewish* preacher, spreading the word of an immanent coming of the 'kingdom of God' with himself as the 'son of man'. I see how the story grows from Mark, to Matthew and Luke, to John and how the theology changes yet again under Paul.

The problem is not that I don't understand the Bible. The problem is that I do understand it.

 

[Polymath257]

A person has to have this right here or why would you ever call out to God in the first place and will be in the place where you’re at:
”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.“
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭3‬, ‭6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Faith is a dereliction of our duty to be skeptical of extreme claims.

Once again, the very statement that you have to believe *before* evidence is apparent is exactly the problem. If someone with an open mind, but who is skeptical can look and see nothing, there is no reason to believe anything is there outside of confirmation bias.

Faith promotes confirmation bias.

 

[Polymath257]

Bro, you need a pre-requisite class or something because you’re talking out of ignorance.
Go read the whole Bible story from beginning to end so you get the whole story, it’s progressive with different covenants for different times.
Read the whole Book of Acts for example about what Jesus told Paul, what Peter and Paul talked about and what they did in regards to Jewish and Gentile believers.

Jesus didn't tell Paul anything. Jesus was dead before Paul appeared on the scene. ALL that Paul had were some visions that were disputed by those who knew Jesus.

 

[ElishaElijah]

On the contrary, I can read perfectly well and understand the cultural and historical context. You have a particular position that, I believe, is simply not supported by the texts you have adopted. I also find those texts themselves to be untrustworthy.

What i understand is that the views described in the Bible changed over time, from YHWH being a mountain God specific to a particular people, to a creator God that is vengeful and rather has the morals of a 3 year old, to a merging with Hellenistic culture, specifically Platonism and mystery religions. I see how the 'discovery' of texts in the time of the kings supported the power of the priests and the kings. I understand how the unending praise verses actually say nothing at all, except that people should believe what they are told. I understand how many of the stories were written well after the times they claimed and used as propaganda value to keep a people together. I understand how Jesus was a *Jewish* preacher, spreading the word of an immanent coming of the 'kingdom of God' with himself as the 'son of man'. I see how the story grows from Mark, to Matthew and Luke, to John and how the theology changes yet again under Paul.

The problem is not that I don't understand the Bible. The problem is that I do understand it.

When you say Jesus ministry is to the Jews only and Paul changed that shows you don’t understand. I gave you Jesus instructions after He rose and you still can’t see that.

 

[Polymath257]

When you say Jesus ministry is to the Jews only and Paul changed that shows you don’t understand. I gave you Jesus instructions after He rose and you still can’t see that.

I know that Paul *said* that is what happened.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I know that Paul *said* that is what happened.

Well Jesus said and whether you believe He said it or not means nothing at all as far as this particular conversation. It’s what does the Bible say and mean as written. I already know you don’t believe it.
Did Jesus say only tell the Jews the good news and did Paul change that and the answer in no and the OT says the same thing about the Gentiles.
You would fail the Bible quiz

 

[Polymath257]

Well Jesus said and whether you believe He said it or not means nothing at all as far as this particular conversation. It’s what does the Bible say and mean as written. I already know you don’t believe it.
Did Jesus say only tell the Jews the good news and did Paul change that and the answer in no and the OT says the same thing about the Gentiles.
You would fail the Bible quiz

During his lifetime, Jesus was clear that his message was only for the Jews. Paul changed that. This was part of the growth of the legend.

 

[ElishaElijah]

During his lifetime, Jesus was clear that his message was only for the Jews. Paul changed that. This was part of the growth of the legend.

What are you going to do with all the OT Scriptures, Jesus in Matthew 28, Peter and Cornelius in Acts, Jesus and Paul in Acts?
Jesus is still alive too and making intercession as our High Priest.

 

[Polymath257]

What are you going to do with all the OT Scriptures, Jesus in Matthew 28, Peter and Cornelius in Acts, Jesus and Paul in Acts?
Jesus is still alive too and making intercession as our High Priest.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I base my views on scholars of the Bible that are also familiar with the history and the archeology.

I would encourage you to read some Biblical scholars, not simply those that agree with you.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I base my views on scholars of the Bible that are also familiar with the history and the archeology.

I would encourage you to read some Biblical scholars, not simply those that agree with you.

Well, it’s not that, you’re just plain wrong and I gave you the references. Post your scholars take on Matthew 28-18-20 and the Book of Acts on what it says and what Jesus meant.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, it’s not that, you’re just plain wrong and I gave you the references. Post your scholars take on Matthew 28-18-20 and the Book of Acts on what it says and what Jesus meant.

The point is that Matthew was written after Mark and the original versions of Mark don't have the resurrection. That means the resurrection story is a later addition and NOT part of what actually happened. later followers did believe in it, often because of second-hand accounts.

This makes Matthew 28 suspect. The fact that Paul never met Jesus in life makes his claims about Jesus suspect, which makes the motivations of Acts suspect. That Paul won the debate about preaching to the Gentiles is clear, but it was also clearly a great change from what Jesus originally taught.

The book of Acts was written by followers of Paul, not the original followers of Jesus. So even by that time, the actual point of Jesus' preaching was distorted.

In Matthew, the spirit of God descended to Jesus at baptism, making him divine at that point. In Luke, he was divine from birth. By the gospel of John, he was divine even before the universe was made. Once again, if we look carefully, we can see the legend grow.

You might want to read Paul Ehrman's book 'How Jesus became God'. it is fascinating and by a true Biblical scholar.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The point is that Matthew was written after mark and the original versions of Mark don't have the resurrection. That means the resurrection story is a later addition and NOT part of what actually happened.

This makes Matthew 28 suspect. The fact that Paul never met Jesus in life makes his claims about Jesus suspect, which makes the motivations of Acts suspect. That Paul won the debate about preaching to the Gentiles is clear, but it was also clearly a great change from what Jesus originally taught.

Now, by the time of Acts, the legend had grown so that Jesus wasn't just the 'Son of Man', but a 'Son of God'. It had not, yet, progressed to the point of Jesus being God himself. That took Paul's intervention. Recall that the Jewish tradition for a Messiah was someone who would dominate militarily. Jesus simply didn't fit that narrative, so Paul and others, made up a different one, often by misinterpreting OT scriptures.

In Matthew, the spirit of God descended to Jesus at baptism, making him divine at that point. In Luke, he was divine from birth. By the gospel of John, he was divine even before the universe was made. Once again, if we look carefully, we can see the legend grow.

You’re so far out of bounds and off the conversation it is quite comical, will let you off though seen as you just can’t admit you were wrong and learn something.
I know the feeling lol

 

[YoursTrue]

@Polymath257 You have generally been pleasant and I commend you for that. (I try to be also don't always succeed but I'm working on that) I would like to mention that God as they might see Jesus as a "godman" did not die as some think. or interpret the scriptures. As I see the scriptures, Jesus was a man. Yes, he came from heaven and was born to Mary. Miraculously. I am not asking you to believe that, but that is what is in the Bible. So now the question can be for some: did God die? No. Jesus died and was resurrected. After that the account says he ascended to heaven and was given a high position by his God and Father.

 

[metis]

What i understand is that the views described in the Bible changed over time, from YHWH being a mountain God specific to a particular people, to a creator God that is vengeful and rather has the morals of a 3 year old, to a merging with Hellenistic culture, specifically Platonism and mystery religions.

According to the research that was recently covered in BAR, YHWH was a god of war amongst some tribes in the southern Arabian Peninsula, and they hypothesized that some Jewish traders may have brought back to eretz Israel. There are also some other names for YHWH derived from Sumerian deities' names.

 

[Kenny]

And, once again, the whole charade is unnecessary.

Yes… we can have different viewpoint.

Obviously, according to my signature, it is very necessary and I would say that God found it necessary.

Not the person responsible. That isn't justice.

Why?

First, show that verse is about Jesus. Many people have been tortured, so a discussion of torture does not necessarily mean it is about Jesus.

The same person continues to be talked about into Chapter 53 so it will included (there are not chapters in the original) but you can think of it on how people look when sickness ravages their bodies.

Matt 817
1 Peter 2:24-25
Romans 15:21
Ephesians 3:5
Rom 12:38
Romans 10:16
Luke 18:31-33
Mark 10:33-34

and many more

Second, Jesus supposedly lived through this. In fact, it was over in a few days. Political prisoners endure far more on a regular basis.

No… the cross was certain death. And if they didn’t die in time (for Jewish people) - they broke their legs so that they couldn’t breathe anymore.

 

[2ndpillar]

I don’t agree at all with your view:
”But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.“
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2‬:‭7‬-‭10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Quoting from the false prophet Paul doesn't make your case. Simply go to Luke (comrade of Paul) (Acts 15:7), you get the opposite quote. And in Galatians 2, Paul derides James, Peter, and John, by calling them "seemed to be pillars", as if Paul was the only Pillar. Well, in Paul's mind, he is the pillar of his "Christian" church. I kind of agree with Paul, except that Paul leans on the unknown author of 2 Peter for his support.