Bibleguys - My Journey These Past Couple of Years (1 Viewer)

[beer 30]

.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- God was born on earth and spent approximately 30 years living like anything other human in a middle class family

- Then spent approximately 3 years spreading his message

- Then spent one day being crucified with the ability to block out pain entirely

Where's the sacrifice?

I think you're changing the story here. The story is that he suffers and antagonizes throughout right up until the end. That is why the 'why have you forsaken me' and 'temptation in the desert scenes are so important.

If CE2 ever comes back I do think that is one very important difference between the OT - and koranic - message in that old school prophets like David and Solomon were true kings who took God's favor and became rulers and wealthy. That's not what was being offered here.

The koranic story of the Satanic Verses is extremely interesting in that light - Mohammed is offered a deal whereby he agrees to return to worshiping the pagan gods (Al-Lat, etc.) and he will have his people do so also, in return for peace (amnesty) and favorable trading, and later when he renegs on that (or his tribal rivals do) his reason is that the devil tricked him into that or he had made a deal with him which he reneged on. That is (literally) a hell of a thing. At any rate the koran seems like a return to that OT semitic concept of gods rewarding the faithful in very real material ways. That is definitely not the message of the Bible. The hero ends up tortured, publicly humiliated and dead on a cross as a traitor to the state.

 

[shader]

There was a struggle between the judaic/hebraic and hellenized/romanized early Christians, it's an open debate which camp Peter fell into, but my impression was that he leaned more to the traditional hebraic side with James whereas Paul was always clearly of the other.

In that chapter, it's quite clear which camp Peter fell into. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Acts 10, Peters vision re:unclean foods?

Peter arguably mediates between the two throughout Acts, it's probably a good reason he became the first Pope.

 

[Da Guru]

Being born and raised a Catholic, then falling out in the church in my early 20s and my wife doing the same I tried to research many things to see if I could find something when my kids were little.  Ended up reading many books including the bible and books that included the muslim and jewish faiths background and history.   I came away actually more disenchanted with religion than I was before. The more I studied the more it seemed like I was reading fairy tales.  I mean that with all due respect as I do not want to offend others who believe.  It is my personal opinion.  Also the fact that I have many friends of all faiths and some of the most "religious" are they biggest phonies that I know.  They use it only when it suits them.

It was at that time my wife and I decided just to try and lead a good life, be respectful and treat others around us as we would like to be treated. We have raised our children that same way and they have turned out great.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Being born and raised a Catholic, them falling out in the church in my early 20s and my wife doing the same I tried to research many things to see if I could find something when my kids were little.  Ended up reading many books including the bible and books that included the muslim and jewish faiths background and history.   I came away actually more disenchanted with religion than I was before. The more I studied the more it seemed like I was reading fairy tales.  I mean that with all due respect as I do not want to offend others who believe.  It is my personal opinion.  Also the fact that I have many friends of all faiths and some of the most "religious" are they biggest phonies that I know.  They use it only when it suits them.

It was at that time my wife and I decided just to try and lead a good life, be respectful and treat others around us as we would like to be treated. We have raised our children that same way and they have turned out great.

I think there is something embedded in the human spirit that requires meditation and a place to do it, to put things in context and provide perspective and a means to create your own philosophy towards life. If you go to the great churches of Europe or the old temple sites (like in Rome, Athens) you can see that. This is one reason I stopped giving people a hard time about religion a long time ago, it's very quite possible it works in any fashion a person wants to employ it because at a minimum it provides mental, emotional and spiritual solace. If the details of the story (whichever story) are toio much for some to bear, so be it, off you go then.

 

[Jayrok]

My reading of that doesn't lend me to the same conclusion (that it was gentile believers only, not Jewish), but since the vast majority of Christians today are "gentiles", then if your reading is correct, the dietary laws wouldn't be necessary for us today.

Acts 15 addresses the issue (that came up at the Council at Jerusalem) of gentile believers who are turning to God.  There were Jews who claimed the gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the laws of Moses or else they cannot be saved (Acts 15:1; 15:5).  Both Peter and James spoke up on the subject.  James said that in his judgment, they shouldn't make it difficult for the gentiles who are now believers.  Peter basically said the same.  The letter sent back to Antioch was for the gentile believers.  Interestingly, if the Jewish leaders believed the laws of Moses were no longer valid for the Jewish members, they might have argued with the "certain people from Judea" (15:1) and the Pharisee believers (15:5) about how silly they were being.  Peter acknowledged that the laws were a yoke that was hard to bear (15:10), but it was a Jewish yoke to bear, not one the gentiles should have to bear.  

Yes, the dietary laws would not be necessary for Christian believers today.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am impressed by the apparent depth of scholarship some here have on the bible.

 

[mr roboto]

In that chapter, it's quite clear which camp Peter fell into. 

Yes, God showed him that the new covenant was open to all, and in doing so, opened his eyes to the universal nature of the church. The Judizers were a destructive force among the early church. 

May only point is, again, something changed. CE is rightly challenging dispensationalism but to act as if there's nothing 'new' about the new covenant isn't correct. 

 

[Jayrok]

Acts 10, Peters vision re:unclean foods?

Peter's vision of the sheet of meats was used as a metaphor for Jews associating with gentiles in their homes.  It wasn't about Peter eating pork or shellfish in Cornelius' house.  The context of the chapter and the next is how God was preparing Peter to go into Cornelius' house and give them a message that will save them.  Thus, the beginning of gentiles coming into the faith.  

In Acts 10:28, Peter explains the vision in context.  28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

God showed Peter that it is okay that he visits a gentile's household in His name, even though it was against the law.  Peter goes on to explain himself to the Jewish believers and apostles in chapter 11.  Again, he doesn't have to explain why he ate non-kosher foods because he didn't.  That subject never came up, because it was absurd.  He explained why he visited the gentile on behalf of the faith.  He said the vision from God persuaded him to go visit Cornelius.  The apostles had no further objections (11:18) and praised God.  

Eating restricted foods never came up because it wasn't the context of the vision.  

 

[culdeus]

I think there is something embedded in the human spirit that requires meditation and a place to do it, to put things in context and provide perspective and a means to create your own philosophy towards life. If you go to the great churches of Europe or the old temple sites (like in Rome, Athens) you can see that. This is one reason I stopped giving people a hard time about religion a long time ago, it's very quite possible it works in any fashion a person wants to employ it because at a minimum it provides mental, emotional and spiritual solace. If the details of the story (whichever story) are toio much for some to bear, so be it, off you go then.

Of course,  meditation releases dopamine which is critical for sleep, sleep is critical for life function and repair of cells.  It's certainly not by accident every religion man has ever come up with has had some prayer or meditation element to it.  Some get addicted to this feeling to the point of it being a source of endorphin not unlike heroin.  It's important up to the point where you try to force it on me through stupid laws, deny science, or blow people up in the name of your own flavor of dopamine release.  

 

[cstu]

I think you're changing the story here. The story is that he suffers and antagonizes throughout right up until the end. That is why the 'why have you forsaken me' and 'temptation in the desert scenes are so important.

If CE2 ever comes back I do think that is one very important difference between the OT - and koranic - message in that old school prophets like David and Solomon were true kings who took God's favor and became rulers and wealthy. That's not what was being offered here.

The koranic story of the Satanic Verses is extremely interesting in that light - Mohammed is offered a deal whereby he agrees to return to worshiping the pagan gods (Al-Lat, etc.) and he will have his people do so also, in return for peace (amnesty) and favorable trading, and later when he renegs on that (or his tribal rivals do) his reason is that the devil tricked him into that or he had made a deal with him which he reneged on. That is (literally) a hell of a thing. At any rate the koran seems like a return to that OT semitic concept of gods rewarding the faithful in very real material ways. That is definitely not the message of the Bible. The hero ends up tortured, publicly humiliated and dead on a cross as a traitor to the state.

What's the correct story - was he God or not?  If he actually suffered and asked why God had forsaken him then he can't be God himself, can he?  On the other hand if you assume that God created him as a human separate from himself (like Adam and Eve) then what made him any different than other humans?

 

[DocHolliday]

I am impressed by the apparent depth of scholarship some here have on the bible.

I was thinking the same thing. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What's the correct story - was he God or not?  If he actually suffered and asked why God had forsaken him then he can't be God himself, can he?  On the other hand if you assume that God created him as a human separate from himself (like Adam and Eve) then what made him any different than other humans?

That was debated for roughly 200 years before the Council of Nicea. I can't recall all the schools but they were primarily: God and Jesus as one, God and Jesus as two separate but both divine, and God and Jesus as separate but God solely divine and Jesus purely man. There was also a manichean theory (think the Matrix) whereby Jesus is sort of a conduit who connects the world between the earthly and divine and reveals all. And later of course there was the Trinity (where you have the Holy Ghost acting as the conduit). And you also have the Cathars and their beliefs (later in the middle ages), which were closer to manichean. Which path you go down tells you where you will land on your question.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Of course,  meditation releases dopamine which is critical for sleep, sleep is critical for life function and repair of cells.  It's certainly not by accident every religion man has ever come up with has had some prayer or meditation element to it.  Some get addicted to this feeling to the point of it being a source of endorphin not unlike heroin.  It's important up to the point where you try to force it on me through stupid laws, deny science, or blow people up in the name of your own flavor of dopamine release.  

Sure. I have no idea if CE2 ever returns to his own thread but I think we're talking religion in the best light. I think CE2's point was expressing a personal POV where he connects the NT back to the OT as one long era of revelation, which goes by the term dispensationalism. I think there are other threads that talk about the worth or value of religion vs the negative aspects. I guess what I was saying to Guru is that there is potentially real intrinsic value to religion regardless if one absolutely has total faith (or even any) in whatever any given book or teacher someone follows says. Is there value in Hinduism if someone say sits on a mat and chants and clears their mind? Yeah, I'd say so even if you do not buy the stories about the gods and heroes that often go with it. I doubt George Harrison believed in all that. Meanwhile you've got Hindu nationalists who like to do pogroms on muslim towns or neighborhoods every so often. Same religion gives us that and Gandhi.

 

[mr roboto]

Well I'm one of those seminary dropouts... 60 credits worth. 

For me I simply realized that I didn't want to/wasn't mature enough to/wasn't called to be a minister. So an MDiv is good for pastoral ministry, or to go on to PhD work, neither of which I intended to do in the short term. 

But I think I've posted before about my agnostic/nearly atheistic struggles of faith while in seminary. That was a very tough time of my life. 

 

[shader]

Peter's vision of the sheet of meats was used as a metaphor for Jews associating with gentiles in their homes.  It wasn't about Peter eating pork or shellfish in Cornelius' house.  The context of the chapter and the next is how God was preparing Peter to go into Cornelius' house and give them a message that will save them.  Thus, the beginning of gentiles coming into the faith.  

In Acts 10:28, Peter explains the vision in context.  28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

God showed Peter that it is okay that he visits a gentile's household in His name, even though it was against the law.  Peter goes on to explain himself to the Jewish believers and apostles in chapter 11.  Again, he doesn't have to explain why he ate non-kosher foods because he didn't.  That subject never came up, because it was absurd.  He explained why he visited the gentile on behalf of the faith.  He said the vision from God persuaded him to go visit Cornelius.  The apostles had no further objections (11:18) and praised God.  

Eating restricted foods never came up because it wasn't the context of the vision.  

This is a pretty interesting sidebar, and one I'm going to do some research on when I get some time.  Not necessarily one that means much for today as we are all "gentiles", but still interesting.  I'll provide feedback in a day or two, probably when everyone has moved on and doesn't care anymore.

 

[shader]

That was debated for roughly 200 years before the Council of Nicea. I can't recall all the schools but they were primarily: God and Jesus as one, God and Jesus as two separate but both divine, and God and Jesus as separate but God solely divine and Jesus purely man. There was also a manichean theory (think the Matrix) whereby Jesus is sort of a conduit who connects the world between the earthly and divine and reveals all. And later of course there was the Trinity (where you have the Holy Ghost acting as the conduit). And you also have the Cathars and their beliefs (later in the middle ages), which were closer to manichean. Which path you go down tells you where you will land on your question.

This is where things get crazy, imo.  It's obvious to anyone that all of the above theories can't be right.  Either one of them is right, or none of them is right. Ultimately there is a truth.  Whether we ever figure that out, I'm sure we all will disagree on that one, but there is a truth.  Either God exists or he doesn't.  And if he does exist, there is a certain truth regarding him, and everything else is false.  Jesus was a man.  I can think of only four possible scenarios (that are commonly believed) regarding Jesus.  Either he didn't exist, he did exist and was just an ordinary man, he did exist and was God's son that was sent to earth, or he was God himself.  One of these must be true, imo.  

So the question is where do you go to get the truth?  Do you investigate all of the different theories regarding Jesus' divine nature and pick the one that gained common acceptance or the one you were taught?  Or do you go to the bible and figure out what the bible actually said, and not concern yourself with what "religion X" teaches?  Crosseyed, to his credit, appears to be doing the latter.  He's putting aside religion and dogma, digging into the bible, and figuring out what it says.  That's huge and if he does that with no preconceived ideas, I think he'll find the answers he's looking for.

Some people absolutely hate that there are so many different beliefs regarding what's in the bible.  You can see by looking at some of the comments in here that this confusion affects people as they are trying to form their beliefs, often in a negative way.  But the fact that there are many different beliefs, is quite irrelevant to what the truth is on the matter.

As a (probably poor) analogy, I give you global warming.  Here's a topic that is widely debated.  We have people who think it's cyclical, people who think it's man-made, people who think it's a mix of both, and people who deny the whole thing.  Some get so confused they throw their hands up and move on, thinking it's way above their abilities.  Other's investigate the subject with fervor and are 100 times more knowledgeable on the subject than someone like me.  I'm of a different sort in that I feel that it's quite obvious that something crazy is happening with the weather and climate, and I think it's highly likely that man could cause it, but I don't feel I have any power to affect change, nor is it something that's high on my list of concerns in life.  

But the bottom line is that no matter what your beliefs are on global warming, there's an ultimate truth that will in all likelihood get figured out one day, regardless of how many different set of beliefs there currently are surrounding it.

I'm of the belief that in a similar way, one day there will be a time when all these beliefs surrounding Jesus, God and the trinity will get cleared up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Peter's vision of the sheet of meats was used as a metaphor for Jews associating with gentiles in their homes.  It wasn't about Peter eating pork or shellfish in Cornelius' house.  The context of the chapter and the next is how God was preparing Peter to go into Cornelius' house and give them a message that will save them.  Thus, the beginning of gentiles coming into the faith.  

In Acts 10:28, Peter explains the vision in context.  28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

God showed Peter that it is okay that he visits a gentile's household in His name, even though it was against the law.  Peter goes on to explain himself to the Jewish believers and apostles in chapter 11.  Again, he doesn't have to explain why he ate non-kosher foods because he didn't.  That subject never came up, because it was absurd.  He explained why he visited the gentile on behalf of the faith.  He said the vision from God persuaded him to go visit Cornelius.  The apostles had no further objections (11:18) and praised God.  

Eating restricted foods never came up because it wasn't the context of the vision.  

This is what I meant about Peter as mediator. In the beginning of the story he's obviously shown as a devout Jew. Later he overcomes that in an effort to expand the message to the Gentile. He's devout so he has the bona fides but he also sees the need to expand the message beyond the core group. This was a guy who could talk to both groups and was respected by both.

 

[The Commish]

I don't have anything to offer you CE other than to say, don't stray too far away from your church community.  I've documented here what it did to me and it wasn't fun and certainly wasn't fruitful.  I realized, I can struggle in the company of a pretty good security blanket and that's better than struggling alone.  For all the believers in Christ take for being "brainwashed" or "simple thinkers" etc, threads like this should be clear those are the vocal exception rather than the rule.

Best of luck to you as you search.  It's a very rewarding process in the end, even if it doesn't seem like it in the moment.

 

[Mister CIA]

Being born and raised a Catholic, then falling out in the church in my early 20s and my wife doing the same I tried to research many things to see if I could find something when my kids were little.  Ended up reading many books including the bible and books that included the muslim and jewish faiths background and history.   I came away actually more disenchanted with religion than I was before. The more I studied the more it seemed like I was reading fairy tales.  I mean that with all due respect as I do not want to offend others who believe.  It is my personal opinion.  Also the fact that I have many friends of all faiths and some of the most "religious" are they biggest phonies that I know.  They use it only when it suits them.

It was at that time my wife and I decided just to try and lead a good life, be respectful and treat others around us as we would like to be treated. We have raised our children that same way and they have turned out great.

Same here. Christianity is indistinguishable from Dungeons and Dragons to my non-scholarly mind. Veering slightly, it's peculiar that atheists and Christians implicitly agree that the words of Jesus Christ are insufficient material upon which to rest one's beliefs, as witnessed in this thread.

 

[dgreen]

There was no "snark" or sarcasm here.. I can understand how it may have seemed that way - but it wasn't meant so.

Progress!

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Protestants put up Christmas trees and tell their children about the Easter bunny too, right?

Yes, they do. And by bringing those practices with them, we were perpetrators of the same evil. I've done it too. But no longer, now that I understand their roots and that worshiping God in that way is not pleasing to Him.

Poor kids.

 

[shader]

I don't have anything to offer you CE other than to say, don't stray too far away from your church community.  I've documented here what it did to me and it wasn't fun and certainly wasn't fruitful.  I realized, I can struggle in the company of a pretty good security blanket and that's better than struggling alone.  For all the believers in Christ take for being "brainwashed" or "simple thinkers" etc, threads like this should be clear those are the vocal exception rather than the rule.

Best of luck to you as you search.  It's a very rewarding process in the end, even if it doesn't seem like it in the moment.

I have no idea if CE is experiencing this, but when you look at a few of the things he believes, he's likely unable to express his opinions any longer without facing criticism.  For instance, he's mentioned that he feels that holidays have pagan origins and may be displeasing to God.  He's also expressed the opinion that the dietary restrictions imposed on the Jews are still in effect. 

I'm not saying I have a good answer, but from what I've seen, it's very difficult for a person to remain in a religious setting when you are fundamentally at odds with others when it comes to your beliefs.  Either you hide how you really feel, which isn't very fulfilling, or you talk about your beliefs openly, which can lead to ridicule.

 

[shader]

Same here. Christianity is indistinguishable from Dungeons and Dragons to my non-scholarly mind. Veering slightly, it's peculiar that atheists and Christians implicitly agree that the words of Jesus Christ are insufficient material upon which to rest one's beliefs, as witnessed in this thread.

How so?

 

[shader]

Poor kids.

I'm sure they can get their Xbox on a different date and still be just fine.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Same here. Christianity is indistinguishable from Dungeons and Dragons to my non-scholarly mind. Veering slightly, it's peculiar that atheists and Christians implicitly agree that the words of Jesus Christ are insufficient material upon which to rest one's beliefs, as witnessed in this thread.

Dam skippy. The red words, man. Except for that troublesome "but through me" for the heaven-seekers,  the red words is all you need. The rest is scary stories and ad copy.

 

[The Commish]

I have no idea if CE is experiencing this, but when you look at a few of the things he believes, he's likely unable to express his opinions any longer without facing criticism.  For instance, he's mentioned that he feels that holidays have pagan origins and may be displeasing to God.  He's also expressed the opinion that the dietary restrictions imposed on the Jews are still in effect. 

I'm not saying I have a good answer, but from what I've seen, it's very difficult for a person to remain in a religious setting when you are fundamentally at odds with others when it comes to your beliefs.  Either you hide how you really feel, which isn't very fulfilling, or you talk about your beliefs openly, which can lead to ridicule.

When you find yourself in a place where everyone agrees with everyone else, it's probably best to move on   Being challenged is healthy and necessary in one's quest to understand God's teachings.  Yeah, he'll be challenged and he'll also be able to challenge others.  It's when everyone is apathetic and just agrees (because it's the easy path) that problems arise.  My  

 

[dhockster]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but my one word of advice for you is don't let your disdain for institutional Christianity become an idol for you to obsess over. In other words don't let that one thing become more important than serving others and showing others the love of Christ that he showed for us.

 

[Juxtatarot]

  During our candid discussions, I often tell him that his job is going to be nearly impossible in 10 years and will not exist in 25. 

Why?

 

[DocHolliday]

Why?

Because many churches are shrinking and/or face tough money issues. Of course, I'm probably exaggerating when I speak with him but he gets the point. 

 

[Psychopav]

Those of you who have been around for a while are probably familiar with my past postings here. I was always a staunch defender of Christianity and the church. I was a pastor for 8 years, and served in ministry full-time for another three years. 

But over the last couple of years, and especially the past year, I've learned a lot of things. And one of the more surprising things I learned is that, if you want to truly learn what the Bible teaches, you probably have to get away from the church. 

Now I'm not talking about salvation by grace through the death and resurrection of Christ. That part they get. But the rest of it? The church has thoroughly mangled the truth of God's word. Most Christians can't really understand the New Testament properly because they are so uninformed about the Old Testament. 

The biggest problem, in my opinion? Dispensationalism.  Not understanding that there is no distinction between Israel (the people, not the current nation) and the church has led to a myriad of unbiblical teachings. The church didn't start at Pentecost in the first century, the church started at Sinai when Yahweh gave Moses the commandments. That's when Yahweh, the bridegroom, married Israel, the bride. Then, because of her unfaithfulness, Yahweh divorced the northern kingdom, the house of Isreal. The northern 10 tribes were scattered throughout the world. Yet God promised that He would bring her back. But how could that happen, His own law says that once a bride is given a certificate of divorce and defiles herself, the first husband can never take her back. The Bible declares, in no uncertain terms, that Israel defiled herself: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore?"

So how could God ever reunite with Israel without breaking His own laws? Well, the only thing that releases one from the law of marriage/divorce is death. And that's why Yahshua had to die. His death released God from the law of marriage/divorce. So when He returns again He is free to marry His bride, Israel, once again. The bride is also made new by grace, through faith, as Paul explains in Romans 6 : "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

So the groom died, and the bride died, but both were brought back to new life. And when Yahshua returns, the Millennial Kingdom will see the reunification of the house of Israel (northern kingdom) and the house of Judah (southern kingdom) and the marriage of Yahshua (the bridegroom) and a united Israel (the bride). The unification of the house of Israel and the house of Judah is what Ezekiel is talking about in Ezekiel 37. The bones being brought to life and the two sticks coming together to form one stick are both about Yahshua's return and the millennial kingdom. And what we think of as the "church" are a group of people that includes both physical descendants of the scattered northern 10 tribes, as well as "foreigners" who choose to join themselves to Israel. Either way, we are told that believers are grafted into Israel, the olive tree. 

But you won't find these truths taught in most churches. That's the disappointing part. I had to, essentially, leave the church in order to learn the truth. I do still attend worship services because I do want my kids to learn about God from other people, not just myself and my wife. But nowhere near as consistently as I used to.

I told my wife the other day, I've never been more interested in God's word, and I've never been less interested in the institutional church. 

I would love for this thread to be a place where we could have meaningful discussions about some of the topics that the church either gets wrong, or just plain ignores.  

That's good stuff there, CE.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Following the discussion, keeping my comments to myself for now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is where things get crazy, imo.  It's obvious to anyone that all of the above theories can't be right.  Either one of them is right, or none of them is right. Ultimately there is a truth.  Whether we ever figure that out, I'm sure we all will disagree on that one, but there is a truth.  Either God exists or he doesn't.  And if he does exist, there is a certain truth regarding him, and everything else is false.  Jesus was a man.  I can think of only four possible scenarios (that are commonly believed) regarding Jesus.  Either he didn't exist, he did exist and was just an ordinary man, he did exist and was God's son that was sent to earth, or he was God himself.  One of these must be true, imo.  

So the question is where do you go to get the truth?  Do you investigate all of the different theories regarding Jesus' divine nature and pick the one that gained common acceptance or the one you were taught?  Or do you go to the bible and figure out what the bible actually said, and not concern yourself with what "religion X" teaches?  Crosseyed, to his credit, appears to be doing the latter.  He's putting aside religion and dogma, digging into the bible, and figuring out what it says.  That's huge and if he does that with no preconceived ideas, I think he'll find the answers he's looking for.

Some people absolutely hate that there are so many different beliefs regarding what's in the bible.  You can see by looking at some of the comments in here that this confusion affects people as they are trying to form their beliefs, often in a negative way.  But the fact that there are many different beliefs, is quite irrelevant to what the truth is on the matter.

I'd like to think that something that binds the atheists/skeptics here and the religious here is the quest for the Truth. So in my opinion Mat & CE are on the same plane to me.

And I think that the Garden of Eden story is endlessly fascinating as a symbolic metaphor - I'm pretty sure it predates Judaism, but it expresses some essential everlasting conflict - faith vs the search for knowledge and the truth. So for instance over-obsession with the "truth" can lead one away from faith. And this can lead to one becoming lost. I think even a scientist like Einstein had faith, he had a knowledge that there were some things he could not see. This guy was a patent clerk in a bourgeois existence in Zurich and he went on a lifelong search for the truth about physics and cosmology. To me that is very relatable to say a Joan of Arc and many of the Saints. I only say that to try to tie it all together. In religion, one can go seeking the reality of Jesus (Moses, Mohammed) and God, but do not let the conventions of the world and the details dissuade you from the bigger truth which ultimately you must choose to believe in, and to do that you must love what you are choosing and you must choose what you are going to love. So choose what you will love. And that comes from the heart and soul. And those who are lost - atheists and religious alike - are those who deny this fundamental truth.

 

[Jayrod]

No comments other than I concur with the idea that both shader & SaintsInDome expressed about the main thing being that we are all seeking the truth.  I don't think anyone can ever be 100% certain on these topics which is why it is a lifelong pursuit....almost like someone wants it that way. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

It's very interesting and something I haven't thought about.  That being said, the original disciples were all Jews, so it's very likely there were two things at play.  First, eating pork/shellfish may have been difficult in Jerusalem, as there wasn't a "market" for it, and it also was likely to be offensive to the Jews.  Second, if you've grown up your entire life thinking that pork is unclean and awful to eat, would you really change?  I mean, I doubt they desired that food.

But is there any scriptural evidence that the "people of the nations" that came in began to eat a Jewish diet?  I haven't seen any evidence of that.  In Acts 15, the circumcision issue came up, and the apostles discussed it and came up with their decision in Acts 15:28,29, I'd take that as evidence that the dietary practices weren't necessary any longer.  It could be argued that this issue was about circumcision, but I'd argue that they were in fact also referring to food by the fact that they talked about not eating blood, things strangled, etc.

It wasn't a "Jewish diet". The Jews were only one tribe of the Israelites. That's the first and most foundational thing that most people miss. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Peter's vision of the sheet of meats was used as a metaphor for Jews associating with gentiles in their homes.  It wasn't about Peter eating pork or shellfish in Cornelius' house.  The context of the chapter and the next is how God was preparing Peter to go into Cornelius' house and give them a message that will save them.  Thus, the beginning of gentiles coming into the faith.  

In Acts 10:28, Peter explains the vision in context.  28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

God showed Peter that it is okay that he visits a gentile's household in His name, even though it was against the law.  Peter goes on to explain himself to the Jewish believers and apostles in chapter 11.  Again, he doesn't have to explain why he ate non-kosher foods because he didn't.  That subject never came up, because it was absurd.  He explained why he visited the gentile on behalf of the faith.  He said the vision from God persuaded him to go visit Cornelius.  The apostles had no further objections (11:18) and praised God.  

Eating restricted foods never came up because it wasn't the context of the vision.  

Exactly. The dietary instructions were never abolished. 

Is it a salvational issue? No, it's a love and obedience issue.

 

[CrossEyed2]

Here is a key point that the church has hidden/ignored/missed. The "Gentiles" in the NT were primarily those of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, the northern kingdom, the house of Israel. The Jews were the southern kingdom, the house of Judah, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (along with the Levites, who didn't exclusively belong to either house/kingdom).

I referred to this earlier. Yahshua said that He was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why? Because Israel had been given a certificate of divorce by Yahweh. What most think of as the "church" is actually the regathering of the house of Israel, the northern kingdom. Because the church/bride didn't begin at Pentecost in the first century, it started at Sinai when Yahweh gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Read Acts 7:38. The word Stephen uses there is ekklēsia, the same word that is translated "church" in most of the NT. The church...the bride...is Israel...the united kingdom of Israel. And that's what Yahshua does when He returns, He reunites, through the resurrection and the rapture, the entire church/bride/kingdom to usher in the millennial kingdom. That what Ezekiel 37 is all about. The two sticks becoming one is the reunification of the house of Israel with the house of Judah. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Which lies are these?

I'd prefer not to derail this thread, so I'm going to stick to Bible/church topics here. Maybe I'll start another thread on the others in the future. 

 

[Psychopav]

Here is a key point that the church has hidden/ignored/missed. The "Gentiles" in the NT were primarily those of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, the northern kingdom, the house of Israel. The Jews were the southern kingdom, the house of Judah, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (along with the Levites, who didn't exclusively belong to either house/kingdom).

I referred to this earlier. Yahshua said that He was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why? Because Israel had been given a certificate of divorce by Yahweh. What most think of as the "church" is actually the regathering of the house of Israel, the northern kingdom. Because the church/bride didn't begin at Pentecost in the first century, it started at Sinai when Yahweh gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Read Acts 7:38. The word Stephen uses there is ekklēsia, the same word that is translated "church" in most of the NT. The church...the bride...is Israel...the united kingdom of Israel. And that's what Yahshua does when He returns, He reunites, through the resurrection and the rapture, the entire church/bride/kingdom to usher in the millennial kingdom. That what Ezekiel 37 is all about. The two sticks becoming one is the reunification of the house of Israel with the house of Judah. 

I agree.

Quick question: with your newfound insight into the importance of central role of Israel and the OT in salvation history, have you considered refraining from using forms of the tetragrammaton?

 

[Psychopav]

CE, you might check out the Father Know-It-All blog website.  It presents the ongoing writings, homilies and musings of Fr. Richard Simon, a parish priest at St. Lambert's in Skokie, IL. He also has a daily radio show/podcast on Relevant Radio.

I think you may find him useful in your inquiries as he has a background in Latin and Greek as well as a healthy smattering of Hebrew and familiarity with modern and historical Jewish liturgical practice, and approaches these topics from a scriptural perspective.

He has an 8 (i think) part series addressing this history of Israel from his unique historical and scriptural perspective.  Part 1 can be found here: http://stlambert.org/news/a-rabbi-asks-a-priest-a-question-part-1

You will of course have to wade through his Catholicism but I hope you find thus useful or at least interesting.

Incidentally, he highly recommends biblehub.com for help in looking up biblical source material in the original Greek or Hebrew along with cross references to other uses of the same terms in scripture.

Here's an excerpt from Part 1 of the series I reference above:

...

I should begin with the word “Jewish.”  What does the word mean? I maintain that the word has changed meaning repeatedly over the centuries. For instance, in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Damascus scroll, we read in Chapter 6 v.7, “And on the consummation of the period of these years they shall no more join themselves to the house of Judah.” The rest of the scroll is similarly anti-Judean. I certainly don’t mean to refer to the Scrolls as authoritative or biblical, but they do provide an historical context, the authors of these documents were most certainly Jews by our standard, but not by theirs. They seem to consider themselves true Levites (refer to the beginning of the chapter). If you asked them are they Judah? They would say, “No, we are Cohen and Levi.” (Priest and Levite) This distinction persists in the modern synagogue to this day, does it not?  The leader of prayer first calls “Cohen” then “Levi”, then “Israel.”  Judah, per se, is never called. My suspicion is that at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, Yehud(Hebrew/Aramaic) and Judaios (Greek) designated an ethnicity in certain contexts, and a political/theological party in other contexts. One was clearly a Yehud/Judaios if one’s ancestry was from the tribe of Judah, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, but perhaps if one’s politics supported the status quo of Temple/Sanhedrin, and one was zealous for the law as Paul claims of himself. He might too be called a Judaios. Paul of Tarsus, called himself a Judaios though he was from the tribe of Benjamin. Paul, a Benjaminite calls himself a Jew “…circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” ...

God bless! 

 

[shader]

It wasn't a "Jewish diet". The Jews were only one tribe of the Israelites. That's the first and most foundational thing that most people miss. 

You're correct on that.  I was lazily using the term Jews.

 

[shader]

I agree.

Quick question: with your newfound insight into the importance of central role of Israel and the OT in salvation history, have you considered refraining from using forms of the tetragrammaton?

Why on earth would anyone do that?  The people that wrote the OT used it freely and without reservation.

 

[Psychopav]

Why on earth would anyone do that?  The people that wrote the OT used it freely and without reservation.

Don't ancient and modern Jews refrain from uttering or reading the word? I don't know a lot about this which is why I'm asking.  Is it that strange a question?  I thought it was out of respect for the Lord.

 

[shader]

Don't ancient and modern Jews refrain from uttering or reading the word? I don't know a lot about this which is why I'm asking.  Is it that strange a question?  I thought it was out of respect for the Lord.

It depends on who you call ancient.  In the times that the OT was written, it was widely used, even as a greeting.  For instance they would say "Yahweh/Jehovah be with you".  But then superstition took over and they wouldn't even utter the word.  But as Jesus exposed, most of the superstitious rules that the Pharisees came up with were flat out wrong.

Ironically, this Jewish superstition made it's way into the Catholic church and bible, and possibly become one of the reasons that the Trinity gained widespread acceptance.  Once you replace God's personal name with Lord, the reader can quickly get confused.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is a key point that the church has hidden/ignored/missed. The "Gentiles" in the NT were primarily those of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, the northern kingdom, the house of Israel. The Jews were the southern kingdom, the house of Judah, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (along with the Levites, who didn't exclusively belong to either house/kingdom).

I referred to this earlier. Yahshua said that He was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why? Because Israel had been given a certificate of divorce by Yahweh. What most think of as the "church" is actually the regathering of the house of Israel, the northern kingdom. Because the church/bride didn't begin at Pentecost in the first century, it started at Sinai when Yahweh gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Read Acts 7:38. The word Stephen uses there is ekklēsia, the same word that is translated "church" in most of the NT. The church...the bride...is Israel...the united kingdom of Israel. And that's what Yahshua does when He returns, He reunites, through the resurrection and the rapture, the entire church/bride/kingdom to usher in the millennial kingdom. That what Ezekiel 37 is all about. The two sticks becoming one is the reunification of the house of Israel with the house of Judah. 

Well... except a good portion of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem did not buy in, right? What of them in this great regathering? And if you take your interpretation of Gentiles at face value how did they reconcile with the Jewish community? Not at all, they just moved on to a new covenant (marriage as you put it), leaving the traditional Jews behind or still separate?

Another way to view 'Gentiles' while keeping your aspect is that they were hellenized Jews, essentially what we would consider secular or agnostic. These were people who lived in the Greek/Roman society of the day without more than superficial concern for preserving their 'jewishness'. This isn't hard for a lot of people not just Jews to relate to in today's society.

But it's also worth keeping in mind that Jerusalem of the day was a major Roman (occupied) colony, it was a pass through for a wide variety of peoples, Aramatheans, Romans, Greeks, and all the various nationalities who were Roman subjects. Thus 'Gentiles' as a term also had alternatives meanings like essentially 'pagan' or 'other people' or plebeians, whether in a cosmopolitan sense or in the sense of rural hicks, what have you. But my sense has always been that it was the Greeks, Romans and hellenized Jews that were being referred to.

The 'gentile' issue is also relevant because of the - let's face it - violent Jewish rebellion underway at the time. The subtext of what was going on then is sort of reminiscent to what we see today in the semitic/Arab world - a supposedly intractable group steeped in religious fundamentalism blended with extreme nationalism and a guerilla war which included assassinations and violent raids. That was happening then. The NT seems to have this constant struggle to say yes we're Jewish, Jesus is Jewish but we are the opposite of all that and we are the cure for all that. Meanwhile Peter is standing guard with a sword and goes after a Roman soldier when they come to arrest Jesus. - Now it's then an open question as to who thought a cure was needed in the first place.

 

[shader]

Exactly. The dietary instructions were never abolished. 

Is it a salvational issue? No, it's a love and obedience issue.

I'm just not sure about this.  The circumcision issue in Acts 15 is what clinches it for me.  In this chapter, the brothers met to discuss whether circumcision was still required.  At the end, here is what they said:

"19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood"

So yes, the original issue was circumcision.  But in vs 20, the brothers are quite clearly talking about food as well.  So I'd say this verse is basically outlining the instructions for Gentiles (ie, all of us).

Now if someone decided that in their reading of the bible, they feel that the dietary restrictions of the OT still apply, I'd encourage them to be obedient and follow that, so CE if that's what you've decided, I think that's great.  I personally can't see how those laws still apply, so I don't see them as still having any meaning for me.  I think they were a protection against diseases for an ancient world that didn't have the ability to make foods safe, and so in a very literal and physical way, they were unclean.

 

[Psychopav]

It depends on who you call ancient.  In the times that the OT was written, it was widely used, even as a greeting.  For instance they would say "Yahweh/Jehovah be with you".  But then superstition took over and they wouldn't even utter the word.  But as Jesus exposed, most of the superstitious rules that the Pharisees came up with were flat out wrong.

Ironically, this Jewish superstition made it's way into the Catholic church and bible, and possibly become one of the reasons that the Trinity gained widespread acceptance.  Once you replace God's personal name with Lord, the reader can quickly get confused.  

It sounds like you know a lot more about thus stuff than I but when you use phrases like "superstition took over" and "the reader can quickly get confused" it makes me wonder where you are getting this from.  Do you have any references I could follow to understand where these ideas come from?

 

[shader]

Well... except a good portion of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem did not buy in, right? What of them in this great regathering? And if you take your interpretation of Gentiles at face value how did they reconcile with the Jewish community? Not at all, they just moved on to a new covenant (marriage as you put it), leaving the traditional Jews behind or still separate?

Another way to view 'Gentiles' while keeping your aspect is that they were hellenized Jews, essentially what we would consider secular or agnostic. These were people who lived in the Greek/Roman society of the day without more than superficial concern for preserving their 'jewishness'. This isn't hard for a lot of people not just Jews to relate to in today's society.

But it's also worth keeping in mind that Jerusalem of the day was a major Roman (occupied) colony, it was a pass through for a wide variety of peoples, Aramatheans, Romans, Greeks, and all the various nationalities who were Roman subjects. Thus Gentiles also had alternatives meanings liek essentially 'pagan' or 'other people' or plebians, whether in a cosmopolitan sense or in the sense of rural hicks, what have you. But my sense has always been that it was the Greeks, Romans and hellenized Jews that was being referred to.

The 'gentile' issue is also relevant because of the - let's face it - violent Jewish rebellion underway at the time. The subtext of what was going on then is sort of reminiscent to what we see today in the semitic/Arab world - a supposedly intractable group steeped in religious fundamentalism blended with extreme nationalism and a guerilla war which included assassinations and violent raids. That was happening then. The NT seems to have this constant struggle to say yes we're Jewish, Jesus is Jewish but we are the opposite of all that and we are the cure for all that.

Yeah, I'm not sure about that interpretation of the gentiles by CE.  Now the gentiles that Jesus spoke to may have been of Israelite origins.  But the Samaritans had mixed-up heritages and didn't keep themselves nearly as "pure" as the Jews did.  They mixed with the Assyrians and Babylonians, so I think it would be hard to make a definitive statement on them.

The gentiles of the rest of the NT were not primarily of the "lost 10 tribes".  The first gentile, Cornelius was Roman.  Paul went all over the Roman world at that time and the congregation spread far beyond Israel.  Just look at the books of the bible, (Ephesus, Colossae, Rome, Philippi, etc) and even at the congregations in Revelation.  

 

[shader]

It sounds like you know a lot more about thus stuff than I but when you use phrases like "superstition took over" and "the reader can quickly get confused" it makes me wonder where you are getting this from.  Do you have any references I could follow to understand where these ideas come from?

As for the superstition, you seem to have been aware of it, right?  You said earlier " Don't ancient and modern Jews refrain from uttering or reading the word? "

Yes they do.  As to where I got that from, I've read it many times.  Rather than provide a link, I'd encourage you to research that on your own.  I don't want to provide a link and then have it rejected based on the source.  I think if you research enough, you'll find the answer to that.  

My statement that "the reader can quickly get confused" is something I'm claiming on my own, both from personal experience and from my own logic.

When someone reads a bible that takes out the name of God, they instead see the name LORD, which isn't really a name it's a title.  So it's much easier to believe that LORD=Jesus.  On the other hand, if the words Yahweh or Jehovah are there as many times as they originally were when the bible was written, that really gives the scriptures a much different look.  All of a sudden a reader of the OT who has read the name Jehovah 7,000 times in the OT will find it much more difficult to believe that Jesus is Jehovah.  

No source for that, just my belief.  It makes sense if you think about it.