I recently read a provocative posting about the conversion of a well known atheistic Jew to Christianity…a criticism of the book bearing the testimony of this faith discovery written by a learned Rabbi, who periodically writes for PJMedia.com. Within the the lively and unfortunately contentious comments section was the below gem…worth further pondering, in my opinion…
I believe this is an historical symbol used by Jewish believers in Jesus…image is from:
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/29231/Default.aspx
This person’s analysis and perspective on the early genesis (excuse the pun!) of Christianity is well thought out and respectfully presented. I do not have direct personal knowledge of many of the “facts” presented here but I share this person’s writings so that further dialogue, research, and introspection could follow on from this.
As such, to briefly state my current perspective on this topic, I think the very best version of a faith heritage would (likely) be someone who was raised in the traditional Jewish faith and later on came to the “completed” knowledge of Jesus and their personal Lord. Savior, AND Messiah! I guess even better would be to be raised in a Messianic Jewish household replete with the beauty of the Historical Traditions of Judaism and the fullness of the knowledge of the completeness of the work of the Cross by our King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is truly an extreme historical irony that the early leaders of “The Way”–which later became known as Christianity–argued amongst themselves as to whether or not one had to first become a Jew before becoming a Christian…as in being a Christian (in their minds) actually required someone to be a Jew first. Now the opposite distortion seems to be in play, in order to accept that Jesus is the (Jewish) Messiah you cannot be a Jew, for such a belief negates your very Jewishness–Wow!
In my personal history there is a loose degree of connection to this topic, at least from a theoretical perspective; my own mother was adopted as an infant and the desire to learn about that unknown heritage was (and continues to be) a key motivating factor in my initial interest in Genealogy (before this pastime’s unique additive tendencies took over!). It is still my hope that eventually my genealogical endeavors will unearth factual Jewish blood in my background (among many other as yet uncovered inherited enhancements of genetic/cultural/historical/racial/geographical etc facets)…even if I never am blessed with that overt cultural biological heritage. I am so thankful to have been “grafted” into the vine and to be a child of Abraham, by virtue of Faith, if not also by flesh…
I have on several occasions enjoyed teachings by Messianic Rabbis both on the radio and in person. The richness of the cultural heritage of the Jews is something many of us raised in the Gentile Christian faith cannot really come close to fathoming. I’ve even said on a number of occasions that it would be amazing for someone as a believer in Yeshua (Jesus) to be able to be fully immersed in some aspects of Jewish cultural tradition, like Hebrew school. Having attended a Seder (Passover) event hosted by Messianic Jews I found the experience incredibly faith enriching…especially as the host was unashamed to draw our attention to the clear parallels/foreshadowing of traditional Christian beliefs hidden within so many aspects of this treasured historical and traditional observance.
In an ideal world All believers in the One True God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob as well as Moses, David, Solomon, Job, and the Biblical Prophets would recognize the Way, the Truth, and the Life that is available for ALL in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
So enjoy the comment below…and feel free to check out the original article (at the link below) too…The comment was copied in its entirety with no editing on my part…and please if anyone chooses to comment here on this posting be considerate of others in how your phrase things since this is an obviously complex & controversial topic…
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/09/21/andrew-klavans-great-good-thing/?singlepage=true
Hopefully I”ll be able to locate the lyrics and music to a very appropriate song…
Jew and Gentile
by Joel Chernoff
Album: The Restoration of Israel
by Joel Chernoff
Jew and Gentile, one in Messiah,
One in Yeshua, one in the olive tree.
Jew and Gentile, one in Messiah,
One in Yeshua’s love.
Help us Father, to love one another,
With humble hearts, Forgiving each other,
Heal our wounds, bind us together,
So the world might believe.
One in Yeshua’s love,
One in Yeshua’s love,
One in Yeshua’s love,
Sing it all together.
These lyrics are from this site (we have this song on a CD “The Road to Jerusalem”):
http://www.invubu.com/music/show/song/Joel-Chernoff/Jew-and-Gentile.html
and this should lead to the music on youtube, hopefully…Enjoy!
Special Connections 
Pingback: “Chrislam” | Special Connections
Pingback: Family, It’s More Than Just Blood | Special Connections
A thriving blog, just like mine was. 😀
Could you remind me as to your favored translation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Steve 🙂 does your blog still exist? I’d love to check it out.
Mine was started as an outlet, kind of as a way to off-load some major baggage, at the time in relation to huge frustrations/rage related to mostly unsuccessful advocacy battles on behalf of my special needs son. As it is it’s Very eclectic & just gets input whenever the mood strikes on quite a variety of topics. It never really took off as a conversational tool like the treehouse sisterhood blogs seem to, but that’s fine by me as I’m usually pretty much an isolationist 😉 😉
To answer your question I have come to appreciate the NIV for its clarity, excepting the woke language that the most recent version apparently has embraced w/ “gender inclusive” language (I think we discussed that a bit a while back). I grew up on the KJV so many of the scriptures I’ve memorized are from that version but its archaic language makes its comprehensibility a bit diminished, for me. My husband really liked the NKJV but that version was very difficult for me as it was close to the KJV but just “off”.
I really haven’t used the other versions, though occasionally I’ll find a verse in another version, using Bible Gateway’s Every English translation option, that seems to speak to me more. The Bibles I would least “trust” would be translations of translations, like the Jerusalem Bible, iirc, that was an English translation from a French translation & I don’t know if the French version was from an original language or perhaps from one of the early Latin translations. The more times the text has been translated the less likely to be “true” to the original words it would seem to be to me. Also “paraphrases”, like the Living Bible, would not be my preference, though they might have their value in expressing things in a more informal, perhaps even conversational, manner.
What version(s) do you prefer, & why?
LikeLike
OK…yes I remembered the conversation (I think I linked to a video showing the history of the translations in a sort of family tree). I just didn’t remember what you said.
I tend to favor the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) because many scholars regard it as most accurate. However the one time I read the entire thing cover to cover it was the NIV (whatever edition was current in the mid 1990s).
The NRSV is a “descendant” of the KJV, whereas the NIV was de novo.
There are many denominations that regard the KJV as authoritiative. Not just a good translation, but in any cases where it seems to disagree with old manuscripts, the KJV is to be believed over those manuscripts, because they were divinely inspired and therefore *corrected* pre-existing errors in the manuscripts! I won’t trust it thoroughly especially in the OT because it is a translation of a translation.
I read an interesting quote the other day. Reading the Bible in English is like looking at a black and white photograph, while reading it in Greek (the context was the New Testament, so Greek is appropriate here) is like looking at the color photograph. Sure you can see a lot in the B&W photo but you will miss a lot of nuance.
Full dsiclosure, I do not read Greek but I can sound the letters out according to the classical pronunciation [very different from today’s!] and sometimes recognize a word English borrowed from Greek (though that doesn’t mean that the meaning of the word is the same).
I bring that up because I am pretty sure you can’t be a *real* Bible scholar unless you can read it in the original Greek. I am at best an amateur and not as deep into it as many are. Likely the best approach is to look at several translations; if they differ it’s a reflection of the Greek concepts not matching up well with English vocabulary and we have to, basically, interpolate to get the sense of the original.
There was a lot of criticism of the NRSV when it came out for their pronoun genders, but so far as I know they only did gender neutral pronouns where the original text used them. English’s normal “gender neutral” was “he/him/his” but that can obviously be confused with masculine pronouns; other languages don’t have that ambiguity and so it’s probably better to go out of the way to be unambigyously gender-neutral when the source is.
There’s a much bigger controversy regarding the NRSV and its predecessor the RSV…but I think I can hold off on that; we will encounter it in due course.
Anyhow, I asked to be sure you weren’t in the KJV Is Always Right!! camp (like I suspect certain other treepers are). I’d have to use the KJV in that case.
So this was a preliminary tot he main event.
I will, a bit later (maybe not today) start writing about my opinions of Jesus, which was the Big Question you asked that brought me over here in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TY Steve. I look forward to whatever you share. I’m no Bible scholar either & cannot read either original language, nor Aramaic. I would be all about the earliest original language manuscript being the most authoritative!
I’m definitely Not a KJV Only person. I find modern translations, like the NIV, to make more sense to me than the older style ones like KJV & its derivatives. I love the beauty of the KJV words as they just sound more “holy” but that is likely an affectation of my upbringing.
I truly believe that God speaks to us individually in our own love language of the heart. He is the author of All things, including all languages, so He reaches out to all of us in the way that we can most receive Him. This would be a very abbreviated description of aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even in the time the KJV was written (very early 1600s) I understand the old thee/thine/thou/ye etc pronouns were gone from daily English, but were well known archaisms. So they translators opted to use them to give the work what today we’d call gravitas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the thee/thou is the singular/intimate “you” like tu in French. & you can be plural or singular but not as intimate, like vous in French. I think the thee/thou would usually be directed toward God, as evidence of that intimate relationship His children have with their Creator…but of course I could be wrong for this is just off the top of my head w/out research…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s my understanding…but as I understand it those forms were not still being used in 1600, they were using you, etc., for both situations as we do today.
There was a later translation (I don’t recall which one) where thou (etc) was *only* used when directed towards God, in all other cases it’s “you”. It may have been one of the ones on the “line of descent” between the KJV and NRSV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TY that’s interesting
LikeLike
“I think I linked to a video showing the history of the translations in a sort of family tree”
Do you think you could share that video here too? I’m pretty sure I opened it another tab when you shared it before but I cannot find it now so would appreciate the link available here where our continuing conversation “lives”, especially in case anyone Ever stumbles upon this discussion & wants to see that fascinating presentation.
“There are many denominations that regard the KJV as authoritative. Not just a good translation, but in any cases where it seems to disagree with old manuscripts, the KJV is to be believed over those manuscripts, because they were divinely inspired and therefore *corrected* pre-existing errors in the manuscripts! I won’t trust it thoroughly especially in the OT because it is a translation of a translation.”
That view sounds pretty disingenuous to me & quite convenient to make the KJV have it’s own authority beyond the “original” manuscripts. Therefore I definitely do not “resonate” with that perspective personally. To be honest, my personal view of the scriptures is a bit complicated in that though I believe that they are the Word of God & divinely inspired writings that humans put down in their own words & from their own perspectives (like the eye-witness aspects of the gospels, for instance) I wrestle with the “inerrant” concepts at least as far as small things go like “rabbits chewing the cud” or when Exact numbers might not agree in different retellings of events like perhaps Kings & Chronicles. Those types of “errors” (if they even are errors or perhaps mistranslations or different ways of numbering, like exact counts versus approximations) are things that are difficult to address but I don’t want to pretend that these controversies don’t exist…
There are also examples of seeming contradictions like “those who are not for us are against us” and “those who are not against us are for us”. Whenever I get in my head on my high horse to think I can out-logic God (or even You, for that matter LOL) I can turn to the end of Job as a reminder of how our minds & views are so much lower than God’s. I basically give Him the benefit of the doubt, kind of like I give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to topics you expound on in your posts where my knowledge base doesn’t come Close to yours…or His!
“Likely the best approach is to look at several translations; if they differ it’s a reflection of the Greek concepts not matching up well with English vocabulary and we have to, basically, interpolate to get the sense of the original.”
I agree with this perspective, for the most part. But as a Believer, if I’m being honest, the process of prayer & asking the Lord for insight & wisdom seems very applicable here too. However, as a claimed Atheist, you surely would not agree. I do expect that you are a “truth seeker”, even if not currently a seeker of The Truth so that I would expect you to attempt objective analysis of the documents & an approximation of original meanings as best as can be determined from our present vantage points & I can very much respect your commitment to intellectual rigor (as you “religiously” 😉 😉 display on so many of your Saturday posts)!
“so it’s probably better to go out of the way to be unambigyously gender-neutral when the source is.”
I agree with this perspective too. When I was younger, likely in adolescence, the overt male references w/out referring to females at all used to somewhat offend me (I was actually a bit of a feminist back in the day). It Seemed that women/girls were left out of consideration in some scriptures that way. There is no doubt that aspects of teachings in scripture, & practices in history, were difficult & seemingly overtly discriminatory against women & that is something that still needs to be wrestled with, at least on an individual basis, imo.
The fact that God allowed Deborah, a married woman, to preside as a Judge in Israel is fascinating in the OT. Also, many of the activities described in Proverbs 31 involve a woman partaking of activities that we would presume excluded from female allowable behavior. Then in the NT there is a church that meets in Lydia’s house, iirc, & my understanding was that it sort of implied that she was the leader of that “house church”. Priscilla is named before Aquilla, showing a possible hierarchical anomaly. Then there is the passage “there is no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female, no bond nor free…we are all one in Christ”. This seems to turn societal striations on its head, as well as Jesus demonstrating servant-hood when washing His disciples’ feet when He was & is the King of the Universe! Throw in “the gifts & callings of God are without repentance” & then you have to wonder why God would pour out gifts on women that they are not “allowed” to use!
Sorry it took me so long to give you this more thorough response. This is such a busy time of year so this discussion might be a bit hit or miss for a while. Thank you for taking the time to have this conversation!
Hope you enjoy a Wonderful Thanksgiving ❤
LikeLike
And I have to correct myself on one point. I was under the impression that the KJV was a translation of a Latin manuscript. Rather, it worked from the Textus Receptus, a Greek manuscript put together by Erasmus a few centuries earlier.
The Textus Receptus suffered from a few problems (most notably that it was based off a very limited number of older maunscripts). Modern translations, of course, have several thousand manuscripts (most of them fragmentary) to go off of…plus at least some of the time they can go back to church fathers (e.g., Origen) quoting the work. They’re likely quoting from a manuscript we no longer have, so that’s another source.
Here’s the family tree of translations video:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Steve!
That KJV info makes the unquestioned “authority” of that particular translation come more into question, imo. If you are referring to the OT having a Greek translation, from Hebrew presumably, that’s even more problematic in that the process goes through multiple language translations, each time increasing the likelihood of “errors” being introduced…
That’s why I’ve so appreciated the NIV for it went to the “original” works & worked w/ teams of scholars skilled in the original languages–my OT grad school professor was on the NIV translation team & I used to buy cloth bound compact versions of the NIV for $4 each to share from him 🙂 That these committees had to come to (unanimous?) consensus on their interpretations of the languages & when they couldn’t agree the alternate view was put into footnotes, which made that NIV translation pretty special in my mind. The fact that they tried to avoid idiomatic English so that any English speaking culture could understand the meanings chosen was just icing on the cake…
TY for finding & sharing that video again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No the Greek I was referring to here is the New Testament in the original Greek. Except that Erasmus was relying on such a new manuscript that plenty of scribal errors had accumulated.
Someone named John Mill in the early 1700s had access to about 100 Greek manuscripts, and he identified THIRTY THOUSAND discrepancies between them. He published a copy of textus receptus that had them all footnoted (and he ignored minor changes in word order and the like). He caught a lot of heat for that, but as some people pointed out, he didn’t make them up; they existed. Mill was an Englishman, of course, and in a Protestant area where the sole authority is scripture, so that gave some impetus to efforts to try to determine, through the fog of scribal errors, just what the original text said. Recover the original text and you’re golden!
A bit before this a Frenchman (and Catholic) had done similar things and of course the Catholics just loved that, because to them the authority was the Church’s traditions, and that becomes more plausible if you can’t figure out what scripture originally said.
Later on someone finally went to a couple of fourth century Greek manuscripts (codex Sinaiaticus and codex Vaticanus), and produced a Greek bible that was new, and not an annotation of Erasmus’ textus receptus.
We now have over 5000 manuscripts, most of them fragments, to try to analyze to figure out what the original text was. There are a number of criteria the scholars use, and none of them are absolute, so in some cases one criteria pulls one way, another a different way, and that leads to a lot of debate. In other cases, they’re pretty confident they have the original reading.
I should note here, that the *overwhelming majority* of these differences are insignificant, clearly a scribe skipping over a line by mistake, or something like that. Another hazard was “mass production.” More than one monk with a pen in his hand, and another at the front of the room reading a manuscript aloud. The monks with pens each write what the reader is saying. Depending on resources you could make scores of copies all at once. But that means that words that sound alike (Greek has them too) can get mistaken.
Yes, the NIV gets kudos for starting afresh. Although the NRSV is “descended” from the KJV, they weren’t afraid to change the KJV reading if they think that more-recently-available sources demand it. It certainly doesn’t *sound* like the KJV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Yes, the NIV gets kudos for starting afresh. Although the NRSV is “descended” from the KJV, they weren’t afraid to change the KJV reading if they think that more-recently-available sources demand it. It certainly doesn’t *sound* like the KJV.”
If I ever read the Bible through in its entirety again I’ll have to consider your NRSV recommendation! Sometimes a slightly different twist on the Scripture can add a freshness to what was so familiar.
When they did the NRSV did they actually consult “original” works to “correct” KJV “errors”? It would make sense to me if they did.
Wasn’t one aspect of the beauty & revolution of the KJV that it was the first time that scripture was put into the common (modern) tongue, making it accessible to the literate masses & not just the domain of the religious scholars who could manipulate the ignorant by claiming to be the only ones who could speak for God, or quote His Word?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was an earlier Wycliffe bible in English…if memory serves. Whatever it is named it IS mentioned in the translations video. And yes, NRSV consulted older sources than textus receptus and as I said, wasn’t afraid to change the KJV text to something different in the light of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gotta get to that video at some point for I’ll surely appreciate it! TY 🙂
LikeLike
I finally watched this video before my plan to watch the video in your other recent comment. It was quite informative–TY.
I recently ran across a Bible website that you might find helpful as it has links to the source material. I think it is one that some Q-Treepers favor for their personal studies but it could be something similar to it, if I recall correctly.
https://www.blbclassic.org/index.cfm
This is the Blue Letter Bible site & here’s a tidbit from the main page:
For every verse, see the Interlinear Hebrew / Greek (including the Septuagint) by using the Lexicon / Concordance button. Example. And by using the Versions /Translations button you can see twelve English translations, one Spanish translation, the Latin Vulgate, Textus Receptus and Morphological Greek (for the New Testament) and the Wesminster Leningrad Codex and Septuagint (for the Old Testament). In addition, you can print up to a full chapter by using the “Read /Print” drop down on the right hand side.
LikeLike
Hokay. The tldr version of “who/what do I think Jesus was” is:
He was a rabbi (not formally ordained, it simply means “teacher” from Nazareth. His message was not about salvation, it was about the impending apocalypse and day of judgement. The world was largely under the control of evil, but the day would soon come when the messiah (and I have to explain that word below–it might not mean here what you think it means–so hold your thought) would come to liberate Israel and re-establish the powerful independent state that was there before, re-establishing God’s kingdom on earth.
He eventually gathered a couple of dozen followers, and then decided to go preach in Jerusalem.
At this point I have to explain “Messiah.” Back then, to the Jews, it did not mean what it means to Christians today. It simply meant anointed one, which was an allusion to the coronation ceremony. The messiah was a strong leader (military, or perhaps religious) who would, basically, kick ass and take names. A lot like David. “Messiah” did *not* mean the son of god; that’s an additional meaning that Christians added afterwards.
In Mark, you can see all sorts of indications of this. The disciples believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but he seemed at pains to get them not to say the quiet part out loud. There are also extensive quotes of him preaching like an apocalypticist (the axe is at the base of the tree, etc.). It sort of reminds me of the guys wearing sackcloth on the street corner preaching that the end is near, honestly…except that he must not have seemed that unbalanced or no one would have followed him!
In Jerusalem, the Jewish leadership was upset at his preaching, and he apparently caused enough of a disturbance (at the Temple?) to get onto the Romans’ radar. He was arrested and executed…not for anything religious he had said, but rather for claiming to be the King of the Jews. That latter would be intolerable to the Romans who considered Judea a province of their empire under a governor, not a local as king. (So he was executed for a political crime.)
Crucifixion was the typical punishment for rebelling against the Romans, and (very importantly) part of the punishment was to NOT be given any kind of decent burial. You sat up there, food for scavengers, until your body had decayed. Thus, I find it difficult to believe his body was ever transferred to a tomb; the Romans simply wouldn’t have allowed it.
Note what is missing here. I don’t believe Jesus ever actually claimed to be God. I don’t believe he was born in Bethlehem. And I don’t believe his body was ever in a tomb and certainly not resurrected. I *do* believe his followers had visions of him. They must have been deeply upset. The man whom they thought would triumph gloriously over all the enemies of Judea as king (with the twelve as rulers over each tribe) had instead been executed in the most brutal, humiliating way possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TY this is a fascinating view & seemingly based, at least in part, in historicity. I will reply later; at the site, on points I hope to address. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of the evidence for this view (which I did not originate) is actually *in the Gospels*.
But it is necessary to treat them as historical documents, complete with writer’s biases, rather than Scripture whose truth cannot be questioned.
When that is done, using the same sorts of analysis done on other historical documents, it becomes evident that parts were added later, and later writers did a lot of extrapolation not in earlier works, and in many cases it’s hard to pin down what was in the origianal (we have no originals), and sometimes it becomes a bit tricky to even establish what “original document” means. Not what the original document says, but rather what the concept of an original document means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly this sounds like a fascinating journey to take. I don’t mind contemplating scripture as “just” historical documents even though I “know” that there is much more to those writings 🙂
For some reason it’s making me think of the “Original Six” teams of the NHL, the Detroit Red Wings being one of them. The hockey game my husband & I recently attended was billed as an “Original Six” match-up of the Wings with the Boston Bruins. Ironically if one digs deeper into hockey history one discovers that “Original Six” is a chosen starting point. It May have been the original NHL teams at the time the NHL formed but even some of those teams had other iterations previously. It’s almost like whatever history one contemplates it’s like drawing an arbitrary line in the figurative sand & pretending that there was no history before that artificial line. I guess it could be that people could agree to an assertion of the “starting point” & then build the discussion on whatever happened beyond that point…
My understanding is that the “Decalogue”, the first five books of the Bible, were penned by Moses, obviously well after events happened. Some of the material May have been an outgrowth of oral history but that’s merely speculation on my part. The oldest book in the Bible is apparently Job but how this is known is not known by me 🙂
LikeLike
I thought the decalogue was the ten commandments (deca=10). The five boos are sometimes called the Pentateuch and sometimes (a bit more authentically) the Torah.
The very end of the last of the five (Deuteronomy IIRC–no bible at hand to check) narrates events after Moses died, so clearly that part at least was not his. There are also other indications they were written much later (e.g., phrases like “to this day” appear here and there). And then there’s the entire “documentary hypothesis” which involved analyzing the text and noticing multiple styles; the conclusion being the Torah was pieced together from several earlier sources.
One example, the first chapter of Genesis refers to God differently than does the bulk of the 2nd (and at least a few subsequent) chapters. One says “elohim” conistently and the other says “adonai” (I can’t remember which is which.) The points of view are also different (IIRC). Even if not so one of the two is largely rendunant.
I don’t know enough about the old testament to have even a figment of my own opinion about it, but what I am relaying to you is called “The documentary hypothesis” and can be searched for under that name. (I just did and saw both pro and con.) I have one book on the subject (and it is pro) titled “Who wrote the bible?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops, head smack, blush emoji…
“I thought the decalogue was the ten commandments (deca=10). The five books are sometimes called the Pentateuch and sometimes (a bit more authentically) the Torah.”
You are absolutely right!!!
BTW, I kind of hate the way “experts” create verbiage that excludes people from the discussion of the “inside baseball” types. It seems like such a form of pretentiousness even though there is a degree of “convenience” in having jargon when one wades into the weeds on a topic.
“the Torah was pieced together from several earlier sources.”
I haven’t dug into this aspect of scripture before so have no informed opinion. Your expressions in that paragraph on the Torah seem reasonable to my view. The “to this day” always makes me wonder WHEN that day was. If any of the things that existed on “this day” but No Longer exist could be identified as to when they ended, that would clearly help narrow down the time frame of the writing!
“what I am relaying to you is called “The documentary hypothesis” and can be searched for under that name. (I just did and saw both pro and con.) I have one book on the subject (and it is pro) titled “Who wrote the bible?””
This is ALL incredibly fascinating to me! TY for sharing these details.
Genesis 1 & 2 are filled with so much info & from such viewpoints that we cannot fathom, especially the recounting of the Creation Week. I remember calling in to a local Christian Talk Show where a Creation Scientist was a guest & fielding calls. My question involved “& there was evening & there was morning” the #ed day…How could there be “evening & morning” when the sun hadn’t yet been created (as we count evening & morning based on earth’s rotation & when the sun sets to when the sun rises, so clearly from an earthbound perspective)? If this was NOT what was happening during creation what did “evening” & “morning” even mean??? I don’t recall a satisfactory answer…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t give any credence whatsoever to the sort of creationist who thinks in terms of literal days and that the world is only 6-10K years old. (“Young Earth Creationist”.)
On the other hand the word “yom” in the Torah has an alternate meaning, interestingly paralleing “day.” It’s possible in English to say something like “Back in Abraham Lincoln’s day” and the meaning is NOT a single rotation of the Earth; it’s a much longer timespan. In fact I know of Christians who insist that the current scientific timeline (big bang to present, 13+ billion years with the earth being formed 4.5+ billion years ago) is true *and* that properly read, Genesis describes it. (I was first exposed to this POV via books by Hugh Ross, who, last I saw had a site called reasonstobelieve.org.) Although I (obviously) don’t agree with their theology, at least they’re not making *scientific* claims that are balderdash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s interesting to me, to be sure. I probably tend toward being a Young Earth Creationist…sigh…but not necessarily believing in a literal 24 hour day Creation story. I haven’t delved deeply enough into it to have a solid leg to stand on but recognize that the extant “evidence” for a young earth, not millions of years old, is out there but heavily suppressed by the “scientific” “establishment”. I would very much welcome open debate on the topic by learned people from many scientific disciplines to hash out the young vs old earth “proofs” that exist. Suppressing one side of a debate is definitely not the way to Legitimately win…as all of MAGA knows given the extensive suppression so many of us endure who buck against establishment narratives in multiple domains.
I’ve heard of the “age-day” theory in Catechism class (yes my independent Protestant rooted church of my youth had C, but the church’s founder was originally RC…). This view refutes the 24 hour Creation Day concept.
There is also the “Gap Theory” between “In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth.” And “the earth was without form & void & darkness was upon the face of the deep”. Some speculate that that gap represents when Lucifer & 1/3 of all angels fell from Heaven, for surely the Enemy had already rebelled against God before appearing as the Serpent in Eden.
I’ve speculated that there may have been many successive Heavens & Earths. I also wonder about the concept of the Multiverse. “Proving” the “existence” of alternate universes by the photons through the slit seems rather dubious to me, however. It’s certainly possible that I don’t understand the science behind the “proof” but it’s also possible that the experimenters are going to a “one solution” explanation for the witnessed phenomena without Fully understanding the underlying issues (like light behaving as both a wave & a particle, I believe)…Further explanations for such observations may end up coming forth long after we’ve departed this mortal plane…
I believe that much of what purports to “prove” millions of years of Earth’s existence is the geological record. It is also possible, & likely from my view, that these cited geological features are more a remnant of Noah’s Flood, worldwide, cataclysmic, covering up All land, & likely coinciding with the break-up of Pangea than representative of millions of years of geological history. Plants growing through thousands of years of geological layers & the quick formation of a canyon in a matter of days are examples of troublesome details that old earthers have difficulty explaining…also the minimal dust on the Moon’s surface, human population numbers, dinosaurs in art predating the modern discovery of the “terrible lizards”, & even a dinosaur discovered in Northern climes with some of it’s soft tissue intact that wouldn’t be possible if it were Millions of years old…
Explaining light-years & the astronomical distances in space is clearly problematic in a young earth view, at least that’s how it seems to me. Although I’ve always considered that “the speed of light is a constant” is an unprovable “given” & therefore dubious, especially when you consider “head on collisions” from alternate light sources, like those 2 train math problems where the speeds add together to get the relative speed…
That the Big Bang coincides with “God said ‘Let there be…'” makes sense to me too 🙂
ReasonToBelieve.org sounds like it would be interesting to me to read…I’ll likely Die before I get to read All the material I wish to explore…sigh…Hubby thinks I’ll inhabit the Library of Heaven, if such a place exists, when my time comes…we shall see 😉 😉
So Many mysteries…so Little time!
LikeLike
In re-reading your comment I’m reminded of things I learned in either college or grad school about textual criticism. I believe there were opinions that, iirc, Matthew, Mark, & Luke may have been derivative of some prior “gospel” that has since been lost. I believe John’s gospel is usually considered to be its own work since it has such a different flavor as the other ones.
I believe that Luke wrote both Luke & Acts & perhaps addressed them to his friend, his “most excellent Theophilus”, who may have been a person or possibly a play on the Greek? root words that look like “God philosopher or God lover” perhaps, like writing to All of us who ponder “God”, like you (& me), or who love God, like me (& potentially future you ❤ ). Luke takes a pretty methodical approach so I would expect that he personally interviewed as many eye-witnesses to events as he could as he gathered material with which to compile his eponymous gospel & later history of the early Church. He may have even been one of Jesus' followers at some point so have had direct personal knowledge of at least some of that which he wrote about.
I think that Matthew & (John) Mark were both Jesus' disciples so were then eye-witnesses to much of what they record. Also John, the Beloved, who was one of the Sons of Thunder, James & John were sons of Zebedee, & when their mother asked for Jesus to give them positions on His right & left hand in eternity all the other disciples were offended. John was the one who leaned back against Jesus at the Last Supper to hear that Judas would be His betrayer. John was also the one to whom Jesus entrusted the care of his mother Mary, who was Not a perpetual virgin, since at an event "Jesus' mother & brothers" were said to be at the door wanting to speak with Him. So either His earthly brothers were dead at the time of His crucifixion or He wanted Mary to be cared for after He was gone by his close associate John. Peter, James, & John were the ones that couldn't stay awake & watch & pray with Him in Gethsemane as His betrayal was imminent, iirc.
Because the Gospel writers were either direct eye-witnesses &/or interviewers/associates of direct eye-witnesses it doesn't bother me that Matthew, Mark, & Luke have so much overlap. What does surprise me is what doesn't overlap if they had in fact come from the same prior source; like Jesus walking on water & Peter walking on water with Him, briefly. Or the immediate translation of a boat to the other side of the lake. Or multiple miraculous events that don't get recorded in Every one of those MML gospels for these remarkable events stand out so much it seems unlikely that someone repeating other people's words would not include things that most of us would be incredulous to witness…
I like the application of typical "historical analysis" to scripture as a way to attempt to learn more about the works being examined. This process can surely add more info to the mix but it cannot be considered definitive, at least not to me at this point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I believe there were opinions that, iirc, Matthew, Mark, & Luke may have been derivative of some prior “gospel” that has since been lost. I believe John’s gospel is usually considered to be its own work since it has such a different flavor as the other ones.”
Mark is the oldest surviving work. As such we really can’t know how many sources he has.
Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. However they also include a lot of sayings of Jesus not in Mark, but in common with each other. That’s probably the “unknown source” you’re thinking of, and they’ve named it Q (from German Quelle, source). There are things unique to Matthew and other things unique to Luke, so sometimes those sources are named M and L. Of course for all we know M and L (and Q) could actually be several sources, bundled together.
“Sources” could be documents. Or reports of an eyewitness. Or conceivably even verbal traditions.
The author of Luke (and of Acts) actually says in the first few verses of his gospel that he didn’t see any of the events; he’s collecting things he heard of and read.
The overlaps don’t bother me either, but it’s important to recognize when they come from the same ultimate source. If the ultimate source for some bit of Matthew and Luke was Mark, then even though the incident is recounted in three gospels, ultimately, it’s one source, not three independent sources. If the details are slightly different, then it’s more likely three actually independent sources.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The overlaps don’t bother me either, but it’s important to recognize when they come from the same ultimate source. If the ultimate source for some bit of Matthew and Luke was Mark, then even though the incident is recounted in three gospels, ultimately, it’s one source, not three independent sources. If the details are slightly different, then it’s more likely three actually independent source”
I agree with this insight. It’s like witnesses in court. If they have coordinated their answers then it is likely that aspects, or even the entirety, of their testimony is invalid.
The One Source in Scripture, at least from the Christian, & perhaps even the Jewish, view is God. Inspiring men to write down events that they never personally witnessed & to include the info that’s there & exclude so many things we often Wish would have been said, to help us understand better, or even just make some sense of sometimes seemingly incomprehensible events &/or meanings leaves the work of the Holy Spirit to “quicken” our understanding a full-time job 😉
There is a book, iirc, written discussing the witness in a courtroom perspective, that claims to prove that the Bible is a genuine telling of events, or at least the Gospels, I believe.
I don’t think that it’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict but that Might also be one that takes that approach. The one I’m thinking of was raised/mentioned in one of the God’s Not Dead movies, I think the second one, where they “proved” in a courtroom that the Bible was real, or perhaps that God was. I think they put the author on the stand in the movie & he recounted his skeptic’s journey from desiring to prove the Bible wrong, using his forensic background iirc, to instead ultimately coming to the Cross & coming to Christ by being convinced of the absolute veracity of the Book (or portion of scripture he examined). I’ve never read either of these works but I think they were both written by former atheists, or possibly agnostics, who Wanted to prove the Bible false but didn’t/couldn’t…
I re-read the quote from you at the beginning of the comment & was thinking of Rudy G’s description of Sidney Powell’s Kracken bull-crap where she tried to run One source through multiple people attempting to make it look like many sources…or perhaps Christopher Steele…LOL…though in reality none of us should really be laughing about such (apparent) charlatans! 😡
LikeLike
When you do respond…try not to do so on a Saturday.
I know you’ve replied here through the notifier, and the notification is liable to get completely buried (and missed) under notifications of comments on my post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought about that too, for you’ve mentioned it before. Having covered a couple of dailies when DP was dealing with her mother’s situation & the aftermath I have even greater gratitude for what all you regular Q-Tree authors have to manage in such an actively commenting blogging community! It can be pretty hard to keep up on very busy discussion days.
This is also a busy time of year for so many of us with the holiday season. In my own family the four guys have their birthdays in a two-week window overlapping November & December. Sometimes my oldest son’s b-day even falls on Thanksgiving (this year it’s the day before). We already had one b-day gathering in honor of my oldest son’s 30th where my daughter made an amazing cake depicting his first official deer, that he’d shot in the hind quarters, & she wove the reveal of that epic cake into an elaborate murder mystery game she invented…anyway on top of regular stuff we have all these additional gatherings so I’m WAY behind reading at the Q-Tree (& elsewhere)…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah and things are a bit weird here now too, though the weirdness will probably end by December.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That makes me Really want to read more at the Q-Tree but I’ve got people coming on Thursday & lots to do between now & then so my curiosity will remain unsatiated, at least for a while…grrr. My dang turkey is still partially frozen so it’s going to be interesting to get it planked/spatchcocked tomorrow so the messy part of prep can happen Before the holiday…sigh…
Hope you are OK & that it’s mostly people being distracted by the upcoming holiday.
Do you celebrate Thanksgiving or do you consider the initial reason, to Thank God for his bounty & provision, to make it too hypocritical for an Atheist to participate in? Or do you buy into the concept of perhaps being “thankful” for the harvest that is also being brought in around that time of year so just have a general attitude of “thankfulness” for the natural, material, nutritional aspects of the harvest? Or perhaps an historical appreciation of the cross cultural beginnings of the event w/ Pilgrims & Indians & not necessarily acknowledging the Lord of the Harvest at all? I’d Love to know!
I’ve always loved the traditional food of Thanksgiving, when it’s done well. My husband makes Amazing mashies. I do a pretty mean stuffing–yum. Last year we/I did a “spatchcocked” turkey, where you cut out the backbone, break the breastbone, & lay it out flat to cook more quickly in the oven. Everyone thought it was one of the best turkeys they’d ever had w/ very tender meat. My oldest requested this version again so we’re indulging that though hubby had wanted to perhaps use the smoker. We decided we’ll experiment w/ a smoked turkey another time & if it turns out well then we’ll maybe try it for another holiday gathering.
This year my son Brandon will be missing as he’s heading to Toronto to spend his 5 day fire-fighter break w/ his girlfriend & her family. Also my parents will be at my brother’s place & thus able to meet their latest GGD, born just a couple of days ago. We’re still probably going to have 10 adults & 2 babies, which is Plenty for our little love shack 😉
LikeLike
I can see how many of these positions you hold make sense from a basic understanding of human nature. Of course I disagree w/ many of your takes but not all of them 🙂
“His message was not about salvation, it was about the impending apocalypse and day of judgement.”
Honestly I believe AND logic applies here & Jesus was delivering all of these messages…& more…
“would come to liberate Israel and re-establish the powerful independent state that was there before, re-establishing God’s kingdom on earth.”
I agree that this was the view that Jews had of who/what their Messiah would be. God’s Kingdom on earth, from what Jesus taught, & what has happened in the ensuing millennia, is very different than people thought it would be. God establishes Himself in the hearts of Believers & their surrender to His Will is what is presently bringing about God’s Kingdom on earth, prior to His ultimate Kingship on earth that will be revealed through the End Times events…
People didn’t understand that Jesus was first coming as a sacrificial lamb, the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, in order to pay the penalty for all sin for all time. The book of Hebrews dives very deeply into the concepts of how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. God laid the foundations of the earth on His principles, including the need for holiness/sinlessness & the fact that sin leads to death. This was what was demonstrated in Eden where Adam & Eve fell by eating the Forbidden Fruit & God sacrificed animals to cover their sin/shame/nakedness…the first deaths…
“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus our Lord”. Like Abraham’s test when God asked him to sacrifice his “only” (legitimate) son, Isaac, but “provided Himself the sacrifice” of the ram, symbolically showing how God would pay the penalty for his own Law. The entirety of the Levitical system reveal the intricate machinations that Israel needed to adhere to to attempt to live up to God’s standards but only in that their total obedience & continuing blood sacrifices would Cover their sins. Only Jesus blood would Take Away their/our sins, by paying the ultimate price, the perfect, spotless lamb, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”.
This is also clearly alluded to in the entire Passover story…
I think that one of the meanings of “Messiah” is savior. Jesus was/is the Jewish Messiah for he “came to save His people from their sins” & “of His Kingdom there will be no end”. The Jews were limited in their thinking as they were only looking to & anticipating the natural world reign of the Messiah not the eternal reign of the One who bought & paid for Every Soul who would receive Him & reign in their hearts first before exacting his reign over the physical world for all time. He is going to set up His earthy reign following the End Times events (or so it seems), but first He is going to reign in the hearts of all the people who will receive Him, “to them He gave power to become the sons of God”. In the afterlife “every knee shall bow & every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” so that even unbelievers will acknowledge Jesus before their eternal exile from His Presence since they did not accept the free gift of salvation while there was still time to be redeemed during their earthly life.
I believe that Jesus Did reveal that He was the Messiah, to the woman at the well. Another fascinating & unexpected reveal to someone who was surely of the lowest social strata, being a woman, one living in sin w/ a man not her husband after serial marriages, a Samaritan, iirc, & having to draw water from the well at a time when no one else would go there to avoid public shaming perhaps. She engages Jesus in conversation & He reveals who He is to her & by her testimony many people come to see Him & are saved…
John 4
New International Version
Jesus Talks With a Samaritan Woman
25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204&version=KJV;NIV
“He was arrested and executed…not for anything religious he had said, but rather for claiming to be the King of the Jews.”
I don’t know that this is the actual reason He was executed, for why would Pilate have tried to release Jesus rather than Barabbas to the crowd if he really thought He was any sort of threat to Roman rule? From my view His execution was inevitable, since He was born to die to “take away the sins of the world” & His anguish in Gethsemane was a reflection of His foreknowledge of the manner of His suffering & death. The passage in Psalms that clearly delineates his type of death, written before crucifixion had been invented and the passage in Isaiah that spells out the suffering servant scenario both lend insight as to what would happen to Him…& why.
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
…
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
There are people that claim that Jesus saying those words from Psalm 22:1 while on the cross was to bring to mind the words in the rest of that Psalm, which were being fulfilled in front of the witnesses to His crucifixion & death.
Isaiah 53
King James Version
53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
My understanding is that Jews don’t read this chapter of Isaiah–for it much too directly describes Jesus & His purpose…
Both of the above quotes I got on Bible Gateway, NIV for the first one & KJV for the second…
“Thus, I find it difficult to believe his body was ever transferred to a tomb; the Romans simply wouldn’t have allowed it.”
So the passages about sealing the tomb for fear of His disciples stealing His body to Claim He had been resurrected don’t seem plausible to you? That’s interesting for that side of the tale speaks to me of many human motivations which resonate in my mind.
“Note what is missing here. I don’t believe Jesus ever actually claimed to be God. I don’t believe he was born in Bethlehem. And I don’t believe his body was ever in a tomb and certainly not resurrected. ”
I’ll have to look deeper into the scriptures to see if I can find “proof” for any of these other things, but I’m kind of running out of time right now. Off the top of my head I believe Jesus said He was one with The Father, implying He was (also) God…
Gotta rush so am posting “as is” though since it’s on my blog I may “edit” it later if there’s something glaring in this version, but if I edit it I’ll also let you know…I did do such an edit about 8:45pm on 11/21, so if you are reading after that then you’ve seen my “improvements” 🙂
Blessings!
LikeLiked by 1 person
In at least some places you seem to be assuming that your post-Christ understanding of the term Messiah…a much broader one…is the one that Jews had *before* Jesus.
In fact most Jews today continue to hold to the narrower definition–this is why they largely don’t accept that Jesus was the messiah. From their point of view it’s absurd to think that somebody who was executed in a humiliating fashion was the person who was going to lead Israel, restore its independence, rebuild the kingdom that David had, etc., etc. (and basically kick the Romans out in so doing).
I maintain that the other aspects of the word that Christians hold to (including literal Son of God and God the Son) were added on *by Christians* after the crucifixion.
As for all of the prophecies…in many cases if you read them in context, it’s plain that the original writer wasn’t even referring to the messiah (by other definitions); someone went back, looked for something in hundreds of thousands of words that sounded like it *could* be a reference to Jesus, and decided it *was* a reference to Jesus. (In a book…er, collection of books…this large you could probably find references to almost any situation.) Jews themselves today don’t read these as references to Jesus and I will leave it to them to explain why but again in many cases reading a broader context makes it clear the messiah isn’t being talked about.
I agree that Jesus thought he was the Messiah…in the older Jewish sense of the term. His disciples did too.
The reason I think Pilate executed Jesus for claiming he was King of the Jews is that our earlier sources report that a sign “King of the Jews” was posted over his cross. Mark 15:26 states that the charge against him was “King of the Jews” In fact the whole chapter makes it clear Pilate considered that to be the substantive charge against Jesus, though he was aware the Council had forwarded the case for other religious motivations that Pilate could not have cared less about.
Jesus does indeed make statements like “I and the Father are one” but NOTE…he *only* does so in John. Not in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
I remember when BakoCarl was going through the “I am” statements one per week, and people were saying “It’s a good thing John preserved these since no one else did.”
But honestly it doesn’t pass the smell test. If Jesus actually DID say these things, they would have been some of his most important pronouncements. Certainly the drama of people reaching for stones when Jesus said them should have made the incidents even more memorable. Yet neither Mark, nor Matthew, nor Luke *remembered* these statements and reported them? Really??? Someone had to come along afterwards to fill that gap in? (John was the last of the four to be written.) I honestly find that difficult to believe…I find it easier to believe that the author of John either made them up…or was quoting someone who did.
You made a lot of other points here….but I don’t want this to turn into one of those things where every point leads to ten counterpoints in one comment, ad infinitum…it rapidly becomes unsustainable to reply to everything in one post. Especially since these get NARROW as they nest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Especially since these get NARROW as they nest.”
I agree…which definitely makes it a pain to read…
How about we can start a new comment thread whenever either of us wants to avoid the receding margins & just copy the germane parts we are replying to to keep the conversation going & more manageable?
I’m going to get back to you in a reply to This particular comment, likely after Thanksgiving, because I don’t want to reply in a rush.
I Really am appreciating you sharing your thoughts & insights with me–TY.
One point, in your comment above it seems that you’ve “decided” something must have been a particular way. I would submit that whatever point you consider “settled” in your mind is more like actually that you’ve chosen One of likely Multiple possible explanations for why something might be…
I tend to be a “divergent” thinker & often resist having complex things boiled down to just “one” legitimate result. So my nature resists agreement w/ the “just one” possible reason perspective (one male theology major almost came to blows with me over this in college LOL). This is an inherent bias that I acknowledge I have. It’s something that regularly pisses off my husband whenever we discuss “End Times” theology, for he is firmly persuaded in just one view & I am not & I won’t kiss up to ego stroke him (not that he expects that but it would make this arena, among several, easier to deal with each other if I would “just yield”, but I don’t 🙂 )…
Some years back I participated in a number of Bible studies (all as a married adult parent & usually just women’s Bible studies but once at a sister-church in a co-ed one while my boys were playing flag football there…) which helped me to understand that our individual experiences very much color what we get out of the Scripture. This, I believe, is partially the work of the Holy Spirit. You & I, I believe, share a desire to unearth the “truth” & the “facts” on which Scripture might be based & if any of it is myth or lies to disregard it. Getting to “original” writings & culturally contextual meanings informs this process as an intellectual exercise.
If (any aspect of) the Book is divine, it also has the capacity to impact us beyond just the intellectual level, imo. Even though you don’t believe in God it is possible that God is likely reaching out to you (at least in my viewpoint). This might show up as a “tugging on your heart” which can be the Holy Spirit gently wooing you/your soul. It would be my guess that you would be resistant to this process & find yourself trying to avoid any such unfamiliar or uncomfortable feelings. Which would be ironic to be resistant to a non-existent thing/Person…LOL…
So, as a scientist, testing a hypothesis, I would challenge you to make a note if Any of the material causes you personal discomfort in that you are trying to avoid diving into it because of how it makes you “feel”. Consider the Possibility that “God” Might Actually be Real & that your perspective on Him &/or the Bible might be incomplete (I KNOW that mine is)…If that does happen at any level please search your own heart to see if you can discern the nature of any resistance you might experience…it honestly sounds like a fairly fascinating intellectual exercise for one who says “there is no “God”” to become one who says “I don’t believe in the existence of “God”, but on the off chance that He Might exist, how would I even go about validating that?”…
Since I came to Christ as a very young child & have followed God, imperfectly, all of my life, I would find the journey of self-discovery & increasing awareness of the Possible existence of “God” to be an incredibly fascinating process as dissected by a mind as agile as yours…
I’m not, I hope, attempting to proselytize you here, just sharing thoughts on the possible work of the “Holy Spirit” & how it might impact on someone who is feeling the “tug” but denying the “source” would play out…
Your extensive knowledge & depth of insight into the Scripture as complex historical material that has been passed down through the ages is a tremendous blessing & so enlightening to me in my own “faith” (or lack thereof) walk!
“God” Bless 🙂
LikeLike
Well, you *are* proselytizing to some extent!
My stance actually is that I have insufficient reasons to believe there is a God. It’s hard to prove a negative. That’s what most atheists will tell you when they’re not having a bad day.
I do go one step farther than that though. “God” can be a generic term (when spelled lower case). Lots of gods have been believed in over the centuries, lots are believed in now in various parts of the world (and you can get into a nice argument over whether the Muslim god is/is not the same god as Yahweh (as understood by Jews–no trinity)).
When I say i find all proffered evidence for god unconvincing I do mean *any* god. But that of course is not *proof* that none of them exist. Very difficult to prove a negative!
Most atheists leave it there. As I said I go one step farther.
If somone posits a “god” and it turns out that that notion of a god is logically contradictory, then I *will* say that either they misunderstand that god, or that particular god *cannot* exist, for the same reason four sided triangles don’t exist and that there’s no place even in an infinite universe where 2+2=17.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TY for these insights…another one that will get a more thorough reply after Thanksgiving 🙂
I used to think that Christians, Jews, & Muslims all worship the same God, but no longer. I believe that the entity the Muslims call “Allah” is not the YHWH God of the Bible but an amalgamation of historic demonic entities that were principalities & powers over certain regions of the Middle East. The crescent is in honor of a “moon god” iirc that they actually worship. The character & nature of “Allah” is too contradictory to God to be the same Being.
IMO, Islam, like Mormonism, is a distortion & perversion of pre-existing Judeo-Christian biblically-based faith. They both borrow, sometimes quite heavily, from C & J but they do not adhere to scriptural Truth nor find it authoritative over the writings of Muhammad.
I would guess that an Arabic Bible might refer to the YHWH God using “Allah”, for I believe that that is the Arabic word for “God” but that in such a case they would not be actually referencing the Muslim entity called “Allah”, though I may very well be mistaken in this supposition.
So bottom line, Christians & Jews worship the same, One True God, though with different understandings. Muslims worship demons or false gods that they Think are the One True God.
Sincere, faith driven Muslims, are apparently coming to Christ with some regularity, per an organization called Frontiers.org, iirc. Also I’ve heard that many Jews are coming to “compete” faith in Jesus as Messiah & Savior, but a number of them have difficulty in proclaiming it publicly. There was one particular very respected Rabbi who died in recent years & left the words “Jesus is Lord” or “Jesus is our Messiah” to be read by his Rabbinical son after his death. This caused a huge controversy I believe.
One True God, many false gods, & the false gods have been regionally dominant principalities & powers throughout much of human history, as best as I can understand it…
More after Thanksgiving…I hope 🙂
LikeLike
(Quick reply–that’s my understanding too, that the arabic word for (little g) god is “allah” and they basically just did the same thing (capitalizing and making it a proper name) that we did in English god->God. Arab Christians AND Muslims both did this.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, that makes sense. I talk w/ my son Josiah about this at times & he usually gets pretty freaked out. He was upset when he learned that his Respite Care Worker, who is Muslim, comes from a family that is partially Muslim & partially Christian. Supposedly one of his relatives converted from Christianity to Islam & I questioned how Anyone with an actual understanding of Jesus as Lord & Savior & God could downgrade Him to Jesus as good man & prophet that their later “prophet” M contradicted & overrode.
My son was convinced that at Any Time he could randomly lose his salvation & inadvertently become a Muslim. He was in pretty deep anxiety about it at the time & aspects of his issues here sometimes crop up whenever “Allah” or Islamic atrocities come on his radar again.
He is praying for salvation for his Respite Worker & for our Muslim neighbors way more than I offer such prayers, however…
I wrote about some of this upheaval here, fyi:
LikeLike
I’ve really got to train myself to not just reply in the notifier. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m doing it right now too LOL. Maybe after Thanksgiving I’ll get into the blog controls & move some of our comments to blocs that are wider to ease the reading of things as we go.
If either of us is actually getting replies that are one character wide that is the ultimate pain to read…well just straight up North to South reading but without spaces…kind of like Aspects of Hebrew, LOL 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
They look good in the notifier, but that’s being suckered into it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doubt. It’s also easier to find the exact comment to reply to (the first time) in the notifier, but hard to do any further discussion with quotes, which was how I started in the replies to you more on Tuesday afternoon but from the post itself…
LikeLike
Well, just let me know when you’re all caught up and we can resume. Been doing a bit of research…including buying a couple of dead-tree books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking forward to it. I’m working up a couple comments on your Saturday post too (I’m paused on your Latin video to examine the map with a magnifying glass but running out of steam…sigh). But I’m still on a bit of low ebb w/ getting over some crud so not sure if it’ll be today or not.
Hubby’s out of town hunting this weekend so Maybe I’ll get some dedicated time, though that’s not good for you as it’s around your weekly post…guess we’ll see how it all goes 🙂
LikeLike
OK here are a couple of interesting scribal bloopers I just read about. These are accidental oopsies copying manuscripts (and usually easy to reconcile–though there are exceptions).
Here’s an example of skipping lines.
Luke 12:8-9:
(8) Whoever confesses me before humans, the son of man
will confess before the angels of God
(9) But whoever denies me before humans
will be denied before the angels of God
Imagine a scribe writing verse 8, his head going back and forth like he’s watching a tennis match, and after writing “angels of God” going back to the original and spotting the *second* “angels of God” at the end of verse 9. If he’s not careful he might figure that’s where he left off, and move on to verse 10. He will have skipped verse 9. The earliest manuscript of this passage shows exactly this error.
John 17:15
I do not ask that you keep them from the
world, but that you keep them from the
evil one.
This time if the scribe’s eyes goes to the wrong line, he ends up writing “I do not ask that you keep them from the evil one.” This *actually happened* in the Codex Vaticanus, which is considered one of the best manuscripts.
I’ve alluded to cases where someone is reading aloud to a roomful of monks who confuse homophones. This tended to happen in the middle ages in monasteries (rather than the very early days of the church).
Rev 1:5
Sometimes released (lusanti) gets confused for “washed” (lousanti), so it gets rendered as “the one who washed us from our sins” by mistake.
Romans 5:1
Should this read “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God” or should it read “since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God.” It turns out in Greek the two sound exactly alike “let us have peace” is one word, “we have peace” is also one word, they sound alike (but are spelled differently). This variation is so pervasive that the scholars have trouble figuring out which one is right.
Luke chapter 3: (One of the wackiest)
The genealogical list here, in the original, was probably in two columns. The poor scribe who copied it in the 14th century read *across* the columns. This resulted in people being called the sons of the wrong father. The two columns weren’t the same length so the father of the human race isn’t God…but Phares. God is given as the son of Aram. (Note that these two names, Phares and Aram, don’t show up in English translations (or at least not the NRSV), but I checked an interlineal and they are there. Phares is Perez, and an alternate reading in the footnotes has Aminadab as the son of Aram rather than the son of Admin son of Arni, my interlineal actually has this.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is Great Info–TY! ❤
LikeLike
Yep this is what I was asking about.
I saw this video online and this pretty much agrees with what I think happened at the beginning of Christianity. (And it’s surprisingly brief given the topic.) He’s not throwing out arguments so much as simply stating the hypothesis.
The guy who produced this video is one of dozens (if not hundreds) of YouTubers who lost their faith; this is one response of his (ha has made others) to a 1000 page book by Habernas (possibly not spelled right) that came out recently regarding the resurrection.
Pick any subject and there will be good YouTube channels and ones that are utter dreck. Paulogia is one of the higher quality channels that argue against Christianity, the Bible in general, and so on. (I’m sure you can think of “good” and “bad” Christian apologist channels.) Though he has his quirks; most of his his stuff is talking head with illustrations in the background…but it’s a cartoon head!
LikeLiked by 1 person
TY Steve, that Was an interesting video & I can see why his approach might appeal to you for he is easy to listen to & makes his points succinctly. I also liked the fact that he had the pop-up verbiage referring to source material he was referencing.
Of course I disagree with most of what he shared. :) It is fascinating to me that someone would go to such great lengths to develop “naturalistic” explanations for the many described events recounted in Scripture. It does make me sad for him, becoming a former “Christian”. I wonder if he ever actually had a personal faith or more of just a faith tradition in which he was raised.
I guess, to some degree, the issue of “faith” is a bit of a choice. At some point one decides to “believe” or to not believe. This man’s journey to unbelief is sorrowful to me, because of my views on eternity. For himself, & perhaps for you too, his perspective is of some comfort as he has found ways to explain (away) many of the claims & teachings of scripture.
I found his supposition of Paul’s vision of the Lord, & subsequent conversion, as a “psychotic break”, to be pretty untenable. Paul’s writings, as preserved in Scripture (I don’t know if there are others beyond Biblical texts) hardly appear to be the ravings of a madman. They contain complex insights about God, the Church (universal), & Christian living, & are presented with massive amounts of “meat” & very minimal fillers. These are writings to real people, about real people, places, events, & doctrines that have foundation in the deep traditions & teachings of Judaism, as he was a Pharisee who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, so he was uniquely called & used by “God” to spread the Gospel of Jesus to many, then, & down through the ages, all the way to now.
I guess it Must be Crucial to “explain away” to Resurrection of Jesus for one to become/remain an unbeliever. IF that event IS historical fact it must be faced by everyone. IF God did send Himself to earth in the form of a divinely conceived human child who was destined to die a substitutional sacrificial death for all humans for all time, paying the ultimate price for all sin for all time, “the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the earth” that Fact must be wrestled with by any who want to retain a modicum of intellectual honesty.
LikeLike
The fundamental point is this is a counterargument to claims that the mere fact that Christianity got started and spread as it did, is evidence that it is true. (The bumper sticker version of that argument is to ask (rhetorically) whether the apostles would have died for a lie.)
“ I wonder if he ever actually had a personal faith or more of just a faith tradition in which he was raised.”
Well, at least you wonder…rather than simply *asserting* hewasneverarealChristian as so many douchebags do.
LikeLiked by 1 person