Why does Paul juxtapose sin and death so much, particularly in Romans? Why are the wages of sin death, for example? Is there anything in first-century Greek or Jewish cosmology that would lead one to associate sin with death? Is there something in the Koine that would make one associate sin with death?

I know that Paul ties this back to the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. But to what extent would Jews before Paul have understood that story to be about a connection between sin and death?

What other historical context might help me understand why Paul insists on associating sin with death?

Do we have any evidence of the Edomites, Moabites, or other Canaanite groups having scribes and/or an equivalent to the Hebrew bible?

I am wondering what is the relationship between the Bar Kochba Revolt and the early church. Did the early church endorse Bar Kochba—seeing it as the second coming? How did its eventual failure impact early Christianity? I am curious if ancient authors or modern scholars have talked about this topic at all, especially considering that the interaction between the two movements would shed light on the development of Christianity.

So we know from Matthew and Luke this is not a mark saying. So most scholars assume this goes back to the lost Q. Meaning a good chance the historical Jesus said this.

So what could Jesus have meant by this? Was he claiming that he was a man who had become God. If so thats awesome for shadowing lol. But back to a serious note was he claiming this? Was he more saying since he is the eternal king of isreal that he speaks for God. Which was common among Greco Roman culture that emperors became divine etc.

The following are extracts from Nagel’s study on Jesus as θεός in the NT:

The first chapter of John's Gospel is crucial when considering whether or not Jesus is understood to be Theos in the NT, with vv. 1-2 at the heart of the matter:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

[…]

In order to claim that Jesus is Theos based on John 1:1-18, one must solve two conceptual problems. The first is why θɛòc ǹv ỏ λóyoç should be interpreted as equating the Logos with Theos, and the second is why the Logos should be interpreted as being equal to Jesus. Let us start with the Logos = Theos equation. Relevant to this are the four statements made about the Logos and its relationship with Theos in John 1:1–2:

(1) the Logos was there in the beginning;

(2) the Logos was with Theos;

(3) the Logos was Theos;

(4) it (the Logos) was with Theos in the beginning.

The statements made in (2) and (4) are the most obvious arguments against the Logos = Theos equation. These statements suggest that the Logos ≠ Theos. This can also be said for the statement made in (1). Therefore: (1) the Logos ≠ Theos; (2) the Logos ≠ Theos; and (4) the Logos ≠ Theos. This strongly suggests that statement (3) should also be interpreted as: the Logos ≠ Theos. Rather, statement (3) indicates at best that the Logos approximates Theos in the sense of being intrinsically connected with Theos, that is: (3) the Logos ≈ Theos. What is important here is that the Logos was there from the beginning and that it was near Theos. Why is this important? First, a substance such as the Logos existing ontologically separate from Theos would have been problematic for Jewish monotheism. It was therefore necessary to state that the Logos was Theos (not in the sense of being or sharing the same existential substance), so as to avoid any criticism of promoting a dual primordial transcendental entity, which would have played into the idea of polytheism (cf. Van der Watt 2016, 73–74). Second, the Christology of the Fourth Gospel is determined by the notion of a pre-existence, being intertwined and connected with a primordial entity, such as Theos. The pre-existent Logos encapsulates the will, plan, intent, desire and nature (in terms of attitude towards creation) of Theos. It is this Logos that will become flesh (John 1:14; cf. Van der Watt 2016, 72). […] The question is whether the Logos ≈ Theos approximation is supported in the remainder of John 1:1–18 and the Fourth Gospel as a whole (see Van der Watt 2016, 76–77).

Already in John 1:3–4, the answer is in the affirmative. Verse 3 clearly expresses that the Logos (referenced by the third person personal pronoun) is the medium through which Theos created everything. Verse 4 describes the Logos (again referenced by the third person personal pronoun) as the life and light for human beings. […] The logical consequence of a Theos that wills to be known is a Theos that wisely and creatively self-expresses (the Logos), resulting in life and light. The equation is thus not Theos = Logos = Life = Light (an equation of essential substance), but rather Theos ≈ Logos ≈ Life ≈ Light (an equation of becoming; an equation of transforming; an equation of revealing); it is an equation of fluidity as opposed to an equation of static essentialism. The fluidity and morphing potentiality of Theos are made possible by the Logos to such an extent that the Logos became flesh (John 1:14). Hence, it is reasonable and fair to infer that the Logos is not Theos, but rather that the essential substance of Theos (life and light) morphed by means of the Logos to become flesh—flesh that radiates the glory of a father’s only son. It is at this juncture that the second problem becomes important: to what extent is the Logos Jesus, specifically Jesus as the Christos and Kyrios? A question one must ask is why it would have been necessary for the redactor to perceive the Logos as “being” equal to Jesus. Why did the redactor not simply say: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς, καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς […]? The answer is obvious: it is because he did not conceptualise the Logos as being Jesus Christ. The close approximation between the Logos and Theos, constituting life and light, had enough potential to become flesh, and for this flesh to be interpreted as the only son of the father, who became Jesus, who in turn became the Christ. Jesus becoming the Christ brings about new possibilities, characteristics and essential elements, such as grace and truth (John 1:17). It is therefore suggested that the incarnate Logos is not the embodiment of a deity, but of a spirit (see Engberg-Pedersen 2017). The question is whether there is any further “light” shed on the Logos beyond John 1:1–18.

[…]

The issue of blasphemy in relation to the Logos (John 10:31–39) turns out to be very insightful. In John 10:33, the Jews want to stone Jesus, because, according to them, σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν […]. Jesus responds in John 10:34 by asking: οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε […]. The crux of Jesus's argument is found in John 10:35–36: εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ ɛoũ ɛiμ […]. The redactor's reasoning relies heavily on Ps 81:6- 7, placed in the mouth of Jesus.

Jesus argues that the statement "I said you are gods" is written in the law. The logic behind the reasoning in Ps 81 is that the scribe (the Psalmist) considered the elite among the Judeans as being “gods” and “sons" of the most High (Ps 81:6), but that they are in fact dying like human beings (Ps 81:7). They (the elite) should in reality not perish in such a way, which is why the judgment of Theos is called upon (Ps 81:8). The scribe can make such a judgment, because Theos, who stands amid deities, judges these deities (cf. Ps 81:1). What Jesus does here is to further the scribe's argument by also including himself as a "son of God" who will in all likelihood also die like any other human being.

Where does the authority come from to call another being a deity? According to the interpretation in John 10:35, it is those who were given the Logos who are called gods in Ps 81. The Logos in the source context (Ps 81) might have been the authority and wisdom given to those who rule the people of Theos, who are called "sons of the most High." The scribe, by implication, is the one who received the Logos (wisdom) to call them (the rulers) gods, sons of the most High. This notion is emphasised by the fact that the redactor has Jesus say that this idea comes from Scripture (Ps 81) and cannot be destroyed.

The Logos, in the sense of John 1:1-18, became flesh. Jesus is therefore the embodiment of this divine wisdom, sent from Theos. If those who received the Logos are called gods (Theos), why is it then not permitted for Jesus to refer to himself as the "son of Theos"?

It is not as if Jesus claims to be a Theos, as is the case in Ps 81, but he is of the opinion that he can at least refer to himself as the “son of Theos,” just as they (the rulers) are called “sons of the most High.” The fact that the redactor portrays Jesus as using the concept of the Logos to claim sonship of Theos should be enough proof that neither Jesus nor the redactor conceptualise Jesus as being Theos. Both Theos judging deities (cf. Ps 81:1) and the scribe judging the rulers to be gods and sons of the most High represent judgment calls, based on the Logos. […]

The evidence is conclusive, according to the redactor of the Fourth Gospel: the Logos is not Theos, and neither is Jesus as the Christ equated with the Logos. […]

Problematising the Divinity of Jesus (2019)

After Dr. Nagel had his membership in the South African Dutch Reformed Church suspended, his colleague Chris Jones wrote:

New Testament scholar Ferdinand Hahn in his collected work Theologie des Neuen Testaments, in the passage sub-titled “Jesus als ‘Gott’”, refers to John 1:1c where the undetermined/unarticulated (without the preposition “the”) God (θεός) is equalled with the imagery/metaphor Logos (Λόγος) and says that this equality represents “language of participation” with the “godliness of God” (der Gottheit Gottes) (Hahn 2005:636). However, Hahn emphasises that participation does not mean that Jesus/Logos is “identical with God” (mit Gott selbst identisch). The concept of participation represents confessional language. The confession that “Jesus is God” (Jesus als Gott) ought to be understood in relationship with the “unity of the Son with the Father” (Einheit des Sohnes mit der Vater). This relationship does not refer to the “earthly Jesus” (historical Jesus; irdischen Jesus), but “Partizipation an der himlische Wirklichkeit Gottes”, that is the Jesus of faith and its unity with the Godhead (Hahn 2005:636).

Reflections on Peter Nagel’s article: Problematising the Divinity of Jesus: Why Jesus is not Theos – including a short history of the doctrine of the Trinity (2024)

Are these arguments sound? How accurately do these arguments reflect what we understand about the NT?

Is there a book that provides an overview of the history of critical scholarship? I hear things such as "critical scholarship got its start from people trying to prove the Bible," etc. I would be interested in reading about the history of this area of study.

I understand that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek which was the every day language, rather than classical Greek that was typically used in formal writing. Is there any evidence that once Christianity became widespread in the Greek-speaking world, that writers began utilizing Koine Greek more to match their new holy scriptures?

Also curious if the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is considered Koine or Classical Greek.

One last question, do we know of any contemporary commentary that discussed the fact that the New Testament wasn't written in classical Greek?

So what is the consensus regarding jesuss empty tomb? I’ve seen many explanations. Even some postulating that Jesus was dug up by some Jews and then thrown somewhere ( since the Jews supposedly hated his guts).

A reply would be valued

What was Justin Martyr's reasoning behind worshiping Jesus? Justin Martyr emphasizes on the notion that God is one, and only God is worshiped, then he considers Jesus as the son of God, who is worshiped by him too. What exactly is this 'worship' given to Jesus?

My team at Other Gospels has just published the world's first Secret Mark interlinear. Lmk what you think!

We've also translated the text here if you haven't read it, along with a YouTube audiobook for those who prefer to listen.

I've found that so much is said about this work but few have actually read it. Now it's easier than ever ✨

It’s my understanding that Satan has evolved from the Accuser in Job, to being associated with the Serpent in Genesis, to the point he now holds a large place in both theological and cultural contexts. Bonus if it address Satan in Islam, too.

I consider the arguments that says that 1-2 Timothy and Titus are forgeries pretty solid, but Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians?

Paul is the co-author of 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, so some differences are expected. Also, many of the arguments that I see are about Paul changing his theology, such as Paul saying in 1Thess that Jesus' Second Coming is imminent, but 2Thess says is thru signs. Why this necessarily indicates that he didn't write the letter? it could be that Paul and the other authors just changed their minds.

Religious Jews have frequently said one of the best parts of the Torah was the book of Genesis where it is stated that both men and women are made in the image of God. I agree this statement is very unique considering how patriarchal societies in the region were. However, I was wondering in what pragmatic ways did this assertion manifest itself in ancient Israeli society.

If I understand correctly in ancient Israel women were not allowed to fully participate in religious services and only men studied the Torah. In ancient Egypt, unlike in ancient Israel, women were allowed to own property and even managed their own businesses. Perhaps this assertion did prevent women from being mistreated by their husbands for example but I was looking for some concrete examples. I suspect a man may think twice before abusing his wife if he takes this statement seriously. I’m aware that women in a domestic role are not being mistreated obviously, if that’s what they choose.

How does this compare with other ancient societies ?

What are your thoughts on Ronald Knox's translation of the Bible?

I’m aware the Bible is a multivocal piece of many documents, however, I would like to understand how Jesus is conceptualized throughout the Bible.

If not, are they based on textual streams that are independent of each other? Or is it a little of both? How do scholars know?

I'm not sure how I came across this, somewhere on this sub, I think maybe as answer to a question I had about other names that are transliterated, but James Tabor has a video where he postulates that the beloved disciple/disciple that Jesus loved is in fact James, Jesus' brother, and not John. I'm not sure if Tabor has published this anywhere else, but it sounds like he's not the only or first person with this idea. What is the scholarly opinion of this idea? It is fringe or is it seen as plausible? The video is long and I'm still working my way through it, but I think he mentions James as the beloved disciple fairly early.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n5Qg_ekQ_E

Hi all, I'm very interested in Paul's Christology. Most seem to agree Paul thought Jesus was pre-existinent. The real divide seems to be those like Ehrman who believe Paul spoke of Jesus as an Angel and Christians who say Paul thought Jesus was God. I don't think Paul thought Jesus was God due to Phillipians 2 saying Jesus "Did not consider equality with God, as something to grasp after." But definitely didn't think of Jesus as "just" a mere angel.

So, I would like to propose a third option that he thought of Jesus as having a uniquely destined positioned as being created in order to save the world as the exalted Messiah and with the world being made for him (Romans 11:36). This notion seems to be similar to the light of Muhammad notion in Islam where Muhammad is pre-existing but as something beyond an Angel as a great destined savior of the world although inferior to God.

Curious for anyone's thoughts on this and if anyone has any articles to share its always great.

The woman giving birth to the child is a parallel to Leto running from the python giving birth to apollon who will later slay the dragon.

Some have interpretated Apollon as parallel to Jesus. But I do wonder why the author explicitely mentioned that the king of the locusts is "Apollyon" in greek meaning destroyer. (And I'd like to point out that it does not say he came out of the abyss only the locusts which only hurt those not sealed with god alligning with enlightment)

Keep in mind that Apollo was called "Apollon" in greek and was partially god of truth/enlightment/plague/purification hence his name was derived from "destroyer". While artemis means "protected" and the moon symbolized deception/illusion.

The "strikes down the nations with a sword from his mouth" goes parallel with enlightment through purification as in spreading word of truth which may may connect to pestillence which is actually a symbol of purification.

Then there is also the first horseman of conquest and pestillence holding a bow alligning with all of apollons attributes. However unlike the white rider he wears only 1 crown not many crowns.

So there seems to be a connection between the child, apollyon, and the first horseman even if apollyon were not the child.

.

Are there any scholars who approach early Christianity through the lens of it being a "cult" or New Religious Movement by comparing and contrasting it with modern day NRMs?

We're able to see and track the origins and evolution of these types of groups so easily and clearly today and learn so much about how they function, the psychology of their leaders and members, etc. So I'm curious if anyone has used our modern understanding of these groups to examine what we're able to know about Jesus and his early followers.

So, for example, people who join cults often abandon their families or careers seemingly overnight. Compare this with Mark 1:16-18 when Simon and Andrew abandon their nets and follow Jesus after just a single sentence. Or how people will sell everything they own and donate it to a cult, compared to Acts 4:32-37.

It's easy for a layman like me to sit and make these types of connections, but I'm curious what the people with real credentials have had to say.

Is this even something that would be considered part of biblical studies, or would it be more along the lines of psychology?

It is often forgotten that the Israelites claimed common origin with Moab, Edom and Ammon and claimed that they were the last of the people to which the land had been promised to coming to take over the land promised to them. So from the Biblical narrative, these people also conquered the Canaanites like the Israelites did.

Do we have any evidence showing conquest or foreign migration into those areas?. Are these people similarly indistinguishable from Canaanites in language and dress like the Israelites are?. Why did the Israelites claim them as sibling peoples even tho their recorded attitudes were hostile while claiming the Canaanites were a completely different people as distant from the Israelites as Egyptians are from Mesopotamians?.

Galatians is one of Paul's earliest letters, written somewhere around 48-54 AD. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul writes:

^(27) As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ^(28) There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28 NRSVue)

Colossians, however, was written (assuming Pauline authorship) around 60-64 AD. Some 10 years have past since Galatians was written. In Colossians 3:10-11, Paul writes:

^(10) [You] have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. ^(11) In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, enslaved and free, but Christ is all and in all! (Col 3:10-11 NRSVue)

I have bolded the parallels between these two passages, and it seems clear that Colossians is drawing from Galatians or at least has a similar structure in mind. Why would Paul leave out the equality between male and female in this passage? He follows up this section with the household codes in Colossians, so maybe he seeks to make his point that way?

The Ancient Israelite Sources give multiple justifications for the destruction of the Canaanites, One is that they were highly immoral, another is that they inhabited the wrong land and there is a third that I forget. Why does a Bronze age society have to put so much legalese to justify a conquest and displacement that was at best partial and that others argue never really happened (given that Hebrews were essentially just a type of Canaanite).

What was the intent of this book? This book looks like a guy "midrashing" the Old Testament, through the lens of Pauline and Judeo-Christianity, while polemicizing with Judaism (Old Covenant).

When was this book written? pre-70?

I have heard it said online that due to the Book of Isaiah having multiple authors and a more speculative dating, it is possible that some of the more specific and "accurate" predictions within the text (for example the "Cyrus prophecy" found in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1) can be better explained as ex-eventu prophecies. What are some comprehensive resources or scholarly works that analyze the Book of Isaiah, specifically focusing on the role and interpretation of ex-eventu prophecies within the text? What commentaries can I get that will go through the topic thoroughly? Thanks

What were the beliefs of early Jews regarding the resurrection? Also, does Daniel 12 talk about some kind of fusion between a spiritual transformation and a physical resurrection, Given it was written during the Hellenistic period.

"And those now dead, I declared more fortunate in death than are the living to be still alive. And better off than both is the yet unborn, who has not seen the wicked work that is done under the sun."

This passages seem to say that the unborn are better off than the dead, who are in turn better off than the living. The passages seem downright antinatalist. I know that I am interpreting this incorrectly, so my question is, what is the interpretation of the passages that is not antinatalist.