Daniel

The verse as written is: Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν Μὴ - Lest ( soft negation ) νομίσητε - think ὅτι - that ἦλθον - [ I ] came βαλεῖν - "casting"? "Like a net? From the root βάλλω. That's an interesting word choice. "Net <--> Sword" is a sharp contrast. εἰρήνην - "peace-as-a-consequence-of-unity" Another interesting word choice: from the root εἴρω = "bound / united". It means "peace" but it is peace that comes from a fundamental connection. Strong's Lexicon indicates that εἰρήνην was the traditional Jewish Greek invocation on departure. This matches the traditional hebrew invocation on departure which is: Shalom. Shalom is from the root Shaleim, which means "complete". Also Salam in arabic. Bound, united, complete, all of these are expressing the same message. When Jewish people part ways, traditionally it is said: "Be at peace, we are united, we are complete." That is what is expressed by the word "Shalom" in hebrew and also the meaning of "Eirene" "εἰρήνην" in Greek. It is a a true peace that can only be accomplished through inclusion. As an aside: there's also a Greek Goddess in their pantheon named "Eirene / Irene", the goddess of peace. Perhaps there's an additional layer of meaning in this as well? Jesus is saying that he did not come to bring either the traditional Greek version of peace? And. He did not come to bring the traditional hebrew version of peace. He came to bring something different than that. ἐπὶ - to τὴν - the γῆν - [ the physical ] earth Often a word chosen to translate the hebrew words Eretz and Adamah in the Greek Old Testament. οὐκ - not ( harsh negation ) ἦλθον - [ I ] came βαλεῖν - "casting" ( like a net ) εἰρήνην - "peace-coming-from-unity" ( see above ) ἀλλὰ - but μάχαιραν -"slaughter-knife" μάχαιρα has specific connotation. It only had one edge as contrasted with a ῥομφαία, a more elegant two-sided double edged sword. There is context here that is needed. The μάχαιραν is not an ordinary "sword" even though that is how it is translated into english. It is a long single sided knife which was often used in ritual slaughter. This can be seen in Homer's Illiad where the priest of apollo uses a μάχαιραν to slaughter the sacrifice. In hebrew, this sort of knife is called a khaylif. The knives used for ritual slaughter were ( and are ) exceptionally sharp and long so that the beast would be dispatched painlessly with a single deliberate stroke. This is the ending of the statement. This is what Jesus is saying he is bringing. He is bringing a slaughter-knife to execute a ritual. According to what's written, the verse is contrasting the imagery of casting a wide net ( εἰρήνην / Eirene / inclusive-peace ) with executing a ritual slaughter ( μάχαιραν / Machairan / divisive-salvation? ) @Tommy, what do you think about this analysis?

To be clear, I do no think he was advocating violence either. I wrote "he was not opposed to violence." Agreed. I think what I meant to communicate is being misunderstood. I apologize for not being more clear.

... But how then should the Scriptures ( aka prophecy ) be fulfilled? Per Jesus: The violence and broken hearts are necessary in order for the fulfilling of the prophecy.

Do you think that Jesus would have wasted words being repetitive? When I read the greek scriptures, it seems to me that everything that is quoted of Jesus possesses many layers of meaning. The meaning is concentrated and compressed into the words which is why they need to be unpacked. That is the opposite of wasted and repetitive words.

I agree. Bringing about changes is "division". It is a departure from the status quo. It divides the way-of-life before, from the way-of-life after. However, there are two statements being referred to in the quote brought to this thread: 1) I have not come to bring peace. 2) I have come to bring the sword. These are not necessarily redundant statements. Would Jesus waste words being repetitive?

He was not opposed to violence. He did not teach to the general public. Jesus taught several things. The story as it's written requires Jesus to be one of the "faction" of the transgressors. Inflicting violence on the pharisee judicial establishment is a transgression. It's a capital offense. Ref: Deuteronomy 17:9-12. The pharisees are the "judges who [were] in those days" (אל־השפט אשר יהיה בימים). Encouraging the violence guarantees that Jesus will be "of the transgressors, allocated" (את־פשעים נמנה) from the suffering-servant prophecy written in Isaiah 53:12. The violence is part of the plan. Here are the verses from Deuteronomy 17 in a spoiler for reference. Because of the prophecy. When did the healing occur? Is that sort of healing permitted at that time? Jesus had already been warned not to do it? Agreed? Luke 13:14 (NIV) Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” Lev. 23:39 אך בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי באספכם את־תבואת הארץ תחגו את־חג־יהוה שבעת ימים ביום הראשון שבתון וביום השמיני שבתון׃ Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep a feast to the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. The healing occurred after the passover seder ( "the last supper" ) which is legally on the 15th day of the seventh month which is a "Sabbath". Healing is not permitted on this day according to the law of God unless there is a risk of imminent death, or, unless there is a woman in labor. Jesus healed that individual, in that time and at that place, so that he [Jesus] would be "of the transgressors, allocated." Isaiah 53:12. ETA: In order for the plan to work, the entire plan, all of it it needs to occur on the night of passover. Most do not know the prophecies well enough to realize this. Jesus is attempting to execute a rather complicated ... maneuver, for lack of a better word.

Jesus is quoted in Luke ( NIV ): ... if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” In context, in Luke 22, Jesus is directing his disciples to arm themselves and, yes, be violent to prevent their capture by the established power structure, the pharisee judicial system. The verse referenced is in Isaiah 53, the famous "suffering-servant" prophecy. In order to adopt the station of the "suffering-servant", among other things, Jesus needs to be "את־פשעים נמנה", literally "of the transgressors, allocated". If the disciples do not fight back, then the disciples are no longer transgressors. In order to take the station of "suffering-servant", the disciples need to be actively antagonistic to the decree of the pharisees in violation of biblical law. The pharisees are coming to seize the disciples with violence. They cannot submit. They will need to react violently. Submitting to the pharisee prison and the pharisee death sentence peacefully does not fulfill the prophecy of the "suffering-servant". Later in the chapter, there is violence. The disciples use the sword, but Jesus heals the one who is injured. Jesus, in theory, could have could have prevented it, but he did not come to bring peace. The violence is necessary in order to repair it. That is an important concept in Christianity.

Wouldn't that bring peace? " ... do not think that I came to bring peace ... "

The Christian bible is, top to bottom, dividing or differentiating between those who are reuniting ( salvation ) and those who are not.

The sword = division. From the same chapter: (NIV) 32 Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. ^^ Division ^^ From chapter 13: (NIV) “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." ^^ Division ^^ From chapter 3: (NIV) I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. ^^ Division ^^ The Book of Matthew in some ways is the most "Jewish" of the gospels. The prophecies of the Jewish Messiah are at first catastrophic, a period of division, which is resolving into a perfected world. "... do no think that I bring peace .... but a sword."

@Apotheose, Thank you for the reply. I'm going to reflect on what you wrote.

you are very welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to explore it together.

Regarding the double meaning I mentioned above, in both Greek and hebrew, the words for wind and spirit are connected. In hebrew, the word for wind and spirit are the same word. If Jesus is speaking hebrew it would sound like this. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and "ruach". ( pronounced with the harsh "h" sound like a cat coughing up a hairball; spelled "ch" or "kh" ) 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the "ruach" gives birth to "ruach". 7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’ 8 The "ruach" blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The word choice here in the Greek is facinating as well because the word for "blows" is also another variation of the same word which means both wind and spirit. John 3:8 Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. The πνεῦμα (wind/spirit) πνεῖ (winds/spirits) wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the πνεύματος (wind/spirit). "Wind/spirit" is both noun and verb. It is what it's doing. It's like "bicycling" in english. The verb is nothing more than the noun in action. It's true for both wind and spirit as well, isn't it? For wind this is translated in english as "blows". But for spirit, what is a in english that describes it? There is no word for it. It's unique. The spirit.. spirits. The same is happening to a lesser degree in the hebrew of the verse I referred to previously. Genesis 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃ And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And ruach-elohim m'rachefes toward the face of the waters. Often the english translators choose to translate this as a "wind moving". But that's not what it actually says. Moving on the face of the water would be "tailech ("moved") al p'nei hamayim", like Noah's ark in Gen 7:18. Here, the spirit is "spiriting" or "fluttering", or "pulsating", or "vibrating"... It's very similar linguistically to what Jesus is saying in John 3:8. He's reminding Nicodemus of what he is suppossed to already have learned. Deut 32:11 כנשר יעיר קנו על־גוזליו ירחף יפרש כנפיו יקחהו ישאהו על־אברתו׃ As an eagle stirs up its nest, flutters ("y'rachef") over its young, spreads out its wings, takes them, bears them on its pinions; Jeremiah 23:9 לנבאים נשבר לבי בקרבי רחפו כל־עצמותי הייתי כאיש שכור וכגבר עברו יין מפני יהוה ומפני דברי קדשו׃ My heart inside me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake ("rachafu"; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome, because of the Lord, and because of his holy words.

Boundless? I'm seeing the opposite. I think Line 8 describes one who is limited not boundless. They cannot tell from where the wind blows, nor can they tell where it is going. That's a limitation of awareness. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Those who are born of only Spirit are limited in their awareness. They can hear "wind" but cannot chart its course. Wind is in quotes because there is a double meaning here.

It's a mikvah. There is a physical mikvah and a spiritual mikvah.

John 3:3: "Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ" Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν - "Amen, Amen" ( very truly ) λέγω σοι, - "Lego soi" ( I say to you ) ἐὰν μή τις - "ean me tis" ( if lest/not anyone ) γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - "genethe anothen" ( be born from above ) οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν - "ou dynatai idein" ( not will be able to see ) τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ - "ten basileian tou Theous" ( the kingdom of God ) The Greek word for "be born" in the verse is "γεννηθῇ", "genethe", like genesis, like genealogy. The root is "γέννᾰ" "genna - origin". The verb form is γεννάω, aorist/perfect/completed-action. Here, it is conjugated with the suffix "θῇ" indicating the passive-casual: to be born, or begotten, complete, but without any active participation from the subject. The root "γέννᾰ" is very often, in the majority, literal. The most concentrated cluster of occurances is the the first chapter of Matthew, the geneology of Jesus. Matthew 1 NIV: 1 This is the genealogy ("γενέσεως") of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Isaac, Isaac [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Jacob, Jacob [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Hezron, Hezron [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Ram ... ... ... The geneology recorded in Luke uses simpler language, a construct relationship, possessive "τοῦ". Luke 3 literal translation: 23 ... He was the son of, so it was thought, Joseph of ("τοῦ") Heli, 24 of ("τοῦ") Matthat, of ("τοῦ") Levi, of ("τοῦ") Melki, of ("τοῦ") Jannai, of ("τοῦ") Joseph, 25 of ("τοῦ") Mattathias, of ("τοῦ") Amos, of ("τοῦ") Nahum, of ("τοῦ") Esli ... ... ... In all 3 of the synoptic Gospels every occurance ( 50 in total ) are all literal births from a physical womb. Examples: Matthew 19:12 NIV: For there are eunuchs who were born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Mark 14:21 NIV: The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born ("ἐγεννήθη").” Luke 1:57 NIV: When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth ("ἐγέννησεν") to a son. The book of John departs from this consistent literal usage of γέννᾰ as a literal birth. The word occurs 18 times in the book of John. The departure from an exclusively literal birth from a physical womb is introduced immediately in chapter 1. John 1:10-13 NIV: 10 He [the true light / the word made flesh] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children [born] not of natural descent ( literally "of blood" ), nor of human decision ( literally "of will of flesh" ) or a husband’s will ( literally "of the will of man" ), but born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") of God. Skipping John 3 for a moment, the other occurances of γέννᾰ in the book of John are all literal, birth from a physical womb: 8:41, 9:2,19, 20, 32, 34, 16:21, 18:37. Since, John 1 is clearly not literal, it's certainly possible that John 3 is also not literal. Let's look at John 3. The book of John begins with a reference to the creation event in Gen 1, In the beginning... creation via divine fiat. Then the scene is set, foreshadowing the conflict between Jesus and the jewish establishment with the story of the confrontation of John the baptist by the priests. John has a vision acknowleging Jesus' divine station. John's disciples are transferred over to Jesus. The chapter ends with Jesus referring Nathaniel to having a vision of "Jacob's ladder" ( Gen 28 ), but adds the very important detail about the Son-of-Man as the mercavah, the divine chariot. Chapter two is an interlude which continues, follows on, and developes the "Son-of-man" "mercavah" concept. Jesus is able to work wonders with vessels. Water to wine in a vessel... the temple is a vessel, a dwelling place. He is a master of "vessels", building, filling, and transmuting. Chapter three: Nocodemus comes to Jesus and says, "you must be from God because of the wonders you are working." Jesus interprets the statement as a question, Nicodemus is asking, "are you from God?" This is a bit of a dangerous question. Nicodemus is a pharisee in the "ruling council". Jesus dodges and distracts and also tests Nicodemus. "Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” ( Note: Nicodemus responded in frustration which is a form of anger, and is focused on the physical womb which is below. ) Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” In verse 1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus as a "Rabbi", literally. in the Greek it's written "Ῥαββί". As a Rabbi, Jesus is, in some ways, obligated to answer the question. Nicodemus is frustrated and confused. Jesus tries to sooth him. The key to understanding this is in the phrase: "You should not be surprised at my saying." Why shouldn't Nicodemus be surprised? Because Jesus is quoting scripture to him referring to the mystery school of which Nocodemus is a member as a pharisee. John 1 refers the reader to Gen 1:1. John 3 is referring the reader to Gen 1:2. 1:1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃ And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And "ורוח אלהים" / "ruach-elohim" / "divine spirit" fluttered upon the face of the waters. Jesus answers: "you can hear it, but you cannot see it. You don't know where it is going. So it is with all those who are born of spirit." Jesus says Nicodemus s born of spirit, so, what's missing? Water. Jesus is teaching, both water and spirit are needed in order to see the kingdom of God which is present right in front of his face, technically, since the "beginning". From spirit above... but then it descends like water... and then, it rises again to reunion seeing the Kingdom of God and receiving eternal life.. “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. ( Nicodemus has settled a bit. ) “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” OK. Jesus reminds Nicodemus he is a teacher. A Talmudai-Torah. A teacher of Torah. This is a Talmudic teaching. Let's see if I can find it... Got it. Ah. Technically it's a Mishnah which is older than the Talmud. Certainly a Pharisee should know this. Talmud Rosh-Hashanna 29a:6-7 מַתְנִי׳ ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים, וְאִם לָאו — הָיוּ נוֹפְלִים. MISHNA: “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). Did the hands of Moses make war or break war? Rather, it's telling you that as long as the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אוֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כׇּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וָחָי״, וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה? אֶלָּא: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִין, וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נִימּוֹקִים Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed but if not, they rotted. OK. Jesus is teaching, just as Moses lifted, the Son-of-Man (the mercavah, the divine chariot) must be lifted. Thos who believe, truly believe will turn, te'shuvah, their faces upward, their hearts will be subjected downward, and this creates the "loft" for the chariot. Those who are passengers will ascend to see the Kingdom of God and receive eternal life. The remainder of the Nicodemus episode, verses 16-21, are flagged as commentary in the NIV not direct qoutes of Jesus, so, I'll stop there. The mystery of the divine chariot is taught in Jewish mysticsm. It's the oldest form of authentic "kabbalah" which means "receiving". The idea is the mystic builds a chariot, a mercavah. But all of authentic kabalah is about making and working with vessels. In this case Jesus intends to save the world, more or less, by making himself into a mercavah, a divine vessel, which is just another word for an angel. The Son-Of-Man is a specific sort of angel, divine vessel. The vessel has not will of its own, so, it really is a revelation of God. But it requires the jewish people to turn there faces upward, and subjegate their hearts to their (our) heavenly father to create the loft for the mercavah to "rise" (in quotes because it doesn't actually go anywhere. Spirit is omnipresent.)

From the perspective of the eternal: the crime, the punishment, the repentence, the refinement of individual flaws, etc... are all concurrent. All events are happening simultaneously. I am deeply flawed now, and, I am simultaneously approaching perfection, now. The painful punishment is happening, now. And. The joyous reunion is also happening... now. The pain and the pleasure, the craving and the relief, are all happening right now from the perspective of the eternal. From the perspective of the eternal there are no beginnings and there are no endings. Every event, every moment, is never-ending and has always existed. It is sad to imagine oneself born deserving punishment. Realization of the inevitable improvement and rectification takes the sting out of it. It's inevitable, because, the future events of self-correction have already been woven into the fabric of reality. Any and all choices and their outcomes have been woven into the tapestry of life. Free-will determines which of those strands define past, present, and future. But. They're all heading towards the same inevtiable destination: unity.

I think it happens naturally. The mystic's reward and pleasure is from exploring, encountering and engaging "mystery". Material "creature comforts" are not valued. There is no reward in those things. They are comforted in other ways.

It's a mystery. The first challenge is to accurately define judaism. Maybe start there.

That's true in some ways, but, it's not always true. There are places in the hebrew bible, where the spirit of the law is favored and the letter of the law is discouraged. These are the passsages and exceptions that Christian theologians point to in order to confirm "We're not wrong." And... they're not wrong until they ignore that these are exceptions in the hebrew bible. I'm not sure that you're in a position to speak for most people. That said, the "chosen status" of jewish people is something which is misunderstood and exaggerated. I understand that you don't like to read the torah, but, that's where this idea of a "chosen people" comes from. Amos writes: 3:1 שמעו את־הדבר הזה אשר דבר יהוה עליכם בני ישראל על כל־המשפחה אשר העליתי מארץ מצרים לאמר׃ Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 3:2 רק אתכם ידעתי מכל משפחות האדמה על־כן אפקד עליכם את כל־עונתיכם׃ Only you have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. We were chosen and singled out for punishment... among other things. That's why traditional jewish music is often melancholy, bitter-sweet in the tonal arrangement. "Chosen" is not all champaign and roses. Yes, the covenant is with the jewish people and no one else. That's true. AND. This is 100% consistent with the Christian bible. Jesus confirms the tribal status and isolation of the jewish tribe in several key places. Here's an example. Acts of the Apostels 1: 6 So when they came together, they asked Him [Jesus], “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Per Jesus, The destiny of the jewish people is fixed by The Father, the same god that is described in the hebrew bible. That means the jewish people are distinct both in the hebrew bible and in the Christian bible. In particular? Because you brought a quote from 2 Corinithians. The author of those letters was jewish and was referring to the jewish concept of t'shuvah, "returning" in the quote you brought. The quotes I brought from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Luke are all describing the same concept using the same language. In general? Wiithout Isaiah and Jeremiah there would be no Christianity nor "New Covenant". If you don't believe me, please read Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 31-33. Ezekiel is also important, but lesser. And I quoted Luke as well to lend support to the concept of "returning to god" which is required per the author of 2 Corinthians for proper discerment of scripture. That's 4 biblical sources which you can look up yourself in support of what I wrote about "returning". Maybe in that time and place he was correct, but, that is changing the subject. This is what you wrote: If you are aware of the destruction and the anger of Jesus' god in regard to the temple priests and the temple itself which was flattened (mostly), then, you should be aware that Jesus' god IS consistent with the god of the hebrew bible which is also described in those ways. Although I would be remiss not to point out, from the 10 commandments: 20:5 לא־תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא פקד עון אבת על־בנים על־שלשים ועל־רבעים לשנאי׃ You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 20:6 ועשה חסד לאלפים לאהבי ולשמרי מצותי׃ And showing mercy to thousands of those who love me, and keep my commandments. From the Psalms of David: 145:8 חנון ורחום יהוה ארך אפים וגדל־חסד׃ The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of abundant loving kindness. 145:9 טוב־יהוה לכל ורחמיו על־כל־מעשיו׃ The Lord is good to all; and his mercies are over all his works. 145:14 סומך יהוה לכל־הנפלים וזוקף לכל־הכפופים׃ The Lord upholds all who fall, and raises up all those who are bowed down. 145:15 עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן־להם את־אכלם בעתו׃ The eyes of all wait upon you; and you give them their food in due season. 145:16 פותח את־ידך ומשביע לכל־חי רצון׃ You open your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing. The god of Abraham chose the jewish people, but it is the god and sustainer of ALL. God is also described as merciful and kind in addition to the harsh punitive aspects. The last line quoted above begins "Poseach es yadecha..." "You open your hand..." Here it is in song. Notice the bitter-sweet melody, the transition in the middle to the upbeat tempo, then the return to melancoly/somber. That's the jewish concept of "chosen". It's bitter-sweet.

Is this a religious text? "After these oaths were secured, the gods made a sport out of the situation. They threw sticks, rocks, and anything else on hand at Baldur, and everyone laughed as these things bounced off and left the shining god unharmed. The wily and disloyal Loki sensed an opportunity for mischief." That sounds like a good example of a pagan story. There is a confliict between the divine powers. No. The septuagint is a a greek translation. The reason its called the septuagint is because, according to the story, 72 ( latin: septuaginta = 70 ) rabbis were isolated and asked to translate the hebrew bible. All 72 produced identical tranlsations. I'm not using it as a slur. Are you taking offense when I use it? If so, what term would you prefer? Polytheist? I'll use what ever term you prefer. Hopefully you'll undeerestand my confusions since you've used that term yourself. I know other pagans that use the term to identify themself and are OK with my use of it to refer to them. But, if you are offended, I will respect that in conversation with you. Yes. Polytheistic often with divine powers associated with forces of nature. What's ironic about it? I don't use the term infidel. Gentile is perfectly fine word as far as I know. The word "goy" became a slur in the first several centuries after Jesus' earthly ministry. But, technically it's just a physical nation. The hebrew nation is a "goy", per verse Gen 25:23. ויאמר יהוה לה שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבד צעיר׃ (K) And the Lord said to her, Two nations ( "גיים" Goyim ) are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. Per the hebrew bible, the jewish nation is a goy. It's not *actually* a slur, but it became one later. Nobody in my community uses it anymore to my knowledge.

Can you refer me to ANY pagan texts which do not describe divine forces in conflict?

I don't disdain pagans. I love pagans. It's simple truth that pagans struggle with the notion of a unified monotheistic power where everything happens for a reason. That's what distinguishes pagan from monotheism. In order to "make sense" of the world the pagan needs multiple forces in conflict. They cannot "make sense" of it any other way. That's where the demi-urge comes from and the reimagining of the bible. They cannot make sense of the bible any other way. But, really it's coming from a feeling, an intuition, that there are multiple divine powers. Then they go to the bible and try tto justify their beliefs using monotheistic sacred texts. Maybe that's why pagans come to the bible to try to bolster their beliefs? They don't have their own scripture?

I intend to reply to the remainder of your 10 points from the previous page. And I'm still not seeing anything yet that would include Marcion as a Church Father. And Unitarian Christianity is "a thing". Not the mainstream, not a majority, but it has always been "a thing". They're not Muslims; that's different. I think that's fair. For me, the discussion that we're having is not about reality. It's about the contents of a book. It's about the fair representation of a book. This particular book is important to me, but, I defend against all manner of misinformation/disinformation/propaganda online. It's a sort of passionate hobby. Fortunately or unfortunately there is plenty of it. In additon, my objection here is attacking doctrine with doctrine. The bible-critic's assertions are no less religious (faith-based) than the apologist when the critic has not read, nor is willing to read, the source material. Like I said, the unfair critic will always-always discourage detail. They need the broad-brush generalizations in order to make their point. That's how to tell when it is fallacious. Naturally. However, when this is true, in the past, I notice more agnostism and apathy in contrast to dogmatic certainty.

Unitarian Christianity is not a thing? Chrstianiity.com disagrees with you. This is what they say about themselves. You may not agree with them, but, that doesn't mean it's "not a thing". This simple fact that the council needed to clarify Jesus' divine status shows that there were substantial early Christian congregations which were not worshipping Jesus as a deity. Unitarians track their history back to the Apostolic Age and maintain this belief was popular during the pre-Nicene era, preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Many Unitarians consider their Christology most similarly matches that of the "original Christians." https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/what-is-unitarianism-discover-the-history-and-beliefs-of-the-unitarian-church.html Here, below, you can see that it took several hundred years to fully establish, enforce, and normalize the trinity doctrine. The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. ... In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362. The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 381 and a final form formulated primarily by Gregory of Nyssa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Trinity I'm not sure that Unitarian Christians would appreciate that equivilance. Maybe this conclusion is coming from your location and isolation from non-trinitarians? You've admitted to a lack of education in Islam, the OT, and non-protestant Christianity, correct? So where is this confidence coming from? The JWs are excellent with scripture. None the less, here is a long list of Unitarian Christian resources. https://www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/resources/ The main point is, because you have not read the OT, nor studied it, nor read and understand its language, then you are not in a position to distinguish fact from fiction. So, you post opinions, but they often collapse when examined rationally. That's somewhat true, but, also over simplified. The problem with google searching and youtubing is that without reading the text itself, one would never be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. That's why the JWs are a good resource. When talking about the bible, they are always-always directing the reader to ... drumroll ... the text that's in the bible. The individual's demonination, or label/affiliation doesn't matter. The bible's text is the bible's text. Critics do the opposite. They discourage reading the bible. They will clip a tiny piece from the bible, and refuse to read the surrounding text. Critics like "deal-breakers" and "gotchas". But they hate including details and nuance because it diminishes the impact of their critique. Sure, that's a superficial understanding. Thanks for admitting it. Superficial. Shallow. Immature. The critic often relies on a cartoon-version of the biblcal god of Abraham. Then they deny that anyone anywhere can possibly have a more mature, deeper understanding of the text than themself. It's arrogance + ignorance. It's ignorant, because it's a shallow superficial understanding. And it's arrogant becausee it lifts up their own ignorance as the ideal. It could be that I missed it, but I certainly did not choose to ignore it. I checked multiple sources prior to posting. But since I am not an expert in Christianity, I asked the question, "Are you sure?" You're claiming 100% certainty? Why? Where is this confidence coming from? You've admitted a lack of education in this subject matter previously. Has something changed? I just double checked the wiki-article. What are you seeing there which indicated Marcion is a Church father? I'm seeing it as distinct, because, it describes Marcion as having written his own gospel adapted from Luke and denied the others. The other Chruch Fathers, right or wrong, labeled him a heretic. I've searched for anyone anywhere that includes Marcion as a Church Father, and I cannot find any. Please direct me to the section on the wiki-article which described Marcion as a Church Father? I am finding nothing corraborating your position. I am finding the opposite. Marcion made contact with the Church Fathers approx. 140 CE. They labeled him a heretic in approx. 144 CE. Here's a source hopefully you will respect, the famous critical-biblical-scholar Bart Erhman: LINK The above is bolded since you have said that you are skimming my posts. Then bringing the book as a source isn't useful, because, you don't know what it says. You don't know if it makes any valid arguments and you cerrtainly have not actively looked for or considered any valid counter-arguments. Let's stop here for now. I'm eager to read your response to the evidence I brought that Unitarian Christianity is "a thing" and "was a thing". Also, I'm interested to read how you are establishing Marcion as a Church father when everything I'm finding is the opposite. Thank you,