IIT we discuss and study the Bible. I will be using the King James Version and will take the stance of a fundamental literalist, which is a bit redundant, but these days there exist many that claim to be fundamental but reject the literal interpretation of Scripture when they encounter something they don't agree or understand. I am not a Bible scholar, I'm not a pastor, I don't currently attend any denomination's church service. I'm just an anon that really like to study the Bible. Feel free to argue with me, I could be completely wrong and I hope to learn more about the Bible along the way.
I will post below my first study topic and what I have researched about it. Hopefully it will be interesting and somewhat engaging.
/ub/ - Überhengst
Becoming better
Merry Christmas and Happy Hearth's Warming Everyone and Everypony!
[YouTube] The True Gift of GiftingIf you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
File (): 9383C489FF59AA7EC7E7559014DF0B8F-245693.gif
(239.9 KB, 840x618, biblereading.gif)
468 replies and 186 files omitted.
>>4870
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.
File (): CC112D7F9A126BA83C4A8502DFBD591F-328978.png
(321.3 KB, 570x588, CC112D7F9A126BA83C4A8502DFBD591F-328978.png)
File (): 4FDAB0ADF8088AAA1F9F42BBE9A15DA2-305489.png
(298.3 KB, 624x616, 4FDAB0ADF8088AAA1F9F42BBE9A15DA2-305489.png)
On the topic of orthodoxy, care to comment on these nuggets pulled from the flatty?
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian
>>4895
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.
Got away from my point.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.
>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?
File (): 7C33AC058089DA82746E8EF26E295F83-958555.png
(936.1 KB, 1326x1000, 1611359812793-x2.webp.png)
File (): 5C69127406DBB5E118F219EDF7B3C9B7-24824.jpg
(24.2 KB, 455x467, IMG_5370.png.jpg)
>>4844
>>4861
>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.
>>4861
>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.
>>4871
>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.
>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.
>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.
>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.
>>4832
>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.
>sub-race of infernal.
>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.
>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.
>sub-race of infernal.
>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.
>>4832
>- Satan
>- A specific entity
>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.
>- Satan
>- A specific entity
>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.
>>4903
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.
>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.
>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.
>>4905
>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.
>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.
>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").
>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.
>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.
>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.
>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").
>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.
So to throw my hat into the ring, the contexts used for 'morning star' is two fold. First is the enlightened, they radiate, they guide (such as the North Star), they are a point of reference, to be the way, the truth and the light.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.
>>4906
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.
Luke 11:14-16
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.
When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.
Luke 11:14-16
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.
When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.
>>4899
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
>>4901
>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:
>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Or Lucifer.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy.
>Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that
<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.
>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
>>4901
>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:
>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Or Lucifer.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy.
>Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that
<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.
>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.
>>4902
>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Continuing
>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings.
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.
>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).
>>4903
>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Continuing
>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings.
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.
>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).
>>4903
>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
By the by, before praying do you do preprayer praying?
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
>>4905
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.
File (): FBF840A1E6048EE6C77F140E53F261C3-422321.png
(412.4 KB, 707x683, 1640896868906 (1).png)
File (): 3E46EAB0D8E65C28336ACA2C8B710776-211862.png
(206.9 KB, 402x512, 20180614-000 (1).png)
>>4909
>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.
>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.
> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.
>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?
>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.
>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.
>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.
>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.
> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.
>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?
>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.
>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.
>>4911
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.
>>4909
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.
John 5:43-47
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?
Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.
Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.
This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.
Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.
John 5:43-47
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?
Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.
Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.
This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.
Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.
>>4910
>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?
>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.
>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.
>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?
>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.
>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.
>>4910
>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Citation needed.
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.
>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.
>>4910
>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.
>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
What cause?
>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Citation needed.
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.
>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.
>>4910
>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.
>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
What cause?
>>4916
>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
Basically this.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.
>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
Basically this.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.
>>4917
>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of
>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived.
Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back
>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of
>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived.
Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back
>>4920
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.
>>4896
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it
>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.
>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.
Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.
>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it
>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.
>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.
Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.
>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.
>>4916
>pretty confused
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.
>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.
<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?
>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
Yes, several popes decided to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.
>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
>pretty confused
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.
>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.
<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?
>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
Yes, several popes decided to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.
>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
>>4909
>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god
>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.
>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.
>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god
>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.
>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.
File (): 73CB9897F4A6707FB4D071982C7B5FE7-20096.jpg
(19.6 KB, 320x320, 1637302556882.jpg)
>>4923
>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something
>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something
>>4923
>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?
>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?
>>4917
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative
>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos
>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
>point to me
Ill get right on it.
>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down
>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.
>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.
>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.
>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?
>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative
>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos
>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
>point to me
Ill get right on it.
>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down
>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.
>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.
>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.
>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?
>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.
>>4924
His revealed word [i]according to whom?
>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?
>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.
>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.
His revealed word [i]according to whom?
>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?
>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.
>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.
Before I set out to provide all the materials requested, let me leave you with a Zen Koan.
>>4924
>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.
>>4924
>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.
>>4927
>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.
>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.
>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.
>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.
>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.
>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.
>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.
>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.
>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.
>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
>>4929
>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.
>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.
>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.
>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.
>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.
>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.
>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.
>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.
>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.
>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
>>4929
>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
>>4927
>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.
>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.
>>4931
>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.
>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.
>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity
>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?
>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).
>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....
>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing
>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.
>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ
>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as
<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.
>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.
>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.
>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity
>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?
>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).
>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....
>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing
>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.
>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ
>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as
<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.
>>4932
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points
>>4933
>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.
>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.
>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.
>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.
>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.
>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.
>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.
>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.
>>4934
>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.
>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.
>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.
>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.
>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.
>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.
>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.
>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.
>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.
>>4934
>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.
>>4933
>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.
>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.
Ugh, this thread is already basically derailed. Idk why I even tried.
>>4937
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.
>>4938
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.
>>4939
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.
>>4937
I will relent and do another thread if you prefer, this thread seemed dormant and thought that at the least it might be livened up
(read: Im taking credit for having reinvigotated a return to subject matter Xp)
I will relent and do another thread if you prefer, this thread seemed dormant and thought that at the least it might be livened up
(read: Im taking credit for having reinvigotated a return to subject matter Xp)
File (): CCF0119154CFFEB6CA062A7656CA1361-122968.jpg
(120.1 KB, 1042x495, 834c4662c298032e714ea6e60217cb82.jpg)
Allow me to drop the following.
>Moral Relativism (the real heresy and apostasy)
https://odysee.com/@LitteralTruth:b/101500-1440x3200:1
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/v35IvIP05zOe/
From a Christian standpoint.
>Moral Relativism (the real heresy and apostasy)
https://odysee.com/@LitteralTruth:b/101500-1440x3200:1
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/v35IvIP05zOe/
From a Christian standpoint.
I have a question for Christians since i'm sure some will visit this thread. God knows the future, the bible says this. God also knows who we are before we are born and if we will be saved or not. Prayer really doesn't mean anything, we cannot change Gods will. With that being said, how are we anything more than puppets? The book has already been written.
>>4976
Not all Christians believe in determinism and not all who believe in determinism believe in anything resembling a deity. Many Christians believe in metaphysical free will, and quite a few atheists believe in a deterministic universe.
But to me, it’s kind of silly to think that determinism makes everything pointless. You don’t say “well what happens next doesn’t matter” in a book or a film just because the book is already written and the film has already been shot and edited. You keep watching. And just because all of an actor’s lines are written doesn’t make the actor any less important.
Not all Christians believe in determinism and not all who believe in determinism believe in anything resembling a deity. Many Christians believe in metaphysical free will, and quite a few atheists believe in a deterministic universe.
But to me, it’s kind of silly to think that determinism makes everything pointless. You don’t say “well what happens next doesn’t matter” in a book or a film just because the book is already written and the film has already been shot and edited. You keep watching. And just because all of an actor’s lines are written doesn’t make the actor any less important.
>>4976
Could it be that we do have actual, proper free will, but God already knows what we are going to do with it. It's not contradictory in and of itself.
Could it be that we do have actual, proper free will, but God already knows what we are going to do with it. It's not contradictory in and of itself.
>>4978
Knowing what we WILL do is contradictory to the idea of free will and brings it back to the idea of determinism.
Knowing what we MIGHT do isn't. If you assume that God is omnipotent, then it's within its powers to know all the infinite possibilities of the future at once.
>>4976
You'll pray, or not pray, regardless if determinism is in action.
Knowing what we WILL do is contradictory to the idea of free will and brings it back to the idea of determinism.
Knowing what we MIGHT do isn't. If you assume that God is omnipotent, then it's within its powers to know all the infinite possibilities of the future at once.
>>4976
You'll pray, or not pray, regardless if determinism is in action.
>>4982
The concept of time is deterministic. For there to be a "future" where stuff has not yet happened but will happen our actions must be set in stone.
We have free will and we can make our own choices. People can guess at what we might do next. But God knows all and will make perfect guesses.
The concept of time is deterministic. For there to be a "future" where stuff has not yet happened but will happen our actions must be set in stone.
We have free will and we can make our own choices. People can guess at what we might do next. But God knows all and will make perfect guesses.
>>4982
Not if God is outside of time, if he is, then the distinction between what we will do and what we already did is irrelevant, I believe
Not if God is outside of time, if he is, then the distinction between what we will do and what we already did is irrelevant, I believe
>>4984
Omnipresence suggests not only being beyond time, but beyond all apparent distinction of possibility. Beyond-quantum, to attempt to wordsmith the idea.
Omnipresence suggests not only being beyond time, but beyond all apparent distinction of possibility. Beyond-quantum, to attempt to wordsmith the idea.
Allow me to drop a little grenade.
File (): B1A44B02CBFCACD77031595EA9CA1891-32349.jpg
(31.6 KB, 720x340, Screenshot_20220224-193232_DuckDuckGo.jpg)
>>4987
I wouldnt call that a hand grenade. The Apocrypha, the Pesdepigraphia, the dead sea scrolls, etc. has been established for decades.
Not to be catty, but I would assume the response to be along the lines of "not inspired by God", "Heretical", etc.
>pic related
Im not contesting your point however, and no bully to OP but historically speaking, the modern perception of Christianity and its role in society has only fluorished to the degree it has because groups desiring power come along and decide to engage in revisionist history, and religious history (specifically, the social concept of religious history) observably has little to nothing to do with actual evidence and record.
Christianity is by no means the worst or even an exclusive example, theyre just the most significant contemporary.
I wouldnt call that a hand grenade. The Apocrypha, the Pesdepigraphia, the dead sea scrolls, etc. has been established for decades.
Not to be catty, but I would assume the response to be along the lines of "not inspired by God", "Heretical", etc.
>pic related
Im not contesting your point however, and no bully to OP but historically speaking, the modern perception of Christianity and its role in society has only fluorished to the degree it has because groups desiring power come along and decide to engage in revisionist history, and religious history (specifically, the social concept of religious history) observably has little to nothing to do with actual evidence and record.
Christianity is by no means the worst or even an exclusive example, theyre just the most significant contemporary.
File (): CA6B3D5D44A12211746D597C55558773-36012.jpg
(35.2 KB, 700x700, 18e29dbc9bf0ff93-1536x1536.jpeg)
>>5177
The Guy Richie movie Revolver comes to mind, and directly references many of the inferences of this video analogously.
Quick question tho, how does this video which only posits a series of perspectives based (loosely) on the Bible (with no citations) on-topic for a bible-study thread, but somehow referencing the findings of the gnostics - a series of perspectives based on devout bible scholars - off topic?
Oh and yeah, quick reminder; the old testament god - Yyaldabaoth - is the entity that is contempraneously referred to as Satan
The Guy Richie movie Revolver comes to mind, and directly references many of the inferences of this video analogously.
Quick question tho, how does this video which only posits a series of perspectives based (loosely) on the Bible (with no citations) on-topic for a bible-study thread, but somehow referencing the findings of the gnostics - a series of perspectives based on devout bible scholars - off topic?
Oh and yeah, quick reminder; the old testament god - Yyaldabaoth - is the entity that is contempraneously referred to as Satan
>>5183
I believe the anon simply wanted to bump the thread to get me to come back and post while trying to have something sort of related to the topic of the Bible. I haven't had a chance to watch it to see if it is related or accurate, but I don't doubt that the title is one its own is supported by the Bible. I will have a full answer to the implications and Biblical evidence or lack thereof for this claim when I have the time. The papers I have to finish writing are taking it out of me.
I believe the anon simply wanted to bump the thread to get me to come back and post while trying to have something sort of related to the topic of the Bible. I haven't had a chance to watch it to see if it is related or accurate, but I don't doubt that the title is one its own is supported by the Bible. I will have a full answer to the implications and Biblical evidence or lack thereof for this claim when I have the time. The papers I have to finish writing are taking it out of me.
>>5183
It's David Pawson's perspective by taking the Bible literally all 66 books according to him.
Basically, the devil is an entity (being, 'person' angel), with a mind, and a personality. He has an agenda and a modus operandi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9A-v2_b10
>>5184
Wishing you well, and had a semi on topic/off-topic post for the thread on hand.
It's David Pawson's perspective by taking the Bible literally all 66 books according to him.
Basically, the devil is an entity (being, 'person' angel), with a mind, and a personality. He has an agenda and a modus operandi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9A-v2_b10
>>5184
Wishing you well, and had a semi on topic/off-topic post for the thread on hand.
>>5184
Thank you, but what you believe is irrelevant. Thats been among my salient points; Study does not mean 'assimilate without question, criticism, or analysis', it means to investigate, t3st, and observe with ideally as minimal bias/conviction as possible. That's far and away from what is going on ITT.
>>5185
>taking the bible literally
Well, good luck with that intended, still waiting to hear what denomination
>the devil has a mind, a personality
and ostensibly a body. I dont contest that, Im saying theres a tribe of Christians (who were murdered,... whats that Tyrion Lannister quote about cutting out a mans tongue?) who differentiate between the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament. Im further suggesting that there is more depth to christendom than what has been professed in either backward christiancults 'groups' OR 'established' churches and that all of THIS perspective is literally in/of the bible (spec new testament), depending on interpretation.
But apparently my interpretations of text - literally study of the bible - is irrelevant? Because another guy's interpretation of the same text 'said so'?
Thank you, but what you believe is irrelevant. Thats been among my salient points; Study does not mean 'assimilate without question, criticism, or analysis', it means to investigate, t3st, and observe with ideally as minimal bias/conviction as possible. That's far and away from what is going on ITT.
>>5185
>taking the bible literally
Well, good luck with that intended, still waiting to hear what denomination
>the devil has a mind, a personality
and ostensibly a body. I dont contest that, Im saying theres a tribe of Christians (who were murdered,... whats that Tyrion Lannister quote about cutting out a mans tongue?) who differentiate between the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament. Im further suggesting that there is more depth to christendom than what has been professed in either backward christian
But apparently my interpretations of text - literally study of the bible - is irrelevant? Because another guy's interpretation of the same text 'said so'?
File (): 0AE50F41B0091FA2211C72D11472344D-188637.png
(184.2 KB, 894x1007, 0AE50F41B0091FA2211C72D11472344D-188637.png)
>>5189
Don't sweat it. Content in this thread isn't exactly strict. Just because some anons want to restrict it doesn't mean that no topics outside their preferred should be talked about. Bible study is rather broad, and I would wager that they would prefer a singular thread rather than a dozen Christian threads.
Especially since the devil and the identity of the entity is extremely important to the interpretation of the text as the above anon can attest to. The view of the existence of just this one entity has led to a massively different interpretation. It makes for a perfect study in the Bible.
Don't sweat it. Content in this thread isn't exactly strict. Just because some anons want to restrict it doesn't mean that no topics outside their preferred should be talked about. Bible study is rather broad, and I would wager that they would prefer a singular thread rather than a dozen Christian threads.
Especially since the devil and the identity of the entity is extremely important to the interpretation of the text as the above anon can attest to. The view of the existence of just this one entity has led to a massively different interpretation. It makes for a perfect study in the Bible.
File (): 0F8D360BA088C610F82BD21BA4A60577-561930.png
(548.8 KB, 827x931, 0F8D360BA088C610F82BD21BA4A60577-561930.png)
>>5187
So reading my posts I didn't actually say what denomination I started from Lutheran or Presbyterian or something there was the book(s) and the events. So yeah, didn't know at the time nor do I want to dig too deeply sets off also sorts of warnings. I could be wrong about that, just assume it's lightly read alongside talking vegetables. Sorry about that.
Ah also here's this everyone.
>>5191 →
So reading my posts I didn't actually say what denomination I started from Lutheran or Presbyterian or something there was the book(s) and the events. So yeah, didn't know at the time nor do I want to dig too deeply sets off also sorts of warnings. I could be wrong about that, just assume it's lightly read alongside talking vegetables. Sorry about that.
Ah also here's this everyone.
>>5191 →
>>5192
>Lutheran and Presbyterian
Based, that will save me some time in discussion (and volunteer time in researching) of the nuance of the two.
Now if you'd said Methodist, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, or Jehova's Witness,...
And yeah, I previously relented on the Gnostics, but find that their positions are as relevant to bible study as any, in that their positions are derived from studying the bible.
The problem is, the term Christian has become so ubiquitous and universally applied that:
1. Countless people call themselves Christian, on an observably polarized scale of specific beliefs that often conflict and contrast. Ask an Espiscopalian about how permissible faggotry is, for example. Now ask a Baptist. Now ask... you get the point.
2. Religious history is a vastly and woefully neglected area of study for most people, who instead turn to the bible (spec. the Old Testament) for the 'historical record' protip: nothing fails like Bible history
3. Alongside Religious history (among the woefully neglected studies) is the history and etymology of language and meaning. Yes, there are scholars who have done the work translating the words, but that does nothing to aid the reader in comprehension of the words and meaning, and I hope I needn't present evidence of how dismal the average person's comprehension of their native tongue is.
To wit, a devout Catholic and a Luciferian can both honestly and unironically call themselves Christian while claiming the other is false, both citing historical evidence and material resulting with no consenaus.
>Lutheran and Presbyterian
Based, that will save me some time in discussion (and volunteer time in researching) of the nuance of the two.
Now if you'd said Methodist, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, or Jehova's Witness,...
And yeah, I previously relented on the Gnostics, but find that their positions are as relevant to bible study as any, in that their positions are derived from studying the bible.
The problem is, the term Christian has become so ubiquitous and universally applied that:
1. Countless people call themselves Christian, on an observably polarized scale of specific beliefs that often conflict and contrast. Ask an Espiscopalian about how permissible faggotry is, for example. Now ask a Baptist. Now ask... you get the point.
2. Religious history is a vastly and woefully neglected area of study for most people, who instead turn to the bible (spec. the Old Testament) for the 'historical record' protip: nothing fails like Bible history
3. Alongside Religious history (among the woefully neglected studies) is the history and etymology of language and meaning. Yes, there are scholars who have done the work translating the words, but that does nothing to aid the reader in comprehension of the words and meaning, and I hope I needn't present evidence of how dismal the average person's comprehension of their native tongue is.
To wit, a devout Catholic and a Luciferian can both honestly and unironically call themselves Christian while claiming the other is false, both citing historical evidence and material resulting with no consenaus.
File (): 19DD279E75C6138C7D71AB2162736B61-1831846.jpg
(1.7 MB, 989x11195, 111.jpg)
>How The Devil And Satan Are Defined By Scripture
>Here we present an essay we found that does well looking closely at what the Scriptures actually say — and do not say — about “the devil” and “satan” — and why it is important for Christians to understand this crucial subject.
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-devil-and-satan-are-defined-by-scripture/
>Here we present an essay we found that does well looking closely at what the Scriptures actually say — and do not say — about “the devil” and “satan” — and why it is important for Christians to understand this crucial subject.
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-devil-and-satan-are-defined-by-scripture/
File (): 910E78872924EDF31EDDFEED4D860F8B-1847912.gif
(1.8 MB, 822x672, cross and lightning.gif)
>>>/vx/162878 →
For a quick summary/rundown for what I consider to be a quick version of the findings of the Gnostics.
For a quick summary/rundown for what I consider to be a quick version of the findings of the Gnostics.
File (): C3C65D7C3B929DC5A382A52F89267613-52093.jpg
(50.9 KB, 960x534, hqdefault.jpg)
>Banning The Bible
>It's Come To This!
>In a shocking experiment, random beachgoers in San Diego, California are asked if they’ll sign a petition to ban the Bible. Their reactions will shock you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XckcMeSueMA
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XckcMeSueMA/
>It's Come To This!
>In a shocking experiment, random beachgoers in San Diego, California are asked if they’ll sign a petition to ban the Bible. Their reactions will shock you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XckcMeSueMA
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XckcMeSueMA/
>>5298
Well, I have been putting it off and putting it off, but it looks like I need to come back and make some proper posts and dissect these interpretations that fly in the face of the Biblical narrative as written and instead focus on books that run completely counter to the evidence written by the strongest supporters of Christ. Let's dive in as I work through the night to break it all down.
It will take some time, maybe even several days, but I will first address the Armored Skeptic video, then this one, then I will return to the book of Revelation that I have been neglecting for so long. Despite my breakdown, I doubt anyone will be satisfied, but I will finally be able to put to words my frustrations with this interpretation.
Well, I have been putting it off and putting it off, but it looks like I need to come back and make some proper posts and dissect these interpretations that fly in the face of the Biblical narrative as written and instead focus on books that run completely counter to the evidence written by the strongest supporters of Christ. Let's dive in as I work through the night to break it all down.
It will take some time, maybe even several days, but I will first address the Armored Skeptic video, then this one, then I will return to the book of Revelation that I have been neglecting for so long. Despite my breakdown, I doubt anyone will be satisfied, but I will finally be able to put to words my frustrations with this interpretation.
File (): CAF1775908E84003D1B1016BC490DF19-122722.jpg
(119.8 KB, 1184x765, IMG_20220415_103221_167.jpg)
2000 years and kikery never changes
>>5301
Appreciated. Please note, the blond guy is presented purely for information purposesI do not endorse him as any degree of authority on interpretation of said information. Like most, he appears to have gotten caught up in the information as is, rather than using the information to extrapolate the underlying meaning of gnostic teachings.
Appreciated. Please note, the blond guy is presented purely for information purposesI do not endorse him as any degree of authority on interpretation of said information. Like most, he appears to have gotten caught up in the information as is, rather than using the information to extrapolate the underlying meaning of gnostic teachings.
>>5309
He clarified at the end that it was all supposed to be metaphorical of the conditions they were facing, but the structure still doesn’t make sense if it is metaphorical. I think I’ll actually change my approach to address that one first to rule it out as a legitimate form of a theology as a literal interpretation and an inadequate metaphor as well.
However, crucial information is shared between the two presenters, and both will be addressed in full. I now plan to take a bit longer and make visual aids to my points, otherwise I believe I will not have a focused response and others might gloss over what I am attempting to address.
He clarified at the end that it was all supposed to be metaphorical of the conditions they were facing, but the structure still doesn’t make sense if it is metaphorical. I think I’ll actually change my approach to address that one first to rule it out as a legitimate form of a theology as a literal interpretation and an inadequate metaphor as well.
However, crucial information is shared between the two presenters, and both will be addressed in full. I now plan to take a bit longer and make visual aids to my points, otherwise I believe I will not have a focused response and others might gloss over what I am attempting to address.
>>5310
Thats actually not the bit I was referring to. In another video he makes an astonishing statement about how Socialism is 'government-instituted altruism', alongside a few other 'gems' that I would hate for everyone to miss out on.
Again, Im presenting him ONLY for his summaries of Gnosticism.
Thats actually not the bit I was referring to. In another video he makes an astonishing statement about how Socialism is 'government-instituted altruism', alongside a few other 'gems' that I would hate for everyone to miss out on.
Again, Im presenting him ONLY for his summaries of Gnosticism.
>>5310
Adittionally, in preparation for your rebuttal, I have to acknowladge an oversight to .uch of my premise.
While the teachings/interpretations of the Gnostics are based largely on the books of the - shall we say approved - Bible, it is also heavily wrighted by the banned/removed/omitted books of the bible.
As such (and Im sure we could debate until the end as to the validity/invalidity, admissibility/inadmissibility, or legitimacy/illegitimacy of either including or omitting such texts, and how that has shaped Christian history and the interpretations across generations without reaching a consensus), I acknowledge that presenting/arguing banned biblical texts is a bit derailing in a thread very conclusively intended to study the bible from an orthodox position. And, I apologize for any outbursts in which I may lose sight of that (not explicit, but close enough) fact in the pursuit of my attempts to illustrate a viewpoint (Gnosticism, not exclusively) that is often and otherwise maligned because its largely not been presented authentically.
I will continue to present counterpoint as is relevant, but I will temper my enthusiasm and keep it on topic to the books/ideas presented.
Adittionally, in preparation for your rebuttal, I have to acknowladge an oversight to .uch of my premise.
While the teachings/interpretations of the Gnostics are based largely on the books of the - shall we say approved - Bible, it is also heavily wrighted by the banned/removed/omitted books of the bible.
As such (and Im sure we could debate until the end as to the validity/invalidity, admissibility/inadmissibility, or legitimacy/illegitimacy of either including or omitting such texts, and how that has shaped Christian history and the interpretations across generations without reaching a consensus), I acknowledge that presenting/arguing banned biblical texts is a bit derailing in a thread very conclusively intended to study the bible from an orthodox position. And, I apologize for any outbursts in which I may lose sight of that (not explicit, but close enough) fact in the pursuit of my attempts to illustrate a viewpoint (Gnosticism, not exclusively) that is often and otherwise maligned because its largely not been presented authentically.
I will continue to present counterpoint as is relevant, but I will temper my enthusiasm and keep it on topic to the books/ideas presented.
>>5318
Banned texts, works of Biblical criticism, and otherwise deemed heretical books are all work a look in the Bible study thread. Just know that the ultimate conclusion might not be completely satisfactory as it will ultimately be judged by not only merit, but if the Bible supports the narrative presented.
In the case of Gnosticism, it argues the Bible is completely wrong and the texts they provide are both secret information from the authors or the best guesses at what the authors would have wrote as I don’t think anyone believes that Adam, which they are arguing is a metaphorical entity anyway, wrote a book and it was preserved by people and yet the texts date to the same era as the other works of the Gnostics.
The denial of the Bible will ultimately lead to a stalemate in the texts where one cannot win over the other and the winner would be a combination of logic and trust in one or the other, and my bias will lean to the Bible being true. However, I will still attempt to the best of my ability to view the opposing viewpoint and discuss as many logical conclusions that can be drawn from the text and how it could be true. For an example of my notes so far, the concept that the book is a metaphor falls apart a bit when dealing with the characters from the Bible and then putting them in a completely different story than what is presented in the Bible, becoming a curated place for your own narrative… yet things still do not compute in such cases as the metaphorical implications of the divine mind beings that come down and save a portion of humanity from the Flood outside Noah’s ark.
This makes no literal sense in that should that be the case, why didn’t those beings save Noah and deny the evil god of the material world the leverage for an eternal servant. It also makes no metaphorical sense in that this is a form of inherited racial superiority of a hidden race as the mind beings chose to reject the descendants of the metaphorical Noah, meaning the people that the stories would promote Noah as having, which is larger than the Jewish population, including peoples all over the Middle East, Cyprus, many African lands, possibly Greece, and Russia. From there the Biblical text focuses on the Mediterranean area, but the conclusions of this is that many people could be descendants of Noah as Biblically acknowledged, and if the text is to be fully believe, all people are, then the response is that most people are disposable to the divine mind as only the chosen by divine mind grace are worthy to be kept from the evil god of the material world.
Metaphorically, this might just be an expression of how the world is typically not concerned with matters of the mind and instead worried about the physical, but it logically implies superiority of those that are one with Gnosis and the damnation of those that are not, equating them to a God that hates the world it made and the people therein. Somehow has the potential to be even worse than the most self-righteous of Christians, which is displayed in the presenter concluding not only are Christians wrong, but the founders worship death and suffering and promote it against the wishes of Christ, and those today that follow it are like them in service to this version of God proclaimed to be true.
In my breakdown I will go over as many implications I can possibly over the resulting theology that comes from a God that is actually Satan and how that would have effected a literal history, a Biblical narrative, the world today, and metaphorical considerations to cover my bases. Unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time with other commitments, but I will still work on this and finish it despite the length of time that elapses.
Banned texts, works of Biblical criticism, and otherwise deemed heretical books are all work a look in the Bible study thread. Just know that the ultimate conclusion might not be completely satisfactory as it will ultimately be judged by not only merit, but if the Bible supports the narrative presented.
In the case of Gnosticism, it argues the Bible is completely wrong and the texts they provide are both secret information from the authors or the best guesses at what the authors would have wrote as I don’t think anyone believes that Adam, which they are arguing is a metaphorical entity anyway, wrote a book and it was preserved by people and yet the texts date to the same era as the other works of the Gnostics.
The denial of the Bible will ultimately lead to a stalemate in the texts where one cannot win over the other and the winner would be a combination of logic and trust in one or the other, and my bias will lean to the Bible being true. However, I will still attempt to the best of my ability to view the opposing viewpoint and discuss as many logical conclusions that can be drawn from the text and how it could be true. For an example of my notes so far, the concept that the book is a metaphor falls apart a bit when dealing with the characters from the Bible and then putting them in a completely different story than what is presented in the Bible, becoming a curated place for your own narrative… yet things still do not compute in such cases as the metaphorical implications of the divine mind beings that come down and save a portion of humanity from the Flood outside Noah’s ark.
This makes no literal sense in that should that be the case, why didn’t those beings save Noah and deny the evil god of the material world the leverage for an eternal servant. It also makes no metaphorical sense in that this is a form of inherited racial superiority of a hidden race as the mind beings chose to reject the descendants of the metaphorical Noah, meaning the people that the stories would promote Noah as having, which is larger than the Jewish population, including peoples all over the Middle East, Cyprus, many African lands, possibly Greece, and Russia. From there the Biblical text focuses on the Mediterranean area, but the conclusions of this is that many people could be descendants of Noah as Biblically acknowledged, and if the text is to be fully believe, all people are, then the response is that most people are disposable to the divine mind as only the chosen by divine mind grace are worthy to be kept from the evil god of the material world.
Metaphorically, this might just be an expression of how the world is typically not concerned with matters of the mind and instead worried about the physical, but it logically implies superiority of those that are one with Gnosis and the damnation of those that are not, equating them to a God that hates the world it made and the people therein. Somehow has the potential to be even worse than the most self-righteous of Christians, which is displayed in the presenter concluding not only are Christians wrong, but the founders worship death and suffering and promote it against the wishes of Christ, and those today that follow it are like them in service to this version of God proclaimed to be true.
In my breakdown I will go over as many implications I can possibly over the resulting theology that comes from a God that is actually Satan and how that would have effected a literal history, a Biblical narrative, the world today, and metaphorical considerations to cover my bases. Unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time with other commitments, but I will still work on this and finish it despite the length of time that elapses.
Hey what if "Noah made an ark to get his family and 2 of every animal away from the flood" is a metaphor for "Noah made a boat and left the civilization he knew was destined for societal collapse, and he brought enough animals to eat during the journey"?
File (): 57B71ACD28C3773FF99175CE3B6E056E-324491.png
(316.9 KB, 500x500, what-if-zelda-was-a-oirl-memeself-haha-what-if-29986787.png)
>>5319
I agree with many of your points, and since this is a bit of a preamble I'll wait until your thorough analysis.
I will point out as a caveat though: there are portions of the Bible - mostly (not exclusively) Old Testament - that present historical 'records' that have since been proven impossibly inaccurate. Mostly these pertain to archeological finds and the times/dates of civilizations, but there are many events purported by the Bible that simply could not have occurred at the place, time, or involving the individuals claimed, historically.
What Im saying (and Im NOT one of the 'throw the damn thing out cuz its historically inaccurate) is that one should appreciate that in spite of the MANY truths it conveys, the book cannot be said to be 100% literal and accurate, though I appreciate that your bias leans in that direction.
My bias is toward the idea that Jesus (who/whenever he WAS [cuz he was]) was more akin to what was depicted in the Gospel of Thomas, and that what has become orthodox (at the expense of millennia of genocide of anyone who disagreed, by the church) was and is as political as it was for Constantine to adopt the Christian movement (at the time) to aid him in winning wars and amassing power.
The Gospel of Jesus (nevermind the historical accuracy issues) attempts to portray a scenario in which the individuals in question (mostly the apostles) are without agenda, desire, motivation, or basic human psychology, unless otherwise stated, and the only people ever claimed to be fallible (read: artifice) are the 'bad guys', who themselves are basically cartoonish caricatures.
Not trying to rewrite the story, but the interview with Pilate was especially bad, when at-the-time Roman law is considered (Jews had no supremacy, nor the authority to charge anyone with heresy, and they would have been thrown out of court for trying).
Rambling, Ill stop.
>>5321
Your question is as moronic as this image
I agree with many of your points, and since this is a bit of a preamble I'll wait until your thorough analysis.
I will point out as a caveat though: there are portions of the Bible - mostly (not exclusively) Old Testament - that present historical 'records' that have since been proven impossibly inaccurate. Mostly these pertain to archeological finds and the times/dates of civilizations, but there are many events purported by the Bible that simply could not have occurred at the place, time, or involving the individuals claimed, historically.
What Im saying (and Im NOT one of the 'throw the damn thing out cuz its historically inaccurate) is that one should appreciate that in spite of the MANY truths it conveys, the book cannot be said to be 100% literal and accurate, though I appreciate that your bias leans in that direction.
My bias is toward the idea that Jesus (who/whenever he WAS [cuz he was]) was more akin to what was depicted in the Gospel of Thomas, and that what has become orthodox (at the expense of millennia of genocide of anyone who disagreed, by the church) was and is as political as it was for Constantine to adopt the Christian movement (at the time) to aid him in winning wars and amassing power.
The Gospel of Jesus (nevermind the historical accuracy issues) attempts to portray a scenario in which the individuals in question (mostly the apostles) are without agenda, desire, motivation, or basic human psychology, unless otherwise stated, and the only people ever claimed to be fallible (read: artifice) are the 'bad guys', who themselves are basically cartoonish caricatures.
Not trying to rewrite the story, but the interview with Pilate was especially bad, when at-the-time Roman law is considered (Jews had no supremacy, nor the authority to charge anyone with heresy, and they would have been thrown out of court for trying).
Rambling, Ill stop.
>>5321
Your question is as moronic as this image
>>5324
The reason the court happened was to quell rebellion. The Romans had found Jesus not a threat, but the threat was the Jewish population which had crowded and started chanting to kill Jesus. Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome. We know a Jewish rebellion did occur just a few decades later, meaning there was good cause to take the case and an attempt was made at appeasing them by releasing Christ and not a murderer, but the crowd decided the reverse.
The reason the Jews couldn't kill anyone was the loss of capital punishment. If they killed without government approval, they could be tried themselves for breaking chain of command with possible rebellious intent. Therefore, it makes sense that they would leverage the religious celebration of the Passover to squeeze by a heresy charge, while the most people were occupying Jerusalem as well, having the most explosive potential to start a rebellion.
There is no other way it could have played out except secret assassination, which was possible, but if ever traced back to them would be their undoing. It isn't like Jesus' entrance and presence in the city was a secret, and there was a religious celebration. Him turning up dead by the people that wanted Him dead would be public knowledge and rumors would reach the authorities.
The reason the court happened was to quell rebellion. The Romans had found Jesus not a threat, but the threat was the Jewish population which had crowded and started chanting to kill Jesus. Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome. We know a Jewish rebellion did occur just a few decades later, meaning there was good cause to take the case and an attempt was made at appeasing them by releasing Christ and not a murderer, but the crowd decided the reverse.
The reason the Jews couldn't kill anyone was the loss of capital punishment. If they killed without government approval, they could be tried themselves for breaking chain of command with possible rebellious intent. Therefore, it makes sense that they would leverage the religious celebration of the Passover to squeeze by a heresy charge, while the most people were occupying Jerusalem as well, having the most explosive potential to start a rebellion.
There is no other way it could have played out except secret assassination, which was possible, but if ever traced back to them would be their undoing. It isn't like Jesus' entrance and presence in the city was a secret, and there was a religious celebration. Him turning up dead by the people that wanted Him dead would be public knowledge and rumors would reach the authorities.
File (): 7B7D22E0247E699B6554280DFEA5481B-1817125.png
(1.7 MB, 999x1232, 1649936672899.png)
>>5328
>Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome
Except thats false. Jews were not so numerous - even in jerusalem - that they threatened the Roman empire thats absurd. Additionally, Roman law permitted all manner of religious practice and did not view other forms of religion as heretical, so the idea that Romans wefe threatened by Jesus is equally absurd. Pilate, having no impetus to favor, coddle, or go easy on 'the mob' had Roman soldiers at his disposal, and could have had any uppity jews in cages or worse, with a gesture.
The authors of the new testament didnt know Roman law, and the portrayal we are give is - as I said - cartoonish and so absurd that Im surprised no one is seen twirling a mustache.
You may recall this post... I struggle to find it.
Anyway, Ill repost it in the bar.
>>>/sp/5332 →
The point of my posting the video is the citations of Roman law and how it was applied. Romans hardly cared for the jews, who were just one small (comparatively) group in a multi-continental empire. The jews didnt even have VOTING rights.
>Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome
Except thats false. Jews were not so numerous - even in jerusalem - that they threatened the Roman empire thats absurd. Additionally, Roman law permitted all manner of religious practice and did not view other forms of religion as heretical, so the idea that Romans wefe threatened by Jesus is equally absurd. Pilate, having no impetus to favor, coddle, or go easy on 'the mob' had Roman soldiers at his disposal, and could have had any uppity jews in cages or worse, with a gesture.
The authors of the new testament didnt know Roman law, and the portrayal we are give is - as I said - cartoonish and so absurd that Im surprised no one is seen twirling a mustache.
You may recall this post... I struggle to find it.
Anyway, Ill repost it in the bar.
>>>/sp/5332 →
The point of my posting the video is the citations of Roman law and how it was applied. Romans hardly cared for the jews, who were just one small (comparatively) group in a multi-continental empire. The jews didnt even have VOTING rights.
File (): C8E498E63363B69C96EF50F5BB6CF843-17499311.mp4
(16.7 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:01:56, Ivdea Delenda Est.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
>>5333
Perhaps you misunderstood. I affirmed the Jews had no right, which is why they were not allowed to carry out an execution. This is why they pressured Romans to do it.
You are absolutely wrong about Jewish concentrations on Passover. We know this from the rebellion that occurred during the Jewish-Roman war of which a quick wiki search revealed:
"According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem and 100,000 in Galilee; 97,000 enslaved."
Non-combatants being rebel peasants of course. Even accounting for exaggeration, we learn that "number exceeds the entire pre-siege population of Jerusalem. Many of the casualties were observant Jews from across the world such as Babylon and Egypt who had travelled to Jerusalem wanting to celebrate the yearly Passover but instead got trapped in the chaotic siege". Hmm... it's like a big celebration that brings in a big Jewish population of Jews that might start some shit during a rebellion. Even if we only look at the official combatants at 30,000, that is 30,000 more than nothing if you execute one man, as it is not in the best interests of Roman to have a rebellion when the alternative is just to kill the heretic on the religious celebration and appease the Jewish peasantry until they go back home. It would have been the head of the regional authorities that were put in charge to contain rebellions against the throne. Failing in that manner would cost Rome time, money, and lives. The Jews knew this and applied pressure to have this one trial occur. I know a wiki isn't a great source and the Jews like to boost their casualty count, but it does confirm the celebration brought in enough forces to overwhelm the local guard and more needed to be brought from mainland. This rules out being able to arrest the Jewish authority as that would be seen as a hostile takeover against the agreed terms allowing for their existence and would launch a rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)
We know the Roman authorities tried to pass it off to Herod to deal with, but the Pharisees simply returned with a crowd that chanted for the death of the man. To ignore that request would to be sentenced for having to inconvenience Rome with putting down the rebellion in your place as well as divert attention and funds from homeland projects and defense from barbarian invasion. I don't have to know the intricacies of Roman law to know economic factors such as war was not exactly desired, else there would be no regional authority they could have even met with. We can thus conclude that the law had little power in the face of a looming rebellion and pressure was applied to both sides of the conflict which allowed the trial of Jesus to proceed as displayed in Scripture.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I affirmed the Jews had no right, which is why they were not allowed to carry out an execution. This is why they pressured Romans to do it.
You are absolutely wrong about Jewish concentrations on Passover. We know this from the rebellion that occurred during the Jewish-Roman war of which a quick wiki search revealed:
"According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem and 100,000 in Galilee; 97,000 enslaved."
Non-combatants being rebel peasants of course. Even accounting for exaggeration, we learn that "number exceeds the entire pre-siege population of Jerusalem. Many of the casualties were observant Jews from across the world such as Babylon and Egypt who had travelled to Jerusalem wanting to celebrate the yearly Passover but instead got trapped in the chaotic siege". Hmm... it's like a big celebration that brings in a big Jewish population of Jews that might start some shit during a rebellion. Even if we only look at the official combatants at 30,000, that is 30,000 more than nothing if you execute one man, as it is not in the best interests of Roman to have a rebellion when the alternative is just to kill the heretic on the religious celebration and appease the Jewish peasantry until they go back home. It would have been the head of the regional authorities that were put in charge to contain rebellions against the throne. Failing in that manner would cost Rome time, money, and lives. The Jews knew this and applied pressure to have this one trial occur. I know a wiki isn't a great source and the Jews like to boost their casualty count, but it does confirm the celebration brought in enough forces to overwhelm the local guard and more needed to be brought from mainland. This rules out being able to arrest the Jewish authority as that would be seen as a hostile takeover against the agreed terms allowing for their existence and would launch a rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)
We know the Roman authorities tried to pass it off to Herod to deal with, but the Pharisees simply returned with a crowd that chanted for the death of the man. To ignore that request would to be sentenced for having to inconvenience Rome with putting down the rebellion in your place as well as divert attention and funds from homeland projects and defense from barbarian invasion. I don't have to know the intricacies of Roman law to know economic factors such as war was not exactly desired, else there would be no regional authority they could have even met with. We can thus conclude that the law had little power in the face of a looming rebellion and pressure was applied to both sides of the conflict which allowed the trial of Jesus to proceed as displayed in Scripture.
File (): 4EFF3A5C536DF528A7B78B75326652D3-79360.jpg
(77.5 KB, 768x570, E85B6FC6-C1C0-41FC-B13E-CC3B3E593B59.webp)
File (): 571A4FB738B89F238A13D66C3BD0358C-74457.jpg
(72.7 KB, 534x300, ECF4B8E9-08E3-4A48-BDF1-C873DEAD85CF_4_5005_c.jpeg)
>Very few people that are aware of who the GOD of this world really is - David Pawson
>Demon translate to "inferior deity".. Satan is the GOD of this world. He is not the true God.
>David Pawson talk.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JzPgqeMDr2Cs/
I believe this was posted before.
>Demon translate to "inferior deity".. Satan is the GOD of this world. He is not the true God.
>David Pawson talk.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JzPgqeMDr2Cs/
I believe this was posted before.
File (): 8269CBB12FD18B9F4653D1724434E4FA-242002.jpg
(236.3 KB, 450x560, 78A88D47-1ECD-43F3-AA9B-DE3A820F2B53.jpeg)
File (): 97BDB5050E253F711FE771369DC47DD1-1921385.mp4
(1.8 MB, Resolution:720x1280 Length:00:00:26, fccb4757c721627d265a6acc53fea7b987c54b9b13801926ae06cb581cdd4f65.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
[Reply]
[Last 50 Posts]
[Last 100 Posts]
[Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-400] [401-500] [501-568] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
568 replies |
215 files |
129 UUIDs |
Page 1