Religion/Spirituality The Official Bible Study Thread

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

I am not talking about opinions or *allusions. it is an absolute fact that mark is not the odessey. you would have to understand the history of the Hebrews and the greeks to understand that greek culture does not overshadow Hebrew culture, so Hebrews would never borrow from greek. it was quite the other way around. The greeks were a pitiful nation at the time of homers odyssey, and the Hebrews at that time ruled the entire Mediterranean area east. This is the time of David and Solomon, when the odyssey was written, so supplanting inferior and young greek history over ancient and more powerful Hebrew history to a Hebrew Messiah is absolutely nonsensical. In fact Alexander the great sought out the Hebrew scriptures personally and his successors built the library at Alexandria and hired seventy Hebrew scholars to translate the bible into greek (the Septuagint). You just don't see it the other way around, ever. Romans and greeks alike idolized the antiquity of Hebrew and Egyptian culture, because in the old days older was better, ancient narrative conquered contemporary narrative.

Wrong. Greeks were active at that time in Israel. In fact, Gospel of John borrows heavily from Greek philosophic concepts. Your idolization of hebrew culture is blinding you big time here. All of those cultures borrowed from each other. Hebrews borrowed from the Greeks, Egyptians and other African cultures.

For more, see my above reply to Soon. BTW none of these books (especially the Gospels) were written by one author, so saying something stupid like "Mark wasn't Homer" doesn't make sense, seeing that I said that the narrative copies elements from The Odyssey. Matter of fact, Gospel of Mark isn't even original itself, it borrows from another earlier text that archaeologists and critics have called "The Gospel of Q". All of the Gospels, sans Gospel of John, borrows from Q.

 

[Soon]

I am not talking about opinions or *allusions. it is an absolute fact that mark is not the odessey. you would have to understand the history of the Hebrews and the greeks to understand that greek culture does not overshadow Hebrew culture, so Hebrews would never borrow from greek. it was quite the other way around. The greeks were a pitiful nation at the time of homers odyssey, and the Hebrews at that time ruled the entire Mediterranean area east. This is the time of David and Solomon, when the odyssey was written, so supplanting inferior and young greek history over ancient and more powerful Hebrew history to a Hebrew Messiah is absolutely nonsensical. In fact Alexander the great sought out the Hebrew scriptures personally and his successors built the library at Alexandria and hired seventy Hebrew scholars to translate the bible into greek (the Septuagint). You just don't see it the other way around, ever. Romans and greeks alike idolized the antiquity of Hebrew and Egyptian culture, because in the old days older was better, ancient narrative conquered contemporary narrative.

So true.

Gospel of John was written way after the other 3 Gospels...style, content, and theology is different, the word "Jew" is written 71 times in the Gospel of John, compared to 16 times in the first 3 Gospels combined.

Also the first 3 Gospels were written during a time that Jews were being massacred and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. was near.

Gospel of John was written much later, and a lot of bogus stuff was happening after the Temple was destroyed like pushing Ephesians as one of Paul's writings, or the sexual deviant Augustine of Hippo introducing the idea of original sin, or church leaders burning some early Jesus texts contradicting the whole idea of Church and King. Even the concept of rapture or purgatory is written no where in the Bible.

 

[Chez Lopez]

So true.

Gospel of John was written way after the other 3 Gospels...style, content, and theology is different, the word "Jew" is written 71 times in the Gospel of John, compared to 16 times in the first 3 Gospels combined.

Also the first 3 Gospels were written during a time that Jews were being massacred and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. was near.

Gospel of John was written much later, and a lot of bogus stuff was happening after the Temple was destroyed like pushing Ephesians as one of Paul's writings, or the sexual deviant Augustine of Hippo introducing the idea of original sin, or church leaders burning some early Jesus texts contradicting the whole idea of Church and King. Even the concept of rapture or purgatory is written no where in the Bible.

literary criticism is unnecessarily tough on bible text. the q document, as was stated earlier, is the original document for the three gospels, largely and mostly given to mark (which leads some to believe that mark is Q abridged). The entire new testament lacks a single original source, all are copies of copies of copies, compiled hundreds of years later and in every language EXCEPT its original, Hebrew. We know that each letter and each book existed, due to the cross correlations between times and text, but the original documents, as you said, were destroyed. Jerome and many other early 'church fathers' attest to this

To leave the Hebrew aspect out of biblical history is like forgetting MLK was black. It is essential and a crucial component of all biblical understanding. I think the other poster is doing this. Greeks were known as pagans, savages and heathens, the two cultures were diametrically opposed. So much so that Hebrews who spoke greek and assimilated into greek culture were no longer considered Hebrews, they were just as much 'goyim' as the rest of the gentiles.

The original Hebrew documents were preserved for a time in the Messianic Jewish 1st century communities that history conveniently leaves out (the Natsarim, the Essenes and the Ebionites, all of which are sects of the same very large group) who maintained Hebrew culture alongside messianic worship. Augustine, Justin, Clement, and many many others condemned and persecuted this line as well as did Jews who did not believe in the messiah. They were thous double persecuted. When christianity became the official religion of rome, this subsect was almost wiped out completely. This is why we have only the greek versions of the original Hebrew documents today, with all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. This is also why it is ridiculous to assume that Hebrew culture somehow emerged from a much later, gentile greek society. Like putting the cart before the horse, like saying southern Baptists are the origin of roman Catholicism.

I think the other poster has a fundamental misunderstanding of history, which is what those who promote this misunderstanding count on to skew the view of the ancient world and who was responsible for the altered world view. People gravitate to a European Greco-Roman understanding, and promote that typology over everything. It is just not historically accurate. The equivalent is like taking the communist manifesto translating it into Arabic and pretending it is a arabic document generated in an Islamic society. The bible just doesn't work that way

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

literary criticism is unnecessarily tough on bible text. the q document, as was stated earlier, is the original document for the three gospels, largely and mostly given to mark (which leads some to believe that mark is Q abridged). The entire new testament lacks a single original source, all are copies of copies of copies, compiled hundreds of years later and in every language EXCEPT its original, Hebrew. We know that each letter and each book existed, due to the cross correlations between times and text, but the original documents, as you said, were destroyed. Jerome and many other early 'church fathers' attest to this

To leave the Hebrew aspect out of biblical history is like forgetting MLK was black. It is essential and a crucial component of all biblical understanding. I think the other poster is doing this. Greeks were known as pagans, savages and heathens, the two cultures were diametrically opposed. So much so that Hebrews who spoke greek and assimilated into greek culture were no longer considered Hebrews, they were just as much 'goyim' as the rest of the gentiles.

The original Hebrew documents were preserved for a time in the Messianic Jewish 1st century communities that history conveniently leaves out (the Natsarim, the Essenes and the Ebionites, all of which are sects of the same very large group) who maintained Hebrew culture alongside messianic worship. Augustine, Justin, Clement, and many many others condemned and persecuted this line as well as did Jews who did not believe in the messiah. They were thous double persecuted. When christianity became the official religion of rome, this subsect was almost wiped out completely. This is why we have only the greek versions of the original Hebrew documents today, with all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. This is also why it is ridiculous to assume that Hebrew culture somehow emerged from a much later, gentile greek society. Like putting the cart before the horse, like saying southern Baptists are the origin of roman Catholicism.

I think the other poster has a fundamental misunderstanding of history, which is what those who promote this misunderstanding count on to skew the view of the ancient world and who was responsible for the altered world view. People gravitate to a European Greco-Roman understanding, and promote that typology over everything. It is just not historically accurate. The equivalent is like taking the communist manifesto translating it into Arabic and pretending it is a arabic document generated in an Islamic society. The bible just doesn't work that way

Breh you are stating that i said things that i didnt say. I never said the hebrews came out of the greeks. Wheres your reading comprehension? I said that the gospel of mark may used odyssey as a narrative skeleton. I also said that the greeks intermingled with the Hebrews during Christ's time. You are giving the hebrews way too much credit when it comes to originality. Its been proven that ancient Hebrews borrowed from a lot of cultures. Thats not really that big a deal. A lot of the other stuff you mentioned is true, but i think in your posts you're looking down on the Greeks as somehow being less than the Hebrews, when both cultures were great in their respective ways. You're perpetuating an argument about the bible that im not arguing. Many of the books were mistranslated, and others were completely thrown out.

 

[Soon]

literary criticism is unnecessarily tough on bible text. the q document, as was stated earlier, is the original document for the three gospels, largely and mostly given to mark (which leads some to believe that mark is Q abridged). The entire new testament lacks a single original source, all are copies of copies of copies, compiled hundreds of years later and in every language EXCEPT its original, Hebrew. We know that each letter and each book existed, due to the cross correlations between times and text, but the original documents, as you said, were destroyed. Jerome and many other early 'church fathers' attest to this

To leave the Hebrew aspect out of biblical history is like forgetting MLK was black. It is essential and a crucial component of all biblical understanding. I think the other poster is doing this. Greeks were known as pagans, savages and heathens, the two cultures were diametrically opposed. So much so that Hebrews who spoke greek and assimilated into greek culture were no longer considered Hebrews, they were just as much 'goyim' as the rest of the gentiles.

The original Hebrew documents were preserved for a time in the Messianic Jewish 1st century communities that history conveniently leaves out (the Natsarim, the Essenes and the Ebionites, all of which are sects of the same very large group) who maintained Hebrew culture alongside messianic worship. Augustine, Justin, Clement, and many many others condemned and persecuted this line as well as did Jews who did not believe in the messiah. They were thous double persecuted. When christianity became the official religion of rome, this subsect was almost wiped out completely. This is why we have only the greek versions of the original Hebrew documents today, with all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. This is also why it is ridiculous to assume that Hebrew culture somehow emerged from a much later, gentile greek society. Like putting the cart before the horse, like saying southern Baptists are the origin of roman Catholicism.

I think the other poster has a fundamental misunderstanding of history, which is what those who promote this misunderstanding count on to skew the view of the ancient world and who was responsible for the altered world view. People gravitate to a European Greco-Roman understanding, and promote that typology over everything. It is just not historically accurate. The equivalent is like taking the communist manifesto translating it into Arabic and pretending it is a arabic document generated in an Islamic society. The bible just doesn't work that way

The 7 Epistles that comes after the Gospels are all original, and all came before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

What bothers me the most is all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. Some which were introduced by very sick and depraved men, religion draws sociopaths because it can fulfill some twisted fantasies and desires. And we see the troubling actions of the Constantine era Roman Church.

And all the talk about the Q document, why has it never been found? All other types of writings and documents have been found, why hasn't this mysterious document been found? What we do know is the Apostles were alive when the first 3 Gospels were written, and the Church was around for 30 years prior to the Gospels were written. To suggest the only source of the Gospel is the Q document is rarely supported by religious scholars or historians.

I can write a history on 90's hip-hop, and that is not a religion to me, so imagine learning about Christ from the Church's first pope St. Peter.


Also, when they burned the codices (with some later found) it really should make people appreciate the Gospel of Mark more and have a lot of contempt for the Gospel of John.

 

[Chez Lopez]

The 7 Epistles that comes after the Gospels are all original, and all came before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

What bothers me the most is all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. Some which were introduced by very sick and depraved men, religion draws sociopaths because it can fulfill some twisted fantasies and desires. And we see the troubling actions of the Constantine era Roman Church.

And all the talk about the Q document, why has it never been found? All other types of writings and documents have been found, why hasn't this mysterious document been found? What we do know is the Apostles were alive when the first 3 Gospels were written, and the Church was around for 30 years prior to the Gospels were written. To suggest the only source of the Gospel is the Q document is rarely supported by religious scholars or historians.

I can write a history on 90's hip-hop, and that is not a religion to me, so imagine learning about Christ from the Church's first pope St. Peter.


Also, when they burned the codices (with some later found) it really should make people appreciate the Gospel of Mark more and have a lot of contempt for the Gospel of John.

So you disregard the gospel of John? Where do you find that the Pauline epistles were all originals? there are admittedly no original new testament documents. The problem is, of course, the Vatican, as you stated. The greeks at Alexandria compiled all Hebrew documents up to that point abt 200 bc and the romans afterwards did the same. Some they destroyed some they suppressed. The q document certainly a Hebrew version, which all have been destroyed.

Jerome was the first to do an analytic research between the greek book of matthew and the Hebrew book of matthew know as the gospel according to the Hebrews. The differences are few, but what is changed is astounding. Jerome attests that these Hebrew documents existed in antiquity, but are now lost in contemporary culture. This is because of the Vatican attempting to usurp all biblical authority and consolidate it under Catholic rule, which it has done. In talking about which cultures are greater than the other, no one stands out above the rest, all cultures have their evils. One must look at the world not through contemporary perspective, but an ancient one, where the Hebrews too were an evil nation. Assigning guilt where guilt is due is the method and Rome is responsible for the destruction and replacement of the bible. The tanak was destroyed and replaced by the jews in the 11th century, but we are talking gospels. The importance of these documents is why they have been destroyed and reprinted, with different names, under different circumstances and in different cultures and this fact is traceable all throughout history. they are the most powerful documents in the history of the world, even their abridged and corrupted versions have captivated half of the earths population. 90s rap cannot compare lol

 

[Soon]

So you disregard the gospel of John?

Yes.

As far as the 14 Epistles of Paul, only 7 are considered to be written by Paul.

I understand the problems with the New Testament, the history of the New Testament is very disturbing.

Considering the Church was around 30 years before the destruction of the Temple, my problem is what happened after the destruction of Temple and what the Popes after St. Peter did to our faith.

 

[Chez Lopez]

Yes.

As far as the 14 Epistles of Paul, only 7 are considered to be written by Paul.

I understand the problems with the New Testament, the history of the New Testament is very disturbing.

Considering the Church was around 30 years before the destruction of the Temple, my problem is what happened after the destruction of Temple and what the Popes after St. Peter did to our faith.

the popes after st peter? so u are a catholic? St Peter was never a pope, this is a roman myth too to link lineage to their doctrine. The faith lived on well after Peter, but not as a roman system or with average bloodline romans. The Hebrew culture is what was killed, destroyed by first Judaism, then paganism, then Gnosticism, until finally it was destroyed and merged with the mystery religions. This is Christianity, a roman catholic anti-messiah system. There are no saints in Christianity whatsoever, sadly.

 

[Soon]

the popes after st peter? so u are a catholic? St Peter was never a pope, this is a roman myth too to link lineage to their doctrine. The faith lived on well after Peter, but not as a roman system or with average bloodline romans. The Hebrew culture is what was killed, destroyed by first Judaism, then paganism, then Gnosticism, until finally it was destroyed and merged with the mystery religions. This is Christianity, a roman catholic anti-messiah system. There are no saints in Christianity whatsoever, sadly.

No, I am not Catholic.

Just referring to the 1,500 year period when the only Christian denomination was Catholicism.

Just looking at what things came to be with Popes Clement, Victor, Melchiades, and Sylvester.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

The 7 Epistles that comes after the Gospels are all original, and all came before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

What bothers me the most is all of the false doctrine 'added' and built into the Christian church as theology. Some which were introduced by very sick and depraved men, religion draws sociopaths because it can fulfill some twisted fantasies and desires. And we see the troubling actions of the Constantine era Roman Church.

And all the talk about the Q document, why has it never been found? All other types of writings and documents have been found, why hasn't this mysterious document been found? What we do know is the Apostles were alive when the first 3 Gospels were written, and the Church was around for 30 years prior to the Gospels were written. To suggest the only source of the Gospel is the Q document is rarely supported by religious scholars or historians.

I can write a history on 90's hip-hop, and that is not a religion to me, so imagine learning about Christ from the Church's first pope St. Peter.


Also, when they burned the codices (with some later found) it really should make people appreciate the Gospel of Mark more and have a lot of contempt for the Gospel of John.

All other documents have been found? No, they haven't. It is clear that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, and it is clear Mark drew from an earlier document.

 

[Soon]

@Chez Lopez

Just looking at how Biblical timelines are all screwed up.

Scholars placed the time of Exodus during the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt with Ramesses II, and they use this "timeline" to argue there are no "archaeological" evidence of Exodus.

But during Ramesses II's rule there are writings on a wall that already acknowledge Israel, so the Children of Israel were gone.

Also, the "Brooklyn Papyrus" and "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage" supports that Exodus occurred and contradicts the notion there is no proof of Exodus.

They are looking in the wrong time period.

Exodus happened in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt most like around Amenhotep III time period since he was the first who declared monotheism in Egypt.

 

[Chez Lopez]

@Chez Lopez

Just looking at how Biblical timelines are all screwed up.

Scholars placed the time of Exodus during the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt with Ramesses II, and they use this "timeline" to argue there are no "archaeological" evidence of Exodus.

But during Ramesses II's rule there are writings on a wall that already acknowledge Israel, so the Children of Israel were gone.

Also, the "Brooklyn Papyrus" and "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage" supports that Exodus occurred and contradicts the notion there is no proof of Exodus.

They are looking in the wrong time period.

Exodus happened in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt most like around Amenhotep III time period since he was the first who declared monotheism in Egypt.

where is it they put Moses? I have heard 1400 and most data corresponds to this timeframe

 

[Deezy314619]

Happy Sunday brehs

Peace be with u & Asa lama lakum

 

[Soon]

where is it they put Moses? I have heard 1400 and most data corresponds to this timeframe

Academic Scholars and Archaeologist put Moses around 1200 b.c. closer to Ramesses II's rule.

But Biblical scholars put him around 1400 b.c. closer to Thutmose IV's rule.

 

[Dak Pickscott]

Man do y'all just read this thing from front to back? That seems tough. I'd like to just pick a chapter here and read it in its entirety but how do u choose a chapter out of do many??