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

Could I be a descendant of one of the tribes of Israel?

It seems kinda odd to me that there are various verses throughout the scriptures saying that the glory of God has to do with “light”. Ex. Moses face radiating. The manifestation of God at Sinai, the Tabernacle, and the Temple. Jesus’ transfiguration. There are a good amount of verses that relate God and his wisdom to glory and light.

What exactly is this “glory” that Moses seen, and why is light such a big deal to them that John writes “God is light”?

This doubt came to me when I finished reading some of Michael Heiser's papers on Deut 32 and Psalm 82.

Generally I heard that Elyon is a greater God and YHWH is a lesser god (one of the "Sons of God"), Heiser says that YHWH and El are the same God in these verses, Yahweh-El separated the nations with the Sons of God and stayed with Israel, Yahweh-El is the one who presides the Divine council.

• Are Yahweh and Elyon the same deity in Deut 32 and Psalm 82?
• Is Heiser's work on Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 reliable?

Sources:

Heiser, Michael, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001)

Heiser, Michael, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible" (2008)

Heiser, Michael, "Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?" (2006). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 278

I've heard an argument that Biblical liberalism is a modern phenomenon. But how can that be so? For a long time humans had no idea how things came to be, so wouldn't it make perfect sense that they would have believed Adam and Eve were real historical figures?

There are various chronological books of the Bible lists, which list the books in narrative order. However none of them seem to agree particularly when it comes to the order of the Prophets.

Is there a scholarly consensus for the narrative

This is probably a bit low brow for scholars but it was suggested I read Jesus on the Mount. I was pretty on board with it till I read;

“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”

That seems like a kind of disparaging thing for Jesus to say.

So god/Jesus didn’t like non-Jews? Or at least god doesn’t hear them?

Genuine insight is helpful as I’m not sure how I feel about that…

I’m considering buying a full used 29 volume set of the Ancient Christian Commentary available locally for a significant amount. I am just wondering if anyone on here recommends it or has an alternative recommendation that would be better on my book shelf as a “all in one” resource? Also if you had to value the collection how much would you consider a good price for a used set?

Hello all! I am a Christian Studies major who LOVES LOVES LOVES the Old Testament stories. Recently in my classes, my professors have been discussing how some of the stories are very similar to other religious cultures such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Greece,etc….what makes the Christian stories different than the others? Did the other cultures just copy the Christian stories because they went through the same experience but just perceived it in a different way? As a Christian, I’m always wanting to understand my faith better and would love if you all could help me out 🤷🏽‍♀️ Thanks in advance!

Pastors across the world have different preaching styles and preach for different lengths of time. I'm curious if there's a "correct" way sermons should be done / preaching should be done.

Hi

As we all know this chapter is often held up as the all conquering case closed proof of Jesus death and resurrection as prophecy.

Yet nowhere in the NT is this specifically mentioned as messianic prophecy which Jesus fulfilled

So when and how did this chapter start being used as proof that Jesus was the Messiah as prophecied in the OT?

Thanks 🙏🏼

Here is the link to what I am referring to:

https://vinnews.com/2024/08/29/first-temple-seal-bearing-biblical-name-yehoezer-ben-hoshayahu-found-near-temple-mount/

There is all of the winged creature imagery in the Hebrew bible books that are before the deuterocanonicals. As you approach the final centuries of the BC’s you get this stuff mostly dropped and Greek philosophy is focused upon. It is easier for me to understand the Greek influence than the ancient Babylonian influence. What did this winged creature stuff mean? Philosophy looks so much more intelligent than this stuff.

I have found mixed support that the book of Ruth was written to counter the Ezra-Nehemiah prohibition on foreign marriage though in the Harper Collins Study Bible it states this was an old view that is falling out of favor. Thanks!

Also you can’t choose which one you like more even if it has terrible claims. Just because you agree with something or only look at one thing but never the other options of things doesn’t make you right. People only look at the things they want to hear in life and ignore the rest. This applies to everyone, not only the people who believe homosexuality is a sin. The ones who also believe it isn’t a sin.

https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/

https://ronbelgau.com/great-debate/

How does the genealogies of Jesus work? I've heard several explanations:

• Luke is Mary's genealogy (Biologically) and Matthew is Joseph's genealogy (Legally).
• Matthew is Davidic and takes the names of people considered evil and Luke was made for the Gentiles and includes more people to make it 77 (symbolic number).
• Two different traditions.
• Both are wrong/fake.

How to understand both genealogies?

I've read that different chapters of Psalms are attributed to different authors and for some chapters the author is unknown.

What I'm wondering is, how is it determined who wrote which chapter?

I find it interesting how early Christians, such as Origen, Tertullian, St Jerome, St Augustine of Hippo etc... All seemed to be very concerned about the potential sinfulness of sex, even inside marriage. In fact, St Augustine of Hippo seemed to be the "liberal" compared to others such as St Jerome on the question of marriage and sex. My hunch is that this anti sex/ sex sceptical movement was not just Christian but was coming from schools of thought i.e. stoicism etc... Plato's idea of higher versus lower forms... Or was it coming more from the Hebrew Bible and a pretty literal/ serious interpretation of Genesis meaning that all that came after biting the fruit was sinful i.e. sex and marriage? Either way, I find it fascinating just how hostile/ sceptical early Christians were about sex, even between a man and wife.

Im Looking for books explaining the cultural and historical background to each book of the Bible. The sorts of things the authors and their original audience would have known and taken for granted.

Not to be confused with questions on Authorship and manuscript dating, am not at present interested in that.

Any suggestions?

Hello everyone, I've been visiting the sub for a while now and I've learned a lot from the lectures and podcasts that are available on the wiki. I apologize if the question is beyond the scope of the group, but I wanted to ask if anyone has the link to Does anyone have a link to the Ancient & Late Antique Near East lecture series at Texas University? the link available on the wiki is giving an error, I don't know if it could be related to my region too (I'm from Brazil). But if anyone can help me in this case, I would greatly appreciate it.

Hi everyone,

I'm currently researching Christianity and its various aspects from a scholarly perspective. I'm looking for high-quality, informative videos that delve into Christian theology, history, and practice.

If you have any recommendations for videos or video series that are produced by reputable scholars or institutions, I'd greatly appreciate your suggestions. I'm particularly interested in content that provides deep analysis and thoughtful discussion on the subject.

Thank you in advance for your help!

In this post I am assuming Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead or do miracles (since it’s impossible).

It’s a fact some of the apostles and people who knew the apostles were alive when the gospels were written so why didn’t they correct the obviously erroneously documented lives of theirselves circulating? especially considering they were leaders of the early church.

I watched a Usefulcharts video about the Twelve Tribes of Israel, he argues that the Kingdom of Judah inserted itself into the story of the 12(11) Tribes of Israel, as one of the sons of Jacob.

• Is there sufficient evidence for this?
• Is this academic consensus?

Reposted from r/AcademicBiblical for not getting a reponds.

So recently I have been looking at verse "specifically in mathew for convinces" that indicate a 2nd coming, the 3 are 16:28 24:34 26:36, some intrestibg details are 1)it happened before Caiaphas died, which would make it unlikely for the coming of the son of man to be the destruction of Jerusalem and 2) Most of the followers of Jesus will die before that due to the word some used, and this evidently didn't happen, however I found another argument that points to the resurrection being the coming of the son of man.

 in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/13c2upb/if_jesus_is_a_failed_apocalyptic_prophet_we/ states that Daniel 7:13-14 is being fulfilled in mathew 28:18, an argument against this is that 9:6 mathew already says "the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" and uses the same word Exousia to describe it, although this could just be referring to Jesus having power to forgive sins and not the whole earth.

With that said, I would like to know what a scholar analysis of these arguments are and how they hold up

Extra info: also for mathew 24:21 it states how their will be greta tribulation greater than anything earth has ever or will ever experince, which did not happen in Jesus's lifetime

In Genesis 1 God told man and woman that "every seed bearing plant and tree shall be yours for food", and to the creatures of the sky and land that "I give all the green plants for food."

But then in Genesis 9 he tells Noah and his sons "The fear and the dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky -- everything with which the earth is astir -- and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given in your hand. Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these."

Greetings. The title is self explanatory. I am aware this is not exactly a "Biblical" topic, as it relates more to Liturgics and Church Orders, but I was curious if there are any current papers that adress the topic from a modern methodological viewpoint.

^(16) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

^(17) Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

^(18)For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

^(19)Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

^(20)Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

^(21)No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God**.**

my first instinct is that this is saying that people with physical deformities and disabilities aren't allowed to perform sacrifices but idk because i have a feeling that physical deformities were way more common back then. i think this would exclude a lot more people back then than it would today given the medical advancements we have made that allow people with deformities or disabilities to conform to society.

This question has been bugging me for a short time, and I’m not sure how to answer it.

My question is, what if Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul’s epistles, and perhaps even the general epistles, et cetera, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated into Greek?

It does not seem implausible given the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic were spoken languages in Israel at that time, and the audience of the Gospels and some epistles were to Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Jews.

Perhaps an argument could be made for Paul’s epistles being originally penned in Greek, since most of them were written to primarily Gentile audiences. The same could be said about Luke’s Gospel and letter to Theophilus, since Luke was a Gentile himself, whose first language was most likely Greek.

However, if any of the New Testament documents, apart from Paul’s, which we possess currently could have been penned autographically in Hebrew or Aramaic (and perhaps even Latin for that matter [e.g., Mark]), this could affect our understanding of the Greek New Testament we have before us, and textual criticism as well.

This is in no way an argument for or against scriptural infallibility and inerrancy. This is merely a question out of simple curiosity, and perhaps it cannot really be answered with hard evidence. Perhaps this question is and only ever will be pure speculation, but in the same way, perhaps any arguments or answers for this question could be mere speculation, too.

Again, it does not seem unreasonable by any means to assume that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, or the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote his epistle in Aramaic, or that Mark wrote his letter to the Romans in Latin, et cetera, and that those who received the autograph copied it down in Greek for broad availability, greater distribution, and/or as a translation for a wider audience (since Greek was spoken by more people in Israel than as compared to Hebrew, for example).

I have made a theory and would like to know what biblical scholars think. My theory (which is not relatively new) is that Jesus's multilingual likelihood is exceptionally high. Jesus spoke Greek (the lingua franca of the Roman empire), a Galilean dialect of Aramaic to those close to him, and Written Hebrew (or old Hebrew) (the Tanakh language) within the synagogue and temples. He might have also spoken a little of New Hebrew; I'm not sure. However, I developed this theory after reading several books incorporating some of the material I laid out. However, people always seem to tell me I'm incredibly wrong. What is the consensus of Biblical scholars on this topic?