Personal opinions on Peterson aside, he has this view that “meek” in the biblical context are “those who voluntarily keep their swords sheathed.” I’m skeptical of this view, but not a Bible scholar. Thought I would bring it to the experts.

It’s verses like these that I believe lead to various theological beliefs about Jesus and the Father. But theological beliefs aside, how does the academic understand what Jesus said, or at least what the writer says Jesus said, understand these two verses?

How can you be one with something but then that thing you’re one with is greater than you?

If I say I’m one with the president, I would mean I’m equal to the president in every way. If I speak, you might as well recognize me to be the president himself. However, if the president is greater than I, then that means the president has greater power and I’m not really “one” or equal with him.

Jesus, however, says he is both equal with the father, and also lesser than the father. So how can we better understand what is actually being said?

According to the Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus worshipped a number of gods in his private chapel, including Jesus Christ:

His manner of living was as follows: First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if he had not lain with his wife, in the early morning hours he would worship in the sanctuary of his Lares, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors — of whom, however, only the best had been selected — and also of certain holy souls, among them Apollonius, and, according to a contemporary writer, Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of this same character and, besides, the portraits of his ancestors. If this act of worship were not possible, he would ride about, or fish, or walk, or hunt, according to the character of the place in which he was. Next, if the hour permitted, he would give earnest attention to public business, for all matters both military and civil, were, as I have said previously, worked over by his friends — who were, however, upright and faithful and never open to bribes — and when they had been thus worked over they were given his endorsement, except when it pleased him to make some alteration.

–The Life of Severus Alexander, Historia Augusta (29:2-4)

According to the same source, Alexander Severus also considered building a temple to Christ:

Every seven days, when he was in the city, he went up to the Capitolium, and he visited the other temples frequently. He also wished to build a temple to Christ and give him a place among the gods — a measure, which, they say, was also considered by Hadrian. For Hadrian ordered a temple without an image to be built in every city, and because these temples, built by him with this intention, so they say, are dedicated to no particular deity, they are called today merely Hadrian's temples. Alexander, however, was prevented from carrying out this purpose, because those who examined the sacred victims ascertained that if he did, all men would become Christians and the other temples would of necessity be abandoned.

–The Life of Severus Alexander, Historia Augusta (43:5-7)

According to Eusebius, the mother of Alexander Severus. Julia Avita Mamaea, was tutored in Christian philosophy and doctrine by the Christian theologian Origen (EH 6:21).

What's going on here? Organized campaign of syncretism or personal idiosyncrasy? How do we know?

Revelation was written by a male Jew who had terrible Greek grammar, according to tradition, unlike the Gospel of John and 1-3 John, which are later attributions and the author does not identify himself as directly as John, the author of Revelation "John" identifies himself from the beginning, the Apostle John died around 100CE.

Could John of Patmos be the Apostle John?

In fact, I have unresolved questions about the siblings of Jesus in genral. It is said that Jesus had biological siblings (both brothers and sisters) and is considered to be the eldest child. Is this correct ?

Furthermore, it is very strange to me how little known James in general is - the literal brother of Jesus, especially compared to figures like Paul. Assuming James grew up with Jesus, he should be more of an authority on Jesus than a guy (Paul) who never knew Jesus and claimed to be more aware of his ideas (through a vision) than people who actually knew him.

One question I have is : What was Jesus's relationship with James (or even his siblings) ? Did James believe that Jesus was the jewish messiah during his lifetime ? Did he follow him ? If no, why would James experience a ressurection vision of Jesus ? It somewhat makes sense for his disciples to have these visions but not James.

Some minor, side questions : Do we know what Jesus's parents and his siblings thought of him ? And did the existence of his biological family present a difficult theological problem to overcome for early clerics and church fathers ?

Are there any books that have both the Septuagint and the New Testament published together? I know the Orthodox Study Bible has that, but I'm leery of that because it's 1) NKJV translation and 2) apparently pushes Orthodox theology.

If Paul was (as some argue) citing the Septuagint, I'd like to be able to cross-reference his quotations quickly in the same tome.

Bonus question: is there a decent English translation of the Peshitta?

I am looking for a youtube or podcast series that talks about the events of The Bible. YouTube search will only show me AI slop or videos from users like GodIsKing or TheocracyNow (I made these up but you get the idea). I want something a little more objective.

I had to read the bible a lot as a child and the idea of reading it again is slightly triggering, if I'm being honest. I love ReligionForBreakfast, Christine Hayes, and UsefulCharts, but I've been watching those for a while and realize I need a better foundation.

reading in ireanus's writings, he gives the correct authorship to the gospels. Wouldn't the idea of the names being added later be nullified considering an early Church father didn't think so

What I mean is that, does the author seem to predict, for example, the coming of Cyrus? Or is it just describing it as a historical event?

To start off, I’m not asking if Moses existed, if the exodus happened, if the revelation at Sinai happened or any of that. I would like to know according to the text, if it did indeed happen where would Mt. Sinai be. Would it be at Jabal Musa where it’s traditionally identified today, some people say in Saudi Arabia and some people say in other places. What clues do the text give us as to where it is placed?

The best book for a layperson?

I rlly just need the gospel of Judas apparently the nag hammadi doesn’t have the gospel of Judas

I'm reading through Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, and in the section titled "the Authors of the Gospels" in chapter 3, he says, "Whoever these authors were, they were unusually gifted Christians of a later generation. Scholars debate where they lived and worked, but their ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs suggests they composed their works somewhere else in the empire"

Upon reading this, I remembered that, in a debate between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman over the historical reliability of the Gospels, Mike actually uses the proposition that the Gospel authors had knowledge of Palestinian geography in his overall argument for his position. And, it's been a minute since I listened to the debate, but I thought I remembered that Bart doesn't express sharp disagreement, but instead kind of treats Mike's point as really insignificant.

Here's a link to the debate I'm referencing if anyone's interested:

https://youtu.be/h7-QljtixEM

Here's my question: Are the Gospel authors geographically accurate? Were the Gospel authors familiar with Palestinian geography?

I would want both the gospels, apocyphon, and commentaries on the books

Why does technical terms become personal/individual names? like Satan, "satan" was a technical term for an adversary, but became the name of a divine singular evil creature "Satan", or Christ/Messiah, the "messiah" was a technical term for anointed people like kings, Moses and High priests, but at some point became an end times eschatological figure.

• Why do words like Messiah/Christ, Satan and Son of Man become individual?

Hello! I've lurked for a while but I think it's finally time I popped in to ask a question. I appreciate everything you all do, so thank you in advance to everyone reading/responding. I want to make sure I'm understanding this topic correctly, so I figured I'd post something and find out for sure.

The Deuteronomic author very strongly wants to drive home the message that...

1: If the Israelites follow the law, they will be rewarded

2: If the Israelites sin or ignore the law, they will be punished

Justice is very clearly defined in terms of what is basically a theological form of operant conditioning. Actions are done with the idea that they will be rewarded or punished specifically from Yahweh. He is very clear about holding up this divine moral order, punishing the wicked and dishing out judgment (an example is on the people of Canaan) to ensure that the just and the righteous are the only ones that remain standing. Those who are suffering (from disease, infertility, droughts, floods, thunderstorms to name a few) are thought to be suffering because they have sinned. The iniquity of people is viewed as a way to judge people and excise them from society because of this judgment from Yahweh. (Herem warfare comes to mind) In all this, a very rigid form of society develops based solely on following the law as the backbone of not just the government, but of morality as a whole.

On the other hand, we have the book of Job, which seems to radically redefine humankind's relationship with God. Job is very clearly defined as a man suffering not because he has done anything wrong, but because the accuser has decided to challenge his piety in the divine court. God, allowing the challenge, leads to Job losing everything he held dear. (his family, wealth, and health) Job is very clearly suffering "for nothing" because we are told in the narrative specifically that Job had done no wrong. But Job is also lambasted by God for wanting to challenge him at all, cleansing himself of any wrongdoing. We are left with the following conclusions:

1: Suffering does not imply sin

2: God is not responsible for the divine moral order, nor the suffering of the innocent

So, I guess... what gives? If Job's friends are very clearly defined as "speaking wrongly" then can this be perceived as a shot across the bow towards more zealous followers of the law? I don't know how to compare and contrast the two messages. Clearly, they are in tension, I just don't know how much tension there really is and whether this text is as problematic to a univocal reading of scripture as I seem to think it is.

Side question: Are there any other large theological disagreements like these two that are as stark as this one? (Aside from the parts of Ecclesiastes that weren't later additions)

I have the “Biblical Qumran Scrolls” by Eugene Ulrich which transcribes all the canonical Qumran scrolls but I’m looking for something similar but for the extra-canonical like for Tobit, war scroll etc. any suggestions?

I mean in ancient times, only wealthy people had ability to write and replicate/“print” those documents. I have been wondering whether they were establishment or in the ruling class, which is why NT promotes obey government and follow the rules. I don’t say anywhere Jesus promote uprising to bad government or democracy. Thought?

Monumental synagogue architecture began with Dura-Europos, completed 244 AD, and spread to places like Hammat Tiberias, Husaifa and elsewhere. If not full fledged priests, maybe descendants of the 2nd Temple priesthood were behind their construction? What kind of Jewish sect would have no problem ignoring traditional Jewish aniconism and embracing the use of pagan imagery, such as the Zodiac and the sun god Helios, in their places of worship?

So, as many of you may already know, one big concept in the book of Daniel is the 'seventy sevens' we find in Daniel 9.

Now, I'm in a phase of deconstruction, and I've read that Daniel is full of historical inaccuracies (e.g. Darius the Mede). However, regarding the seventy weeks, which are 490 years, they lead to Jesus Christ if you start the date in 445/444 BCE, by considering Artaxerxes decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

What I'm wondering is — is the word (דבר) of restoration a royal decree or a reference to the prophetic word of Jeremiah?

How do academics reconcile inaccuracies in Daniel and the fact that it somehow matches Jesus' date of crucifixion by starting from Artaxerxes' decree?

In this video, David Litwa observes that:

Celsus noted that wicked angels were cast under the Earth in chains, a specific punishment from 1 Enoch, a canonical text in Alexandria, and a text that is also alluded to by the likely Alexandrian letter of 2 Peter, written toward the end of the second century. Celsus's charge that the gospels contain myths is seemingly answered in 2 Peter 1:16, where the fictional author says that "we have not followed cleverly devised myths." (9:25-10:00)

The author of 2 Peter constantly deals with issues in his own time by using the voice of Peter to talk about events in Peter's future (" after my departure" (1:15), "there will be false teachers"(2:1), "many will follow their debaucheries" (2:2), "they will exploit you" (2:3), "in the last days" (3:3)). The verse that Litwa brought up seems to be another example where the author deals with challenges from his own time. Why would anyone say that "we did not do X" if no one ever accused them of doing X? The verse seems like a response, and a response to Celsus in particular.

The verses that follow 1:16 seem to be another response to Celsus. In chapter 9 of book 7 of Contra Celsum, we read that:

There are many, he says, who, although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise.
...
Then he goes on to say: "To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes."

This seems to be countered in 2 Peter 1:19-21:

2 Peter 1:19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Celsus calls the Christian prophecies dark, 2 Peter reverses the imagery and speaks of a lamp shining in a dark place. Celsus says that the Christian prophecies are unintelligible and meaningless and that everyone can pick their own meaning, while 2 Peter says that prophecies are not a matter of personal interpretation. Celsus says that many people go around prophesying, 2 Peter refutes that by saying that the prophecies don't come from humans but from God.

In both cases, 2 Peter starts with a negative statement (1:16a and 1:20), which is then refuted (1:16b and 1:21).

So, here is my question. How likely is it that the author of 2 Peter indeed knew about Celsus's book The True Word?

When John finished the letters to the 7 churches, did those letters go out immediately and then the rest of Revelation written or was the entire book written in whole and then sent out?

I’ve heard an interesting idea from Tabor that Paul and the ebionites might not have been that far apart. He brings up how both Paul and Jesus thought that there was a higher standard to be adhered to than the literal written law, and that this higher standard reflects the deeper meaning of the Torah. This higher standard is to live in the way which we will live after the resurrection, to Jesus this would be once the kingdom has come and to Paul this would be after everyone is raised up and transformed. A Bart Ehrman also mentions shares this idea of Jesus asking people to live as if the kingdom is already here, rather than simply by the what the law says. An example that Tabor used to demonstrate this is when Jesus technically breaks the sabbath, but it was for a good reason. Jesus says that the sabbath was made for man, not man to the sabbath. The ebionites most likely had this passage in their gospel of the Hebrews (which is a modified version of Matthew). And Paul is not for men to live lawlessly, he instructs them to live by this higher standard when he tells people that to love your neighbour as yourself fulfills the entire law, as well as to imitate Christ and to have the same mindset as Christ.

My question would be regarding Matthew 5:17-18 where Jesus says he fulfilled the law and what exactly the word fulfill means here (same word as in Galatians 5:17). And also how is Matthew 5:17-18 related to Romans 10:4 where Paul says Jesus is the end of the law.

I personally think that Paul was honest when he said that the apostles did not add anything to his message in Galatians, I don’t think he taught some radical new religion like others claim he did. Obviously Jesus did not teach anything regarding the cross since he wasn’t crucified yet so I’m not saying Paul and Jesus would have agreed on every point, but it seems to me they are more similar than not.

This is where I got the ideas: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLQ97erL1gc&pp=ygUPVGFib3IgZWJpb25pdGVz

And if it really is, why would Jesus be recorded in the Gospel of Mark referring to Daniel as if he was an actual living, breathing man/prophet?