Daniel

Wouldn't that bring peace? " ... do not think that I came to bring peace ... "

The Christian bible is, top to bottom, dividing or differentiating between those who are reuniting ( salvation ) and those who are not.

The sword = division. From the same chapter: (NIV) 32 Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. ^^ Division ^^ From chapter 13: (NIV) “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." ^^ Division ^^ From chapter 3: (NIV) I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. ^^ Division ^^ The Book of Matthew in some ways is the most "Jewish" of the gospels. The prophecies of the Jewish Messiah are at first catastrophic, a period of division, which is resolving into a perfected world. "... do no think that I bring peace .... but a sword."

@Apotheose, Thank you for the reply. I'm going to reflect on what you wrote.

you are very welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to explore it together.

Regarding the double meaning I mentioned above, in both Greek and hebrew, the words for wind and spirit are connected. In hebrew, the word for wind and spirit are the same word. If Jesus is speaking hebrew it would sound like this. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and "ruach". ( pronounced with the harsh "h" sound like a cat coughing up a hairball; spelled "ch" or "kh" ) 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the "ruach" gives birth to "ruach". 7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’ 8 The "ruach" blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The word choice here in the Greek is facinating as well because the word for "blows" is also another variation of the same word which means both wind and spirit. John 3:8 Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. The πνεῦμα (wind/spirit) πνεῖ (winds/spirits) wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the πνεύματος (wind/spirit). "Wind/spirit" is both noun and verb. It is what it's doing. It's like "bicycling" in english. The verb is nothing more than the noun in action. It's true for both wind and spirit as well, isn't it? For wind this is translated in english as "blows". But for spirit, what is a in english that describes it? There is no word for it. It's unique. The spirit.. spirits. The same is happening to a lesser degree in the hebrew of the verse I referred to previously. Genesis 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃ And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And ruach-elohim m'rachefes toward the face of the waters. Often the english translators choose to translate this as a "wind moving". But that's not what it actually says. Moving on the face of the water would be "tailech ("moved") al p'nei hamayim", like Noah's ark in Gen 7:18. Here, the spirit is "spiriting" or "fluttering", or "pulsating", or "vibrating"... It's very similar linguistically to what Jesus is saying in John 3:8. He's reminding Nicodemus of what he is suppossed to already have learned. Deut 32:11 כנשר יעיר קנו על־גוזליו ירחף יפרש כנפיו יקחהו ישאהו על־אברתו׃ As an eagle stirs up its nest, flutters ("y'rachef") over its young, spreads out its wings, takes them, bears them on its pinions; Jeremiah 23:9 לנבאים נשבר לבי בקרבי רחפו כל־עצמותי הייתי כאיש שכור וכגבר עברו יין מפני יהוה ומפני דברי קדשו׃ My heart inside me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake ("rachafu"; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome, because of the Lord, and because of his holy words.

Boundless? I'm seeing the opposite. I think Line 8 describes one who is limited not boundless. They cannot tell from where the wind blows, nor can they tell where it is going. That's a limitation of awareness. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Those who are born of only Spirit are limited in their awareness. They can hear "wind" but cannot chart its course. Wind is in quotes because there is a double meaning here.

It's a mikvah. There is a physical mikvah and a spiritual mikvah.

John 3:3: "Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ" Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν - "Amen, Amen" ( very truly ) λέγω σοι, - "Lego soi" ( I say to you ) ἐὰν μή τις - "ean me tis" ( if lest/not anyone ) γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - "genethe anothen" ( be born from above ) οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν - "ou dynatai idein" ( not will be able to see ) τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ - "ten basileian tou Theous" ( the kingdom of God ) The Greek word for "be born" in the verse is "γεννηθῇ", "genethe", like genesis, like genealogy. The root is "γέννᾰ" "genna - origin". The verb form is γεννάω, aorist/perfect/completed-action. Here, it is conjugated with the suffix "θῇ" indicating the passive-casual: to be born, or begotten, complete, but without any active participation from the subject. The root "γέννᾰ" is very often, in the majority, literal. The most concentrated cluster of occurances is the the first chapter of Matthew, the geneology of Jesus. Matthew 1 NIV: 1 This is the genealogy ("γενέσεως") of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Isaac, Isaac [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Jacob, Jacob [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Hezron, Hezron [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Ram ... ... ... The geneology recorded in Luke uses simpler language, a construct relationship, possessive "τοῦ". Luke 3 literal translation: 23 ... He was the son of, so it was thought, Joseph of ("τοῦ") Heli, 24 of ("τοῦ") Matthat, of ("τοῦ") Levi, of ("τοῦ") Melki, of ("τοῦ") Jannai, of ("τοῦ") Joseph, 25 of ("τοῦ") Mattathias, of ("τοῦ") Amos, of ("τοῦ") Nahum, of ("τοῦ") Esli ... ... ... In all 3 of the synoptic Gospels every occurance ( 50 in total ) are all literal births from a physical womb. Examples: Matthew 19:12 NIV: For there are eunuchs who were born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Mark 14:21 NIV: The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born ("ἐγεννήθη").” Luke 1:57 NIV: When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth ("ἐγέννησεν") to a son. The book of John departs from this consistent literal usage of γέννᾰ as a literal birth. The word occurs 18 times in the book of John. The departure from an exclusively literal birth from a physical womb is introduced immediately in chapter 1. John 1:10-13 NIV: 10 He [the true light / the word made flesh] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children [born] not of natural descent ( literally "of blood" ), nor of human decision ( literally "of will of flesh" ) or a husband’s will ( literally "of the will of man" ), but born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") of God. Skipping John 3 for a moment, the other occurances of γέννᾰ in the book of John are all literal, birth from a physical womb: 8:41, 9:2,19, 20, 32, 34, 16:21, 18:37. Since, John 1 is clearly not literal, it's certainly possible that John 3 is also not literal. Let's look at John 3. The book of John begins with a reference to the creation event in Gen 1, In the beginning... creation via divine fiat. Then the scene is set, foreshadowing the conflict between Jesus and the jewish establishment with the story of the confrontation of John the baptist by the priests. John has a vision acknowleging Jesus' divine station. John's disciples are transferred over to Jesus. The chapter ends with Jesus referring Nathaniel to having a vision of "Jacob's ladder" ( Gen 28 ), but adds the very important detail about the Son-of-Man as the mercavah, the divine chariot. Chapter two is an interlude which continues, follows on, and developes the "Son-of-man" "mercavah" concept. Jesus is able to work wonders with vessels. Water to wine in a vessel... the temple is a vessel, a dwelling place. He is a master of "vessels", building, filling, and transmuting. Chapter three: Nocodemus comes to Jesus and says, "you must be from God because of the wonders you are working." Jesus interprets the statement as a question, Nicodemus is asking, "are you from God?" This is a bit of a dangerous question. Nicodemus is a pharisee in the "ruling council". Jesus dodges and distracts and also tests Nicodemus. "Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” ( Note: Nicodemus responded in frustration which is a form of anger, and is focused on the physical womb which is below. ) Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” In verse 1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus as a "Rabbi", literally. in the Greek it's written "Ῥαββί". As a Rabbi, Jesus is, in some ways, obligated to answer the question. Nicodemus is frustrated and confused. Jesus tries to sooth him. The key to understanding this is in the phrase: "You should not be surprised at my saying." Why shouldn't Nicodemus be surprised? Because Jesus is quoting scripture to him referring to the mystery school of which Nocodemus is a member as a pharisee. John 1 refers the reader to Gen 1:1. John 3 is referring the reader to Gen 1:2. 1:1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃ And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And "ורוח אלהים" / "ruach-elohim" / "divine spirit" fluttered upon the face of the waters. Jesus answers: "you can hear it, but you cannot see it. You don't know where it is going. So it is with all those who are born of spirit." Jesus says Nicodemus s born of spirit, so, what's missing? Water. Jesus is teaching, both water and spirit are needed in order to see the kingdom of God which is present right in front of his face, technically, since the "beginning". From spirit above... but then it descends like water... and then, it rises again to reunion seeing the Kingdom of God and receiving eternal life.. “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. ( Nicodemus has settled a bit. ) “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” OK. Jesus reminds Nicodemus he is a teacher. A Talmudai-Torah. A teacher of Torah. This is a Talmudic teaching. Let's see if I can find it... Got it. Ah. Technically it's a Mishnah which is older than the Talmud. Certainly a Pharisee should know this. Talmud Rosh-Hashanna 29a:6-7 מַתְנִי׳ ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים, וְאִם לָאו — הָיוּ נוֹפְלִים. MISHNA: “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). Did the hands of Moses make war or break war? Rather, it's telling you that as long as the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אוֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כׇּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וָחָי״, וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה? אֶלָּא: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִין, וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נִימּוֹקִים Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed but if not, they rotted. OK. Jesus is teaching, just as Moses lifted, the Son-of-Man (the mercavah, the divine chariot) must be lifted. Thos who believe, truly believe will turn, te'shuvah, their faces upward, their hearts will be subjected downward, and this creates the "loft" for the chariot. Those who are passengers will ascend to see the Kingdom of God and receive eternal life. The remainder of the Nicodemus episode, verses 16-21, are flagged as commentary in the NIV not direct qoutes of Jesus, so, I'll stop there. The mystery of the divine chariot is taught in Jewish mysticsm. It's the oldest form of authentic "kabbalah" which means "receiving". The idea is the mystic builds a chariot, a mercavah. But all of authentic kabalah is about making and working with vessels. In this case Jesus intends to save the world, more or less, by making himself into a mercavah, a divine vessel, which is just another word for an angel. The Son-Of-Man is a specific sort of angel, divine vessel. The vessel has not will of its own, so, it really is a revelation of God. But it requires the jewish people to turn there faces upward, and subjegate their hearts to their (our) heavenly father to create the loft for the mercavah to "rise" (in quotes because it doesn't actually go anywhere. Spirit is omnipresent.)

In another thread, @Apech wrote regarding the two truth's doctrine: Why again is this considered "non-dual"? Does the term "non-dual" make any sense at all in this context? It's two-truths? That's dual. The cup is simultaneously real and not-real. That's dual.

From the perspective of the eternal: the crime, the punishment, the repentence, the refinement of individual flaws, etc... are all concurrent. All events are happening simultaneously. I am deeply flawed now, and, I am simultaneously approaching perfection, now. The painful punishment is happening, now. And. The joyous reunion is also happening... now. The pain and the pleasure, the craving and the relief, are all happening right now from the perspective of the eternal. From the perspective of the eternal there are no beginnings and there are no endings. Every event, every moment, is never-ending and has always existed. It is sad to imagine oneself born deserving punishment. Realization of the inevitable improvement and rectification takes the sting out of it. It's inevitable, because, the future events of self-correction have already been woven into the fabric of reality. Any and all choices and their outcomes have been woven into the tapestry of life. Free-will determines which of those strands define past, present, and future. But. They're all heading towards the same inevtiable destination: unity.

I think it happens naturally. The mystic's reward and pleasure is from exploring, encountering and engaging "mystery". Material "creature comforts" are not valued. There is no reward in those things. They are comforted in other ways.

It's a mystery. The first challenge is to accurately define judaism. Maybe start there.

That's true in some ways, but, it's not always true. There are places in the hebrew bible, where the spirit of the law is favored and the letter of the law is discouraged. These are the passsages and exceptions that Christian theologians point to in order to confirm "We're not wrong." And... they're not wrong until they ignore that these are exceptions in the hebrew bible. I'm not sure that you're in a position to speak for most people. That said, the "chosen status" of jewish people is something which is misunderstood and exaggerated. I understand that you don't like to read the torah, but, that's where this idea of a "chosen people" comes from. Amos writes: 3:1 שמעו את־הדבר הזה אשר דבר יהוה עליכם בני ישראל על כל־המשפחה אשר העליתי מארץ מצרים לאמר׃ Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 3:2 רק אתכם ידעתי מכל משפחות האדמה על־כן אפקד עליכם את כל־עונתיכם׃ Only you have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. We were chosen and singled out for punishment... among other things. That's why traditional jewish music is often melancholy, bitter-sweet in the tonal arrangement. "Chosen" is not all champaign and roses. Yes, the covenant is with the jewish people and no one else. That's true. AND. This is 100% consistent with the Christian bible. Jesus confirms the tribal status and isolation of the jewish tribe in several key places. Here's an example. Acts of the Apostels 1: 6 So when they came together, they asked Him [Jesus], “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Per Jesus, The destiny of the jewish people is fixed by The Father, the same god that is described in the hebrew bible. That means the jewish people are distinct both in the hebrew bible and in the Christian bible. In particular? Because you brought a quote from 2 Corinithians. The author of those letters was jewish and was referring to the jewish concept of t'shuvah, "returning" in the quote you brought. The quotes I brought from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Luke are all describing the same concept using the same language. In general? Wiithout Isaiah and Jeremiah there would be no Christianity nor "New Covenant". If you don't believe me, please read Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 31-33. Ezekiel is also important, but lesser. And I quoted Luke as well to lend support to the concept of "returning to god" which is required per the author of 2 Corinthians for proper discerment of scripture. That's 4 biblical sources which you can look up yourself in support of what I wrote about "returning". Maybe in that time and place he was correct, but, that is changing the subject. This is what you wrote: If you are aware of the destruction and the anger of Jesus' god in regard to the temple priests and the temple itself which was flattened (mostly), then, you should be aware that Jesus' god IS consistent with the god of the hebrew bible which is also described in those ways. Although I would be remiss not to point out, from the 10 commandments: 20:5 לא־תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא פקד עון אבת על־בנים על־שלשים ועל־רבעים לשנאי׃ You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 20:6 ועשה חסד לאלפים לאהבי ולשמרי מצותי׃ And showing mercy to thousands of those who love me, and keep my commandments. From the Psalms of David: 145:8 חנון ורחום יהוה ארך אפים וגדל־חסד׃ The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of abundant loving kindness. 145:9 טוב־יהוה לכל ורחמיו על־כל־מעשיו׃ The Lord is good to all; and his mercies are over all his works. 145:14 סומך יהוה לכל־הנפלים וזוקף לכל־הכפופים׃ The Lord upholds all who fall, and raises up all those who are bowed down. 145:15 עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן־להם את־אכלם בעתו׃ The eyes of all wait upon you; and you give them their food in due season. 145:16 פותח את־ידך ומשביע לכל־חי רצון׃ You open your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing. The god of Abraham chose the jewish people, but it is the god and sustainer of ALL. God is also described as merciful and kind in addition to the harsh punitive aspects. The last line quoted above begins "Poseach es yadecha..." "You open your hand..." Here it is in song. Notice the bitter-sweet melody, the transition in the middle to the upbeat tempo, then the return to melancoly/somber. That's the jewish concept of "chosen". It's bitter-sweet.

Is this a religious text? "After these oaths were secured, the gods made a sport out of the situation. They threw sticks, rocks, and anything else on hand at Baldur, and everyone laughed as these things bounced off and left the shining god unharmed. The wily and disloyal Loki sensed an opportunity for mischief." That sounds like a good example of a pagan story. There is a confliict between the divine powers. No. The septuagint is a a greek translation. The reason its called the septuagint is because, according to the story, 72 ( latin: septuaginta = 70 ) rabbis were isolated and asked to translate the hebrew bible. All 72 produced identical tranlsations. I'm not using it as a slur. Are you taking offense when I use it? If so, what term would you prefer? Polytheist? I'll use what ever term you prefer. Hopefully you'll undeerestand my confusions since you've used that term yourself. I know other pagans that use the term to identify themself and are OK with my use of it to refer to them. But, if you are offended, I will respect that in conversation with you. Yes. Polytheistic often with divine powers associated with forces of nature. What's ironic about it? I don't use the term infidel. Gentile is perfectly fine word as far as I know. The word "goy" became a slur in the first several centuries after Jesus' earthly ministry. But, technically it's just a physical nation. The hebrew nation is a "goy", per verse Gen 25:23. ויאמר יהוה לה שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבד צעיר׃ (K) And the Lord said to her, Two nations ( "גיים" Goyim ) are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. Per the hebrew bible, the jewish nation is a goy. It's not *actually* a slur, but it became one later. Nobody in my community uses it anymore to my knowledge.

Can you refer me to ANY pagan texts which do not describe divine forces in conflict?

I don't disdain pagans. I love pagans. It's simple truth that pagans struggle with the notion of a unified monotheistic power where everything happens for a reason. That's what distinguishes pagan from monotheism. In order to "make sense" of the world the pagan needs multiple forces in conflict. They cannot "make sense" of it any other way. That's where the demi-urge comes from and the reimagining of the bible. They cannot make sense of the bible any other way. But, really it's coming from a feeling, an intuition, that there are multiple divine powers. Then they go to the bible and try tto justify their beliefs using monotheistic sacred texts. Maybe that's why pagans come to the bible to try to bolster their beliefs? They don't have their own scripture?

I intend to reply to the remainder of your 10 points from the previous page. And I'm still not seeing anything yet that would include Marcion as a Church Father. And Unitarian Christianity is "a thing". Not the mainstream, not a majority, but it has always been "a thing". They're not Muslims; that's different. I think that's fair. For me, the discussion that we're having is not about reality. It's about the contents of a book. It's about the fair representation of a book. This particular book is important to me, but, I defend against all manner of misinformation/disinformation/propaganda online. It's a sort of passionate hobby. Fortunately or unfortunately there is plenty of it. In additon, my objection here is attacking doctrine with doctrine. The bible-critic's assertions are no less religious (faith-based) than the apologist when the critic has not read, nor is willing to read, the source material. Like I said, the unfair critic will always-always discourage detail. They need the broad-brush generalizations in order to make their point. That's how to tell when it is fallacious. Naturally. However, when this is true, in the past, I notice more agnostism and apathy in contrast to dogmatic certainty.

Unitarian Christianity is not a thing? Chrstianiity.com disagrees with you. This is what they say about themselves. You may not agree with them, but, that doesn't mean it's "not a thing". This simple fact that the council needed to clarify Jesus' divine status shows that there were substantial early Christian congregations which were not worshipping Jesus as a deity. Unitarians track their history back to the Apostolic Age and maintain this belief was popular during the pre-Nicene era, preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Many Unitarians consider their Christology most similarly matches that of the "original Christians." https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/what-is-unitarianism-discover-the-history-and-beliefs-of-the-unitarian-church.html Here, below, you can see that it took several hundred years to fully establish, enforce, and normalize the trinity doctrine. The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. ... In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362. The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 381 and a final form formulated primarily by Gregory of Nyssa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Trinity I'm not sure that Unitarian Christians would appreciate that equivilance. Maybe this conclusion is coming from your location and isolation from non-trinitarians? You've admitted to a lack of education in Islam, the OT, and non-protestant Christianity, correct? So where is this confidence coming from? The JWs are excellent with scripture. None the less, here is a long list of Unitarian Christian resources. https://www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/resources/ The main point is, because you have not read the OT, nor studied it, nor read and understand its language, then you are not in a position to distinguish fact from fiction. So, you post opinions, but they often collapse when examined rationally. That's somewhat true, but, also over simplified. The problem with google searching and youtubing is that without reading the text itself, one would never be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. That's why the JWs are a good resource. When talking about the bible, they are always-always directing the reader to ... drumroll ... the text that's in the bible. The individual's demonination, or label/affiliation doesn't matter. The bible's text is the bible's text. Critics do the opposite. They discourage reading the bible. They will clip a tiny piece from the bible, and refuse to read the surrounding text. Critics like "deal-breakers" and "gotchas". But they hate including details and nuance because it diminishes the impact of their critique. Sure, that's a superficial understanding. Thanks for admitting it. Superficial. Shallow. Immature. The critic often relies on a cartoon-version of the biblcal god of Abraham. Then they deny that anyone anywhere can possibly have a more mature, deeper understanding of the text than themself. It's arrogance + ignorance. It's ignorant, because it's a shallow superficial understanding. And it's arrogant becausee it lifts up their own ignorance as the ideal. It could be that I missed it, but I certainly did not choose to ignore it. I checked multiple sources prior to posting. But since I am not an expert in Christianity, I asked the question, "Are you sure?" You're claiming 100% certainty? Why? Where is this confidence coming from? You've admitted a lack of education in this subject matter previously. Has something changed? I just double checked the wiki-article. What are you seeing there which indicated Marcion is a Church father? I'm seeing it as distinct, because, it describes Marcion as having written his own gospel adapted from Luke and denied the others. The other Chruch Fathers, right or wrong, labeled him a heretic. I've searched for anyone anywhere that includes Marcion as a Church Father, and I cannot find any. Please direct me to the section on the wiki-article which described Marcion as a Church Father? I am finding nothing corraborating your position. I am finding the opposite. Marcion made contact with the Church Fathers approx. 140 CE. They labeled him a heretic in approx. 144 CE. Here's a source hopefully you will respect, the famous critical-biblical-scholar Bart Erhman: LINK The above is bolded since you have said that you are skimming my posts. Then bringing the book as a source isn't useful, because, you don't know what it says. You don't know if it makes any valid arguments and you cerrtainly have not actively looked for or considered any valid counter-arguments. Let's stop here for now. I'm eager to read your response to the evidence I brought that Unitarian Christianity is "a thing" and "was a thing". Also, I'm interested to read how you are establishing Marcion as a Church father when everything I'm finding is the opposite. Thank you,

I don't think what you're saying is rude. I think it's foolish to make claims about what is written in ANY text without reading what is written in the text. You've referred to various scriptures, but one doesn't need to consider it literal truth in orrder to have a discussion about it. However, in order to make any sort of credible claim about what's written, it absolutely requires knowing what's... written. If you don't know these texts, then, your **belief** in the crritics is no less religious than my beliefs. People discuss harry potter, myth, and legend all the time without making any claims about their truth.

You're equating Unitarian Christians with Muslims? Are you sure? Per wikipedia: "Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian denounced Marcion as a heretic or antichrist, and he was excommunicated by the church of Rome around 144." - LINK Does this mean you're not reading it? You don't know what it says? There's various interpretations. Here is the mainstream opinion: https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html This is from the JWs. Their devotion to scriptural fidelity makes them good sources for questions like this. They agree with the mainstream Christian theology. "6 Faithful angels use their power for good, but Satan uses his power for evil. And Satan surely has great power and influence. The Bible refers to him as “the ruler of this world” and “the god of this system of things.” (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4) Satan even has “the means to cause death.” (Hebrews 2:14) This does not mean that he kills all people directly. So, what does it mean? First, this world is filled with Satan’s hateful and violent attitude. Second, because Eve believed Satan’s lie and Adam disobeyed God, all humans sin and die. (Romans 5:12) Satan is, as Jesus called him, “a murderer.” (John 8:44) He really is a powerful enemy." It's not really "the jews", because, according to the NT there are no such thing as jews and gentiles. Galatians 3. I think it would be good to read the entire passage in 2 Corinthians 3: 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate a the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. What's written here is, reading the OT without Christ is reading the OT from under a veil. In Christ, the veil is removed, and one can read the OT correctly. It has nothing to do with being jewish. Further, a hint is given about what it means to be in Christ according to the apostle. This is a "shout-out" to several prophecies in the OT of which you are probably not aware. It's the jewish concept called "t'shuvah" "return". Isaiah 44:22 מחיתי כעב פשעיך וכענן חטאותיך שובה אלי כי גאלתיך׃ I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, your transgressions, and, as a cloud, your sins; return to me; for I have redeemed you. Jeremiah 4:1 אם־תשוב ישראל נאם־יהוה אלי תשוב ואם־תסיר שקוציך מפני ולא תנוד׃ If you will return, O Israel, says the Lord, return to me; and if you will put away your abominations out of my sight, and do not waver, Malachi ( the most well known example ) 3:7 למימי אבתיכם סרתם מחקי ולא שמרתם שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם אמר יהוה צבאות ואמרתם במה נשוב׃ From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my ordinances, and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you said, How shall we return? Luke 1:17 And he [Jesus] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Maybe you're not aware that Jesus prophecies that the temple and jerusalem will be destroyed? It's a vital prophecy because it confirms Jesus as a jewish prophet according to the story. Maybe re-read Matthew 24? Jesus says all these things must happen. It's not all champaign and roses. When one studies the OT, the message that is contained there is that everything is happening for a reason. There is only 1 divine power with only 1 divine plan. Pagans struggle with this idea then and now. That too is part of the plan.

That depends on who you ask. According to mainstream Trinitarian Christianity? Yes. According to Unitarian Christianity? No. If you're asking me, definitely not.

Yes. You may already know a lot of this, but for other readers who don't: Hebrew is a unique language because of the layers of meaning which are expressed in the form of the letters and their pronounciation. These layers of meaning completely rule out the pronounciation of "Yahweh" and strongly suggest that the proper pronounciation is something very close to Jehovah. 1) First, the "W" is certainly wrong. "W" does not exist phonetically in hebrew, that's arabic. It's known that it must be pronounced "V" because the sound "V" is pronuced by connecting the bottom teeth to the upper lip. Then the vocal cords are connected to each other. Then air is connected from one side of the vocal cords to the other side. Then air is connected from the inside of the mouth to the outside of the mouth. All of these connections produce the very unique "V" vibrating phonetic. "V" = connection. None of this happens with a "W" sound. "W" begins open. Then it opens further. The vocal cords are not even activated. There is no vibration. The "W" pronounciation comes from arabic. The "V" ( mispronounced "W" ) is the third letter in the four-letter-name. It's called "vav". The word "vav" means "hook" literally. It's best known for its inclusion in the tablernacle. All of the vavim ( the hooks ) were made of silver along with the other connnecting sockets. Silver is a unique metal because of it's the most refelctive of all the metals. The egyptians made their mirrors from silver. Reflection IS connnection. It's now known that silver is not only the most reflective, it is also the msot electrically and thermally conductive. Silver is a connector. It is naturally a "vav", a hook. This idea that vav is a connector is ... reflected in the hebrew language in other places as well. The letter vav as a prefix ( "Amen v'Amen" When Jesus says "truly, truly" in the book of John ) means "and". The vav literally connects words and ideas together. The vav also is used for communicating possession, "his". The vav is connecting an object to its owner. The letter's form even looks like a hook. All of this indicates that when the letter is pronounced, it would be vocalized as a connection, as vibration. It would not be expressed as a hollow "W" sound. 2) Yahweh would certainly not be spelled with 4 letters in hebrew. it would be spelled with 3 letters. The four letter name is spelled Y-H-V-H. In hebrew, in order to spell Yahweh ( Yahveh ), the first letter, "Y" is voweled with a kamatz or maybe a patach. It's one or the other. The second letter, "H" would be unvoweled. That's a problem. No hebrew names are constructed that way. When the "H" was added to the Abram, it became AbraHAm. The interior "H" is always voweled. The way to confirm this ( and I have ) is to go to the book of chronicles. The first 9 chapters are filled with almost nothing but names. There are no unvoweled interior "H"s in any names. It does not happen that way. If the name is pronounced Yahweh/Yahveh, it would be YVH, not YHVH. 3) YHVH = "Yiyeh-Hoveh-V-Hayah" "Will-be-Was-And-Is" "Yi-Ho-V-ah" The meaning of the name YHVH is god revelaing itself as eternal without any beginnings and without any endings. This is explicity stated in the burning bush episode. First it is eluded to with the private name "Ehyeh". Then it is confirmed later where God clearly states: "My name is 'forever' ". The name means "Ohlam" literally "forever". The name Ohlam has other meanings too, but, it's most often understood as "eternal". That's precisely what is happening with YHVH.

what are his credentials? There's a few problems with it. At 3:54 - the speaker refers to elohim as connected to the root for terrify or afraid. That would be yirah or pachad. - LINK. The word elohim has nothing to do with fear or terror. At 6:43 - the speaker has just finished telling that all written langauges were abjad (voweless ) at that time, but, claims that the written torah was not vocalized originally. Does that make sense? What does a person do with a text if they cannot vocalize it? What happens in the mind when it's read? What is the point of writing a text if it does not have a distinct precise meaning? What he doesn't tell you ( or doesn't know ) is that the law requires each and every word to be pronounced when the scroll is written. It's always had a pronounciation just like all the other abjad scripts. Not only that, but according to the story , Moses and Joshua write the scrolls and read them outloud to the nation. So this notion that the torah was not vocalized fails both logically and it's changing the story. At 8:12 - the speaker is not aware of the grammatical issue of the verb in Exodus 6:3 "נודעתי". The tetragrammaton is most certainly known prior to this point in the story. The best example is Gen 14 where Abram literally says the name "YHVH is the Most High". Grammmatically, if the name was literally not known, it would have been written "הודעתי" not "נודעתי" like Exo 18:16 or Prov 22:19 for example. At 9:03 - the speaker considers the number of verses in genesis 4 significant, but, the chapters and verses were added later for convenience. There is no significance to verse numbers, chapter numbers, number of words in a chapter,, etc... Those are all human conventions. At 15:20 - the speaker has already forgotten what they said at 3:17 about conjugation of verbs At 15:44 - the speaker correctly states the translation of elohim as a singular god must be indicated in the text. True. It's indicated in the verbs. At 17:10 - The speaker presents, correctly, that elohim can mean several different things, not just god or gods, but anything that is powerful: eg judges and angels. That's because the word comes from the root aleph-yud-lamed which is a divine power - LINK. Judges were divinely chosen. Samuel was a judge. Deborah was a judge. Samson was a judge. At 18:43 - Here the speaker thinks they've found an inconsistency, where Abraham is referring to plural gods, but actually the speaker is, ironically, mistaken. Verbs are complicated in hebrew. This particular verb form is "binyan-hitpael" followed by "אתי" which makes it reflexive. The other part that is complicated is the verb itself does not mean " to cause". The speaker is fixated on the verb as if the subbject of the verb is "causing". It The verb means to "wander", but, it also means "to go down" as a pejorative, with a negative connotation. This can be seen in the hebrew and the aramaic. It's a mistake. - LINK and LINK It's ironic, and a litttle funny, that the speaker is makiing a mistake with the hebrew verb for ... making a misktake This mistake the youtuber is making is not entirely their fault. In the wikipedia entry for elohim, LINK, there's a mistranslation of a talmudic passage which seems to indicate that elohim is the subject of the plural verb. But, as I mentioned above, it's not just a plural verb, it's binyan-hitpael-reflexive of the verb " to go astray" "to make a mistake". Binyan-hitpael is past-tense and casual. Reflexive means the speaker is speaking about themself. The verb is "to go astray". If it's plural reflexive that means there were multiple mistakes and Abraham is the subject of the verb. Elohim is NOT the subject of the verb. And. Strangely. What are the mistakes plural? That's what the talmud and other commentators are trying to figure out. From here, one can read the actual passage in the talmud and understand what's being discussed - LINK. In the passage, they are discussing whether or not Abraham made a mistake. The mistake was not about referring to elohim as a plural. The mistake was referring to elohim as if it has caused a mistake. That's why the counter-argument refers not to singular/plural but to the causation. The youtuber's miscomprehension is not their fault. They're going by what is written in english on wikipedia. But if they go one level deeper and read the actual talmudic passage referenced, they'll see that the dispute is not about plurality. Elohim is not the subject of the verb. The wiki article refers to several other commentators which wikipedia claims confirm that a plural elohim is being referred to here. But if those comments are read they are referring to the cause - LINK Elohim is not the subject of the verb. Elohim did not wander. Elohim did not make mistakes. Abraham wandered. Abraham made mistakes, plural. The verb "התעו" is plural. but it's followed by a word which makes it reflexive. I'm not seeing anything which indicates "education" in the field of hebrew language on their youtube page. They're eloquent and they spend the majority of their time on medieval armor, it seems. Besides this one specific video, I had to go back 5 years to find anything referring to linguistics. It's completely unrelated to hebrew. Then I had to go back another year to find anything else. It's also completely unrelated. The youtuber consistently is skipping over analysis of the verbs. Verbs are arguably the most important part of biblical hebrew. But they're also the most challenging. Here's an example of someone educated in the field. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ask_a_scholar_what_does_yhwh_elohim_mean Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003). Please note? They authored a collegiate text-book on biblical hebrew. That's a lot more than youtube popularity. Here's what they say: Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew. One might argue that this is biased because they were educated at a Catholic university, but, the book was published by Penn State which is not a religious institution. So, it's a youtuber using wikipedia vs. an individual who is educated in the field. Yes, they are probably religious, and so am I. That's why I provvided links so that you can go and read it yourself to confirm that I'm not ... covering up the truth. Yes, it takes time and effort to read and research these issues fully. Correcting a misconception like this is not something which is easily covered in a 20 minute youtube video. It doesn't take very long to make the claim. For those who desire to reaffirm their choice to leave christianity or abrahamic theology, they only need an eloquent speaker and a few screenshots to bolster their beliefs (dis-beliefs?). It takes a lot more than that to correct it.

You are very welcome.