A non-Christian understanding of the Christian Bible

[Carlos]

Would you please give some supporting evidence for this.

Not true. Possible but not guaranteed.

Again, no certainties. Have you ever heard of social mobility?

You are talking of a descendant of King David. come on.

No matter if this descendant lives in a desolate city at the end of the world plus five more blocks. If the family is near then he is not poor.

Just because his father was a contractor of a small business or a mere carpenter, his living will be better than many around.

In the 80's a reporter was curious about two employees of a company who had the same work assignments and salary. The reporter was curious because one of the employees was white and the other was black.

When it was time for vacations, the white employee used to take his family to Europe for two weeks.The black employee used to take their family to Disney or the beach around for vacations.

The white employee lived in a luxury house, even swimming pool in the backyard, three car garage and a huge lot all around. The black employee lived in a two floor house with small backyard and no parking inside but in the street.

The white employee drove a Mercedes Benz, the other a Toyota.

Both making a regular salary and the job was also of no great category.

But it happened that the white dude came from a rich, very rich family. When he graduated from college he received a sport car, when was his birthday 5 years later the gift was the Mercedes Benz. When he got married the gift was the house in a high residential area, and so forth.

So, all the arguments people make about an economically poor Jesus living in a poor town working as a carpenter are just peanuts when it was known by records that he was descendant from father side and mother side of King David.

No matter the exile, don't think that the royal family lost everything. The royal family enjoyed wealth and influence. They were no "famous" anymore like kings today who still enjoy wealth, influence and fame. But the descendants didn't live in poor condition.

For the people of Israel, a poor man can't be accepted as a prophet. As I say before, prophets were people with wealth. Abraham enjoyed wealth, same as Elijah and John the Baptist. For some reason the church loves to portrait Jesus as a economically poor dude, but that is not correct at all. Every friend he visited was rich.

A different thing is that Jesus decided to live with the poor, and that is a complete different scenario.

 

[Longfellow]

You are talking of a descendant of King David. come on.

No matter if this descendant lives in a desolate city at the end of the world plus five more blocks. If the family is near then he is not poor.

Just because his father was a contractor of a small business or a mere carpenter, his living will be better than many around.

In the 80's a reporter was curious about two employees of a company who had the same work assignments and salary. The reporter was curious because one of the employees was white and the other was black.

When it was time for vacations, the white employee used to take his family to Europe for two weeks.The black employee used to take their family to Disney or the beach around for vacations.

The white employee lived in a luxury house, even swimming pool in the backyard, three car garage and a huge lot all around. The black employee lived in a two floor house with small backyard and no parking inside but in the street.

The white employee drove a Mercedes Benz, the other a Toyota.

Both making a regular salary and the job was also of no great category.

But it happened that the white dude came from a rich, very rich family. When he graduated from college he received a sport car, when was his birthday 5 years later the gift was the Mercedes Benz. When he got married the gift was the house in a high residential area, and so forth.

So, all the arguments people make about an economically poor Jesus living in a poor town working as a carpenter are just peanuts when it was known by records that he was descendant from father side and mother side of King David.

No matter the exile, don't think that the royal family lost everything. The royal family enjoyed wealth and influence. They were no "famous" anymore like kings today who still enjoy wealth, influence and fame. But the descendants didn't live in poor condition.

For the people of Israel, a poor man can't be accepted as a prophet. As I say before, prophets were people with wealth. Abraham enjoyed wealth, same as Elijah and John the Baptist. For some reason the church loves to portrait Jesus as a economically poor dude, but that is not correct at all. Every friend he visited was rich.

A different thing is that Jesus decided to live with the poor, and that is a complete different scenario.

Besides Jesus being a descendent of a king, and working as a carpenter, are there any other reasons for thinking that he was wealthy?

 

[EricPH]

Besides Jesus being a descendent of a king, and working as a carpenter, are there any other reasons for thinking that he was wealthy?

Jesus had sufficient to live, he spent 40 days in the wilderness, fasting. It seems Jesus was not a home owner, but almost a Nomad.

When he sent the 72, he said, Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

 

[koinonos]

I forgot to say what I think about Trinity doctrine. God is telling us to consider what Jesus and the Holy Spirit say and do as Him, God, saying and doing it, but that doesn't mean that they are the same person as Him or as each other. "Three distinct persons" doesn't mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit are persons in any way that would mean in any other context. It doesn't mean that they are distinct from each other in any way that would mean in any other context. It's just an awkward way of saying that no two of them are the same person even though together they are one God. Also, it isn't actually saying anything about their common essence. I think that I'm in agreement about that with at least one of the people who signed the creed at the first council, although they did have to agree that it is not physical, for all of them to sign it.

The term person was introduced in the creeds after the Apostolic creed. The Apostolic creed does not have that term, and the ideas of the three distinct separate persons. So, it does not have the idea of that Trinity that was formulated later. But rather has the idea of the true Trinity: the Lord asked to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we read that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus. Yet they acknowledged the three. So, they may have concentrated that in the Lord, as the Visible God.

Aligned with this, in my view, is the following idea of Trinity, which is more sublime:

"The Divine Trinity in one Person is to be understood as soul, body, and proceeding operation, which together constitute one essence, for the one is from the other, and therefore the one belongs to the other. In the same way there is a trinity in each man, which taken together constitutes one person, to wit, the soul, the body, and the operation that goes forth. But in man this trinity is finite, because man is only an organ of life; whereas in the Lord the Trinity is infinite and thus Divine, because the Lord is life itself even in respect to the Human, as He Himself teaches in John 5:26; 14:6; and also elsewhere." ("Nine Questions" by Swedenborg).

In that light, the ancient term person can be interpreted as the atribute, thus there are three divine attributes in one Lord and God Jusus Christ.

 

[Thomas]

I have an idea of how pie-in-the-sky salvation was substituted in the place of God’s will being done on earth, as what the gospel of Jesus is about. It might have been from the overseers at the end of the first century importing that idea from gnostics or others who were promoting it,

Nope. Entirely from John and Paul, founded on their insights regarding Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures.

Nor was one ever substituted for the other.

And for them, of course, it was never 'pie-in-the-sky', but something more real than this life.

We have, however, having lost sight of that, recast Christianity into a quite comfortable lifestyle, I'll give you that ...

 

[Thomas]

You are talking of a descendant of King David. come on.

The Davidic monarchy had been overthrown centuries earlier by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Consequently, royal descendants were dispersed and lost their ancestral lands, fortunes and influence. By the first century, according to Matthew/Luke some 30/40 generations later, the descendants of the Davidic line were common citizens.

Who were the rules of the day? Davidic royalty ended with King Zedekiah. In Judea, King Herod and his sons were Edomites installed by the Romans and were not of the Jewish royal line or descendants of David.

No matter the exile, don't think that the royal family lost everything. The royal family enjoyed wealth and influence. They were no "famous" anymore like kings today who still enjoy wealth, influence and fame. But the descendants didn't live in poor condition.

There's a lot of speculation here, without substance, as far as I can see.

For the people of Israel, a poor man can't be accepted as a prophet.

That's incorrect.

 

[Longfellow]

I’ve thought some more about what purposes the Christian Bible can serve that would interest me the most. It might be in providing a common story, framework and language for some people who are learning together to live the way God says to live. They would be using other training materials along with the Bible, and those might not all be the same, but the prescriptions for living from Jesus would give them common ground for learning together and learning from each other.

 

[RabbiO]

@Thomas -

Much of what @Carlos writes is so off the wall I feel no need to comment. However, I do want to briefly touch upon his comment regarding the need for a prophet to be wealthy to be accepted by the people of Israel. There is discussion in the Talmud regarding prophets and wealth and there is commentary by sages regarding those discussions - including what is the meaning of the term “wealth”. There is discussion as to whether “wealth” however defined is a requirement for being called as prophet or is a consequence resulting from having been called forth as a prophet.

It is important to note that although only 55 prophets are named in the Tanakh Jewish tradition posits that there were literally thousand of other prophets who were not named in the texts.

 

[Longfellow]

Jesus calls His gospel “gospel of the kingdom.” Some of His sayings are explicitly about the kingdom, and I think that actually everything He says and does is to teach people about His kingdom. I think that part of it is about people learning together to live the way he says to live, with conscious and systematic efforts to improve our attitudes and behavior in ways that help bring out the best in people, in society and in the world around us, for the benefit of all people everywhere. One way that happens is by God filling a person with a desire to do that. We can’t make that happen in ourselves, but maybe we can learn to be channels of God’s grace, for it to happen to others.

 

[Carlos]

The Davidic monarchy had been overthrown centuries earlier by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Consequently, royal descendants were dispersed and lost their ancestral lands, fortunes and influence. By the first century, according to Matthew/Luke some 30/40 generations later, the descendants of the Davidic line were common citizens.

Who were the rules of the day? Davidic royalty ended with King Zedekiah. In Judea, King Herod and his sons were Edomites installed by the Romans and were not of the Jewish royal line or descendants of David.


There's a lot of speculation here, without substance, as far as I can see.


That's incorrect.

The pharisees knew who Jesus was. They always knew it. Jesus wasn't just another regular citizen. You have been told the wrong story.

Sanhedrin 43a

... On the eve of the Passover Yeshu(*) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour ha was hanged on the eve of the Passover. Ulla restored: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesit [enticer] concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt you spare, neither thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e. influential]

(*Note: The Greek name Jesus appears to be a transliteration of the name Yeshu. In Greek language itself the name Jesus means nothing. In Hebrew the contracted name Yeshu -from Yeshua contracted from Yehoshua- means "Yah saves" or "salvation of Yah")

 

[Thomas]

The pharisees knew who Jesus was. They always knew it. Jesus wasn't just another regular citizen. You have been told the wrong story.
Sanhedrin 43a

I do not regard that text as a reliable witness. Nor should you.

... With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e. influential]

"The government (or royalty)" in 1st century Judea was the line of King Herod, a line appointed by Rome.

Herod was an Edomite; his lineage was not from the tribe of Judah or the House of David.

 

[Carlos]

I do not regard that text as a reliable witness. Nor should you.


"The government (or royalty)" in 1st century Judea was the line of King Herod, a line appointed by Rome.

Herod was an Edomite; his lineage was not from the tribe of Judah or the House of David.

Think about it.

Herod knew how the kingship worked in Israel.

If foreign people came to palace asking for the new king of Israel born recently in such and such place. and the assumed baby king was just a member of a regular family, then surely Herod won't pay attention to such news at all.

But if Herod was aware that the assumed new baby king of Israel was a descendant of king David, ha! then he surely will remove heavens and earth to find him and kill him.

 

[Thomas]

But if Herod was aware that the assumed new baby king of Israel was a descendant of king David, ha! then he surely will remove heavens and earth to find him and kill him.

The problem is the claim that Jesus was 'connected to the government', as per my post.

 

[Longfellow]

I'm thinking that maybe the Christian Bible can be useful for growing in the knowledge and love of God and in fruits of the spirit, under the influence of the spirit of God, for people who want it to. I'll be posting ideas about how that can happen, and hoping for others to do the same.

I think that continually growing in the knowledge and love of God and in fruits of the spirit, under the influence of the spirit of God, is part of living the best life we can, and part of what is needed for bringing out the best in people, in society and in the world around us, and for reducing and counteracting all the cruelty, violence and oppression in the world.

 

[Longfellow]

I might start a thread about individual and community transformation to bring out the best in and for everyone and everything. I'm thinking that the Bible can be a resource for that, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[Longfellow]

I’m not saying any more that I’m not a Christian. I apologize for saying that I’m not, because that was misleading. I’m not claiming to be one, but I’m not saying that I’m not one. If people want to label me one way or the other, that’s their choice, not mine.

If anyone thinks that the label “Christian” or “not Christian” is somehow relevant to how well informed a person is about Christian topics, or how will they understand them, or how qualified they are to have opinions about them, or to the validity of their opinions, I would be interested in their reasons for thinking that.

There might be some value and being aware of a persons biases but I don’t think that’s measured by labels if there’s any way of measuring it, it’ll be by a person‘s attitude and behavior towards a religion or ideology, or towards people labeled that way by themselves or others.

 

[Longfellow]

Multiple typos in my previous post.

It's okay with me if anyone wants to ask me some questions to decide how to label me if they think that's relevant to any discussion I'm in. I'll answer some questions but not all.

 

[Thomas]

I’m not saying any more that I’m not a Christian.

OK ... does this mean you've undergone a conversion

I’m not claiming to be one, but I’m not saying that I’m not one.

That clears that up, then ...

If anyone thinks that the label “Christian” or “not Christian” is somehow relevant to how well informed a person is about Christian topics, or how will they understand them, or how qualified they are to have opinions about them, or to the validity of their opinions, I would be interested in their reasons for thinking that.

In my experience, and this is, I think, the experience of many Christians who open their mouths, the whole world has an opinion about Christianity, and 99.999% of it is based on hearsay, unsubstantiated assumptions, or stuff they've picked up here and there.

But a nuanced insight into theological matters requires study. Most people who don't identify as Christian don't bother, because why should they? Then you get those who embrace an active reason to challenge Christian assumptions – long ago something of an expert on ancient texts, BobX, could really give me a hard time, @juantoo3 likewise, and @Ahanu the same ... all three have sent me back to interrogate my assumptions and sources.

When I was a student, our course director told us of a scholar who was a 'world expert' on St Thomas Aquinas. He, the expert, was not a Christian, might have been atheist, but his topic was the bullet-proof scholastic methodology of Aquinas' arguments – they are exemplars of how to do it, and a blueprint and benchmark for anyone who seeks to write scholarly-acceptable essays.

So when someone challenges Christian history or doctrine etc., my natural response is to inquire 'where they're coming from' – I do not expect or require them to be Christian, but I do hope they are "well informed" about the issues, and not just informed by people whose ideas match their own opinions. Likewise I hope there's a degree of understanding.

I do not require anyone to be 'qualified', ie having letters after their name, before I'll listen to them.

But just because someone holds an opinion, I do not regard that opinion as 'valid' simply because it's their opinion.

 

[Longfellow]

OK ...

Thank you.

... does this mean you've undergone a conversion

I never stop undergoing conversion, but it's never from one belief system or ideology to another. I don't identify with any belief system or ideology. I only ever identified with two, and that was dozens of years ago, in my high school and college years.

In my experience, and this is, I think, the experience of many Christians who open their mouths, the whole world has an opinion about Christianity, and 99.999% of it is based on hearsay, unsubstantiated assumptions, or stuff they've picked up here and there.

I don't have an opinion about the percentage, but I agree that it's a problem. I think it also applies just as much to multitudes of people who identify as Christians, including those who identify with Trinitarian denominations.

But a nuanced insight into theological matters requires study. Most people who don't identify as Christian don't bother.

That might be true statistically, but I don't see how that's useful for measuring what or how much any individual has studied. It might be better to ask them.

Then you get those who embrace an active reason to challenge Christian assumptions

However many of those there are, I don't see how that's useful in knowing what any individual's motives or intentions are.

So when someone challenges Christian history or doctrine etc., my natural response is to inquire 'where they're coming from

From my experience, a person's self-label communicates 0.0000000 information about where any individual is coming from. It seems much better to me to ask a person questions about where they're coming from, and people are welcome to ask me questions about it. I'll answer some, but not all.

' – I do not expect or require them to be Christian, but I do hope they are "well informed" about the issues, and not just informed by people whose ideas match their own opinions. Likewise I hope there's a degree of understanding.

I don't see how a person's self label communicates anything about any of that.

But just because someone holds an opinion, I do not regard that opinion as 'valid' simply because it's their opinion.

Agreed. I think that applies as much to people who identify as Christians as to people who don't.

It might be true statistically that a person who identifies as Christian is more likely to have their mind and heart more open to the beliefs and is therefore better able to understand them, but again, I don't see how that's helpful in measuring any individual's openness.

 

[Longfellow]

About Trinity beliefs:

I think that what matters is that the interpersonal relationship between the Father and the Son is genuine and not a performance by a single self, and that Jesus has all the authority of God, from God. I disagree with any theory that makes same-essence belief a requirement for his purposes. I think that he is in some way a perfect reflection of God, and whatever else the Bible says about him, and that is part of his nature unique to him, not possible for anyone else. He's fully human, but something else at the same time, which I don't think is possible for anyone to understand or that we need to understand other than his authority being God's authority, the very meaning of the authority of God in the Abrahamic scriptures.

If same essence means same self, or same substance, then it's false. If it doesn't, then it's just an empty and deceptive word, to prop up one false salvation theory or another.