There is an apparent contradiction between John and the synoptics regarding the timing of the temple cleansing. John places this event at the beggining of Jesus ministry while the others place it at the end. Some apologists have said that the cleansing of the temple must have ocurred two times: once at the beggining recorded only by John, and once at the end recorded by the others. In order to support this, they point to some differences between John's narrative and the synoptics narratives.

Is this plausible? What are some problems with this harmonization? This is what I got: 1: how come all the gospels mentioned only one time and none of them recorded both times. 2: the synoptics show that this event was the catalysis that lead to Jesus arrest, and this makes more sense if it happened only once, and 3: the narrative differences can be easily explained by John's well known tendency to be different from the others. What else could one say about this?

I mean in bible translation.

Eusebius quotes a letter written by St. Irenaeus directed at the Gnostic Florinus.

These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out, and shut his ears, and said according to his custom, 'O good God, to what time hast thou preserved me that I should endure this?' He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words. And from his letters which he sent either to the neighboring churches, strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, exhorting and warning them, this can be made plain.

Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical history. Letter to Florinius.

Here Irenaeus seems to appeal to Florinus’ own memory of how Polycarp recounted what he had learned from John and the other eye witnesses.

In another text, "The Martyrdom of Ignatius”, allegedly written in the early second century by Philō of Cilicia and Rheus Agathopus, Ignatius is described as:

"[...]Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character"

(Chapter 1, line 1)

What do you make of Irenaeus’ claims directed at Florinus? And do you think the Martyrdom of Ignatius is reliable?

sources:

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-eusebius.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrium_Ignatii

What do you think are the best cinematic representations of 1st C Israel? I'm not interested in an accurate representation of events of the bible, just the "feel" of the place and time.

I heard one scholar say that Life of Brian actually captures the reality of sectarianism and complexity of Roman occupation very well.

I love the scene from Last Temptation of Christ when Jesus meets John the Baptist in the river. It's dirty, and raw, and the people seem to have achieved an altered state of consciousness from the ritual.

"μάλιστα" is typically translated "especially," so it seems that 1 Timothy 5:8 is saying that we ought to care for our own "especially," or more than we care for others (or at least prior to our care for others). If that's an accurate translation, it seems like it provides direct textual support for the order of loves/ordo amoris that Augustine and Aquinas lay out (e.g. Summa II.II.Q26 "The Order of Charity"). Is this right?

Has anyone here done a doctorate in either Old Testament or New Testament, followed by a doctorate in Systematic Theology, both within the last 30 years or vice-versa?

What were your dissertations on, and how did research in biblical studies shape your research in systematic theology?

I’m just trying to ascertain what “hell” is in Christianity per scripture vs. what was the influence of specific leaders, denominations or cultures as Christianity evolved to give us the understanding of “hell”.

Was Jesus telling followers about Gehenna in a way that was vastly different than Jewish Rabbis were describing it- because if it was something different and new, why would he use an established word that already had an understood meaning for the Jewish population? But he was referring to the same thing as Gehenna or even Shoel, when did Christianity start having a significantly different understanding from Judaism regarding hell or eternal condemnation/damnation? Is it largely from Catholicism, either their additional texts or the papal authority/HRE or is it simply non-scriptural cultural influence through things like Dante’s Inferno or Milton’s Paradise Lost?

Since our earliest traditions attribute it to him, I assume the counterarguments are fairly strong if they are meant to shift the burden of proof. What are they?

So, I've heard a lot of dissention about this verse and honestly I'm beyond confused. Some people say its condemming cross dressing, others say its for a woman not to take a mans place in sex, others say that its preventing a woman from joining in the military (because geber the word for man can either be man, mighty man, or warrior depending on context, though its always translated as man in context). Now most translations just have it clear not to wear guys stuff and for guys not to wear womens stuff. So my question is, what does this verse actually mean and does it even apply today? Or is the spirit of it, that you need to dress like your gender all that applies? I'm confused, how would this appply to wearing a boyfriends jacket for example or his hoodie?

You often hear that they did have bias in favor of resurrection, but I want to know what people on this sub would say. It seems to me that their bias actually was in the opposite direction, which makes their testimony still more compelling.

If "bias" means "predisposition to believe that something is true," where do we see this in the disciples?

For example, nobody would say that Saul had a predisposition to believe in the resurrection because, before he believed in the resurrection, he hated Christ as a heretic. All of his bias ran in the other direction. He believed in spite of his bias.

Now for the disciples. Doesn't literally all of the evidence show that they had no predisposition to believe that he came back from the dead?

None of them really seemed to understand what he meant when he told them plainly that he would rise from the dead.

None of them believed he would come back from the dead until he actually appeared them in person. On the contrary, all the male disciples were cowering in fear and despair after his death because they did not believe he would come back from the dead. Even the women, who were brave enough to visit the tomb, were not going there to greet the risen Lord. They thought he was dead. And even when the found the empty tomb, their first thought was that somebody had stolen the body.

So, like Paul, their bias was in the other direction. They did not hate Christ, but despair and fear predisposed them not to believe in the resurrection. Like Paul, only Christ's appearance changed their minds.

And if you don't accept the resurrection as the explanation for the change, you still have to posit some mechanism to explain how they all became believers in the face of such strong bias against belief in the resurrection.

The phrase “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer is meaningful in part because bread is a very common and basic food that people can live off of. The prayer is in effect using the phrase to ask God for basic sustenance

How is this somewhat idiomatic phrase translated into languages where the culture does not commonly eat bread, such as Chinese where the main staples are rice or noodles?

I’ve read several David K Bernard and I was actually amazed by his work on The Word of God.

Especially his 5 famous books:

1. “The Oneness of God” by David K. Bernard explains that God is a singular entity, not a Trinity. Bernard argues that God manifests in different ways, particularly as Jesus Christ, but remains indivisibly one. The book uses Bible verses to support the Oneness Pentecostal rejection of the traditional Trinity doctrine.

2. “The New Birth” explains the Apostolic view of salvation. Bernard teaches that being "born again" involves repentance, baptism in Jesus' name for the forgiveness of sins, and receiving the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues. These steps, rooted in New Testament teachings, are essential for salvation.

3. “In Search of Holiness” focuses on living a holy life. Bernard outlines the biblical basis for holiness, emphasizing that it is both internal and external, affecting attitudes, behaviors, and appearance. He covers topics like modesty, moral conduct, and separation from worldly influences as key aspects of Christian growth.

4. “Practical Holiness” expands on “In Search of Holiness”, offering specific guidelines for applying holiness in daily life. Bernard discusses personal conduct, entertainment, relationships, speech, and the use of technology, stressing that holiness should shape every part of a Christian’s life.

5: “Spiritual Gifts” by David K. Bernard explains the supernatural abilities given by the Holy Spirit to believers, such as prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues. The book discusses their purpose in building up the church and emphasizes that they should be used under God's guidance to bring unity and strength. Bernard also offers practical advice on seeking and using these gifts in a balanced and biblical way.

Just wanna know from a biblical scholar perspective from these amazing books

(No argument or hate)

Anyone inclined to write a biography (Matthew or John) seems like a good candidate to make notes for it ahead of time.

The transfiguration of Jesus is noted in 3 of the 4 gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Surprisingly, John who was one of the disciples who actually experienced the event firsthand does not mention it.

Either way, I saw a video clip of Wes Huff (biblical scholar, and professional Christian apologist) talking about how there are only two people in the Hebrew scriptures that climbed up a mountain to commune with God. And what if when Jesus went up to the mountain to talk with Moses and Elijah, time collapsed and when the Bible says they were talking with YHWH they were actually talking with Jesus.

Moses in Exodus 24:

^(15)When Moses went up on the mountain, the cloud covered it, ^(16)and the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud. ^(17)To the Israelites the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. ^(18)Then Moses entered the cloud as he went on up the mountain. And he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

And

Elijah in 1 Kings 19:

^(8)So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God. ^(9)There he went into a cave and spent the night.

And the word of the Lord came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

^(10)He replied, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

^(11)The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”

I think each of the three events (transfiguration, Moses, and Elijah) have so many similarities that I feel like I am missing out on something or maybe I'm just reading too much into it. But I also found this online:

Luke adds a wonderful exclamation point in his account of the transfiguration. It says in Luke 9:31, ”They spoke of his departure”. The Greek word for departure is “Exodos” (Strong’s 1841) and when “Exodos” is used in the New Testament, it is almost always used in conjunction with the actual Exodus story. The use of this Greek word wonderfully links Jesus death and resurrection with God rescuing his people out of Egypt.

Further proof that Jesus was fulfilling his role as the second Moses is found in Deuteronomy 18:15, where God tells Moses that, ”He will raise up another Prophet that will be like me” and then says, ”Listen to Him.” These are the exact same words that God uses at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5): ”This is my Son, Listen to Him.”

Now I am aware this is all speculation, I wouldn’t actually go around claiming this as factual, but I just wanted to hear everyones thoughts on this, since we aren’t really given many details about that mysterious event. Like do you guys really think it is a possibility that Jesus was encountering both Elijah and Moses in one place at the same time He was with the disciples, like time overlapping?

Because I was discussing this with my brother and he asked "Why would He want to do that for?" And my reasoning for it is this: 'even though Jesus was out fulfilling prophecies and doing miracles of all sorts, I think His disciples might have still had doubts about who He was claiming to be, because even though Peter calls Him the Christ, he still goes out to deny Him three times. And it's not just Peter, I mean there are a couple of times Jesus kind of expresses a sort of frustration in that His disciples aren't quite grasping His teachings and time is running out. But if He went and showed them (well at least the three He chose) that He can manipulate time, because ultimately God is not bound by time like us, and present Himself to them as the one who talked "face to face" with both Moses and Elijah then it would further confirm His divine identity. Because it was not long after this event that He is ultimately crucified and they all kind of scatter and hide, and John is the only one brave enough to stick by Him during the crucifixion. But I don't know that's what I think, but let me know what you all think about this.

Jesus said he came to fufill the law (And the phrophets) but what does that actually mean?

I grew up Protestant, but I have questions about Messianic Judaism. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi/teacher, likely Essene right? Why did early Christians break from the Sabbath? Didn’t Jesus observe all the Jewish feasts; how did Christians get on a literal calendar? Thanks.

Hello, I am looking to learn more about Jewish mysticism and how it related to the letters and books in the NT. In particular, I have come across claims that Paul's writings have been heavily influenced by his background as a pharisee which would have likely been colored by Jewish 2nd temple mysticism at this time. Furthermore, there's also the seeming influence of mysticism on the Revelation of John too, which I would like to better understand as well.

I have been trying to learn about Jewish Mysticism, but I find it difficult to determine which beliefs, interpretations, and texts would have been influences in these letters, or if they developed later. If anyone has any scholars, texts, or other information on this they could direct me towards, it would be a great help.

tldr: i want to learn more about 2nd temple Jewish Mysticism which would have influenced the writings of Paul, John the Revelator, and the Gospels.

Could it be taken to imply that Yahweh and Ahura Mazda are the same being?

I'm tired of that explanation that goes by:

"the majority of Early Christians where poor, Revelation portrayed Heaven as wealthy, full of gold and food, so they added to it to hope that they would become rich and live in abundance in Heaven."

Honestly, I think this is a bit of a silly explanation.

• Any alternatives as to why they add Revelation in the canon?

So the New Testament wasn’t written was written in koine so is it different from classical Greek or was koine a modern version of classical Greek ?

I'm trying to construct a timeline for Joshua's conquest of Jericho myself, as I'm having trouble finding any consistent information. It seems everyone has their own opinion, but nobody's mentioning a seemingly glaring issue:

It seems like the dates as depicted in the book of Joshua are mathematically impossible. Joshua 1:10-11 reads,

"10 Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying, 11 Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the LORD your God giveth you to possess it."

Let's now fast-forward to Joshua 4:19, which reads,

"And the people came up out of Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and encamped in Gilgal, in the east border of Jericho."

"First month" refers to Nisan, the first month in the Hebrew calendar. This puts the earliest possible date for the beginning of Joshua's conquest of Canaan at Nisan 7, three days before the crossing of the Jordan when Joshua first receives instructions from God.

Immediately after speaking to the officers of the camp on Nisan 7, Joshua sends out two spies to scout out Jericho and the surrounding land. Even assuming they only took a single day to arrive in Jericho (which is unlikely as it's about 12.5 miles from the camp to Jericho according to Google Maps, and they needed to take time to survey the land as well), they were gone for at least three days as they were hiding in the mountains for that long to avoid capture by the king of Jericho's men:

"And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way." (Joshua 2:16)

This makes the events detailed in the book basically impossible, but it's still not that crazy of a stretch to say it really happened, yet. After the spies return and Joshua speaks with them, another day passes before anything happens:

"And Joshua rose early in the morning ..." (Joshua 3:1)

This clearly refers to the morning after the spies returned. On this day, everyone relocates the camp closer to the Jordan River in preparation for the crossing. But get this: they then wait another three days!

"And it came to pass after three days, that the officers went through the host;" (Joshua 3:2)

If it wasn't already impossible that the crossing happened in three days, it certainly is now.

But maybe Joshua was just wrong in his estimate, perhaps? In that case, why would it even be included in the book? And why doesn't his incorrect statement ever get addressed?

It's also possible that the spies were sent out earlier than expected. Why would Joshua do that before God instructed him to conquer Canaan though? One could argue God instructed Joshua and had him send spies several days before Joshua informed the Israelites of the crossing, but that would also be strange as the book phrases the two events as if they happened one after another as opposed to being days apart. Quite an unsatisfying explanation.

Perhaps they didn't actually wait three days at the camp near Jordan, and instead the three days are referring to the time in between the 7th and 10th of Nisan? In that case why would Joshua send spies and then immediately relocate before they return? While it technically doesn't explicitly state that he waited for the spies to return before relocating, it's heavily implied. Yet another unsatisfying answer.

Does anyone have a concrete explanation? Am I missing something obvious? And what's the most widely-accepted timeline for the fall of Jericho?

So I've been wondering this one for awhile.

Basically my reasoning is coming from the below verses

Gen 1:26-27 26.Then God said let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth 27. So God created man in his own image in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them

*So man and woman were created on day 6

*But it wasn't until Gen 2:7 ( i am assuming sometime later?) that Adam was made from dust

7. Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature

*And Eve later in Gen 2:22

22. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

*My interpretation is that Adam and Eve were one of many humans. Distinct in the fact that they were the only line that disobeyed God and fell. The others did not.

*The times I have seen angels spoken of in the Bible they always appear as humans as well. Perfect humans, but humans none the less.

So are angels just humans that didn't fall? Are we perhaps just a cautionary tale parent angels tell their children angels to keep them in line? the black sheep of the angel community? The problem cousins? I'm joking a little bit here but I hope I was able to get my thought accross somewhat well

I dont have much of a church background, except in my younger years, and am now trying to educate myself using a study bible, ESV if that matters. I know that with self study some issues with interpretation can arise

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Acts 24:3-5 "Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly. We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect"

1- Like what? why Felix called them Nazarenes? was he making fun of them?

but "the group that followed Jesus" was already named Christians since Acts 11.

Acts 11:25-26 "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

2- Where the Nazarenes a different sect? like:

• Jewish Jerusalem Church = Nazarenes.
• Gentile Pauline Church = Christians.

or vice-versa.

This is the general discussion thread in which anyone can make posts and/or comments. This thread will, automatically, repeat every week.

This thread will be lightly moderated only for breaking Reddit's Content Policy. Everything else is fair game (i.e. The sub's rules do not apply).

Please, take a look at our FAQ before asking a question. Also, included in our wiki pages:

• Recommended Readings
• Podcasts
• Biblical Languages
• Hall of Fame

Christian apologist Inspiring Philosphy just made a new video about the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. He is meant to answer skeptic objections that some alleged prophecies fulfilled by Jesus weren't meant to be messianic prophecies at all (such as "out of Egypt I called my son", which simply refers to Israel and not to the messiah) . He says that the word "fufill" can be broadly applied to the act of paralleling any verse from the Old Testament, and that this is what the ancient authors meant by fulfill. Is this true? Here is his video for reference. The relevant part is in 2:12. Thank you!

Hello,

I am wondering how devout Josephus was. He partnered with the Roman’s and made an interesting comment that Tacitus also made concerning gods departing from the area of Jerusalem during the war. Did he perhaps believe in multiple gods like the Roman’s? He tells the history of the Jews and tries to parallel certain figures to those of other nations ancient myths. He seems to be less of a zealous fundamentalist.

Thanks!

I'm trying to understand the bigger picture of how God relates to the good vs the wicked and how to account what is or seems a shift in perspective or relationship from the OT to the NT.

In the OT, people seem to be categorised into believers (good) and unbelievers (wicked). But this does not seem to be an accurate reflection of the world today, as there seem to be very kind people who are atheist or agnostic.

In the OT the wicked enemies of Israel were killed. In the NT, Jesus approach seems different. He is quoted as saying to pray for your enemies, yet how is he saying one should one do this? How is a good person supposed to relate to the wicked in the NT, compared with the OT?

In 1 Corinthians 14:34 Paul writes that women should keep silence in the assembly. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul appears to prohibit women from teaching or having authority over men.

Conversely in Romans 16:1, Paul refers to Phoebe as a Deacon (I'm aware there's a lot of debate over whether she was a Deacon in the typical sense). This doesn't sound like a man who was completely against women in church leadership positions in general. At the same time it sounds like he was against female leadership in some contexts.

My question is what did he mean by this? Are these blanket prohibitions on women teaching or preaching? Also, how do those with egalitarian views on church leadership reconcile egalitarianism with passages like the ones in the first paragraph?

Hello everyone,

As someone who’s non-religious, I’ve been deep into biblical studies for the past year and a half. I decided that since I can afford it, I’d like to look into going back to school for biblical studies, religious studies, or something along those lines.

I stumbled upon Domuni Univeritas which offers both a bachelor’s in theology (which I was accepted to) and a master’s in theology with a biblical studies concentration (which I’d like to do eventually), fully online.

The school is largely of Dominican heritage/faculty and, looking through the actual course contents and professors, it seems like a legit, low-cost program (roughly $1,800 per academic year). They offer courses in textual criticism and seem to offer s very academic (rather than purely devotional) overview of the subjects.

The kicker here is that the school only has accreditation as a private French university, and no longer offers state nor canonical degrees.

Are there any actual red flags here for someone who’s simply studying recreationally with no plans to make this into a career path? I didn’t want to pay the high costs of US university tuitions, and seminaries often require someone has verifiable history in the church, which I don’t.

Thanks.

Link for reference: https://www.domuni.eu/en/learning/theology/