| CURRENT EVENTS Israel vs. Iran, and where will the US fit in?

[musso]

Did God change? He didn’t and doesn’t and won’t.

Ha do you even realize that El, Yahweh, Elohim, etc were all separate Canaanite deities? To assume theological unity within the Old Test is highly problematic, even more so between the Old and New Test.

Within every society in every era you have conflicts of interests and factions even among the priestly, elite class itself. We all know about the theological and political differences between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in the first century. I’ve already mentioned the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees, and between Paul and the Jerusalem Church led by Peter and James. Anyone familiar with early church history knows the theological conflict between all the different forms of Christianity arising across the empire. The result was politically led councils to create an authoritative, universal (ie Catholic) Christian faith with the main purpose of “preserving the [Roman] Union.” Remember the coup that our high school American history book told us was the Constitutional Convention. The stated goal was to “revise” the Articles of Confederation, right? But the meetings ended up closed, private, and secret, resulting in a whole new constitution with much stronger central government.

Canonization of the Old and New Test followed similar patterns of political expediency and accommodation of conflicting values, ideals, gods, etc. It’s always about compromise when trying to please large numbers of people. To look at the Bible and refuse to see all the contradictions and deviations is to use it merely as an instrument of faith and confirmation bias. And you’re free to do so. Personally I find it more useful and enlightening to approach the text without any need to make it conform to any dogma or doctrine. Accepting and evaluating history as it appears, rather than how you want it to be, isn’t easy, even for irreligious scholars, because all scholars need to keep their jobs, grants, budgets, etc. But religious scholars who already have a theological framework in need of satisfying have an even stiffer challenge in arriving at truth.

 

[TerryP]

Personally I find it more useful and enlightening to approach the text without any need to make it conform to any dogma or doctrine.

A goal. Impossible to achieve.

 

[TerryP]

@64Tide may I ask. What church do you attend? I'm asking about denomination, frankly. Did you grow up in Southern Baptist, Sunday pot lucks?

Where?

 

[24and7]

I'll proffer, we're all reacting differently.

Correct… they want a massive different emotional reaction from many different groups of people…they want the masses to argue amongst each other..swing votes… cause multiple different groups pro and anti to attack each other or cause chaos/panic… that is the Marxist playbook

 

[musso]

A goal. Impossible to achieve.

Read what comes after what you quoted.

 

[TerryP]

Which side of the mistake to you want to be on?

There is no God? I'm a little confused on that ending.

 

[64Tide]

@64Tide may I ask. What church do you attend? I'm asking about denomination, frankly. Did you grow up in Southern Baptist, Sunday pot lucks?

Where?

You are correct, Central Alabama

 

[64Tide]

@musso Yes I am aware of El, Yahweh, Elohim. The latter being a title, not a personal name. El is typically translated "God" and was used by pagans, referring to their false gods. When El was used to refer to the true God of Israel, additional words were used to further describe God, ie El Shaddi "God Almighty", El Elyon, "God Most High" etc. Regardless of this enlightening discussion, it is not the main point. The main point is, what did you do with Jesus Christ? Did you accept what He did for you on the cross and be your advocate/lawyer on your judgment day or will you stand alone and be judged by your works?

 

[TerryP]

@musso Yes I am aware of El, Yahweh, Elohim. The latter being a title, not a personal name. El is typically translated "God" and was used by pagans, referring to their false gods. When El was used to refer to the true God of Israel, additional words were used to further describe God, ie El Shaddi "God Almighty", El Elyon, "God Most High" etc. Regardless of this enlightening discussion, it is not the main point. The main point is, what did you do with Jesus Christ? Did you accept what He did for you on the cross and be your advocate/lawyer on your judgment day or will you stand alone and be judged by your works?

Would you agree to the notion that it is faith to a thought, not a whom? I'm not suggesting justification by works. I am suggesting that ol' "Red Feather," living in the Sioux nation in the late 1800's, had faith in a deity. While that deity might not have been Jesus Christ, it was no less his justification.

Rabbit hole, #__?

 

[TerryP]

These are MRE's.

 

[TerryP]

@64Tide to make one thing clear looking back on what has been posted. It's an answer to a question.

Death has no sting.

 

[TerryP]

Kirsten Saban should have attended UCLA.

 

[24and7]

Time to start issuing “dirt nap tickets” to these professional protestors… maybe they will realize it’s not worth the pay, from Soros…

 

[64Tide]

@TerryP Abraham was justified by faith as he and the people of his time looked forward to the cross. Interesting that many of the Old Testament were also resurrected on the first Easter. Scripture indicates that Jesus “preached” to those in captivity and they too were resurrected and appeared to many in Jerusalem on Resurrection Sunday. To your point, everyone has received a knowledge of God. I believe that God will send additional knowledge to those that seek him. Dreams, visions, supernatural means? No one will be sentenced to an eternal hell for not believing in Christ of whom they have never heard. They will though for rejecting the information about God/salvation that was available to them. In short, what did you know and what did you do with it?

 

[XXL TideFan]

Ha do you even realize that El, Yahweh, Elohim, etc were all separate Canaanite deities? To assume theological unity within the Old Test is highly problematic, even more so between the Old and New Test.

Within every society in every era you have conflicts of interests and factions even among the priestly, elite class itself. We all know about the theological and political differences between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in the first century. I’ve already mentioned the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees, and between Paul and the Jerusalem Church led by Peter and James. Anyone familiar with early church history knows the theological conflict between all the different forms of Christianity arising across the empire. The result was politically led councils to create an authoritative, universal (ie Catholic) Christian faith with the main purpose of “preserving the [Roman] Union.” Remember the coup that our high school American history book told us was the Constitutional Convention. The stated goal was to “revise” the Articles of Confederation, right? But the meetings ended up closed, private, and secret, resulting in a whole new constitution with much stronger central government.

Canonization of the Old and New Test followed similar patterns of political expediency and accommodation of conflicting values, ideals, gods, etc. It’s always about compromise when trying to please large numbers of people. To look at the Bible and refuse to see all the contradictions and deviations is to use it merely as an instrument of faith and confirmation bias. And you’re free to do so. Personally I find it more useful and enlightening to approach the text without any need to make it conform to any dogma or doctrine. Accepting and evaluating history as it appears, rather than how you want it to be, isn’t easy, even for irreligious scholars, because all scholars need to keep their jobs, grants, budgets, etc. But religious scholars who already have a theological framework in need of satisfying have an even stiffer challenge in arriving at truth.

You’re an atheist, correct? The many forms of Christianity didn’t appear until Luther. Many confuse what was happening as dissent when it is hammering out agreement. St. Paul was by far the most educated & was a Pharisee prior to & it shows in his writings. You may find it enlightening but the book Religion of The Apostles in the Fist Century is a great book that every Christian would benefit from reading. St John Chrysostom a 4th century Archbishop of the Constantinople Church wrote 8 homilies concerning their activities against the church. Adversus Judaeus is the title. Just so happens that I’m starting that one today but having read excerpts I anticipate that it will be enlightening.
There was only one Church for almost 1100 years. Then the split that formed the RC & Orthodox for another 500 yrs until Luther.

The other gods including Greek & Roman that you mentioned all have the same theme. A rebellious son rises up and slays the father to ascend to the throne.

The attachment someone typed up as a gotcha but it is an accurate history.

 

[ElephantStomp]

@TerryP To show you how I view protests and riots different, I am all for the students on campuses protesting, but what’s going on at Columbia with the students breaking windows and taking over that hall, just like the folks of Jan 6, those students should be arrested and charged

 

[24and7]

We should’ve listened..

 

[musso]

You’re an atheist, correct? The many forms of Christianity didn’t appear until Luther.

I was referring to paleo-Christianity (pre-Constantine). I realize me referring to that as Christianity is dubious given how movements arise in a decentralized manner before becoming centralized and standardized.

 

[TerryP]

In short, what did you know and what did you do with it?

That. There. This.

 

[TerryP]

I was referring to paleo-Christianity (pre-Constantine). I realize me referring to that as Christianity is dubious given how movements arise in a decentralized manner before becoming centralized and standardized.

Umbrella. Christianity.