Video

WHO is "mocking" or "hating:" or "deceiving"? That's a big charge. Back it up!

Either/or is a fun place for U.S. voters. Jesus historically existed and mythicists are nonscholarly liberals (just like fundamentalists are nonscholarly conservatives). The greatest historical FACT establishing that Jesus historically existed was that HISTORICALLY, Jesus really really was crucified by Roman authority and Judaean elites. That's the number one most assured historical assertion about Jesus, the real historical Galilean peasant turned folk healer and political faction organizer. The second most assured historical assertion about the historical Jesus? That shortly after his death he was proclaimed risen by his galvanized followers who believed that they experienced him risen and alive, honored by their Patron God of Israelites. NO ONE BELIEVED THAT JESUS "CAME BACK TO LIFE," Mel Gibson. His followers did NOT claim that "JESUS CAME BACK TO ORDINARY HUMAN LIFE." That is not what anastasis (resurrection) means, neither in their first-century Israelite sky-lore NOR in official Christian (including "C" Catholic) "o" orthodoxy. Jesus was believed (and experienced!) risen in a new, different, sky-vault quality life. There is no "back" to life as we non-resurrected humans experience it. The best of all "c" catholic words is AND. As in BOTH/AND. Yes, amen, I believe that Jesus truly was crucified, died, and was risen, BOTH historically AND theologically. Not physically risen, no. But really -- and he exists risen independent of my belief or experience of him as such. Fair? "Or is the death and resurrection story another parallel to the idea of being healed, restoring meaning to life.." No, I don't believe so. At least not JUST that. There were many folk healers, and still are in the non-Western part of the world. We don't talk about this shamanic folk healer Jesus because of a sum of his healings, but rather because of what we, in our Tradition, call Easter. That's why we talk about his healings, really. If biomedical repairs happened IN ADDITION to his healings, okay. Let's say that happened also: what happened to those "lepers," "blind people," "deaf people," "cripples," and "formerly dead people"? They all DIED later on, no? It isn't against reason to believe that humankind and all creation was meant for ultimate healing, and what resurrection really is. "even though we die, which means none of it actually happened in a materialistic sense?" Jesus actually rose from the dead into God. I believe that happens with all creation and Jesus, the real historical person, is the name I was given and still use to call that reality. As for the materialistic sense, you'd have to go talk with a materialist, so take your pick, because fundamentalists are scratch-off atheists, and silly atheists are scratch-off fundamentalists.

Lol I love your explanations! I am just confused now.. I thought when we take communion, we are consuming the flesh of Jesus Christ? I guess I don't understand these terms like "alive" anymore lol.. everything has been reduced to scientism in our culture..

@@miguelacosta123 The Archdiocese of MIami has been badly theologically informed where "o" orthodoxy regarding the Real Presence is mistaken for crude physicalism the opposite extreme of mistakenly thinking the Eucharist is merely a SIGN signifying Jesus somewhere in the heavens or a reminder of his literal sacrifice way back when. In describing Christ's presence in the Eucharist, the Council of Trent used three adverbs. Jesus is contained in it, said the Council, "truly, really, and substantially" (DS 1651). Note that the word "physically" (especially in our empiriological sense of "physical") isn't there? Jesus is risen. PHYSICALLY? Bodily in a transformed way. We might call that into Alternate Reality (not in a sense lacking ontological content). Jesus is present. Physically? Truly, really, and substantially. We might call that SACRAMENTALLY. But not chemically. We take in the whole Christ and Christ takes us in at Communion. This is already happening everywhere and always. Noting quantitative is being increased at the Liturgy. It is a more intense celebration of what is going on everywhere and always: love. Obsession with Eucharistic Wonders (like every freaking Corpus Christi homily in the ADOM?) is a sure sign of being a scratch-off atheist and multiplying more by the thousands.

@@miguelacosta123 Remember the book you had on JOB and JONAH? Remember that very insightful distinction about serious atheists/theists and the USUSAL assortment of (rather silly) atheists/theists? It applies here. Not to you, but to what we are sharing about.

@BibleAlivePresentations What about events such as the Miracle of Lanciano.. it seems that the real presence of Christ in the host became flesh and blood in what appears to be in a physical way?

"So how are we supposed to read the disagreement between Paul and Peter in Galatians?" As Paul angry at Peter for caving to the "Judaizers," Judaean Jesus-group people back in Palestine insisting that all Jesus-groups adopt and practice Judaean customs (Torah-observance). Paul's clients in Galatia and elsewhere were HELLENE (civilized) Israelites who didn't participate in "barbarian" practice. Paul writes to "Greek" (“civilized”) Israelites living in this region. They accepted Paul’s gospel of God, but were then attacked by “Judaizers” who believed Israelites should observe Israelite customs as practiced in Judaea where the theocracy announced by Jesus would soon emerge. The Jesus group established by Paul, like all groups, cherished a distinctive social identity that had three dimensions: cognitive (“we” are different from “them”); evaluative (“our” way is better than “theirs”); and emotional (“we” support each other attached to the Lord Jesus and one another.”). Galatians 3:28 There is neither JUDAEAN nor HELLENE, [meaning: there is neither BARBARIAN ISRAELITE nor CIVILIZED ISRAELITE] there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in messiah Jesus. In Galatians 3:27-29, Paul concludes his argument about messiah Jesus being Abraham's offspring, heir of God's promise thanks to faith in God, without works of the Law (i.e., Judaean practice and custom). All who have been baptized into the messiah have undergone a transformative event, a social "putting on" of messiah. Jesus-group members have become one in messiah. Hence Israelites of whatever social rank, whether barbarian Judaeans or civilized Hellenists, whether slave or free, and regardless of gender, are one in messiah Jesus. The bottom line, then, is that by belonging in the messiah Jesus, who, according to Paul, is the sole heir of Abraham, the collectivistic persons making up Jesus groups become the true offspring of Abraham, hence heirs of God's promise to Abraham. The Judaizers are NOT superior to Paul's civilized clients. Hence, Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 DOES make sense because Judaean believers are not superior to Paul's Hellenes (“There is neither JUDAEAN nor HELLENE, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”). Paul and Peter's argument was indeed about Hellenized Israelites and NOT Gentiles at all.

​@BibleAlivePresentations Yes, this was going to be my question. Thanks for laying it out. Honestly this debate seems familiar to me even nowadays, with fundamentalist Christians proclaiming that non-fundamentalists aren't part of the "in-group," and rural-urban divides, etc. Maybe this is anachronism, but in learning more about this, does seem to make the Bible more relatable.

He is no stranger to introducing nuance in nomenclature that may seem unfamiliar: “Proto-orthodox,” for example. But Bart is inconsistent-he has an oversimplified definition of Christianity which facilitates his anachronistic misuse of the term. There is no Christianity before 325 CE. He’s a very good man in many ways and brilliant, but he needs to watch the anachronism..

"I really like the way Dr. Pilch lays this all out, but nobody seems to get it." That's how pervasive spurious familiarity works. And even good academics are not impervious to "Immaculate Perception Disease" that fortifies spurious familiarity. Such knowledge about Paul and similar knowledge about other biblical narratives which “everyone knows” are excellent examples of “spurious familiarity.” The information which “everybody knows” is all too often rooted in the repetition of assumptions that have little if any contact with the evidence. For instance, consider how many are FAMILIAR with the scene of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus reported by "Luke" three times in the Acts of the Apostles (9:3-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18). EVen if they've never read Acts, many people will tell you that Paul was knocked off his horse. You should know that their familiarity is “spurious” because details of the recollection (a horse??!!) find little to no support in Luke’s version and even less in Paul’s references to the same event (Galatians 1:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:8-9; 2 Corinthians 4:6: Philippians 3:12). What really happened to Paul on that occasion again? The best remedy for such spurious familiarity? Actually read the Bible BUT never lose sight of its Middle Eastern cultural context. For example, when Bart Ehrman reads New Testament texts using the anachronistic etic Germanism "apocalyptic" he distorts what he reads. Best to get that incorrect and foreign notion out of your reading of ancient astronomic reports ("Revelation") and final discourse texts (Mark 13).

Amen! You put this succinctly and wonderfully. Respectfully reading the text while being aware of my personal baggage (cultural, historical, gender-bias, political, religious, economic, philosophical, etc) and carefully excluding it, as much as I can, takes a LOT of work, but is GREATLY beneficial to my own development as a human being and member of the human community. To read ancient sacred texts NON-VIOLENTLY is difficult, like all such important work is. But no pain, no gain, as they say at the gym, and that applies spiritually also.

My pleasure! THank you for your continued support through viewership, Jem

Things are tricky with the forgery called "Colossians." But given WHEN the letter was written (not too long after Paul's death) and BY WHOM (a companion of the historical Paul), yes, the audience would be. Very good. "Colossians" was probably written by the historical Paul’s colleague, Epaphras. He proclaimed the gospel of God in the Lycus valley where the small town of Colossae was situated. He may actually give himself away mentioning that he was a companion of the putative author. This whole region of Phrygia was concerned about the impact of the sky-vaults on humankind below and the social life in the region. As Malina and Pilch explain, ancient Mediterraneans considered the contents of the sky as animate beings, capable of having influence of creatures like humans on earth below. Malina and Pilch explain that Paul’s gospel of God allowed for a horizontal embrace of the action of Jesus: death, resurrection, with the ascension pointing to a vertical orientation. In "Colossians" (and this is further developed in "Ephesians," a sort-of letter that did address non-Israelite believers at an even later generation) Jesus is now with God and in control of of the terrifying celestial entities and sky-portents influencing Israelites and other peoples below.

What about 1 Corinthians 6:9? A prooftext without CONTEXT is a pretext.

As I was telling someone ignorant below, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders. For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings. And what exactly do the two obscure Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, mean anyway? The terms malakoi and arsenokoitai occur nowhere else in 1 Corinthians and are unique to 1 Corinthians among the seven authentic Pauline letters. The latter term, arsenokoitai, appears in the Deutero-Pauline letter of 1 Timothy (1:9-10), never again in the New Testament, and only rarely thereafter. The former term, malakoi, appears only twice more in the New Testament (Matthew 11:8 / Luke 7:25) and thereafter, combined again with arsenokoitai, in a quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 contained in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (5:3). Given the rarity of this lexical combination in the Greek world generally, the lack of Pauline and biblical contexts for determining what Paul might have meant by the terms in 1 Corinthians is especially problematic. Thus it is hardly surprising that there is at present NO scholarly consensus concerning their meaning and significance in 1 Corinthians or concerning their relevance to the issue of homosexuality. A Comparison of Bible Translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9: Vulgate: neque molles neque masculorum concubitores Martin Luther: noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder Zürcher Bible: noch Lustknaben noch Knabenschänder KJV: nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind Goodspeed 1923: or sensual or given to unnatural vice Moffatt 1926: catamites, sodomites Bible de Jerusalem 1961: ni dépravés, ni gens de moeurs infames Jerusalem Bible 1966: catamites, sodomites New JB 1985: self-indulgent, sodomites Knox New Testament: the effeminate, the sinners against nature La Biblia 1990: ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales La Sacra Biblia 1984: nè gli effeminati, nè i sodomiti NAB 1990: nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals NEB 1970: guilty of …homosexual perversion Nueva Biblia Espanola: invertidos, sodomitas RSV 1946: nor homosexuals RSV 1971: nor sexual perverts New RSV 1989: male prostitutes, sodomites Revised English Bible: sexual pervert TEV 1976: or homosexual perverts Weymouth New Testament: nor men guilty of unnatural crime Look at those disagreements in translations (i.e., interpretations)! “Every translation is an interpretation.” This is precisely because all language derives its meaning from social systems. No two cultures are identical in every respect. Hence even the very best translations are, in some way, betrayals. By accommodating a reader in one culture (e.g., 21st-century English-speakers), translators introduce concepts foreign to the cultural world of the texts they translate. Ultimately, translators misrepresent something the ancient author wrote. Hence the Italian proverb, “Traduttore, traditore.” Or “every translator is a traitor.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 offers us a “Judas Iscariot,” “Brutus,” or “Benedict Arnold” sized example of treacherous Biblical translation/interpretation. (Maybe it’s too soon to say “Donald Trump sized betrayal”?) Look at the disagrements in translations above. Should the two different Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, be combined into the English “homosexuals”? That’s what the Revised Standard Version did. The translators rendered two Greek words into one English expression. But is that rendering accurate? By the way, that term “homosexual” (just like “heterosexual”) is of recent vintage, coined way after the Enlightenment and watershed event of the Industrial Revolution. We are talking late-1800s! The Good News Translation (formerly Today’s English Version) renders these two words into one expression, “homosexual perverts.” Why would that be the rendering? Are the translators distinguishing “homosexuals” from “perverse homosexuals”? How can the Bible, an ancient library, say anything about “homosexual” and “homosexuality” if both these terns are recent 19th-century conceptual constructs? Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or any other ancient language, simply lacks counterparts to these concepts. In other words, far from being clear and evident about homosexuals and homosexuality, the Bible doesn’t know either. Ultimately, the Bible mentions nothing about them. Austrian-Hungarian Károly Mária Kertbeny coined the term “homosexual” in 1869. Decades later, it was introduced to the English-speaking world in the 1890s by Charles Gilbert Chaddock in his translation of the second edition of R. Krafft-Ebbing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis.” Following that, in 1892, “homosexual” was included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

"It is a bad idea quoting academics regarding theology, they usually end up obscuring the issue." Says you, the non-scholar? That rule applies unless the academics tickle your ear supporting your a priori beliefs? Then, in that case, you'd be more generous with the Academy, I'm sure. "According to the pair you cited there was no concept of homo-sexual in the ancient world and so it is alleged that the men Paul was referring to were actually bi-sexual rather than homo-sexual." Please cite where they say that those Paul referred to were bisexual or of ANY sexual orientation. Can you imagine traveling back to the first century Mediterranean world in a time machine and discussing homosexuality with Paul (or Jesus)? Let’s say you did that. Imagine yourself talking with Paul (or Jesus!) about 21st-century studies on the biological, psychological, and psychosomatic dimensions of sexuality and homosexuality. Say that, in your conversation, you informed Paul about “X” and “Y” chromosomes and mentioned that possibly these invisible things called “genes” determine gender and sexual orientation. And imagine that also in your conversation, you distinguished sexual orientation from sexual conduct. What would Paul (or Jesus) make of that? Along with anyone from his day, he would be clueless. This is because Paul (like Jesus) belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time. They would be to them as would aluminum foil, laptop computers, and Disney World. “But at least we could discuss Natural Law with Paul!” some might mistakenly believe. Don’t be anachronistic. That concept was also foreign to Paul’s world. Natural Law theory begins way after biblical times. Whatever ethical consistency it has, that’s what informs the official Catholic position on homosexuals and so-called “disordered” natures. But the Bible? This ancient Mediterranean library doesn’t know any homosexuality or sexual orientations. Concerning same-sex coitus, biblical evidence is scant, ambiguous, and conditioned by culture alien to modern times. Consequently, Scripture cannot provide a foundation for any 21st-century ethic of homosexuality. In other words, to form a case either for or against the morality of homosexuality goes beyond fundamentalism and Bible quotes. This is because the evidence must originate outside the Bible. But that doesn’t stop fundamentalists (like yourself) relying on six scriptural passages often misused as used as proof-texts for the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or even homosexuality itself. "As a result you imply that since homo-sexual activity isn't mentioned in the Bible it is not a sin. The reality is that sexual perversity is precisely that - perversity and it is a sin as is made plain in both the Old and New Testaments." Plain? To your Western eyes? For Paul and others like him, two men having sex had to be done in a SHAMEFUL (to him and his culture) body position where one of the males becomes PASSIVE and RECEPTIVE. It was about HONOR and SHAME, not "OBJECTIVE MORALITY." Do we perceive and understand reality that way now? "There is no way anyone can slither out of that." So you demand me and those scholars I cite to be ethically consistent, do you? Well, expect us to demand the same of you then, chum! In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders. For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings. What does an honest exploration of how this passage has been translated, read, interpreted, and ethically applied for 2,000 years reveal? Tragically, subjectivity and selectivity have been the guiding principles. Basically, different readers experiencing various situations gave the vices in Paul’s list different gravities. Throughout Church history, things changed. Therefore, sometimes idolatry and greed were considered “mortal” sins, but not always. This continues into modern times. Not too long before the Age of Trump, many Christian groups understood adultery as grounds to bar someone from Communion or legal divorce (or annulment). By the way, does ex-communication really work in 2020? Consider that serial polygamist Donald Trump is hailed as God’s Chosen One by a frightful many U.S. Christians. Many “Bible-believing” churches permit divorced ministers to remain in ministry, despite Mark 10:2-12. I know of one in South Florida whose pastor is a bigamist and had his Columbian wife DEPORTED -- VIVA TRUMP! -- while he walks hands in with his Amer-I-can wife the very next week. Maybe there are good reasons not to Jesus’ understanding of marriage and divorce is entirely applicable to folks today? But then, wouldn’t that apply to other situations as well? We need ethical consistency, pal! Meanwhile, hiding under a pro-life banner, U.S. bishops give veiled endorsements of a disgraced POTUS. Donald Trump is on tape celebrating his celebrity privilege allowing him to sexually harass and molest women. But vote “pro-life!”-where “pro-life” means a voting for a thief and a bully who cheats at everything. Someone who lies like the Niagara Falls pours water, a despicable narcissist with a horde of brainwashed idolizers. How about that for ethical consistency? Wage theft, whether moral or legal, is considered virtuous by many bishops and pastors. I have personally suffered from this crime against Jesus (you know, the Body to which you and I belong?). For seven years, I worked at a South Florida parish where a priest before stole millions. I guess this justified his replacement overworking and withholding just pay from myself and my coworkers, huh? My next job was the first decent pay ever in my 21 years doing ministry work in South Florida. Right after my hire, the pastor, a real tyrant to his staff, got removed for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the community. Many of these priests “set up for failure” get transferred to some place remote, but that’s about all. Can you imagine if a lay employee did this? Where is the ethical consistency there? How many Catholic dioceses exclude thieves and greedy priests? And hey, the Evangelicals need to shut up because they are in NO MORAL position to talk. Not too many on either side of the Tiber, by my count! Like when a pastor, unhappy with his life, takes advantage of his parish’s funds, cooks the books, and purchases an expensive home in which to live with his legal husband? We are talking for over a decade. Do you even know this is going on? It is! Given all that, how curiously inconsistent we are when it comes to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and malakoi and arsenokoitai. We anachronistically misunderstand these terms as referring to “homosexuals” (male and female) engaging in same-sex sexual relations. But think about how few Christian denominations would permit such people engaging thus to remain ministers? Or to join a ministry? Why is all the moral obsession and weight placed by so many Christians on the “evils” of homosexuality? There isn’t any biblical basis. What if it is merely personal dislike and fear? What if it’s just homophobia and bigotry? Where is the ethical consistency in that? Add that to a theologically-justified delusion of super-morality powers fundamentalists believe they have. Like you do, right? With such a mix, whatever your pet peeve or phobia is, place all the weight there. Should homosexuality really deserve this hyper-focus? Why are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons ranked so high to so many U.S. Christians hateful agendas? It’s a complicated mess, and one without any biblical support. And the mess gets worse given our lack of ethical consistency, the lightness we treat the more apparent items on Paul’s vice-list. If you attempt to discover any theological and ethical significance in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the five other often-cited passages, you better weigh the vices equally! That’s what Paul did! Don’t you dare single out the obscure malakoi and arsenokoitai while ignoring the other unjust people Paul slams! Give all the vices listed equal importance. Oh, what’s that I hear? You don’t want to exclude idolaters, thieves, drunks, robbers, and greedy folks (Donald Trump, Joe Biden)? Make allowances? Be forgiving? How Christian of you! But forgive me for demanding that you do the same for malakoi and arsenokoitai, regardless to whom those words ACTUALLY refer (hint: NOT LGBTQ persons as we understand them today).

⁠@@BibleAlivePresentations I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life (even though God was merciful to him, it was still extremely difficult to forgive himself). The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us). It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like

@@BibleAlivePresentations ​⁠​⁠​⁠ I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life. The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us). It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like.

@@BibleAlivePresentations - Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them. Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based.. You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas. Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general. The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27) Would Paul have understood the genetic influences that could cause people to be homosexual? There is no demonstrable genetic cause or tendency towards homosexual behaviour. Psychological or psychosomatic influences? That would be consciously or subconsciously learned or influenced behaviour and a perversion of the Natural. You claim that “Paul belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time.” And - that Biblical references to “same sex coitus is scant, ambiguous and conditioned by culture alien to modern times.” Are you, who claims to be a Christian, saying that morals, sin, is culturally determined? So what about these Biblical references to “same sex coitus that are scant and ambiguous? The earliest is Sodom and Gomorrah and the intention of the Sodomites is quite unambiguous Genesis19:5-7 and in Leviticus 20:13 is says such behaviour is an “abomination.” And in Levitcus 18:22-24 Homosexuality is linked with bestiality and burning children as offerings to Molech. All this was apparently common practice among the Canaanites. Then in 2 Kings 23:7 we even find Sodomites (Temple prostitutes) in Solomon's temple. All condemned. So if you are going to claim that was all in a different time and culture what about bestiality, would that be ok? - and sacrificing children to Moloch, the god of wealth and prosperity - oops, we are already doing that, aren't we. The simple fact is that a “man lying with a man as with a woman” is said by God to be “an abomination,” it was then and it still is because God doesn't change Malachi 3:6. 1 Cor.6:9 Rev.21:27 You ask why the focus is on homosexuality while various other sins apparently more harmful are disregarded? The answer might lie in Paul's admonition to the Romans in ch.2:21-24 “Thou therefore - - - that preaches that a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” - and so on, talking about hypocrisy. These sins Paul mentions are what you might call “everyday sins,” sins which can overtake most people from time to time. But homo sexual sins are sins apart and so are easy to point the finger at without being accused of hypocrisy and so pointing the finger at homosexuals takes the focus away from our own sins. But there are no big sins and no small sins, sin is sin and the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23). Furthermore, being preoccupied with other people's sins and ignoring our own is contrary to Jesus' admonition in Luke 6:42. Come judgement day we will all be called to give account for our own sins and it will be no excuse to say that “his sins are worse than mine” (2 Corinthians 10:12) or to start arguing about what certain Greek words actually mean or how they apply to us in contemporary society. We are called to overcome our sins, not try and excuse them.

"Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them." How about lovable? Are they that as well? And what do you mean by "sinners" and "sin"? Define those terms, please. And your definitions of "sinners" and "sin"--is it distinct from the Biblical (ancient Israelite and Mediterranean) understanding of terms being translated into "sinner" and "sin"? Explain. " Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based.." Natural? Or cultural? Let's say natural. Do you think that a society that produces enough thermonuclear weapons to wipe out most if not all life on Earth is based on the "Natural order" and is not "subversive of society"? What about carbon footprints that indicate real and disastrous climate change sped up and is altering the world's biosphere against the "Natural order" and that definitely imperils society? "You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas." His lasting version of it traces to him and saying his thought has left an impact on Catholic doctrine and moral theology is an understatement. Other versions existed before and after, such as in the early 20th-century France, where the neo-Thomist movement stressed an intrinsicist, intellectualistic, and realistic understanding of natural law as the basis for moral theology as distinguished from the extrinsicist, voluntaristic, and nominalistic method of the older theology manuals. For these neo-Thomists the “good” is the primary ethical category. So something is commanded because it is good. This is a BIG change to the earlier view that something is good because it is commanded. So please, don't distort these DIFFERENT VERSIONS of "Natural Law Theory" as identical and static, handed down wholesale from the ancients. And no, Paul didn't have Thomas Aquinas or later neo-Thomists' ideas of Natural Law in mind. "Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general." Like eating bacon cheeseburgers? And usuary? Weaving together two different materials into one fabric? Excluding people from the community because they have Eczema? For all Mediterraneans of antiquity, like Artemidoros and Paul, the gendered self was essentially either male or female, each with nature-given, distinctive, gender-based social expectations (see Bruce Malina, The New Testament and Homosexuality, I & II): MALE = active = dominant by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlling = penetrating = seed bearing = concern for family honor = honor symbolized by phallus = represents family to the outside world = like father like son FEMALE = passive = subordinate by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlled = penetrated = seed receiving = concern for family shame = symbolized by hymen = represents family to the inside = like mother like daughter Inspiration does not happen outside of culture, and culture shapes what we CAN perceive, CAN think about, CAN interpret, CAN understand, and CAN communicate. That's why God -- Holy and Absolute Mystery -- looks so much like a Middle Eastern warlord so often in the Bible. Israelites were Mediterraneans, and the Israelite view is represented by Josephus: “for Scripture says: ‘A woman is inferior to her husband in all things’ [Genesis 3:16]. Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God has given the authority to the husband” (Against Apion 2.201). There is no term "nature" in Hebrew. We need to understand... 1) HOW ancient Mediterraneans understood "nature" and also how one subculture there, 2) HOW biblical Israel, understood "nature" to get what going CONTRARY to nature means. Let's explore that... "The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27)" We should keep in mind that for biblical Israel, same-gender sexual relations were ascribed to alien ethnic custom, alien popular custom, alien traditional convention, or some other group-specific social practice. Ancient Israel didn’t know it. It did not exist in their society and was therefore off-limits, out-of-bounds, forbidden as non-Israelite behavior. It was perceived as forever bound up with non-Israelite idolatry. Same-gender sexual relations to ancient Israelites, therefore, were perceived as a manifestation of idolatry, and for an Israelite to commit them, an act of apostasy (an abomination, see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). SO, when it comes to reading the entire Bible looking for prescriptions regarding "homosexuality"… INCLUDING: -Two stories about sexual violence and violating male honor-don’t be inhospitable to strangers, as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and raping the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19). -Sanctioning that “[ISRAELITE] man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), which, in context, is about Israelite identity and maintenance of social boundaries and faithfulness to Yahweh. -Avoiding pederasty or the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, something those unjust SOB Gentiles do (1 Timothy 1:10). -Paul’s problem with the “contrary to Israelite CUSTOM” (physis) practice of pederasts forcing younger or lesser status males to assume shameful (i.e., passive and receptive, i.e., "feminine") body positions (Romans 1) …the evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships is too sparse, too ambiguous, and too conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to our 21st-century times. Therefore, the Bible CANNOT give us an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality. The Bible is an ancient, Mediterranean library. That it is inspired does NOT change that. When we examine the gender constructs, sexual norms, and rationales involved in the six famous biblical passages IMAGINED by fundamentalists to be relevant to the issue of homosexuality, we need to see that they are inconsistent with current scientific data and thinking concerning gender, sexuality, sexual identity, sexual choice, and ethical practice of people today. Do you want to make a case FOR or AGAINST the morality of homosexuality? OKAY! Go for it. But the evidence for your argument must be found IN PLACES OTHER THAN THE BIBLE, including Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and those four other passages famously cited. But Genesis 19:5-7 clearly condemns homosexual deeds done by men!! And Romans 1:26 clearly refers to lesbians!!” Nothing clear about it. The Bible does not know ANYTHING about homosexuality, neither actions nor orientation.

Ya. How often the maxim is proven true-- "If it gets me pissed, I must dismiss!"

No; just the one you've been misreading read accurately.

^ this is what spurious familiarity looks like, folks. And it can be deadly, one step removed from a witch hunt or Inquisition.

@@BibleAlivePresentations Romans 15:16 KJV - That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

@@flipstylez11 Sorry friend that you think Paul wrote in the King’s English of some four centuries ago. Don’t you mean this? εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ Let me help you with that… …to be a minister of messiah Jesus to [those living among] the peoples in performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the peoples may be acceptable, sanctified by a holy spirit. As Bruce Malina and John Pilch explain, first Paul opens in this section (vv. 15-18) explaining why he felt bold enough to express himself the way he did in this travel-arrangement letter we call “ROMANS,” and then he explains his choice of the topics. He says he wrote “by way of reminder,” presuming, of course, that the Hellene-Israelite Jesus-groups at Rome ALREADY KNEW about what he explained to them. So, where did Paul get the cajones to speak to this Jesus-group he NEVER founded, has NEVER visited, and only know about him through the gossip network? Well, according to his view Paul could speak the way he did throughout this longwinded travel-arrangements document about what he did because of the patronage favor he received from the God of Israelites, who appointed him change agent (what “apostle” meant) with the task of proclaiming “the Gospel of God.” So now Paul describes his activity with the analogy of priestly Temple service. Like a Temple priest Paul offers to the God of Israel not Gentiles like our crude English translations render the Greek blind to the context of Paul, but rather those ISRAELITES AMONG THE GENTILES who have welcomed the innovation Paul proclaimed. See Paul hopes that his offering of Israelites resident among non-Israelites might be acceptable to the God of Israelites. Just as Temple offerings are made exclusive to the deity, so Paul expects these Jesus-group Hellene-Israelites would be made exclusive (what “holy” meant) to God by God’s wind or breath or spirit (Paul is a few centuries early for the Third Person of the Trinity). Such work on God's behalf is the basis of his boasting.

@@flipstylez11 There are no "Jews and Greeks" in the Bible, despite our bad English translations. Since words, like language itself, have their meanings from social systems, Bible translators and interpreters are essentially anachronistic when they assert that the New Testament Greek word "Ioudaios" means "Jew" and that "Ioudaismos" means Judaism in the sense of Jewishness. Actually "Ioudaios" means of or pertaining to Judaea; "Ioudaismos" means the behavior typical of and particular to those from Judaea. "Jewishness" and those espousing it, "Jews," are a post-fifth-century phenomenon at the base of the Jewish tradition, with its Talmud and rabbinical structure. The fact that people known as Jews today have their kinship religion rooted in the Babylonian Talmud would indicate that this form of religion dates back to the Babylonian Talmud, the fifth century CE. In Israelite usage, the terms "Judaean and Greek" form a general binary division of the house of Israel, like the Hebrew-Hellenist division in Acts 6. (For "Judaeans and Greeks," see Romans 1:16; 2:9, 10; 3:9; 10:12; see also 1 Corinthians 1:24 and passim; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11. This perspective is likewise evidenced in the narratives of Acts-Acts 14:1; 18:4; 19:10, 17; 20:21.) "Greek" was the general designation for "civilized," living in a Hellenistic way. The opposite of "Greek" was "barbarian." In this collocation, as used by Paul, "Judaeans" refers to Israelites resident in Judaea, Galilee, Perea, and nearby cities with high Israelite populations (Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria). Similarly, for an Israelite "Greeks" were Israelites in Roman Hellenistic cities with low Israelite populations. CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

From THE SOCIAL SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE LETTERS OF PAUL by Bruce Malina and John Pilch: If Paul's letters attest to anything, they indicate his concern to spread what he called the gospel of God. This gospel, the Good News, was that the God of Israel would soon establish a theocracy for Israelites, "the kingdom of God." The trigger event behind this news was that the God of Israel had raised Jesus (of Nazareth, a geographical reference Paul does not use), an Israelite, from the dead. Jesus would be Israel's Messiah with power, ushering in the forthcoming theocracy. It is quite significant to note that Paul's proclamation was Israelite-specific in all of its dimensions: in its means of transmission (Paul received it through a revelation ascribed to the God of Israel who calls prophets), in its origin (the God of Israel), in its medium (a revelation of Israel's Messiah, the crucified and resurrected Jesus), in its content (an Israelite theocracy), and in its rationale (spelled out according to Israel's scriptures). Hence it is fairly obvious that this proclamation was meant specifically for Israelites. There are other indications of the exclusively Israelite nature of Paul's task. Consider the following features: - Paul's use of Israel's scriptures follows Israelite usage. These scriptures would hardly be authoritative or probative for non-Israelites. Wherever non-Israelites appear in these scriptures, it is only as supporting cast to applaud the God of Israel, who lavishes such benefits on his own people. Non-Israelites are expected to give a grant of honor to Israelites. This of course is the role of non-Israelites throughout the Bible, in all the books of the Bible including the allegedly universalistic outlooks of Second Isaiah. - Paul's references to God are references to the God of Israel and of Israel's ancestors, the God who sent his son to Israel for Israel. This is Israel's henotheistic God of the Israelite confession of faith (Deuteronomy 6:4; "the Lord our God is one"). What characterized Israel is that it was a people with a single God. If this God were a monotheistic, universal, and sole God, there would be nothing special about Israel. Such a God would be the God of all people, not of a single chosen people. The creed would be "the Lord God is one," not "the Lord our God is one." - Paul describes his call to be "apostle" as a prophetic call. That is typical of Israel's prophets, who were called by the God of Israel to proclaim God's message to Israel alone. - The God of Israel is in covenant with his people Israel, and not with any other people in the rest of the world. There is really no biblical indication that Israel's God has any concern for those not in covenant with him. - The God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead for the benefit of his people Israel, specifically with a view to a forthcoming "kingdom of heaven/God," an Israelite theocracy, centered in Jerusalem in the land of Israel, with Jesus as Israel's Messiah. - Paul's use of the "we" versus "they" language sets Israelites off from Everyone Else. For Paul the population of the world consisted of two peoples: Israel and Everyone Else, that is, theother peoples (NRSV: "Gentiles"). For all practical purposes Everyone Else form an undifferentiated mass, all equal, all the same, all non-Israelites. Israel, on the other hand, has differentiation and graded distinctions of clean and unclean, sacred and profane. This is typically ethnocentric. - Paul was punished by Israelite communities, that is, synagogues (2 Corinthians 11:24: "Five times I have received at the hands of the Judeans the forty lashes less one"). These events point to the fact that he perceived himself as a member of these communities and interacted with them as an ingroup member. Israelite communities would not bother to single out any Israelite member unless he belonged to their communities and was judged to be doing damage to their communities. - Paul's clients were Jesus-group Israelites. But there were other types of Jesus-group Israelites seeking clients of their own. These were the traveling ing "Judaizers" who sought to have Paul's clients adopt one of their Judean versions of the gospel of God. Their goal was not to convert Paul's clients to some uniform, basic Judaism but to direct them away from Paul's gospel of God, adapted as it was to Israelites living among majority non-Israelite populations. - The difference in theology between Israelites and non-Israelites is that Israel worshiped one and only one God in monarchy, while non-Israelites worshiped many gods in hierarchy. Greeks, that is, civilized people, had no difficulty in identifying the God of Israel with Zeus or Jupiter, thus identifying the God of Israel with the most high god of their own systems. Israelites, on the other hand, while denying the reality of other gods in the forms of statues, nonetheless believed in entities with all the features of lesser deities, whom they called "archangels" and "angels." In other words, apart from different labels, we have the same sort of entities functioning in the world in the first-century Eastern Mediterranean world no matter in which cultural context-Greek or Israelite or other. While fights about labels might be significant, in practice, as Paul says, "there are many lords and many gods" (1 Corinthians 8:5). This is henotheism. czcams.com/video/rbuHQ_ORJVA/video.html

Thank you, Cait!! This is how it is. Thank you for putting it clearly and exactly.

Glad it was helpful! Thank YOU!

Much love, Delfin. Thank you for sharing.

Many speak of a Jesus-construct when they speak about "Jesus." So too Paul.

♫ “My religion is better than YOUR religion!! My religion is better than yours!” ♪ Got your song.

@@BibleAlivePresentationsthe Romans surely find their religion to be better than the Orthodox, but it’s a problem when Orthodox people feel the same?

Amen! Never again means never again for anyone, any people! And there are MANY heroic descendants of the Holocaust and other courageous Jewish souls who stand in solidarity with Palestinians and all others who are oppressed and threatened by institutionalized genocidal hatred.

You're welcome! And thank you for your words and continually taking part in these presentations, Jem!!

Your understanding of "inspiration" or prophecy isn't, I'm afraid.

Do you understand the paradigm? This is a high context culture. The context determines the meaning of εὐχαριστήσας. Given the setting, Jesus is expressing life-long indebtedness to his Patron God. In the first-century, todah in such a setting does not mean, "Thanks! We are even-stevens with no further obligations." It expresses ONGOING reciprocal and covenental self-giving, life-long in duration. If you LISTENED to the presentation, you would see that GRATITUDE was expressed by first-century Israelites, but always with the obligation of ongoing indebtedness. Jesus is expressing gratitude in this way -- that is Eucharist. "Thanks" as employed by the Samaritan leper, as in "so long!" is the BEST thing someone could do that would probably never see or socially interact with a Judaean again. Context again sets the meaning. Dictionaries and lexica do not provide words their meanings. Instead, SOCIAL SYSTEMS do that.

The problem lies in our understanding of "thanksgiving" being placed into Eucharistic institution narratives. The word εὐχαριστήσας doesn't really mean "giving WESTERN, 21st-century style THANKS." It means gratitude bound with neverending indebtedness. It means ongoing propoganda machine praise to the Benefactor owed. Our "thanks" or "Thanksgiving" (Turkey day? Cowboys vs... uh, Washington team?) just doesn't convey that.

​@@BibleAlivePresentations That's why I asked :) thank you for clarifying! (That is, thank you, in a way that I hope will not signal that I am done with interacting with you) :P So, if the guy giving the presentation had said something like "I appreciate the prayer beads, they are a good gift, I continually have gratitude that we have this reciprocal relationship" then maybe it wouldn't have gone over so badly as just saying "thank you" did. (I know I'm oversimplifying but that's because I'm still learning and I'm working to understand as best as I can with what I have.) Hmm... but that would be such a clunky thing to say... I guess this is just a case of culture clash. In Western society, it WOULD be rude to NOT say "thank you" for a gift. It's so customary that even if you told me well in advance "Do not thank anyone in X culture for a gift, because that sends the message that you're done with interacting with them" (again, oversimplifying) - I would still WANT to say SOMETHING, and would feel embarrassed to NOT say "thank you". Maybe you would simply compliment the gift? "These prayer beads are beautiful"? And/or say "I am honored to receive them"? (But maybe that implies something else that would be objectionable?) (I also find that as I type those things, I have to FIGHT MYSELF to NOT include the phrase "Thank you"!) Such complicated systems of politeness... maybe I'm more introspective than others, but I'd hope that true friends from different cultures might be able to recognize the times when an unintended insult has been given, and be able to explain what had happened to cause the offense. Assuming good faith, and all that. But then again, maybe I just come from a culture which values such openness and clear communication between people, with all the pros and cons that entails. Like how the guy towards the end mentioned how honor-cultures can unfortunately produce corruption, like in the Philippines... modern Western values may have seemed strange and alien and uncivilized to the people of the ANE, but that doesn't mean we are wrong to hold them.

@@MeZimm there is good, bad, and ugly in every culture. It’s important to recognize the difference in cultures- and let’s keep in mind that these presentations are not a competition between cultures or cultural, consensus realities. We have many goods in the West, MANY that I would never part with. And ours is the culture that produces nuclear weapons enough to blast us all the way forever and ever, including sending all the wonderful technological and scientific and human rights breakthroughs, we celebrate and claim to cherish year into oblivion. But we would never use them! That’s how the mantra goes! Until, of course, we do use them, and then the greatest culture in the world suddenly becomes the most LOATHED culture that has ever existed. And guaranteed it will happen if we ever dare to use our nuclear stockpiles. But of course we will never do that, right? As long as they exist, it can’t be a 0% chance.. But as I say, there is good, bad, and ugly in every culture. Who’s wrong? Who’s right? Both, neither, and the other! God help us all to start with the other.

@@MeZimm Thank you for being honest and grappling with these things and you’re real thought here. Much love.

Thanks for sharing! You are living what most of these videos explore: cross-cultural communication (which is what happens every time a Westerner picks up a Bible). And thank you for the kind words!

Help me out, brother. List the so-called opinions and "platitudes" I'm leaving unsupported without evidence or good reason. I give my sources. Or is just that you dismiss what you don't already agree with? This video is about Paul and his life and mission. Paul wasn't an adherent of Christianity (325 CE and later). For education to work, it takes at least two to tango. Both dancers need to be open to it. Reducing what is presented here as mere "speculation" is dishonest. And scholarly opinion does not equal mere opinion.

​@@BibleAlivePresentations Of course, brother. I'm more than happy to have a friendly discussion. I'm personally biased towards the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since I'm a catechumen in their church. I mention that fact because I want you to be aware of my personal biases. 1) You say that Jesus came to preach the message that the "God of Israel would soon establish Israelite theocracy," citing Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 4:42-44. Technically, you're correct. However, I'm not sure that your viewers will walk away with a proper impression of Jesus' message. You seem to be saying that Jesus came to announce that the God of Israel would soon establish a dictatorship, like a cosmic Kim Jong Un. However, Jesus was speaking about something much, much more nuanced and lofty than that. Look at Matthew 5:8, where Jesus says "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Jesus wasn't strictly talking about an Earthly kingdom (John 18:36, Matthew 22:15-21). He was talking about a new reality, where the pure of heart will come to see God face to face. The Kingdom of Heaven is the reunification of Earth (the material universe) and Heaven (the domain of God). In the verses you cite, Jesus tells people "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand", because His arrival onto Earth is moment that Heaven and Earth begin to reunite with each other (since Jesus is fully God and fully human). Earth and Heaven separated from each other during the Fall due to man's sin (Book of Genesis), and they will be fully reunited with the 2nd Coming of Christ (Book of Revelation). I'm aware that I'm highly oversimplifying. However, I think that the explanation I've given does a far better job than yours at giving a more honest portrayal of Jesus' message. 2) You're correct that the term "Christian" was originally a slur. However, it doesn't really make sense to say that we shouldn't call the original followers of Jesus "Christians." It's clear that the followers of Jesus quickly embraced the label of "Christians," as evidenced by the fact that Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the Apostle John, said "I pray that I may not only be called a Christian, but be found as one" (Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans 3:2). Another disciple of the Apostle John, Saint Polycarp, confessed "hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian" on the eve of his martyrdom (Martyrdom of Polycarp Chapter 10). 3) It is disingenous to say that the Trinity is a late doctrine that comes from the "4th and later centuries." It's true that the Bible doesn't contain the word "Trinity", but the early Church Fathers (czcams.com/video/O_2iYSyus5I/video.htmlsi=rS64zQYuRYV82s9R) all taught the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament (czcams.com/video/OaXjVU05odE/video.html) teaches the Trinity. And you could make an extremely good case that even the Old Testament (czcams.com/video/BNt5NKSse0Y/video.htmlsi=FZJwOvCwtFffc5Hd) teaches the Trinity. 4) Your distinction between a "First Wave" of Jesus followers and a "Second Wave" under the leadership of Saint Paul is arbitrary. Saint Paul collborated with and knew Jesus' direct disciples. 5) I'll concede that Hebrews is an anonymous book. However, it's dishonest to state that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thes, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus are definitive "forgeries". This brief article will break the ice on this discussion: www.craigladams.com/archive/files/nt-wright-on-pauline-authorship.html 6) Why do you say that Romans "isn't a doctrinal letter at all?" That's a strange point.

“Of course, brother. I'm more than happy to have a friendly discussion. I'm personally biased towards the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since I'm a catechumen in their church. I mention that fact because I want you to be aware of my personal biases.” May God bless your journey! I share your joy from the Western Lung. And I respect that you saying what you have about your biases-we all have them. “1) You say that Jesus came to preach the message that the "God of Israel would soon establish Israelite theocracy," citing Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 4:42-44. Technically, you're correct.” I would say historically correct. By the way, what I am doing here is not theology or catechesis. This is culturally-informed, historically-critical exegesis and study. I am not at all opposed to critical reflection of the faith-theology-mind you! But that’s not what BIBLE ALIVE PRESENTATIONS does except on rare occasions where it will be explicitly stated as such. “However, I'm not sure that your viewers will walk away with a proper impression of Jesus' message. You seem to be saying that Jesus came to announce that the God of Israel would soon establish a dictatorship, like a cosmic Kim Jong Un.” I appreciate you say “seems”-but I am not describing the Theocracy, and if I were to, I would never do so with North Korea in mind. I don’t favor theocratic rule-but I don’t think anything related to North Korea and its dictatorship would be a fitting analogy. Iran would be a much closer parallel if I was pressed into making a comparison with Jesus’ project and 20th/21st-century regimes, but the comparison would still be far, far apart on many levels. However, all that being said, it is important to understand that “freedom” in what Christians refer to as both Old and New Testaments is always and without exception “freedom to SERVE.” Biblical (ancient Israelite) freedom is unlike the way our 21st-century Western cultures understand and express freedom. While synonymous with liberty, freedom in the biblical sense is specifically the freedom of the Israelite group and its members not to be under the dominion of any other group and directed to the service of God. That last part is the key. Biblical “freedom” means political freedom maintained by and in the service of God, the God of Israelites. In the entire library of Sacred Scripture, the Exodus (“bringing out”) story articulates this political concept best. Here a group of Hebrews in Egyptian bondage (Exodus 2:23;6:5-9) are delivered by their ancestral patron God. Sending a message to the Egyptian Pharaoh through his spokesmen, Moses and Aaron, this God commands: “Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness” (Exodus 5:1); or more usually, Moses alone: “The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, ‘Let my people go, that they may SERVE ME in the wilderness’” (Exodus 7:16 and repeatedly: 8:1, 20, 21; 9:1, 13; 10:3). Subsequently. the Israelite group is “brought out” by its ancestral God from bondage for the service of this God. The “bringing out” is a “redemption” (Deuteronomy 7:8; 13:5), i.e. an action that restores the honor of a group by restoring its proper social status. Because of the Exodus narrative, biblical freedom ( = to serve God) becomes a core value in the Scriptures. It is a LIMITED FREEDOM lacking submission to alien peoples defined by the goal of this group freedom. The goal? To serve the God of Israelites. How different from Biblical freedom is our Western and American understanding of freedom! The Bible reflects the Mediterranean understanding of freedom, contrasting powerfully with that of American freedom, viewed as “freedom from obstacles,” or freedom from external forces. Whether conservative or progressive, the tendency in U.S. religion is to produce a God-symbol that limits God so that Americans might be totally unlimited. We are socialized that unlimited freedom is our symbolic birthright, so any God we will believe in and accept MUST be on board with that idea, or forget it! Thus, any HONEST discussion of New Testament freedom-in THEOCRATIC RULE-must take this serious contrast into consideration. This is because our understanding of freedom is so different that that of the “New Exodus” freedom of Jesus demanding his followers to choose to live under the right set of both internal and external restraints with particular emphasis on duty to neighbor as demanded by subjection to God in Messiah Jesus-THEOCRACY. We don’t like Theocracy over here in the West. Therefore we remake Jesus in our image because we simply refuse to accept any Jesus that will not buy our cultural values. That’s true for “O” Orthodox over here btw, just like “C” Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and Protestants. “However, Jesus was speaking about something much, much more nuanced and lofty than that. Look at Matthew 5:8, where Jesus says "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Here is a link that goes further into who Jesus is and how we can know: czcams.com/video/B3VztTzftaA/video.html Here is another link that explains the Matthean interpretation of “Q” sermonic material called “The Sermon on the Mount.” czcams.com/video/RiLwdbIdp6M/video.html "Jesus wasn't strictly talking about an Earthly kingdom (John 18:36, Matthew 22:15-21). He was talking about a new reality, where the pure of heart will come to see God face to face. The Kingdom of Heaven is the reunification of Earth (the material universe) and Heaven (the domain of God)." You are mixing up "John" with the Synoptics. That's really a bad habit we Christians must kick. "In the verses you cite, Jesus tells people "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand", because His arrival onto Earth is moment that Heaven and Earth begin to reunite with each other (since Jesus is fully God and fully human). Earth and Heaven separated from each other during the Fall due to man's sin (Book of Genesis), and they will be fully reunited with the 2nd Coming of Christ (Book of Revelation). I'm aware that I'm highly oversimplifying. However, I think that the explanation I've given does a far better job than yours at giving a more honest portrayal of Jesus' message. "Heaven" is a great word and important for our theologies, liturgies, prayers, and Christian language. But never English translations of the Bible. When Christians speak of "heaven," they often refer to the eternalized relationship and final beatitude between the saved and God. That is true! But that is not the proper translation of the Hebrew שָׁמַיִם‎ (šāmayīm) or Aramaic šemayīn, or the Greek οὐρανοί (ouranoi). These all translate properly to SKY-VAULTS. So Genesis 1:1 actually reads: In the beginning, Elohim created the SKY-VAULTS and the earth. Matthew 6:9 Our Patron in SKY-VAULT (Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) Matthew 5:16 Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your SKY-VAULT Patron (πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of SKY-VAULT (τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν), but only the one who does the will of my Patron in SKY-VAULT (πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "heaven" first appeared in eleventh-century translations of the Bible (Genesis 1:1, translating hashamayim), but its ulterior etymology is unknown. In the various theologies of the Bible, "heaven" refers either to the physical sky above the earth (but seen through ancient, pre-scientific cosmologies) or to the realm of God beyond the vault of the sky. In later theology, heaven usually refers to the eternal destiny and destination of believers, the ultimate goal of human existence. Look here: czcams.com/video/6i7SR81uJOI/video.html

"2) You're correct that the term "Christian" was originally a slur. However, it doesn't really make sense to say that we shouldn't call the original followers of Jesus "Christians." It's clear that the followers of Jesus quickly embraced the label of "Christians," as evidenced by the fact that Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the Apostle John, said "I pray that I may not only be called a Christian, but be found as one" (Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans 3:2). Another disciple of the Apostle John, Saint Polycarp, confessed "hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian" on the eve of his martyrdom (Martyrdom of Polycarp Chapter 10)." We can debate whether of not Ignatius of Antioch was a "direct disciple of John, son of Zebedee -- more and more scholars place Ignatius in the 140s. And Christianity is not the term being used, especially not in the Nicene sense. Magnesians 10:1 Let us, therefore, not be unreasonable to his goodness. For if God should imitate our actions, we are destroyed. On this account, becoming his disciples, let us learn to live according to the CUSTOMS OF THE CHRIST-LACKEYS (Χριστιανισμὸν). For he who is called by any other name than this is not of God. It's important to note the difference between the terms Ignatius employs Χριστιανισμὸν/Χρῑστῐᾱνισμός (Magnesians 10:1; Romans 3:3; Philadelphians 6:1) which should not be translated as "Christianity" (although this anachronistic misunderstanding often is repeated). Ignatius means the customs and ways of those CALLED Christ-lackeys. Yes, this is an INSIDER step to the transformation of a derogatory slur into an INSIDER honorific, but there were many steps to get there, and by Ignatius' time we are still far from the meaning of Christianity you and I know. Ignatius isn't talking about fourth-century doctrines and practices. As for martyrdom accounts and hagiographies, they are loaded with devotional freight that is after-the-fact by centuries. The Polycarp proof-text does not disprove the point in my video presentation.

Regarding Trinity (the mystery of three persons in one God), and the Divine Relations of Trinity (i.e., the ordering of the three Persons among themselves according to what constitutes them as three distinct Persons in one God in four distinct relations: paternity, filiation, active, and passive spiration), our Church’s understanding of this Holy and Absolute Mystery evolved over one thousand years of reflection, acrimonious debate, and scholarly reflection. To think that these understandings were ready-made and available for “Matthew” and his community in the poorly translated Matthew 28:19 is like any other fundamentalistic nonscholarly conservative nonsense. And holding, with SOME second-century Jesus-group people (now remembered as "Church Fathers") that God is SOMEHOW three and yet one is not the same thing as later Cappadocian understandings, or having those understandings EXALTED into standard, universal belief, distilled and crystalized. Yes, for the Christian (we are talking post-Nicene), there is only one God, and that one God is triune. But how? To affirm that Holy and Absolute Mystery called “God” is “triune” with Nicaea ca. 325 (not everybody and Jesus-group at the time jumped on that bandwagon btw) is one thing; but what does it mean and how can it be? You hear no argument from me claiming THAT God is triune is NOT the clear and consistent teaching of the official magisterium of the Church down since 325 CE-THAT God is triune is clearly testified to since Nicaea as the official belief: “one God, the Father almighty…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God…and in the Holy Spirit.” So also Constantinople (381 CE) again confirmed this official belief, providing us with our so-called Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which so many Christians recite weekly. Yes, THAT God is triune is consistently presented as THE official belief for Christians-THAT as opposed to HOW. So HOW is God triune? WAY later we encounter a group called Albigensians who deemed all matter as evil. Logically, this idea led the Albigensians to logically deny the Incarnation. Against this heretical group, the Fourth Lateran Council (in 1215) confessed that “there is only one true God…Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three persons indeed but one essence, substance, or wholly simple nature….” And against certain charges made against Peter the Lombard, the council also taught that “in God there is only Trinity, not a quaternity…” Then regarding the great schism of East and West, the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1440) both reaffirmed the doctrine of the Trinity. At this point, the belief which is a DOCTRINE, is almost taken for granted! So now the business turns to concentrate instead onto more ecumenically sensitive matters, namely, how the procession of the Holy Spirit works. Is it from the Father THROUGH the Son? Or is it from the Father AND the Son? Now, after Florence, the doctrine of Trinity (formerly a belief) is now the DOGMA of the Trinity, and is assumed by official church sources. Please note the difference of what had been done before this-a belief intrinsically developed and formally restated! Something new has happened. Yes, the ROOTS of the dogma defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) are to be found at Nicaea (back in 325). But that wasn’t a dogma. Faith > theologies > beliefs > doctrins/dogmas Defining something as a dogma is not the same thing as mentioning something in credal statement or baptismal symbol (serious AND SACRED matters to be sure!). The DOGMA explains, clarifies, and defines what is meant sometimes even after centuries of otherwise AMBIGUOUS use. Words only mean what they mean where and when they are used. Move the language, you necessarily change the meaning. Old baptismal symbols mentioning “virgin” get re-contextualized. Father (or Patron?), Son (or Holy Man Broker/Folk-healer?), and a holy wind… and how many winds? How many spirits? Are there not seven spirits before the celestial Throne? Or are there 24 decan constellational elders (other-than-human persons)? Or myriads like ancients saw in the night sky-vaults and experienced personally when falling into trance and visions? Biblical scholars agree that the theological notion of the Trinity is a later development with roots in Scripture. But let’s trace the theological evolution. Doing so we enter a morass of various disputes all over the first millennium CE. Lex orandi, lex credendi-so liturgists play a role here, and the Benedictine monasteries of the ninth and eleventh centuries were indeed instrumental in promoting liturgical prominence for the Trinity. And the Franciscan Pope John XXII decreed that the Divine Office of the Blessed Trinity should be observed by the entire Church (in 1334).We should not make-believe that these theological movements, often expressed in liturgical development are not important to count.

Personal opinion? Or scholarly research? What is your justification for marginalizing scholarly results as being mere opinion? You aren't watching these presentations correctly given your conclusion.

Then you disagree with the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars about Paul's letters.

@@erichwentz2866 bet

@@AdamLeis bet what ? Is that slang for something. No offense, but I'm old and don't know modern slang.

@@erichwentz2866 oh, yes, forgive the slang please. Its an acceptance to a challenge. I'm going to hunt down more scholarly articles of authorship of the NT epistles in an attempt to weigh out your assertion that the "overwhelming majority" of modern scholars think Paul didn't write those letters. (I obviously don't have the capacity to evaluate the accuracy of 51%+ scholars holding that position, but if I find from my research a large volume of writings, I'll be swayed.)

Let's define "scholarly." Scholarly positions get expressed by reputable SCHOLARS, people who produce a body of articles meeting the publishing standards of the professional biblical journals. Not hit best sellers, or 10 million views. Or they are people whose books have been reviewed favorably in such journals by other SCHOLARS. It is not sufficient, therefore, that someone with a biblical or theological degree and/or teaching position in biblical studies or theology express and defend “Opinion X” for that point of view to be SCHOLARLY. So when you count your scholars, do so prudently, because Professor Jim over at the HOLY LAND theme park is not a Biblical scholar no matter how many fundamentalists are deluded into thinking he is. There are both NONSCHOLARLY conservatives and NONSCHOLARLY liberals. Don’t count them.

"MY CHURCH IS THE BEST!" Wow, I've never heard a Christian say that before!