/lit/ - Literature

>>20834753
ESV or Dhouay Rheims translation is the full text of the Bible per the Roman Catholic Church. I'd just read it cover to cover and slog through.

There are a lot of versions but go with something contemporary like the NIV new international version published by Zondervan. This will include a recommended reading plan but also Google.
Also the WEB world English Bible is creative commons I think but it draws on some original transitions in old Hebrew for some names for God therefore you would need to get a handle on this.
You could also look for a commentary on a single gospel such as Mark or Matthew.

>>20834762
>per the Roman Catholic Church
isn't the Catholic version littered with dogma? I am not too knowledgeable on these things so correct me but I would rather have a collection of the unedited or least dogmatic versions of each books as true to what they were intended to mean legible in modern form

>>20834783
No. The texts are the texts. You can check any of the translations online in Biblehub but the Church doesn't even pretend Pope is in the Bible. Its authority is based on being the true interpreter of the texts, not on the texts themselves.

I'd suggest you get the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha
The commentary is detailed but it doesn't take a strong theological stance so it'll help you understand the text without forcing your interpretation
The translation is great as well
You could look at the Didache Bible which is very interesting
The translation is also good and the commentary will help you understand the significance of each verse from the Catholic point of view, obviously this will be biased towards Catholic theology
The Jewish Study Bible published by Oxford is great but it's more similar to the New Oxford Annotated Bible

start with the gospels

>>20834808
This is a terrible idea
A huge part of the New Testament is about interpretations of the Old Testament, why would you start with the New Testament when it will fuck up your ability to understand the text?

>>20834753
start with this picrel and read NT and a catechism of a denomination of your choosing after that, then you will be able to apply hermeneutics correctly to the OT

>>20834816
>irrigation engineering
based

>>20834783
no the bibles are pretty much the same, english-speaking catholics and orthodox have no problem reading KJV as well. Maybe there are minor texual differences but if it's your first time reading the bible that shouldn't be a problem.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I would advise learning a bit about the background/context of each book before you read it. Because they were written at different times by various authors with different motivations.

>>20834845
>background/context of each book before you read it
absolutely going to do this, I tried to get into the old testament years ago without doing this and got no where

>>20834851
Yup, I never thought to do this originally either with similar results. But for example once you learn about the Deuteronomists and the history surrounding them, understanding the books they wrote is much easier.

>>20834812
Really you'll want to be reading the Bible through several times. It's hard to grasp either Testament without reading the other, so you kind of need to keep reading it. And no, it's never possible to reach a point where you fully understand everything, which is in a sense the best part. I read it every day, always finding out new things.

>>20834851
Finding extra materials can help for getting started, but there's no particular study material or commentary that stands above the others, so just find some that are good for consulting, and refer to them whenever you have questions to see if there are any good insights. I would highly recommend reading the KJV, if you can. I am a fan of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges and the 1817 KJV edition (Mant & D'oyly edition) commentary, which can be found in scans online. Very pious and well put together commentaries, but of course no commentary is going to be perfect or infallible. I sometimes also check John Gill's commentary and Matthew Poole for some of the more in depth passages, ones that have things that seem difficult at first to explain.

The problem with a lot of modern translations made is that they come from a slightly different source text, at least partially, and usually have contradictions in them because of it. For instance the NKJV, not to be confused with KJV, has a contradiction introduced in it 2 Kings 23:29, where they changed the wording from "went up against" to "went to the aid" but left it saying the opposite in 2 Chronicles 35:20, which is a parallel passage dealing with the same event. Many cases of this if you're not careful with using a good translation, and I highly recommend the KJV for English, also the Peking Committee Bible for Vernacular Mandarin and 1602 Valera Purificada for Spanish, which are all available online.

>>20834753
Grab a notebook and a translation to you can comfortably read. You can move to another version in time.
Write down some questions and find out what the bible says to answer them. Search with an open mind and heart and let the Word speak for itself.

>>20834812
reading the gospels will give you a pretty good idea of what the whole thing is all about first and foremost, then going back and looking over the old testament fills in the context, while simultaneously, the new testament provides context of its own to the old testament

>>20834845
>>20834851
Is there a site or something that can give tou basic background?

How do you guys feel about NASB?

KJV
The anon earlier was correct. You need to read it several times to get a solid grasp
Start in Matthew and read the entire New Testament then read the Old Testament
If youre an unbeliever just watch Steven Anderson

>>20834798
Jewish Study Bible is indeed great, but obv only the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

Read the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and then the New testament. Christians fucked with the Hebrew Bible in subtle ways to make it seem like Jesus was the coming messiah. The prophecies in Matthew aren't even prophecies in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Just look at how the Hebrew Bible is ordered. It's not supposed to end with Malachi (cliffhanger book).

>>20836523
Just look at how the Old testament is ordered*

Look up Tovia Singer on YouTube. He points out with evidence what the Christians did to the Hebrew Bible.

Should I start reading in the way that they are ordered (starting with Genesis) or read them in the order that they were wrote?

>>20834753
Listen to the Biblie in a Year podcast. Listed to 3 episodes a day (~20 mins each) and you'll catch up eventually; or, just go on your own pace with one a day.
For the first reaing, I recommend a modern translation. If you have literary interests, read the King James Version afterwards - this is the version quoted / referenced / subtexted by most authors.

>>20835518
It's like the modern translations in that it has some source/translation issues. For instance, in Luke 23:42, the place where the thief on the cross says to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." The NASB removes the word "Lord" and instead makes him say "Jesus, remember me," etc. And yes, this is the only place he has this line in any Gospel. So he doesn't recognize Christ as Lord in that edition. There are many such subtle changes due to the NASB through using the Alexandrian text as part of its basis (but not all of it, because this is not really possible, so each such translation is a little bit different, also the NASB has gone through three editions, the latest coming out in 2020 and removing additional stuff). Another example is where Acts 2:30 says, "Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" In the NASB, the word "Christ" is changed to "one of his descendants." But what is so noteworthy about "one of his descendants" being raised to sit on the throne of David? That could have been anyone that followed David, like Solomon for instance.

There are lots of such problems with the NASB/NASV, not as much because of the translators (though this is part of it) but because of the different sources it uses which say different things. This is why there are churches that won't go beyond the KJV.

>>20836762
>Biblie in a Year podcast
Is that the modern translation? Does he go into historical background? For explanation/context

Fuck Jesus, that religion and all Jewish derived religions are mind viruses, how can you all purposely subject yourselves to this diseased ugly fucking nonsense. Also all of you prattle on about which bible translation to use, and learn all these finer details, and yet none of you will live a christian life and do as christ did, so it’s just collecting knowledge and baubles of kikeshit for you to feel smug about, to puff yourselves up for being virginal faggots who cant get a girl to look at you

>>20836961
>christian life and do as christ did
not Christian but isn't this an impossibility? I want to study the Bible out of interest and curiosity and I want to know where the best and most unbiased place I can start. you sound like an angry r/atheism tard and are embarrassing yourself

20836961
frfr on moloch

>>20834753
check of bertrand lewis comparet archive on jewtube

>>20834753
>Where to start on reading/studying the Bible?

avoid the Bible if you are just starting, read some summaries or interpretations, like:

Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus
Vita St Anthony
CS Lewis Mere Christianity
JS Spong Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism
JS Spong The Fourth Gospel
Stephen Mitchell The Gospel According to Jesus

Then spend 40 days and 40 nights fasting and praying in the desert

Then you can start reading the Bible

Best version of Bible I have come across, is Every Man's Bible, nice format, good intro, background, and inspiration material, oriented to men though, have bought many copies for family and friends

the one thing missing is a guide to spiritual exercises to realize the experience of the Holy Spirit,

>>20834753
>Where to start on reading/studying the Bible?

it is useful to think about idolatry when it comes to the modern fundamentalist attitudes to the Bible as infallible and the be-all and end-all. In fact, we have made an idol of the Bible. Christianity is now idolatry of the Bible at the expense of the experience of the Holy Spirit. There is no way to really understand Jesus unless you receive the Holy Spirit through fasting and praying. Then you dont really need the Bible.

>>20834753
To study the Bible you have to read multiple translations and the original. Start with the KJV. Though as with any translation, it's not perfect.

>>20835967
Don't watch Memen Andersson

>>20837155
By original I mean the oldest manuscripts we have and to compare them (spoiler alert; auists have done much of that for you already). So in essence, there isn't a perfect copy of the Bible. Much less a perfect translation. But yeah, KJV is a good starting point. If you can't handle the thous ESV is okay too I guess.

Isaiah 53 is about the Jews, not Jesus. Previous chapters in Isaiah refer to the Jewish people as Israel singular.

>>20837087
I am considering this approach but from looking at some of the titles in pic rel I fear they may be a little biased but I guess that is unavoidable. Also I don't live near a desert.
>>20837153
I am an atheist so if Christianity is the true religion then I find it hard to just open my spirit to the experience without knowing much about it.

There's a reason why the Jews reject Jesus. Look into why. It's not because of the reasons Christians say.

>>20834753
Genesis by Robert Crumb. It's a faithful comic book adaptation of the text of the first book in the bible and will make it much easier for you to digest the narrative.

>>20836961
seething

>>20836810
The KJV uses the worst source texts for both testaments with the curtailed readings of the Masoretic text and the embellished and revised readings of the Byzantine text.

>>20837893
>the curtailed readings of the Masoretic text
This isn't quite accurate. The Bomberg 1525 Old Testament text wasn't exactly the same as the Masoretic text of Ben Asher, and this is a good thing. Modern translations use it, but it differs in a few places although generally it's fairly close compared to the Septuagint (of Origen's era), which removes about 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah and several messianic prophecies throughout the Old Testament, like in Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6 and Jeremiah 33:15 (which is part of the 12% of the book of Jeremiah that is missing in the Hexaplar LXX).

>and the embellished and revised readings of the Byzantine text.
The Byzantine text isn't the same as the received text, and neither of these is the majority text, although all three are somewhat similar. This is in comparison to the wildly varying Alexandrian texts represented especially by the four great unicials, primarily Codex Sinaiticus (aka Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B). Pic related.

>>20837932
>Modern translations use it,
I should say, modern translations like the NKJV use the Masoretic text, represented by Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica" first published in 1906, and related to the Codex Leningradensis.

The Bomberg 1525 text used by the KJV is more accurate than this. Some of the differences include having "ashes" instead of "bandage" in 1 Kings 20:38,41; and having "see evil" instead of "fear evil" in Zephaniah 3:15. However like I said before, the texts aren't that different when compared to the differences and omissions of Origen's Septuagint, such as removing ~1/8 of the book of Jeremiah.

>>20834955
>It's hard to grasp either Testament without reading the other
Somehow Jews have managed to grasp the Hebrew Bible for millennia without needing to read the NT.

If you want to evangelise to OP and make sure he follows a controversial Christian interpretation go ahead, but at least be up front about it.

>>20837975
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
- John 5:46-47

>>20838014
I'm not sure what pointing to an NT verse written centuries later is meant to say about interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

But I'm not even saying you're definitively wrong. Just that it's dishonest to tell OP to begin with the later NT and interpret the earlier OT in light of it, and presenting such as the neutral, normative interpretative strategy, without telling him that the advice is rooted in Christian theological assumptions.

>>20838068
>I'm not sure what pointing to an NT verse written centuries later is meant to say about interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.
It's a reference to Deuteronomy.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."
>(Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

>>20838103
Yes, later texts can reference earlier ones. What is your point?

Anyway, I reiterate what I said above about it being disingenuous to tell a non-religious person to start with the NT without making clear that this advice is motivated by Christian faith.

>>20834753
>I don't want some watered down shit I want the real deal.
Then read the original version in greek, retard.

>>20834783
The catholic church's dogma is biblical. Also every Bible translation says the same thing essentially with different word changes. It's the protestants which you should look out for, they love to remove books

>>20838176
Douay Rheims includes the Johannine Comma, which is an interpolation not found in any Greek manuscripts or even the early Vulgate.

>>20838137
I'm not a relativist, there is absolute truth. The Bible has an intended way to be read - and reading it as a whole, the way it was meant to be, is it.

>to tell a non-religious person to start with the NT
He asked about the Bible, that's the answer to the question. Like I said, one needs to read each Testament to grasp the other, so one needs to keep reading the Bible, that is, several times, as I originally said here >>20834955

>>20838264
Yet again, if you want to assert that on the basis of your Christian theological understanding, that's fine. The only issue I raised was that it's disingenuous not to make clear that your advice on how to read the Bible comes from a place of Christian faith. If your reply is that you believe the Christian interpretation to be the Truth and nothing else matters then now that I've drawn that out of you I've no quibble.

>>20838294
>If your reply is that you believe the Christian interpretation to be the Truth and nothing else matters then now that I've drawn that out of you
I'm saying that you are a relativist and trying to project your idea of how things should be done without qualifying yourself first. You should state that that is your agenda before posting, because you're going against the normal way of doing things, and it is dishonest of you to come here acting like you are presenting things in a neutral manner. Also, there is no need for you to disingenuously put words in my mouth either, anon, as I've shown you to have done several times now.

>The only issue I raised was that it's disingenuous not to make clear that your advice on how to read the Bible comes from a place of Christian faith.
There is only one objective way to read the Bible, which is in its full context. That much is simple and has nothing to do with me. See you in the next thread.

>>20838335
>I'm saying that you are a relativist and trying to project your idea of how things should be done without qualifying yourself first. You should state that that is your agenda before posting, because you're going against the normal way of doing things, and it is dishonest of you to come here acting like you are presenting things in a neutral manner. Also, there is no need for you to disingenuously put words in my mouth either, anon, as I've shown you to have done several times now.
OK. As long as you agree you're a Christian pushing your theological interpretations, which you take to be the truth, of how to read the Bible on other people, that's great. I don't know why this agreed-upon fact has drawn this schizoid rambling from you, but cool.

>>20834753
I've heard the bible is a pretty good start. As it turns out, the Word is complete and there's nothing else to be added to it. No reason to ask someone else when you have the infallible Word of God right there to read.

>>20834794
>Its authority is based on being the true interpreter of the texts
Which is doesn't now, nor ever, had. The true interpreter is each of us who looks with honesty and turns his eyes towards God to seek His love and His truth. This is given to us by God, that He will let us know Him if we only look. I don't need any man to tell me how to look to God, because Christ told us all how.

If you enjoy prose NKJV is the way to go. Generally speaking there is a difference in cadence between the Old Testament and the New. You want to understand the mindset there and reading the struggle of the Hebrews until the reformation brought by the Messiah is important. Otherwise you'll buy into the "Leviticus says stone to death" claptrap that the New Testament addresses. Picrel will help you do this and then you can return to finish the surrounding books.

I would also advise you read this with intention and purpose. Or at least imagine the holy mindset and that these documents are illuminated, inspired, written for you, and living. There is a conversation within the scripture that is about your life. If you approach this with an open mind then you will get a stronger understanding of the faith. And you will understand the philosophy as well as what to undertake on the path Christ laid out for you. Most people can read the bible and not hear a thing. Then they'll pile on worldy discussions and silly mythological references, absurdities, sky Gods and unicorns. Instead of the clear metaphysical references. Maybe that won't be you.

>>20834753
Check into the cheapest motel you can find, pull out the Gideons bible and read it.

First and foremost, don't be a poser and don't fall for memes like KJV, NKJV etc.

Read an accurate and readable MODERN translation like NIV.

>>20834753

>>20838359
Guess you had to respond though, huh?

I started when I was 13 just reading the bible and realizing that the average low Church protestant is a retard. Go full retard and just start reading scripture. When you find a difficult theological question, consult Ask questions for a very corporate and average Protestant response and Catholic answers. You'll start to see what side has a better response as your questions are answered.

You'll get faith testing questions right out of the gate, like "Why did Lots daughters roofie then rape him after leaving the city" or "Why did Moses murder a man then try and hide the body? Is he credible?" "Why did God make people bow down before a stick with a golden serpent in order to be cured instead of just curing them? Isn't Satan a serpent and doesn't this encourage idolatry?" These are some of the questions you'll have after just a week of study.

When reading scripture remember that the OT and NT echo each other. Find parallels between the two. When finished read Church history. This should take several years, don't just hop on the Trad Catholic/Orthodox meme bandwagon. I'm a trad cath but if you just start Church hopping right out of the gate you won't ever make theological progress as you relearn and unlearn all the things different denominations taught you. Take it from me, I went from Baptist to Herbert Armstrongs Seventh Day cult to almost Mormon to Orthodox catechuman before settling on and staying Catholic for several years now.

Do not be annoying when converting and do not make it known at all until it's solid, or you may realise that your denomination does not hold the truth and convert elsewhere. After doing this several times you won't be taken seriously and you won't be able to be used to convert your family.

If you do not practice the faith what you know will be of no use when you are dead and will afford you no mercies on the day of wrath. God may be angrier you knew better and you may loose leeway.

Please for the love of God dont just start listening to grifter#6969's podcast and convert to a religion after a week he knows nothing and has gay sex. He does not read the Church fathers he reads summaries of them from wikipedia and probably goes to mass liturgy or his respective denominations services once every 3 weeks.

And whatever you believe in, even if it's something I disagree with, be an extremist. Do not be lukewarm. Your faith is the most important aspect of your life.

>>20836523
same books, different order. just makes the prophecy in Malachi more obvious.
>>20837292
>without sin
the israelites aren't that. by far.
and that's the usual misinterpretation people spout about that verse
>>20837087
>>20837301
meme reply. start with the Bible and search for explanations of things you've misunderstood. the commentaries on Biblehub are very good for confusing passages.
Ehrman is terrible. there's another book correcting the mistakes and whatnot of his "misquoting Jesus" book.
the only good suggestion of that anon is Mere Christianity. great book.

>>20834753
NT then OT. read Luke along with Acts, as he wrote both.
check commentaries and the original on confusing or hard passages (Biblehub is great for this).
I'd recommend also reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and all the other apologetics he wrote.

>>20834753
>>20839348
you should look around for the versions.
i've heard good things about the Orthodox Study Bible, the ESV, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
not sure how great any of those is, give them a look online (also most on Biblehub).
my personal suggestion is the Berean Study Bible. Biblehub's standard and great from what i've seen. it's also in print now.

>>20839319
See this is what I was talking about. "Without sin" doesn't appear in the Tanakh. Christians butchered the Hebrew Bible to prop up their Jesus narrative.

>>20839319
By the way, it's ordered that way as a manipulation tactic. It gives the impression that the Hebrew Bible is incomplete.

>>20834753
At the very leastread the gospel and first few books of the Bible until it gets to the endless laws and genealogies

>>20834753
From the beginning.

i had to put it down. all sorts of weird stuff in it:
>7 day creation. why is god confined to days? wouldn't god be outside of our conception of time? why did god need to rest? very human-like god
>nonsensical and absurd noah story
>900 year old people
>jews lie and get away with it but if a gentile lies god punishes him. unfair god.
>many many genocides against non jews. cruel god.
>Number and Leviticus are ultra autistic. god COMMANDS you to built a tent with these EXACT measurements and these EXACT colored textiles, etc. with GOLD and SILVER and GEMS.. what the fuck? what kind of weird god is this? seems like quite a greedy god
and that's where i stopped. i can't take abrahamic religions seriously anymore.

>>20841379
>why time
so we can have an idea. God is outside our conception of time, it tries to explain it to an extent.
>why does God need to rest
it's a figure of speech. just like most other metaphors around in the Bible. Bible writers were very fond of that kind of poetry.
>Noah
happened, simple as.
>900 year old people
"closer to God" than we are (and for an example of that happening, at first God tells His Spirit will leave and their years will be 120. go further down history and it's down to 80.) basically our sinful nature (and subsequent distancing from God's perfection) making us shorter living.
>lies and punishment
nope. you're taking it wrong here; God is helping Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, etc, *despite* them failing Him.
And they are punished for it aswell.
>many genocides
again, hyperbole on the "every single one" part. more of a really big war with the remnant driven away. also done to unrepentant idolaters and wicked people. literally irredeemable kind. think Sodom and Gomorrah but worse.
>Numbers and Leviticus
there's usually prophecy in those, and they're basically meant for the Israelites to understand something(and follow, of course). they make perfect sense if you don't go absolutely literal (and more if you get the metaphors some are; along with their literal meaning, that is. not exclusively one or the other.) some stuff they didn't really have a way to explain otherwise.

If you go in wanting to not see anything, you won't.

>>20840373
i said "without sin" to not have to quote Isaiah 53:9
it is there.
why do you think they don't have that chapter in parashat?

or worse, why they try to fit sinful Israel as its own sinless saviour when confronted?

To OP,

The "versions" won't matter that much to the new reader. Pray for discernment, but stay away from "The Message" which is not a translation, but rather a narrative based on the Bible.

Start with the Gospel of John. It is THE best place to start. After you read this, go to the other Gospels, then the Book of Acts. After this, read James, Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and then go back to Genesis and go in order, but skip Chronicles and the other familial records, for now.

I would say the NHEB, the ESV, and the New King James are good. If you are not familiar with King James, go to the ESV. It is very accurate. God bless you.

>>20840394
how could it be "complete"?
Isrsel failed the covenants God established, and the sacrifices cannot be done, as there is no longer a Temple.

for just one of the NT writers, take a look into Paul. studied under Gamaliel (and that's in the Sanhedrin records), was likely the next head of the Sanhedrin, and you could say for his position alone that he had immense knowledge of the Law.
he captured Christians, thinking it was another heresy or idolatrous cult, as many do, until he saw truth before him.

many other jews also converted after being shown the Gospel and checking it with Scripture.
I from the bottom of my heart ask you to give it a proper look

Are there any decent and unbiased books on middle eastern/jewish religion before the books of Moses? Or books that prepare you for reading the Bible? I've done a really cursory, cover-to-cover reading of the KJV before but I'd like to get more background information before I tackle the OT again.

>>20842464
not really. if they claim to be they're most likely actually a critique of it in some way, and try to slander God by going on baseless tangents about the idolatrous and wicked ways the israelites lived before the covenant, trying to call God some kind of "sum" of those wrong beliefs.

you're better off looking at something history related, and especially archeology(careful here, there's nonsensical claims by some in the field aswell); "middle eastern or jewish religion" as a searching term will only find you pitfalls.
don't really know any, however.

>>20842464
also, preparing to read the Bible is done backwards.
read it and then look for explanations, commentaries, etc on hard/confusing passages (Biblehub is great for that).

>>20843631
Yeah, most books that pose as an all-encompassing guide to understanding the Bible are coming at it with some kind of naturalistic agenda, always assuming that everything any random Jew did was correct, because they assume it was all invented by them as part of some Canaanite religion, rather than being God directly revealing Himself, which is what it actually is. If not that then you're probably dealing with a cult that wants to change what the Bible says, so they would rather distract you away from Bible reading by reading their books instead.

>>20834753
bumping

>>20845131
nice if more people saw it

>>20843787
yeah, that's basically how it goes. the proper thing to look for is commentaries and apologetics.

>>20843631
>>20843787
>>20843641
I've already read the Bible cover-to-cover once (with repeating and doing deep dives on some parts) and I feel like I'd understand more of the OT if I had some context behind it.
You're saying to bury my head in the sand and not investigate anything about pre-Moses jews? You're saying there's nothing to learn from that?

>>20845165
>only read things that agree with me
chirstcucks, folks

>>20841997
The last book in the Hebrew Bible narrative is Ezra or Nehemiah. It ends with the building of the second temple after the Jews are released from their captivity in Babylon. The Hebrew Bible is complete.

>>20841997
Paul went to the gentiles because so many Jews rejected his message and for good reason. Go to whatjewsbelieve dot com. It's about 10 short articles about what Christians don't understand about Judaism. For example, you don't need to do sacrifices to be forgiven of sin.

>>20841977
Oh you were kinda paraphrasing. I see.
I don't know what parashat is.

That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer. What I do know is that regardless of Isaiah 53, Jesus is not the Messiah. Actually, Christianity falls apart page 1 of Matthew with the genealogy.

The Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible is to be descended from King David through Solomon on his father's side. In Judaism, tribal affiliation comes through the father while being designated a Jew comes through the mother. Jesus technically has no tribe. Adoption doesn't work as a way to give one a tribe.

>>20845733
It's whatjewsbelieve dot org

>>20845726
>It ends with the building of the second temple
It goes beyond that. The second temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius the Great's reign, Ezra 6:15, on the third day of the twelfth month, 516 BC. The chronological narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah continues to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, around 442 to 434 BC. So, that's at least 74 years beyond the completion of the second temple. And then there's the fact that Malachi refers to events that happened around the close of the book of Nehemiah (comp. Malachi 2:8-11 with Nehemiah 13:6-11,23-28), so it could be written slightly later than Nehemiah or around the same time.

The book of Malachi ends like this: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:5-6)

>>20845810
Sounds right. But even still, it's not Jesus they're waiting for. Look into why the Jews don't believe in Jesus. It's not simply because he didn't come as a conqueror.

>>20834753
>BROS HOW DO I READ BOOK????
Here's a tip you fucking buffoon, how about you open the god damn book and look at the little symbols in it and interpret them using your training in read and writing English, you stupid cocksucker, you absolute faggot, please break your legs immediately you ignorant JIAN

>>20835235
>reading the gospels will give you a pretty good idea of what the whole thing is all about first and foremost
no, it'll poison your mind with Christian ideas of what the Jewish scriptures are about

>>20834753
OP, ignore everyone else in this thread.

Go to
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh
and just start reading the book of Genesis. Whenever you feel like it, read through some of the commentary that Jewish sages have written on each verse throughout the millennia, much of which Sefaria makes accessible in English translation in a very convenient manner.

Two sources of commentary available on Sefaria which I urge you to read at least a few pages of are Rashi (possibly the most famous Torah commentator ever) and the Talmud.

For some background knowledge, I recommend watching this short video on how scholars think the Bible was actually created:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NY-l0X7yGY0

As well as this one on the 13 principles of Judaism as laid out by Maimonides, one of the most influential Rabbis of all time:
https://youtu.be/bvyxS62guos

So that's the Old Testament as it is understood by the people who actually wrote it, the Jews. It should keep you busy for a year or so, if you read only a little bit of commentary.

For the New Testament, the most historically relevant English translations are the KJV, which however uses some archaic language that makes it hard to read; and the Scofield Reference Bible, which is hated by many of the kind of people who revere the KJV. The versions based on cutting-edge bible research (we find new manuscripts all the time etc.) are the NIV and ESV, but unfortunately they make a lot of concessions to political correctness.
https://www.stepbible.org is about the best website for reading the New Testament.

>>20834753
KJV OVER ALL, BROTHER.

>>20845393
I'm saying that books that claim to be that aren't. look into (proper) history and archaeology instead.

>>20845733
Leviticus 17:11
>For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.

>>20845752
Genesis 48:5
>Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine.
sons of Israel or not, then?
trying to hang it on a perceived "technicality" is mere trifling.

>>20845752
and, adding onto that, the genealogical records were destroyed.
the people that wrongfully claim Jesus is not the Messiah wouldn't even be able to see if whoever they say it is actually is a descendant of David.

>>20847253
https://whatjewsbelieve.org/a-blood-sacrifice-is-not-required-for-forgiveness-of-sins/

>>20847267
Read why Jews don't accept Jesus. This is isn't complicated.
Christians don't understand the Hebrew Bible.
www.whatjewsbelieve.org

>>20847278
What? Lol the genealogy is in the book of Matthew and Luke. Joseph's line is irrelevant since he's not Jesus' biological father. Mary's lineage comes through David's son, Nathan.

>>20847343
i meant the rest of it, for the general people.
you just disregarded Manasseh and Ephraim being considered sons of Israel.
were they wrongly counted in?
or did Israel's adoption add them correctly?
>>20847322
>>20847328
>just read this page with loaded statements that doesn't have any Scriptural backing besides throwing some verses out and misinterpreting others
i'm sure you can find the Christian answer and rebuttal with a simple search.

that answer is laughable. "it isn't actually that, because it doesn't mean what it literally says, but instead is only a prohibition"
really?

>>20847402
But the site isn't irrelevant. The Hebrew Bible is the Jewish holy book. A learned rabbi has more authority on the topic than some Christian or otherwise.

I don't have an answer to that particular question. I'm not an expert on Judaism, but I know enough to rule out Jesus as the expected Messiah. There are many reasons, not just the genealogy, that proves biblically he is not the Messiah.

I've said what I know on the matter. You either research the topic thoroughly yourself despite possible feelings of discomfort you may experience or continue as you are.

>>20847524
>you either research the topic thoroughly yourself despite possible feelings of discomfort you may experience or continue as you are.
likewise to you, friend. I did, and found along with it the refutation of them, in the Messiah. strengthened my faith.

>a learned rabbi has authority
back to the history of Paul's life, for an extremely learned man.

i'll ask you give the 'one for israel' channel a look. they answer rabbinical claims quite nicely in several videos of theirs. usually refuting stuff like what that suggested site says.

>>20847328
>>20847669
>>20847524
Jews are obviously right when they say that Yeshua doesn't fit the role of Mashiach ben David, since the the Davidic messiah was supposed to create a world-government ruled from Jerusalem in which all Gentiles would be slaves of Israel.
However, there is a Rabbi who makes some good arguments for claim that Yeshua was/is in fact Mashiach ben Joseph:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAhptguHJQNctxQvDGZ4-0i_-0bckwlAl

>>20847952
that sounds off.
both prophecies of the Messiah refer to Jesus.

>>20847994
How can the prophecies refer to Jesus when he clearly didn't fulfill the prophecies? You can make up a fake story about multiplying bread, but you can't fake subjugating the world under a Jewish government in Jerusalem.

>Isaiah 63
1Who is this coming from Edom,
from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson?
Who is this, robed in splendor,
striding forward in the greatness of his strength?
“It is I, proclaiming victory,
mighty to save.”

2Why are your garments red,
like those of one treading the winepress?

3“I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the Goyim no one was with me.

I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.

4It was for me the day of vengeance;
the year for me to redeem had come.

5I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm achieved salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.

6I trampled the Goyim in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.”
>>>>>

You Christians just have Jesus glasses. You see Jesus everywhere. You even see Jesus in Genesis 3 trampling the snake. While early Gnostic Christians, as well as Kabbalistic Jews, saw Jesus AS the snake.

>>20848105
here the prophecy about Israeli world domination.

Inb4 cope about how Jesus will do this when "he returns" or that he will make your particular little favorite sect of Christianity rule the world instead, or how it's all just meant metaphorically about the "Kingdom in Heaven" or whatever.

>>20848121
Christopher Jon Bjerknes in his books and Adam Green of Know More News in his videos have clips of rabbis saying that the messiah ben Joseph (Jesus) came to clear the way for the messiah ben David (who may also be Jesus on his supposed return). Seems like Christianity has turned gentiles into servents of jews (zionists) ("your persecutors will be your advocates"). I think one of the rabbis wrote a book called "Return of the Kosher Pig" that goes into detail on this.

>>20837292
>Isaiah 53 is about the Jews, not Jesus
Tell that to the Talmudic scholars passing down the Oral Torah who said that the Messiah's name will be "the leper scholar", and as a prooftext uses the "he will bear our afflictions" passage from Isiah 53. Or, tell that the the author of the Targum of Isaiah which says that the latter part of Isaiah 52 (which is not separated from Isaiah 53, there were no chapter delineations) is referring to the Messiah. That Isaiah 52/3 are referring to the Messiah is undebatable.

>>20834753
1. Get a good translation. ESV CEor RSV CE are pretty good.
2. Start with the narrative thrust of the Bible:
>Genesis, Exodus (minus sections on laws/tabernacles/etc), Numbers (minus genealogies), Deuteronomy (for an overview of the Law); Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, 1-2 Maccabees; Matthew, Luke 1-2, John, Acts, Revelation

That will get you through the story of the Bible, and reduce 1200 pages to only a few hundred. Go through that cycle a few times, then start adding in the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, and Daniel are the most important), wisdom literature, and legal codes. Read Paul's major letters of Romans and Corinthians.

Follow this plan and you'll be extremely well-versed in the Bible. Best of luck, anon.

>>20834753
>Reading
Read the bible cover to cover in order to understand it as one coherent whole.

After you've read the bible, for studying I enjoyed these:
Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture
The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
NT Wright

>>20849238
>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
I was really unimpressed by this, firstly it only claims Mark was based on eyewitness testimony (meaning it's not eyewitness testimony itself) and is weak even trying to prove that limited hypothesis. For example, Peter appears multiple times in the gospel of Mark, the author claims that these appearances form "inclusios" which indicate that the material between them ia from an eyewitness account. Just a bald assertion and not supported by what other writers did in that era which was to explicitly say they got information from eyewitnesses. There's also his laughable analysis of the frequencies of names in which he makes basic data errors and can't even do simple arithmetic correctly.

>>20849317
>Just a bald assertion and not supported by what other writers did in that era
Bauckham gives other examples of the literary device of inclusio being used by the contemporary authors such as Lucian and Porphyry. For example, the part about Porphyry and Amelius is actually a great parallel between the relationship of Peter and John and may show that contemporaries were aware of the literary inclusio.

I don't think the inclusio is a full and complete argument but I also don't think we should entirely dismiss it. It brings up a good point about structure of Mark in regards to how Peter is in the gospel of Mark more frequently than the other gospels. Mark being the patron of Peter doesn't entirely rest on the argument from the inclusio though. Papias' testimony of Mark's patronage, which Bauckham goes over in the following chapter, should not be taken lightly.

As for the frequency of names, I don't really know what the issue is here. If we are to believe that the gospels were written detached from any sort of eyewitness then it would seem like it would be more likely that the naming conventions in the gospels would match the frequency of later Jewish names, especially Jewish names from the Jewish diaspora, which is not what we find. As for basic data errors, I think I remember him giving a reason for why he differs from his source. It being that he counts individuals with two names in Latin and Hebrew as valid. Also the difference between his source's names and the names he considers valid isn't that significant either. If you could show me where the data errors are that would be great.

Start with Revalation.

I'd pay extra attention to the chaprer where Jesus battles The Dragon and casts it into the Lake of Fire so that it dies the Second Death.

After that I'd say it's safe to move to the MCU phase one, although I recommend staring with Iron Man.

>>20849863
>marvel mcu

The Australian Anglican church had its split this week, joining those in the US, Canada, and NZ who felt they could no longer be a part of a communion which permitted the blessing of same sex marriages. The breakaway church is called the Diocese of the Southern Cross and seems to be Brisbane and Sydney led, and has already joined GAFCON with those other breakaway churches as well as a number in Africa. If it's anything like the churches in those countries, the existing church will have 50x as many attendees as the new one.

Personally, as an Australian Anglican, while I agree with the new movement's arguments, the conservative movement here is led by Calvinists and I'm concerned their doctrine may be dominant in the new church. I'd therefore be inclined to stay a part of the existing church, especially since gay marriage blessings are basically a non-event. I'd be more interested if they deordained women.

>>20842464
it's in the sticky

>>20837292
The targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on Isaiah refutes your claim and shows that Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53 existed alongside the other interpretations. Such targumic texts were read in synagogues. In the Talmud, specifically Sanhedrin 98a-b, non-Christian Jews again give it a Messianic interpretation, saying the Messiah will be afflicted with leprosy. Even though both of these interpretations are not identical with the interpretation of Isaiah 53 as Christians understand it, the fact is that some Jews, including post-2nd Temple redactors of the Talmud knew that it was Messianic. The interpretation that it could not possibly refer to anything more than the Jewish people is primarily from the Middle Ages, and is a cope from rabbinical Jews.

>>20838176
>The catholic church's dogma is biblical
No it isnt.

>>20841379
The god of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament. I dont mean this in a philosophical, bipolar personality kind of way. I mean they are literally different beings.
>>nonsensical and absurd noah story
The story of the flood has been documented many times in history.

>>20850483
that's dualistic nonsense, and heresy.
>flood widely documental
isn't that even more proof it happened? the other peoples just ended up trying to cover God's actions with their own spin, so as to keep being idolaters and whatnot.

>>20850600
documented, rather.
oops.

>>20850401
Thank you anon, and pardon my faggotry.

>>20847952
>>20848105
>>20848121
>>20848440
Truly sick and vile shit.
All Christcucks, Mudslimes, and J*ws need to vanish from this Earth.

>>20850600
>that's dualistic nonsense, and heresy.
As opposed to what? Almost everything in Catholicism is heresy and nonbiblical. There is to be no middle man between you and God, as stated in 1st Corinthians, yet Catholicism, and most Christian sects, completely disregard this. God wants people to think for themselves, which you, evidently, do not. Heresy doesnt even mean what you think it does. When "god" makes the claim that he is a jealous god and that there are to be none before him, it would imply there are others. Even Jews dont even acknowledge God in the same way Christians do, because they are not the same.
>isn't that even more proof it happened?
I'm not arguing that it didnt.

>>20850600
>that's dualistic nonsense, and heresy.
As opposed to what? Almost everything in Catholicism is heresy and nonbiblical. There is to be no middle man between you and God, as stated in 1st Corinthians, yet Catholicism, and most Christian sects, completely disregard this. God wants people to think for themselves, which you, evidently, do not. Heresy doesnt even mean what you think it does. When "god" maked the claim that he is a jealous god and that there are to be none before him in The Old Testament, it would imply there are others equal to or above him. Even Jews dont even acknowledge God in the same way Christians do, because they are not the same.
>isn't that even more proof it happened?
I'm not arguing that it didnt.

>>20850600
>that's dualistic nonsense, and heresy.
As opposed to what? Almost everything in Catholicism is heresy and nonbiblical. There is to be no middle man between you and God, as stated in 1st Corinthians, yet Catholicism, and most Christian sects, completely disregard this. God wants people to think for themselves, which you, evidently, do not. Heresy doesnt even mean what you think it does. When "god" made the claim that he is a jealous god and that there are to be none before him in The Old Testament, it would imply there are others equal to or above him. Even Jews dont even acknowledge God in the same way Christians do, because they are not the same.
You mention idolators but Catholics are the biggest idolators of them all and they're supposed to be the 'authority' of Christ.
>isn't that even more proof it happened?
I'm not arguing that it didnt.

>>20850810
I'm not catholic, anon.
there is no middleman, indeed.
Christ is God. He is, however, and this might be minsunderstood as middleman-ing, our advocate with the father.

when God said it He didn't imply anything you try to shoehorn in; it means "don't worship lifeless man-made idols in place of or beside Me. I am (the only true) God."

you're arguing in bad faith.

>>20850865
I'm not saying you're Catholic, I'm making the point that calling things heresy is dogmatic garbage and against what God wants. The Bible itself is a edited and censored collection of work. To say anything is heresy is itself nonsensical. You have to take the time to listen to God, make sure its actually God talking to you, and do what's necessary to improve yourself by yourself.
>it means "don't worship lifeless man-made idols in place of or beside Me. I am (the only true) God."
You are the type of idiot goy the Synagogue of Satan loves if you actually believe this.

>>20850865
I'm not saying you're Catholic, I'm making the point that calling things heresy is dogmatic garbage and against what God wants. The Bible itself is a edited and censored collection of work. To say anything is heresy is itself nonsensical. You alone have to take the time to listen to God, make sure its actually God talking to you, and do what's necessary to improve yourself by yourself.
I'm not saying The Bible is inaccurate or all lies, but its not the only thing you should base your entire belief structure in, as, again, its a man made edited collection of texts.
>it means "don't worship lifeless man-made idols in place of or beside Me. I am (the only true) God."
You are the type of idiot goy the Synagogue of Satan loves if you actually believe this.

>>20850937
>trust God
>but not His word
and i'm the wrong one? hah.

>calling things heresy is dogmatic garbage
should we just accept all lies and deceit like the dualism you posit?

The Bible is the word of God. perfect, inerrant, and sufficient. God is the only true God, unchanging and perfect, and is Himself in both Testaments. period.

the Bible says the Messiah will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

There is no mention of a second coming in the Hebrew Bible. The Messiah gets one shot to pull it all off.

This one has the KJV, but with scholarly commentary. I'm torn between this and the Oxford one, mainly because of the influence of the KJV. I'm reading for literary reasons mostly, but if there are some major historical issues / controversies / mistakes, I want the footnotes to let me know.

>>20851458
Asimov's guide to the old and new testament will help you with the historical stuff

Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

>>20850483
Floods happen. Big ones too. Most ancient people lived near sources of water. It was too expected. Nothing supernatural required.

>>20851387
If I make a list of ideal traits in a gf does that mean I only have one shot at finding my ideal gf? Or can I try as many times as I want, and if the relationship fails, I can just say "she was not true gf"?
It's like this with the jews and their messiah. The have an ideal, but that doesn't mean they wont try as often as they want to subdue the gentile nations and bring world "peace" (submission to jews). Those who see the jewish messiah as a religious truth are fools. It is very obviously a blueprint for world conquest and a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who believe in it.

>>20851539
...or just a group of nomads getting evicted trying to cope by having a power fantasy?

>>20851561
That's the reality most likely, but Christians buy into this. In order to refute their fanfic, you have to use the other book they believe in to disprove it.

>>20834753
>I am not religious and I want to start reading
First, start with scholarly literature on the subject, to know what you are dragging yourself into.

Liverani M. - Israel's History and the History of Israel (2007)
Carr D.M. - An Introduction to the Old Testament. Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts of the Hebrew Bible (2010)

Watts J.W. - Understanding the Pentateuch as a scripture (2017)
Watts J.W. - Reading Law. The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (1999)
Watts J.W. - Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus. From Sacrifice to Scripture (2007)
Watts J.W. - Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (1992)
Yoo Y., Watts J.W. - Cosmologies of Pure Realms and the Rhetoric of Pollution (2021)

Smith W.C. - What is scripture. A comparative approach (1993)
Smith W.C. - The Meaning and End of Religion (1964)

Loubser J.A. - Oral and Manuscript Culture in the Bible. Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament. Explorative Hermeneutics (2013)
Jousse M. - Memory, Memorization, and Memorizers. The Galilean Oral-Style Tradition and Its Traditionists (2018)
Huebenthal S. - Reading Mark's Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory (2020)

Alter R. - The Art of Biblical Narrative (2011)
Feldt L. - The Fantastic in Religious Narrative from Exodus to Elisha (2012)
Heath J. - The Bible, Homer, and the Search for Meaning in Ancient Myths. Why We Would Be Better Off With Homer’s Gods (2019)
Abusch T. - Essays on Babylonian and Biblical Literature and Religion (2020)

(partially) Martin L.H., Sørensen J. (eds.) - Past Minds. Studies in Cognitive Historiography (2011)
(somewhat related) Whitehouse H. - Modes of Religiosity. A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission (2004)
(somewhat related) Winkelman M.J. - The Supernatural After the NeuroTurn (2019)
(somewhat related) Sørensen J. - A Cognitive Theory of Magic (2006)

>>20851561
How do you explain their success in the world? I think having a genocidal end-times power fantasy to rally around is a key part of their success. What else is a jew besides that? What else motivates them?

>>20851576
>How do you explain their success in the world?
>What else motivates them?

Not that anon, but:
>>20851571
>Past Minds. Studies in Cognitive Historiography (2011)
>Ch 3 Technology and Past Minds: the Case of Jewish Niche Construction

"natural selection in an environment that “can be partly constructed by the organism itself.” For example, the invention of fire “lies behind the progressive reduction of dentition” in hominids"
"the Baldwin effect where “behavioral changes can feed back into the genome by exposing the organism to new environmental pressures.” The example he gives is clothing, which encouraged humans to move into colder climates, which in turn lead to physiological adaptations"
"group selection", "kin selection"
"The last form of feedback Levinson terms “auto-domestication,” by which Levinson means selective breeding in human populations"

"We find evidence for a ratcheting effect8 in the early story of writing from about 8000 to 3000 BCE as told by Denise Schmandt-Basseret (1992) <...> training in literacy is training in higher-order characterization and organization, especially with regard to words and numerosity"

"Thus literate religions like Judaism do not evolve in a technical sense, but they do make **lasting changes to human ecology**, which in turn have their own selection pressures"
"Botticini and Eckstein have recently proposed an intriguing model which argues that **Judaism as an identity selected itself (i.e. Jews selected themselves) to urban skilled occupations** that most often required literacy or the manipulation of symbol systems (mathematical, monetary, or legal). They argue that the implementation after the second century of the common era of the religious norm requiring Jewish fathers to educate their sons determined three major patterns in Jewish history: <...> (ii) a comparative advantage in urban skilled occupations in which the literate Jews selected themselves when urbanization and the development of a commercial economy provided them with the returns to their investment in education; and (iii) the voluntary diaspora of the Jews in search of worldwide opportunities in crafts, trade, and moneylending."
"economic success in these occupations is far more highly selected for intelligence than success in the chief occupation of non-Jews: namely, farming. Economic success is in turn related to reproductive success, because higher income means lower infant mortality, better nutrition, and, more generally, reproductive “fitness.” Over time, increased fitness among the successful leads to a strong selection for the cognitive and psychological traits that produce that fitness, intensified when there is low inward gene flow from other populations. (Murray 2007, 5)""

>>20851568
>That's the reality most likely, but Christians buy into this.
utterly false, anon.
there is a quote from the catholic italian bible (cei-uelci 2008), with the official commentary by the CEI (cfr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Conference_of_Italy)), but only the physical version, when introducing the book of revelations, it says that it was all a cope that escalated progressively from the first isaiah to the last one, and with john it exploded to encompass the end of the cosmos as we know it today.
now, i will not rewrite a whole page worth of words just for you, but some pastabro can confirm.
>>20851576
>How do you explain their success in the world?
first they were not always successful. when they were still in middle east they were shit compared to babylon and egypt.
second, they start getting rich after 70 ad? no. they start getting rich when they do three things: get their hands in finance, dont interract with other people (i.e. they can hold secrets more effectively) and they teach law to their kids (daf yomi and talmud, ever heard of these two things?)
these three laws, applied to any group of people, made them rich: swiss people (protestants made people read the bible), freemasons, amish, anglos (to a certain extent) etc.
>What else is a jew besides that?
kek. stop browsing 4chan and read some books, anon.
>What else motivates them?
you dont need motivation to get rich, anon. just a good network of friends. see the irish people: they kept in touch with the jewish mafia, did their dirty work... now look at them: they have their own president in the us, just look for the hibernian conspiracy theory.

>>20834753
I guess is the token Christian thread.

How are these people?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

Jesus is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. Jesus said he was God, which places him as a false prophet advocating for the worship of other gods besides Yahweh. False prophets can work miracles. False prophets are sometimes sent by God to test the loyalty of his people.

The Jews who rejected Jesus passed the test.

>>20852133
post at least one quote where jesus says i am god.
spoiler: you cant.

>>20852296
John 8:58 “Jesus answered them: 'I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM.” [This was the name God gave himself when he first communicated with Moses, Exodus 3:14 “God replied, 'I am who am. ' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you. '”]

>>20834762
>translation of translation
why not kjv

>>20852296
wait a minute this isn't a david wood video

>>20852133
Wow, you, an anon from 4chan, really just refuted 2000 years of theology!

>>20852133
Christians circumvent this with the doctrine of Trinity: he didn't advocate for worship of other gods, because he's basically the same God.

>>20852620
Oh I'm not the first. Christians have the uncanny ability to never look at evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It's why Christianity still exists.

>>20852133
Jesus is YHWH. The Angel of the Lord who is distinct from YHWH but calls Himself YHWH is the pre-incarnate Logos. The one who sits on the throne in Ezekiel is in the form of a human, yet is YHWH. YHWH sends fire from heaven from YHWH. The Old Testament teaches, at the very least, a biunity, which is why you had the concept of the "Memra" being ubiquitous in Targumim at the time of the second temple, and the "Two Powers in Heaven" literature.

>>20852776
How devastating would it be to you if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity isn't true?

For me, if it was proven true (like with empirical evidence), I'd be disappointed at best because I have no interest in living forever after I die.

>>20851655
>get their hands in finance, dont interract with other people (i.e. they can hold secrets more effectively) and they teach law to their kids (daf yomi and talmud, ever heard of these two things?)
And they do these things because they believe themselves chosen and above all others because of their genocidal book of laws and myth.
>kek. stop browsing 4chan and read some books, anon.
Not an answer. Do you have any books that show jews as anything but racially-conscious followers of their genocidal law?
>you dont need motivation to get rich, anon. just a good network of friends
and this network of friends is formed because they believe themselves chosen and follow a genocidal book of laws that tells them to have in-group preference
>irish people
by and large not rich
>hibernian conspiracy
literally a joke made to mock the (real and really powerful) jewish conspiracy
>>20851604
All of what you say follows jews setting themselves apart from the rest of humanity and following their law. I don't see how that's a response or contradicts my post (?). Seems to be a non-sequitur

>>20852855
I don't think it would be devastating, as I try to view such matters through a logical lens, attempting to account for emotional biases. It would mean simply deferring to the next-most likely hypothesis. Further, my emotional response would depend on exactly what aspect was hypothetically falsified.

>For me, if it was proven true (like with empirical evidence), I'd be disappointed at best because I have no interest in living forever after I die
Ignoring the obvious point that there are other methods of determining truth besides empirical evidence, I think your lack of interest in living forever after death is simply based upon not experiencing the faintest taste of the happiness which God is offering to those who freely choose to love Him. You might want to read some of the writings of the Christian mystics, who describe the feeling of the telos of man being fully reached.

You strike me as somebody with a troubled story, and I wish I could get to know you on a deeper level, as friends, to find out why you have this attitude towards life.

>>20852919
My life is a tragedy. I look forward to blinking out of existence one day. That'll be my heaven. I was a Christian growing up, but I didn't choose it. It was pushed on me. I only went along with it because I feared Hell. I didn't and still don't have any interest in knowing God if there is one, not out of anger, but because the thought doesn't interest me. I'm satisfied with the idea that no one knows whether there's a God or an afterlife or any point to this existence.

>>20852919
Part 2
I have a hard enough time as it is loving other people let alone a God I can't experience with any of my senses. Having a relationship with God (assuming he exists and is as the Abrahamics describe him as) doesn't interest me at all.

>>20851655
>swiss people (protestants made people read the bible), freemasons, amish, anglos (to a certain extent) etc
Every last one of these groups is Jewish, some hiding it better than others (really, you imply the freemasons are goyim?).
>they start getting rich after 70 ad
They've been rich since before monotheism. They're all descendents of the Canaanites. The Phoenician Navy runs the world and has been for millennia, the Bible is just a chronicle of their victory lap dominating the world. Their Messiah is, indeed, an ideal that they hope to create. They have created their own God, in their own image, but they are mistaken, as we are all human. No one knows the truth of God and creation because we're human, and it's God, beyond any comprehension.
>see the irish people: they kept in touch with the jewish mafia, did their dirty work
The Irish Mob IS the Jewish Mafia. All mafias, worldwide, are run by the same group, racemixed into the local ethnicity of course. Even the Yakuza.
>they have their own president in the us, just look for the hibernian conspiracy theory.
The USA was founded by the British East India Company, by freemasons and cousins of the Crown AKA Jews. All of our presidents have been crypto-Jews from the beginning, as were the Kings of the Old World, and before them Byzantium, Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.

BTW the Phoenicians hate faithful, practicing Orthodox Jews as much as Christians. They worship a combination of themselves and gold and any faith in a greater good makes them seethe.

>>20853248
I am sorry to hear that you've had a hard time in this life. You might consider that your presuppositions regarding the potential case for an afterlife might be unreliable, given that you would be analyzing the arguments for/against from a bit of a biased lens (as we all do). Being aware of this, consider that it might be best to attempt to account for your biases by conducting dispassionate research into the topic, not by what seems most favourable or likely based upon your intuitions and feelings, but by the logical arguments for/against the reality of such a thing.

In practice, this might mean that although you claim to not have an interest in knowing God (or whether or not His existence can be known), you should conduct serious and dispassionate research into this topic - if only because of the potential repercussions of coming to the wrong conclusion on such a topic. If there exists a God and it is possible to know Him, it is imperative that one attempts to discover whether or not He revealed critical information as regards soteriology to humanity. This would mean weighing the strongest arguments put forth by the most competent apologists for the soteriological systems in the world, which would be a fun and challenging journey.

To do otherwise would be, frankly, illogical, given the stakes. Though the topic might not interest you, entering into the journey will compel you once you begin. After all, the door is opened to all who knock.

>>20853248
I am sorry to hear that you've had a hard time in this life. You might consider that your presuppositions regarding the potential case for an afterlife might be unreliable, given that you would be analyzing the arguments for/against from a bit of a biased lens (as we all do). Being aware of this, consider that it might be best to attempt to account for your biases by making a resolution to conduct dispassionate research into the topic; not by what seems most favourable or likely based upon your intuitions and feelings, but by the logical arguments for/against the reality of such a thing.

Although you claim to not have an interest in knowing God (or whether or not His existence can be known), you should still begin the journey - if only because of the potential repercussions of coming to the wrong conclusion on such a topic. If a God could exist, and He could have revealed things to mankind, this means He could have revealed critical soteriological information - it is imperative that one attempts to discover whether or not this is the case. This would mean weighing the strongest arguments put forth by the most competent apologists for the spiritual-soteriological systems in the world, which is a quest which will push you to your very limits.

To do otherwise would be, frankly, illogical, given the stakes. Though the topic might not interest you, entering into the journey will compel you once you begin. After all, the door is opened to all who knock, and all who seek, find.

>>20853774
based Miles Mathis enjoyer

Listen to this and it will change your life. I don't think I could ever read the whole Old Testament but listening to it being read, with explanation, is much easier to deal with.

>>20855184
why should I trust their explanations though?

good thread

What did ancient nonreligious people do with their lives that was meaningful? How can the nonreligious of today replicate that?

>>20856323
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-neuroscientist-explores-the-sanskrit-effect/

Recitation of huge chunks of text by memory, boosts your cognitive skills.