I'm currently in school to complete my PHD in Biblical studies. Ask me any questions you have about God, the Bible...

I'm currently in school to complete my PHD in Biblical studies. Ask me any questions you have about God, the Bible, or whatever else. Keep in mind: I care about biblical studies, not theology. I know generic arguments surrounding theology, but won't be able to talk much about it.

Attached: chocolate jesus.jpg (749x1178, 103K)

which new testament books were written by the apostles and who were the people they were writing to?

What do you think about the ancient jewish artifacts found in the Americas that point to the native americans being the lost tribes of Israel?

Attached: IMG_20190210_220921_892.jpg (995x995, 311K)

I'm almost positive all of them have been proven (to a reasonable extent) to be either false or artifacts of recent history attempting to mask as older artifacts. Link one and I can address it specifically. The most notable, if I'm right, would be the ones in Newark.

Truth or naw?

Attached: 67800791_10215084232606922_3789128867038363648_n.jpg (368x500, 18K)

How large was Jesus's penis?

Attached: jesus_license.jpg (320x194, 34K)

This is hard, mostly because the majority are either attributed to Paul or ascribed to him. The general consensus is that Romans-Thessalonians were written by Paul, the "pastoral epistles" were written by another figure and attributed to Paul (most likely to steal a sense of authority), and others by John (Rev).

If I am The Serpent then why have I become this flesh?

Give me a specific narrative or story and I can talk about it. The Bible isn't a document that is trying to be historically accurate. Its function was to make sense of the world through a particular worldview. The biblical authors didn't care about being "right" or "wrong" on details. They were trying to reimagine their current history through the lens of a higher power. Truth is a loaded term.

Matthew 4:10

Do you believe there was a literal flood in Genesis? Why or why not?

Isaiah 6 seems to suggest that, when looking up under the robe of God, the size of girth made Isaiah remark "Holy holy holy". So, big?

So like, it was a means to bring about social control and cohesion to the Roman Empire, right?

No. There are two possibilities. First, and most likely, the Noah's ark story was copy and pasted from the Epic of Gilgamesh (1800 BC). Included in the Epic of Gilgamesh is the story of Utnapishtim, which details a global flood. The Bible describes a similar event and reimagines it from a Jewish (Christian, technically) perspective. The majority of the narrative is lifted from Gilgamesh. The second potential theory is the flood did happen, and two people groups tried to explain it in their own way (Jews and the authors of Gilgamesh). This is unlikely because the language and sentence structure in the Bible are very similar to the former text.

So am I my brother's keeper?

If the Bible is so critical to our understanding of God and his purpose why did he use Koine Greek? Nobody on earth speaks it now and there’s way to many differing opinions on what important passages mean. It’s virtually impossible for the average Joe to know what God wants and expects of us.

How come it’s a load of old bollocks?
And why?

This is 50% true. The counterargument would be that once Jesus arose, the majority of Biblical texts we have today advocate for some sense of inherent disobediance. There are the verses like Matt 22:21 that argue for a surface level obedience to the empire, but Christians weren't seen as rule followers and were prosecuted for it. When you tell a group that they will reap everlasting rewards for disobeying their dictator, it doesn't really make things easier for either party.

Was Jesus an enemy of The State?

Attached: 67840472_10215084232646923_7910856380821536768_n.jpg (259x194, 9K)

Would you rather he use English? This is a confusing question to me. The OT was written in Hebrew, the language of the people group that imagined God into their history, and Koine was the most accessible language in the ANE during the early Christian expansion.

Ah, okay.
Thank you.

Is there any consensus on who wrote Song of Solomon?

Is there any consensus on who the "John" of "Revelations of John" was? Was that John the Baptist?

Attached: El_jardín_de_las_Delicias,_de_El_Bosco.jpg (550x293, 68K)

Yes, which is why he was crucified. This methodology of killing was, at the time, restrictued to political opponents and those convicted of the crimes that hurt the state the most.

Specifics, please.

It depends on you're understanding of the verse. Technically, Christians should care for those under the veil of the blood of Christ. On the other hand, each individual is considered on their own basis. I believe the average Christian would argue for a "how much of a Christian would you be if you didn't fight for the salvation of your brother" kind of thinking, but I don't know for sure.

>Biblical studies
You are aware Islam and Christanity are just Judaism and Judaism is just fake Zoroastrianism.

Any religion is fake apart from Zoroastrianism.

The consensus is that the John of Revelation was not John the Baptist. It goes back to issues on text dating, but JTB was beheaded around 30AD and the churches named in Revelation wouldn't have been established by that point in history.
Song of Solomon is generally regarded as a collection of poetic texts, and aren't typically attributed to Solomon. The reason being is that Arameic bleeds into SOS, and Arameic wouldn't have been nearly as prominent in the time of Solomon as it was during the Babylonian empire time period. It is mostly regarded nowadays as a collection of poetic texts, built into one text.

"Fake" is an interesting term to throw out, but I won't push you further than you'd like to discuss. I am obtaining a degree that I am getting paid to obtain. I respect your seeming admiration for Zoroastrianism, though.

>Is there any consensus on who the "John" of "Revelations of John" was?
>The consensus is that the John of Revelation was not John the Baptist.
This is why I hate hippies. Doesn't anyone have a surname any more?

Fuck hippies. Those bitches need Jesus.

What is your take on Adam & Eve and the creation story?

Do you believe God came into the world through Christ?

>Any religion is fake apart from Zoroastrianism.
Fun facts: Freddie Mercury was a Zoroastrian, and had four extra teeth.

Attached: 55370eda25fee6810d64dfd9f6fa852c.jpg (430x411, 30K)

Even though Jesus fulfilled the law, why does that give us the right to outright ignore the old covenant? Shouldn't we continue trying to obey laws of the old testament even though we know that we fall short and that Jesus is our salvation?

Attached: 1561432563177.jpg (524x499, 33K)

I referenced the Epic of Gilgamesh earlier, but much of the literature was lifted and adapted from that text. Its almost as if the authors were like "Hey, everyone knows this creation story, this is where you got it wrong... theres a guy named God". Its mostly adapted from other narratives.

So in your opinion is the bible taken too seriously? And objectively speaking is it useful to the good if humanity?

Hey! Currently going for a Bachelors in Religion (inb4 good luck finding a job).

Could you tell me more about the Dead Sea Scrolls and how the legitimize the Bible?

Just to be clear, I'm trying to be as objective as possible, so I don't want to speak too much on my opinion, but rather the general scholarly consensus.
That being said, technically yes, but there is a difference between the presence of God in the sense of "author of history" and the actual physical presence of a body that can be manipulated and oppressed. So- yes, in the fact that many scholars would argue that God entered the world in a form that could have been taken advantage of, but no, in the fact that God was believed as present in the world and it's operation before Christ.

Do you care to speculate how many of the more visionary texts in the Bible, specifically the visions of Ezekiel or the Revelations of John might have been the result of organic hallucinogens?

The "Law" in the OT had a unique role- breaking a moral law held the same consequence as a legalistic rule. So, for example, lying was seen as an equal folley as not giving a proper sacrifice. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the legalistic aspects of the OT Law, but didn't disregard the moral aspects of it. If Christians aim to live as Jesus did, they would be conscious of the moral laws that Jesus followed, but be aware of the legalistic rules he disregarded.

Did Jesus take on too much karmic debt and overload his soul somehow so was called back because of this?

Does that mean that OT laws which are no longer observed hold no moralistic value, and therefore never held moralistic value?

What is your professional opinion regarding the apocrypha?

Taken too seriously? Thats an awkward way to discuss it, but I would say that the average Christian is unable to differentiate between the genres of the text and relies on a "its in the Bible, it must be true" type of framework. I would argue that most Christians take the words off the page and assume it is truth for their modern context, and that is inappropriate and naive.
Objectively speaking about the Bible is neccessary, in my opinion. The Bible was wirtten by people thousands of years ago that were trying to make sense of the world they lived in. To assume that they were writing to Carol in the third row pew about how much of her paycheck she needed to give the church is offensive.

I too have an ancient book about a wise old man who lived in the sky that sent his only son to Earth to perform miraculous deeds

Attached: 94410-full.jpg (748x1000, 578K)

Cheers to you, friend. Its a wonderful world in religious studies. Study what you enjoy learning about, and allow for time to dictate what you do with your life. If you work as a barista for the rest of your life and pusue religious studies on the side, enjoy every minute of it.
The DSS are fascinating, mostly because they include a large portion of non-canonical texts. Even then, the DSS have texts that are currently canonical but differ in quite a few ways.
The general consensus is that the DSS derived from the Essenes, a branch of early Jewish/Christian individuals, and therefore represent one perspective on the developing religion. This is why you find texts that were ultimately not included in the biblical canon.
Legitimizing the bible is awkward, because from a Christian perspective the construction of the Bible was divinely inspired. Several Pauline epistles, for example, reference earlier letters sent between the church and Paul. If Romans was the third letter between Paul and the Roman church, would we then insert the first letter if it was discovered in an archaeological dig? The argument would most likely be against this, because what we have now was divinely inspired to be enough for readers to come to understand who God is.
And thus the DSS give us a great view into one perspective of the growing religion, but don't give us a complete picture of the surrounding traditions. A group of people (most likely from the dominant group of "christians") decided which books were worth preseving, early scholars decided which would be considered as canon, and now we find older texts that share a worldview, but were discovered a little too late.
If you have any follow up questions, feel free to ask.

There has been research done on this, interestingly enough. Even the prophet Isaiah has been charged with having schizophrenia, based on the number of visions he has. The truth is that we don't know what resulted in the canon we have today, but most Christian scholars would argue that, whatever we have, was the result of divine guidance. So if hallucinogens were the origin, God would be attributed to the visions within. I haven't studied the research as much, so unfortunately I can't go much deeper than that, but it is a valid point to make.

I don't think many scholars would take this position, mainly because the way the Gospels read would indicate that it was always Christ's purpose on earth to be sacrificed on the cross. If it were somehow ambiguous, I could maybe see the argument you've put forth, but because the OT references a messiah that would take the transgressions of the world and be a living sacrifice, I don't think that would be a dominant belief held today.

Only one of these characters was an actual man who walked the Earth.
Can you guess which one?

Attached: popeye-sailor-spinach-cartoon-characters-png-transparent-image-popeye-the-sailor-man-png-650_897.png (1045x1443, 392K)

Were references regarding oneness deliberately censored to further the churchs power hold?

Not necessarily. Laws like wearing mixed fabrics or dietary laws held some moral value, but mostly because there was a certain moral value at the time of being a people "set apart" from the world. There was no inherent moral transgression in eating certain food (pork), but the law used this as a way to separate the Israelites from the populace. Another example, probably more helpful, would be circumcision. There is no real reason why this would be benificial for a group. But it becomes a moral law because it was difficult, particularly in the early Roman empire, for a male to operate as a normal citizen and not be identified as being circumcised. If you went to the colloseum or gymnasium, most efforts were done naked, and everyone would identify the Jews. This aspect of being "set apart" was much more applicable in the context of the early ANE. Nowadays, wearing clothing of mixed fabric or being circumcised doesn't necessarily hold any moral value, because the culture doesn't really dictate what is "normal" when it comes to clothing or your foreskin. So while they don't hold moral value now, they did during the time of the early Jews, and therefore were valid during that context.

The apocrypha and other deuterocanonical texts were texts that were most likely written in good faith from individuals who were attempting to do the same thing as other canonical texts were doing. A later group, most likely early Christian scholars, decided that they weren't divinely inspired. One could argue that the early scholars were divinely inspired to make the distinction, but that is up for debate. I believe there is an extreme amount of value in the texts that is ignored because the texts aren't found in the leather bound Bibles on shelves today.

According to end times theology we are waiting on Ezekiel 38-39. War of GOG and Magog. Russia and Iran to come against Israel. Bible states no one will come to Israel’s aid. With Trump in power I don’t see that happening for the foreseeable 4-5 years. Do you think the church is raptured pre or post tribulation period? What is the current relationship between God and Lucifer? Lucifer had to have permission to tempt JOB but not EVE. What about us? Are we ever personally tempted by Lucifer? Or is it the knowledge of evil that causes us to sin?

I can see the position you've put forward, but I don't think there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that censorship was involved. What I will say is that I wouldn't doubt that references to oneness were particularly ignored or embraced by early Christians to construct a worldview that put a necessity on the church, perhaps too much at times.

How many genocides does the bible have in it?

Yeah, I already have a degree in Accounting, but got bored and pursued religion. It’s wildly fascinating material, honestly.

Thanks for answering my question! So the DSS essentially was just the material passed down to form the Bible? Does this mean the Tanakh/OT is not included in the DSS?

There is a lot here, so bear with me.
First; Ezekiel 38-39 is an apocalyptic text, and therefore there isn't much that would be gained by reading it too literally, but I understand you're point in bringing it up. The only note I will put forward on this topic is that the same argument could have been made by Jews during the holocaust; without aid in detainment camps, hoping for a victorious end. I don't think it is of any benefit to equate our current experience with Ezekiel or any other apocalyptic text.
When it comes to the rapture, pretribulationism is a generally new concept, and was potentially supported because it was appealing to say that believers wouldn't experience it. I don't have a personal opinion on the topic, but it is a great topic to bring up. I'm not qualified on the topic to go much further in depth.
The current relationship, in my opinion, is best explained as Satan having been slain by Christ is now, in the final hours, lashing out and taking anyone with him as he can. The language I've read most often includes the "mortal wound" being dealt, and final death occuring at the second coming of Christ.
Most scholars, to my knowledge, would advocate for a mix of both, but I don't think too many would argue that Satan isn't at the roots of temptation. If you advocate for the above position, Satan is taking every step he can to target each individual in the way that we are most vulnerable to fall. The knowledge of evil doesn't help, but logic would argue that for every step God takes to set aright the paths of mankind, Satan is establishing stumbling blocks upon that path to draw us away.

Including the genocide of the animals in the flood or not?

where do dinosaurs fit into the biblical story?

Is masturbation a sin?

In your opinion is the idea of hell after death a grand scheme to get the average man to give his hard earned money to the church?

You're more set than I am, if you have an accounting degree. Good on you.
You have the general idea, yes. The DSS would be a collection of texts, some of which ended up in the Bible, but were technically written by a minority group of religious followers. In other words, you have religious texts floating around by word or on parchment, and the Essenes found it important to rewrite an preserve them. So the material existed before the DSS, but the DSS was an impressive trove of documents, a multitude of topics covered, which included rewritten Biblical narratives.
In reference to your second question, quite the opposite is true. The Essenes were a Jewish group, and therefore really only cared about the Jewish writings. There is evidence of texts at the location from all but one (I believe) of the OT books, and there are deuterocanonical texts that aren't found in Evangelical bibles but are found in Catholic/Eastern Orthodox bibles (eg. Tobit, Ben Sirach). So the Essenes really cared about preserving OT texts. The reason NT texts aren't found is tricky, but also probably has to deal with the timing of when the trove "stopped producing" material. Its estimated that around 300~ CE the location stopped writing, and so there is the chance that early Christianity hadn't spread or gained acceptance in the community enough to warrant the texts being written down. On the other hand, the Essenes were Jewish, so they might not have cared enough to write down the texts about a false prophet.
I'll also add that the Essenes (there is debate on who wrote these texts, I believe it is most likely the Essenes, but there is debate in modern scholarship) wrote many more documents found in the DSS. If I remember right, biblical texts comprise under a quarter of the texts found. So to say the DSS was only biblical material is inaccurate, but the majority of texts that have modern implications would be those of the OT and deuterocanonical texts.

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD Was GOD. Therefore, when GOD said Let there be Light. “The English translation “ the word LET was the first manifestation of CHRIST. In Hebrew the first word translates LIGHT, if GOD created all things by his spoken word; he has to create Lucifer by the spoken word. Therefore, only Christ crucified on the cross, GOD providing himself the sacrifice; had the power to condemn Satan in the flesh. What created him was the only thing that had dominion to destroy him. Had Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; GOD would have never had the power to rid mankind of sin. So the garden was banished, and a sword given to protect it. Do you think the garden still exist on earth? Do you think Satan still can go outside the realm of time to where GOD is to converse as he did with JOB amongst the angels?

I believe the most accepted theory is that there was a time period between either: Adam and Eve and the remainder of the Genesis story (less accepted) or that the "days" of creation were not 24 hour periods, but were rather larger periods of time (more accepted). The argument for the latter is that the same Hebrew words is used for "day" and "age", and the term "age" is used in other places in the OT to reference "The day of King Solomon." So the term could technically mean "time period," which would mean that when God created the animals on a certain "day," he created them during a certain time period, which could have realistically been millions of years. Some believe that the creating of light was the Big Bang.
Some people think that dinosaur fossils were put in the earth to test our faith, which I believe is a bunch of dogshit, but to each their own.

Technically no, but the argument would be that lust is a sin, and there wouldn't be much reason to masturbate if you weren't wanting to pleasure yourself at the thought of an attractive person. Many modern scholars advocate for healthy masturbation, eg. masturbating to a spouse, as technically you've entered into a covenant with that person and you are merely releiving physical stress at that point.

You’re a fucking idiot. God does not exist, the universe is 96 billion light years across and you think even if there was a “god” he would give a flying fuck about what we do on earth? We are made of matter and nothing more. Kill yourself you absolute fucking nigger faggot moron

In my opinion? No, not really. If the church really just wanted money they'd push a lot harder on the texts in Leviticus/Deuteronomy that outline what one should tithe to the church. If you broadened your scope to including not just money but obedience, there might be an argument to be made there.

Good one fuckface, only issue is that you clearly haven't read the goddamn thread. I don't claim to be religious at any point in this thread. I'm getting paid to research a thousand year old book and write papers/books about it. Thanks for calling me an idiot for being paid to write about what makes you upset. What are you doing in life? Fuck out of here.

Well there were people during the flood so i think that counts. Lets focus on people only.

my stepmother fell into the 'test of faith' category, the day==unknown timespan makes more sense

I believe GOD is the original energy of the universe. Pre existent in unfathomable power. Every instance of matter we see is just an expression of majesty and power. From the vast expanse of our universe to the complexity and intricacy of quantum mechanics. God is Love. And if we seek truth and the fulfillment of our potential as life energy God will manifest his presence unto all of us in spirit and in truth. Seek truth until you are satisfied. Then GO TO YOUR GOD LIKE A SOLDIER!

Are you convinced God exists?

As per your question of the garden: No, I doubt such a place exists (at least as described in the Bible.) I would need a lot of evidence, but I wouldn't completely object to a physical place being identified as the previous "Garden of Eden." That being said, the notion of the Garden of Eden is a place in which God walks with creation "in the cool of the day," which I don't believe exists anymore in any tangible sense.
As per your second question, yes I have no reason to believe that there has been any change in the means of access that God and Satan have to one another. That being said, I would argue that they wouldn't converse on an equal field, being as Satan has been dealt the death blow through Christ. Satan could ask for his way with the world as in Job; now, Satan has lost that right since Christ has entered the world.

I think it is more appropriate to believe the latter. If you'd like to read more, the topic is generally called the "day-age theory."

Not my specialty... but they break down into different categories.
Genocides at the hands of God himself: the flood, Egyptian firstborn sons, Sodom and Gomorrah
Genocides at the hands of the Israelites: Canaanites (twice I believe) and the Amalekites.
So, yeah a few.

Am I convinced? Not at all. There are tangible benefits from believing one way or the other, but the majority of individuals who are convinced haven't been faced with as much literature as I've been forced to.

I have. I have studied with all the religions and many languages and I believe. One must truly ask in prayer, to the spirit of truth for personal revelation, personal proof and GOD will give you just what you need to believe. Enough for you and you alone. We must all individually seek to receive because what we all need for personal revelation is different. Seek and you shall find. Revelation 3:20

Just bumping the thread in case anyone has anything to ask. I'm watching UFC so I have a while longer.

Believing for what? What's the point? To avoid hell? No other reason.

I know it's tough questions, comparing catholisism, and the protestant religions, which one would you think adheres more to the believe of the bible? In other words which one do you believe is the true religion regarding the doctrines established in the bible?

Second, what do you think in regards to the sects that use an edited version or an "extra" portion of the bible, such as mormonism?