Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[yfes]

Just wanted to thank everyone in this thread. I get a lot of good out of reading everyone's thoughts and opinions as I try to better myself as a Christian.

 

[Derrick]

I've done missionary work in China and the police make it a hassle on top of the travel

Truly? That's very cool! Do you speak Mandarin/Cantonese (you're a real gangster if you speak both).

I keep hearing in the Christian publications that East Asia (and particularly China) is where the next big revival is going to take place, Christian missionaries are lying the groundwork under the nose of the party and soon big changes are coming, is that your opinion on the matter? I guess the thought is, theres a billion people in China, if you can win 1% you've got 10 million souls saved.

This is to say that we have a whole lot of work to do helping and cleaning up our local areas before we go balls deep in the third world.

It seems to me, rather it's Islam or Christianity, you'll find rates of Religiosity higher in the third world where people are "living rough" than in developed nations. There are no Atheists in Yemen (a Muslim country) and very few in Zambia (a Christian country) but you'd find plenty in Sweden and Japan. My best guess is, just as a matter of human nature, the worse your living, the less likely you are to have a guaranteed meal tomorrow, the more likely you are to call on/rely on a higher power. If you're trying to survive off half a dollar a day in some slum you're going to start calling out to some higher power for help. If you live in a developed nation with a high standard of living where you're needs are being met you're less likely to see God as a necessity.

 

[the big new poster]

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both [Jews and Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility".- Ephesians 2:13

But Galatians 3 :28 provides the context or what it means to be made "one" , it means that we're both Christians and both going to be saved through christ. It doesn't mean that Jews and gentiles are literally the same thing any more than males and females are literally the same thing yet Galatians 3:28 says males and females are both one as well.

You haven't addressed this argument at all :

what does "equal in Jesus" or " one in Jesus" mean ? Is Paul saying that it is forbidden for a Christian to treat men and women differently in any respect ? No.
So if being "one in Jesus" does not prohibit a Christian from treating men and women differently in certain respects , then being "one in Jesus" also does not prohibit a Christian from treating different nations/ethnic groups/races differently in certain respects.

so neither galatians 3:28 or ephesians 2:13 provide evidence that it is forbidden in Christianity to treat nations/ethnic groups differently in any respect, unless you want to claim that those verses forbid treating menand women differently in any respect, which is clearly absurd.

I'm reminded me of the words of an Atheist of all people, Bart Ehrman, who once commented, "You know, you can forcefully reconcile any belief you want with the Bible if you try hard enough,"

the reason why atheist criticism of the bible springs to your mind so easily is probably because your worldview has been shaped by the atheistic philosophy of liberalism.

If you're at a point where your Racism is so ingrained in your that I can show you Bible verses where "you are all one in Christ," and you can still say, "My race good we look after ourselves" I couldn't imagine anything changing your mind at that point

This criticism is actually much more true of you since you're the one who isn't looking at the verses about oneness in context and using logical reasoning to infer what specifically is meant by oneness, instead you're just jumping to your favoured conclusions informed by modern , liberal universally anti-ethnocentric, conclusions, which early Christian scholars did not understand the bible to be calling for. Early Christian scholars actually interpreted the teaching of Christianity to be calling for ethnocentrism. I'm aware of no Christian scholars or popes or bishops or the like before either the 19th or the 20th century claiming that Christianity forbids caring for your own nation/ethnicity first before others.

(Acts 10-11)

Yes, sure eat together, don't call each other unclean, and God accepts from all nations and has granted reptentance that leads to life to all nations . But these chapters don't say or imply that it's forbidden to look after your own people before looking after others , which is what Jesus endorses in Matthew 15-21-28.

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,".-Ephesians 2:19

What specifically does it mean that you are no longer foreigners? Does that mean that Christians are no longer Jews, Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc., such that it is incorrect for Christians to say that they are a Jew or Greek or Roman etc. because they are all the same nation in every sense ? Probably not since that's not what Christians did. Paul himself still called himself an israelite from the tribe of Benjamin.
So what does it mean that you're no longer foreigners but fellow citizens? The broader context tells us.
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit."
so what it means by no longer being foreigners is that he has ended the wall of hostility between christian nations , setting aside jewish law about circumcision (Ephesians 2:11) and giving access to God for all people. In that sense we are all the same nation, which again repeats the lesson from Galatians 3:28 , which also points out that Christians are all the same in a certain sense, with regard to be saved.
This again does mean that it's forbidden to look after your own people before looking after others , since doing this is not being hostile to other nations, nor violates that all nations can be saved, nor has anything to do with circumcision

"Your household" is not anyone who looks similar to you, or some random man of the same race as you in Timbuktu. Your household are people who live in your house.

no the word for household also means relatives, people related by blood. https://biblehub.com/greek/3609.htm
your ethnic group are your extended family. Nation comes from the verb for birth and means people of a shared birth, and means the same thing as ethnos. This is how early Christian scholars like Church fathers and Aquinas understood it.

However even if you were correct, that is still besides the point. You insinuated the argument that because 1st John 4:20 commands you to love all Christians, this means that it is forbidden for you treat some Christians differently than others , but 1 Timothy 5:8 shows this is not true because even if it is only talking about people living inside your house , it's still saying that you have different obligations to your household than from other christians and so treating your household differently from other Christians is justified
So 1 Timothy 5:8 still refutes your point about loving all christians meaning that you have to treat all Christians the same, even if oikeiwn did not include blood relations.

If you think Jesus, who had a Canaanite as a disciple btw (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4), that not only would he exclude other ethnicity from eating with him

I do not claim this

The women asked Jesus if she could eat with him and maybe do something about her demon possessed kid. When he didn't respond they prodded him a bit, she said she'd literally eat crumbs off his table.

"They prodded him a bit" ? Is that all? hahaha. Doesn't it tell you something? The fact that you have to omit paraphrasing what Jesus said in the whole verse in order to make your point? Would you need to do that if the actual gospel verses and Jesus' words supported you?
Don't you feel like you're doing something wrong intentionally omitting in order to mislead like this?

Let's go through the verses line by line to show how clearly the verses support ethnocentrism


-24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Jesus the man says that his duty is to help his people , his nation
-25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
The canaanite woman asks him for help anyway
>26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Jesus the man says that the reason why his duty is to help his nation, is the same reason why a father has a duty to feed his children rather than those who are not his children, such as a dog
>27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
the woman agrees with Jesus's reasoning and extends his reasoning, explaining that even though it is right and proper that a man feed his children , it's ok for non-family members like the dog to eat the left overs.
>28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus agrees with the woman affirms that the woman's extension of Jesus's reasoning is a statement of "great faith",i.e. agrees with his teaching.

So Jesus is affirming what the Canaanite woman said : that the reason why Jesus, a jew, should help the jews first before giving charity to foreigners is the same reason why a father should make sure his children are fed first before feeding non-family members like the dog.
And since all men have a duty to make sure their children are fed first, so too do all men have a duty to look after their own people/nation/race/ethnicity before looking after foreigners.

so matthew 15:22-28 clearly teaches that christians should be ethnocentric and look after their own people first before looking after foreigners.
so matthew 15:22-28 clearly teaches that christians should be ethnocentric and look after their own people first before looking after foreigners.

"Or, "That's good, back of the table, lady!""
Ironic you say this, because that's what the Canaanite woman said basically that it's fine as long as she eats the leftovers after his children have eaten, and then Jesus affirmed her words.
You really aren't understanding the verses.

"John 4:9"
Yes, Jesus the first person Jesus stated that He was the messiah to was a Samaritan woman. This was after he had already been performing miracles, healing people and fulfilled part of the prophecy.
And? How does this prove that it is prohibited to look after your people first before foreigners? It doesn't.

"Yes, sending those "other people" to stay in seperate neighborhoods, or attend seperate schools, or seperate waterfountains is hatred."
Simply looking after your own people before looking after other nations/ethnic groups doesn't necessarily involve any of those things so holding that Christianity teaches to look after your own people first doesn't commit me to defending those particular things.

However your claim that those things are hatred necessarily true at all, any more than it is hatred to sometimes have different spaces for males and females. The reason sometimes having different spaces for males and females isn't hatred is because it's not done out of hatred but in order to preserve harmony . Christianity in general recognises that the rulers are allowed to make laws and institute policies while ruling a country in order to bring about harmony for the public good.

https://sspx.org/en/immigration-principles-rights-and-practices-32920

"No people who look vaguely similar to you are not your "family"."
Not simply by virtue of looking vaguely similar, but people who I share recent common ancestors with i.e. my ethnic group , my nation (which comes from the word natio meaning birth i.e. people of shared birth) are my extended family. and this is how pre 19th century christian scholars saw one's nation.

I implore you, if you truely believe the Bible is the word of God, and that Jesus died for your sins, and aren't just trying to find a Religion that accepts your liberalism please turn away from denying the plain meaning of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15:21-28 and back towards authentic Christianity.

 

[Derrick]

so neither galatians 3:28 or ephesians 2:13 provide evidence that it is forbidden in Christianity to treat nations/ethnic groups differently in any respect,

Ephesians 2, it's a bit long so I highlighted the relevant parts.

Spoiler: Long Bible Passage

"
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone".

You [Gentiles] were once foreigners to God's People [Jews], now you are one, fellow citizens. Please note the "excluded citizenship in Israel" (an Earthly nation) and "no longer foreigners and strangers".

Religion that accepts your liberalism

That other guy said something similar about "leftism" and "progressiveness" and I know you've mentioned "liberal a few times" so I feel it bears repeating.

The Bible was written 2,000+ years ago it doesn't not fit comfortably into the left-right paradigm of the last few centuries. On some issues the Bible is very right wing, Divorce, Remarriage, Homosexuality, Abortion. On others it is left wing, Taking care of the Environment, looking after poor people, helping immigrants. Trying to apply modern political labeling to the Bible is a fruitless endeavor. It reminds me of this meme.

Spoiler: Political Meme

I admit it's defiantly a bit distasteful but you get the idea. We shouldn't be applying "liberal"/"conservative" to texts foreign to our modern paradigm.

Paul himself still called himself an israelite from the tribe of Benjamin.

"But Paul said to the officers: 'They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens'".- Acts 16:37
"As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, 'Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?'”- Acts 22:25

It's a bit beside the point but Paul was pulling the "I'm a Roman" card with the nearly the same ferver he pulled the "I'm an Israelite" card.

What specifically does it mean that you are no longer foreigners? Does that mean that Christians are no longer Jews, Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc.,

Yes. See Ephesians 2:12. Paul is talking directly about citizenship in Israel.

it means that we're both Christians and both going to be saved through christ. It doesn't mean that Jews and gentiles are literally the same thing any more than males and females are literally the same thing yet Galatians 3:28 says males and females are both one as well.

You haven't addressed this argument at all :

You're right, I haven't. And I apologize if I was deliberately ignoring your argument, it's just thats whole a can of worms I felt it be best I didn't open or we'd be going down a side rabbit whole that would distract from our main conversation.

To answer your question. Yes, per that verse we are all equal. However, before you jump down my throat the Bible gives us some caveats with that to show that while we are equal we have different roles. For example, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak".- 1st Corinthians 14:34, implies that while we are equal it is best if the man stick to the preaching.

your ethnic group are your extended family.

In what regard? How am I, a White person on the west coast, "related by blood" to some random White person on the East Coast I've never met before by, simply because I share the same skin tone. You're extrapolating that past the plain reading of the text.

"They prodded him a bit" ? Is that all? hahaha. Doesn't it tell you something? The fact that you have to omit paraphrasing what Jesus said in the whole verse in order to make your point? Would you need to do that if the actual gospel verses and Jesus' words supported you?

You're right, I abridged the story a bit to try and get you to the meaning. Jesus does not tell her to wait her turn, nor does he tell her I have to take care of "my people" first. He rewards her faith, she says "even the Dogs deserve a crumb" and rather than say "that's right, if we have leftovers we'll circle back around and.... blah blah blah" you get the idea. Instead he told her, "You had faith". She believed he'd come through and he did.

This was after he had already been performing miracles, healing people and fulfilled part of the prophecy.
And? How does this prove that it is prohibited to look after your people first before foreigners? It doesn't.

In Judaism Messianicship was a big deal. People preformed miracles before, they were called Prophets, remember Elijah calling down fire? But as Jesus noted, "'Truly I tell you,' he continued, 'no prophet is accepted in his hometown'". (Luke 4:24).

Jews in Jesus's day we're on alert for the coming Messiah, it even came up when they were questioning John the Baptist, "And this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him, “Who are you?” He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.”-John 4:19. As a matter of fact it was so important it was the thing, when they brought Jesus in to stand trial, they pressed him on, "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?'"- Mark 14:60. When Jesus responded "I am" they convicted them. Messianicship was quite important, so to first reveal yourself not to your "own people" but to a ethnic group whom the Bible tells us relations were so bad with Jews never spoke to them really says something. But, then again Jesus called a Cananite to be his disciple so I don't think it's multi-ethnic approach should be a suprise to you.

the reason why atheist criticism of the bible springs to your mind so easily is probably because your worldview has been shaped by the atheistic philosophy of liberalism.

It springs to my mind because, the older I've gotten, the more true I realize that sentiment is. You have a million and one denomiations who believe many contradictory things that can't be true at the same time. How? Becuase truthfully if you want to believe something you can force it into the text or ignore texts that disagree.

You see this a lot with Homosexuals. They vague texts like 1st Corinthians 14:6 "Do everything in love." and extrapoloate that to say, "well, I love another man and that's love, therefor God condones what I'm doing!" And when you press them on it, show them Leviticus, Deudoronomy, Matthew, Romans, and Corinthians, they hand wave them away. Now you can hand wave away as many verses as you want under the guise of "allegory", "metaphor", "mistranlsation", or "interpolation". However the problem becomes the more verses you have to handwave away the further from truth you're probably getting. If you have to hand wave away Acts, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, it should be a clue you may be off track.

I'm not telling you these things because I hate you or think you're a terrible irredemable person. I'm telling you because, as a Christian commanded to you all, I feel this could be an issue that could cost salvation (1st John 4:20). And since Christ asks me to love everyone (including you, a stranger I've never met nor never will meet), I think it's important to bring this up to you.

 

[marlimar]

Do you speak Mandarin/Cantonese

Thankfully they are the same written down, I went with my parents in the 90s, Hong Kong was the only time Cantonese / Mandarin understanding was an issue for my Han Chinese dad, I know how to speak very little and what I do know, I'm told I pronounce incorrectly.

soon big changes are coming, is that your opinion on the matter?

My family asks for prayer for China specifically at church, the economy is only getting worse over there, and something big truly is brewing over there, my estimation is that the global money will move to other Asian countries and the CCP will crack down even harder since they know they are losing. The Falun Gong isn't even a theistic "religion" and those people are getting disappeared. What I remember from missionary work in the 90s was that dozens of people would gather in a barn, sitting on logs or just squatting as the one person that could read would talk about hope and that concept was so foreign to those people. I was there right after 1 child policy really got going and someone that looked like them talking about how hope isn't fruitless or in vain, God really does love you enough to provide what you need for his plan for your life.

If you live in a developed nation with a high standard of living where you're needs are being met you're less likely to see God as a necessity.

Or you are just going along to get along and paying lip service to the white people that are giving out free food and clothes... it's not our responsibility to convict someone's heart, that's the Holy Spirit's job, we are just supposed to live the testimony of Jesus Christ and people should feel something different about us compared to the average person you would meet in this fallen world we wander around in.

she says "even the Dogs deserve a crumb"

This actually ties to Old Testament customs, where Gentiles would camp in a ring around the Israelite's main camp; Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile. Jews had accepted assimilation to a degree before Christ was born in flesh, there are interesting aspects to how the tribes of israel were divided in their camp sites and the land / responsibilities were assigned.

 

[Derrick]

This actually ties to Old Testament customs, where Gentiles would camp in a ring around the Israelite's main camp; Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile. Jews had accepted assimilation to a degree before Christ was born in flesh, there are interesting aspects to how the tribes of israel were divided in their camp sites and the land / responsibilities were assigned.

That's interesting I'll have to look into this more, can you cite me some scripture? I admit the Old Testament is sort of a theological blind spot for me compared to the new. For example when I was first coming to Christ the first time I was reading through the crucifixion and came to the part where Jesus said, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' I thought, "What? I thought Jesus was God and this was all part of the plan, why is he calling out to himself for forsaking himself?" I would have probably stopped exploring Christianity had somebody not shown me how Jesus was quoting the Psalm where at first things look bad but in the end the righteous win.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile

As a fun aside; Caleb was not a Gentile. Many people, myself especially, really muddy the meaning of “Jew” and “Gentile” and “Israelite”. In fairness, it’s quickly understood what is intended when we say any of those terms.

Caleb was a Kenizite, a descendant of Esau, son of Abraham (Kenizites being Edomites). He would be considered an Abrahamite ultimately, and not a Gentile (Gentiles being all those born outside of the line of Abraham, for whom the promise was made that he’d be the father of many nations). He was not an Israelite. However, he did end up becoming a chief among the tribe of Judah.

For all intents and purposes, Caleb was a Jew, but also not fully a Jew, but also definitely not a Gentile.

Edit: Biblical lineage is really fascinating and really important. It’s because of those lineages that you can understand more of what’s going on in the Old Testament. It’s also really fun because you can learn some wild stuff, like how the Judeans during the time of King Onias I considered the Spartans to be Abrahamites, NOT Gentiles, or how Cypriots might technically be Jews or at the very least Abrahamites.

 

[Derrick]

and really important.

Especially when you consider the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (2nd Samuel 7:12)

"regarding his Son [Jesus], who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David"- Romans 1:3.

 

[marlimar]

can you site me some scripture

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV

To illustrate, X = approximately 10,000 Jews, followed by the tribe in parenthesis, compass directions are north/south vertical (up/down) east/west horizontal (left/right):
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Dan)
X
X
X
X
(Asher)
X
X
X
X
X
(Naphtali)
XXXX(Ephraim)XXXx(Manasseh)XXXx(Benjamin)||(MOSES/AARON/Levites)||XXXXXXXx(Judah)XXXXXx(Issachar)XXXXXx(Zebulun)
X
X
X
X
x
(Reuben)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Simeon)
X
X
X
X
x
(Gad)

What we have here would appear to be an Old Testament reference to the cross. Just like we can hand wave away parts of the bible we don't care to follow, we could ignore all these seemingly coincidences where the Old Testament repeatedly foreshadows everything in the New Testament.

Edit: couldn't get it to format, sucks to suck.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

Especially when you consider the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (2nd Samuel 7:12)

"regarding his Son [Jesus], who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David"- Romans 1:3.

He is also the descendant of Jechoniah, to whom the Lord cursed, saying: “Write this man as a banished man, for none at all from his seed shall be raised to sit on the throne of David, or still as a ruler in Judah.” (Jer 22:30)

 

[marlimar]

Biblical lineage is really fascinating and really important. It’s because of those lineages that you can understand more of what’s going on in the Old Testament.

I have my own problems with Jacob and Esau, blindness really got to Isaac... God's plan I suppose, my favorite tinfoil theory is that the battle that Gideon led with the clay pots was actually the battle of Thermopylae depicted in the film 300. As far as Caleb not being a Gentile, the Esau lineage really throws me off because the Edomites were always battling the Israelites, so I assume Gentile because not part of the nation of Israel.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

I have my own problems with Jacob and Esau, blindness really got to Isaac... God's plan I suppose, my favorite tinfoil theory is that the battle that Gideon led with the clay pots was actually the battle of Thermopylae depicted in the film 300. As far as Caleb not being a Gentile, the Esau lineage really throws me off because the Edomites were always battling the Israelites, so I assume Gentile because not part of the nation of Israel.

Jacob and Esau follows the pattern of the younger being favored over the older; Or, rather, the older being negligent and careless of their duty and the younger remaining faithful. This started with Cain and Abel (Cain was the firstborn and fell totally to sin), and Esau is painted as being given to sinfulness and unfaithfulness (from the womb, he leapt for idolatry, and in fear of death, he sold his birthright to Jacob). It’s also got a reference to being clothed in “garments of skin”, which refers back to Adam and Eve, and the mantle of wool Jacob is wearing is the same mantle of Elijah. A LOT is going on in that bizarre scene.

As for Gideon, do you mean the actual battle or just that the movie took inspiration from it? 300 is a nice, simple, yet very divine number.

It’s not just Edomites, but a whole host of others; Remember, Abraham had a total of 8 sons himself (including Midian, father of the Midianites!), and all of them had many more sons that really fill in the other tribes.

As another aside; It’s also pretty clear that even the Tribes of Israel can fall out from the lineage. Famously, the Tribe of Dan for so thoroughly mingling in with Philistines (who ARE Gentiles, being descendants of Ham, son of Noah, and not of Abraham) and falling into sinfulness and idolatry that they are removed from the list of tribes by Revelations (along with the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph, who became the Samaritans. The tribe of Joseph is a headache, just know that it is a dual-tribe made up of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were elevated because of the loss of the tribe of Reuben). For this reason, the Tribe of Joseph is reinstated.

 

[marlimar]

Jacob and Esau follows the pattern of the younger being favored over the older

The whole predestination of the Lord saying the older shall serve the younger and Jacob grasping Esau's heel, how that affected which came out first leads into a whole Calvinist debacle culminating in Judas / Pilot 's role in our salvation, and their individual consequences... Judas can't unhang himself.

Jacob is wearing is the same mantle of Elijah. A LOT is going on in that bizarre scene.

My understanding is that it signifies a status or a right to communicate with God, the nuances of which I'm not sure. I'm glad I don't need an intercessor to speak to God; I thank Jesus and the Holy Spirit for doing that for me.

As for Gideon, do you mean the actual battle or just that the movie took inspiration from it? 300 is a nice, simple, yet very divine number.

The actual battle, as Gideon only had 300 to beat the Midianites... The movie is more Indian looking than Egyptian, but who knows what they actually wore.

the Tribes of Israel can fall out from the lineage

Er and Onan are my favorite examples of falling out of the lineage, the whole line of Judah is really something else... and to think that Christ is not only from the line of David, but is the Lion of Judah.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 199 - Nothing is more destined to create deep-seated anxieties in people than the false assumption that life should be free from anxiety.

 

[23iwakura23]

The actual battle, as Gideon only had 300 to beat the Midianites... The movie is more Indian looking than Egyptian, but who knows what they actually wore.

You know, I was going to contradict you, but the more I read on it, there's some odd similarities if you read the right accounts, and it makes me want to know more about what you know about this.

While literary gideon would have existed about 500 years before thermopylae, the deuteronomist source we have for it would have been near contemporary with the battle at thermopylae. And while we usually talk about thermopylae from Herodotus' account of the battle, Diodorus Siculus's account of the battle (which is much later written in the 1st c. BC, and likely was based on Ephorus's now-lost history) has Leonidas making his last attack against the persians in the dead of night, where he's able to cause massive damage, similar to the account of Gideon attacking at night.

The soldiers, then, in accordance with the orders given them, forming in a compact body fell by night upon the encampment of the Persians, Leonidas leading the attack;⁠ and the barbarians, because of the unexpectedness of the attack and their ignorance of the reason for it, ran together from their tents with great tumult and in disorder, and thinking that the soldiers who had set out with the Trachinian had perished and that the entire force of the Greeks was upon them, they were struck with terror. Consequently many of them were slain by the troops of Leonidas, and even more perished at the hands of their comrades, who in their ignorance took them for enemies. For the night prevented any understanding of the true state of affairs, and the confusion, extending as it did throughout the entire encampment, occasioned, we may well believe, great slaughter; since they kept killing one another, the conditions not allowing of a close scrutiny, because there was no order from a general nor any demanding of a password nor, in general, any recovery of reason. Indeed, if the king had remained at the royal pavilion, he also could easily have been slain by the Greeks and the whole war would have reached a speedy conclusion; but as it was, Xerxes had rushed out to the tumult, and the Greeks broke into the pavilion and slew almost to a man all whom they caught there. So long as it was night they wandered throughout the entire camp seeking Xerxes — a reasonable action; but when the day dawned and the entire state of affairs was made manifest, the Persians observing that the Greeks were few in number, viewed them with contempt; the Persians did not, however, join battle with them face to face, fearing their valour, but they formed on their flanks and rear, and shooting arrows and hurling javelins at them from every direction they slew them to a man. Now as for the soldiers of Leonidas who guarded the passes of Thermopylae, such was the end of life they met.

That's a really weird coincidence, and I was totally unaware of it, since Herodotus doesn't include the night attack, and that's usually the account dramatic retellings like 300 go off of.

 

[Mad_Dog]

the deuteronomist source

Forget the documentary hypothesis, brother. No serious theologian uses that anymore, despite it still being found in most of our modern Bibles, up until recently. It was developed over the course of the 19th century and put in final form by Julius Wellhausen.
Basically, it teaches that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible, in canonical order: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy), instead it was written, or more precisely, put together as a sort of mix-and-match copy-paste frankentext from at least four documentary sources: J, E, D, and P.

• The "Jawhist," Southern, primitive source, from around 900 B.C.
• The "Elohist," Northern, less primitive source, from around 800 B.C.
• The "Deuteronomist," ethical/preachy source, from around 600s B.C.
• The "Priestly," decadent ritualism, from around the exilic period or later.

This entirely new hypothesis makes irrelevant the old canonical order of the Pentateuch, where the organizing principle were the dealings of God with man:

• Creation
• The Fall
• The Consequences of the Fall
• The Calling of Abraham
• The formation of the people: giving them land, laws, promises, promising to bless the whole world in and by them.

Instead of the canonical order, the Documentary Hypothesis claims "J" comes first, then E, then D, then P. So, it uses the same material to tell an entirely different story. The Pentateuch is now read from the completely novel framework of evolution, the shiny new toy in the 19th century's intellectual tool belt.

The story told by the reordered Pentateuch of the Documentary Hypothesis is now the gradual growth and development of human religion, from the primitive anthropomorphic "J source," which Wellhausen compared to the pagan Arabs before the coming of Islam, all the way down to the decadent ritualistic "P source," which he compared to later rabbinic Judaism with its abstruse legalism and preposterous taboos. It's now the story of religious development: from the primitive apocalypticism of the earliest sources, to a more developed sapiential teaching, suitable to the needs of the later communities that wrote them.

Close your ears to their blandishments, brother, because these theories twist our religion into an entirely new thing where we no longer worship the God who thundered from atop Mount Sinai in cloud and Majesty and awe, where we no longer worship the Divine Savior who was crucified and risen for our salvation. In this new religion, we and our community, not the God we worship, are the protagonists of our religious narrative. The story is now self-centered, rather the God-centered, it's about our own growth: from primitive tribes who believed in things like "miracles," to sophisticated, self-aware, and mature believers who tell hard truths and congratulate ourselves on how nuanced and critical we are.

The great struggle for the survival of the Church this century is over the authority of Scripture. Not women's ordination, not gay marriage, contraception, or whatever, those are all secondary; the determining factor for the survival of our Church will be Scripture. This is where we stand or fall. Faithfulness isn't something you have to apologize for, lean into it.

 

[23iwakura23]

Instead of the canonical order, the Documentary Hypothesis claims "J" comes first, then E, then D, then P. So, it uses the same material to tell an entirely different story. The Pentateuch is now read from the completely novel framework of evolution, the shiny new toy in the 19th century's intellectual tool belt.

That's a fascinating way to think of the documentary hypothesis. I never put together that they're subconsciously shilling an evolutionary model from primitive to more sophisticated, but that would make sense for the whole higher-criticism modernist crowd to go for wouldn't it.

 

[Mad_Dog]

That's a fascinating way to think of the documentary hypothesis. I never put together that they're subconsciously shilling an evolutionary model from primitive to more sophisticated, but that would make sense for the whole higher-criticism modernist crowd to go for wouldn't it.

The only serious English commentaries I go to besides the Church Fathers are George Leo Haydock, and as a close second Dom Bernard Orchard.

 

[marlimar]

The only serious English commentaries I go to besides the Church Fathers are George Leo Haydock, and as a close second Dom Bernard Orchard.

I have a set of Through The Bible by J Vernon Mcgee, I enjoy his commentary from a 70s California preacher perspective.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

People do know that the word they use in Hebrew in Leviticus 19:34 and is גֵּר (ger) and that has distinct meaning right? Sojourner is actually used accurately in this case. The spirit of the text is that you shouldn’t abuse some (nig)ger who lives among you and is a polite decent member of your society who abides by your rules. It can also imply a convert if you go by the Greek, but it can also mean they are assimilating into the culture or respectful. Typically, I believe that the phrase for a non-Jew who’s okay beyond a good Goy is ger toshav. Basically legal resident who is different than us.

They actually do have a word for rude foreigner or someone who doesn’t respect the law of the land or the Kingdom/ Land of Israel. נָכְרִי (Nokri) is used in Deuteronomy 17:15 and Proverbs 2:16

There is also זָר (Zar, I find this one funny because it sounds like Tsar) and basically from what I it means stranger in a more literal sense and kind of a stranger danger sense. You are to be wary of it.

@Catch The Rainbow can you Jewishly kike-check my knowledge of Hebrew?

I find the modern discussion about immigration to be extremely Boomer and commie spic liberation theology bullshit. Enjoy your children being Dhimmis in a few years because you needed GDP go up to get that pension you voted yourself.

Edit: there were 4 major sects of Jews during the 2nd Temple period. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls), and Zealots. Pharisees were effectively like Catholics/ Orthodox in the view that they held sacred tradition along with the Old Testament books along with commentary and philosophy, Sadducee’s were akin to Episcopalians/ Anglicans in that they drew power from politics and believed whatever Rome told them were Sola Scriptura, Essenes were withdrawn and kind of like anyone who gets autistic when faith is used to justify politics, and the Zealots were kind of like the Trad Cath Zoomers and Orthobros who are frustrated at society and the interference of foreigners into their culture. The Zealots and their sub-group the Sicarii actually did carry out rebellion.

Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot by tradition are often considered Zealots. Supposedly a lot of Early Christians were Essenes. Sadducees died out because they had influence with the Temple. Some Jews sperg about them getting absorbed and fucking things up. Zealots from what I’ve read actually split pretty evenly when they didn’t die from Romans beating them into paste.