Religion/Spirituality The Official Bible Study Thread

[Soon]

Man do y'all just read this thing from front to back? That seems tough. I'd like to just pick a chapter here and read it in its entirety but how do u choose a chapter out of do many??

I read the entire Old Testament, which can be a tough read at times. I read the authentic authored 12 Books of the New Testament, and the New Testament is an easy read.

 

[Everythingg]

Man do y'all just read this thing from front to back? That seems tough. I'd like to just pick a chapter here and read it in its entirety but how do u choose a chapter out of do many??

I did breh. It was tough but it was when I went to Africa and didnt have much distractions.

You cant jump in the middle of a book and understand what its saying. But if you know who you are (whats your nationality?), then

 

[blac_da_rappa]

Scriptures
2 Kings 19:9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah

Isaiah 37:9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah

When Taharqa was about 20 years old, he participated in a historic battle with the Assyrian Emperor, King Sennacherib at Eltekeh. At the request of Hezekiah King of Israel’s, Taharqa and the Egyptian/Kushyte army managed to stall the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem, the capital of Ancient Israel. In the bible he is called Tirhakah. He is one of the few Pharaoh’s mentioned in the bible.

 

[Entrapta310]

Scriptures
2 Kings 19:9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah

Isaiah 37:9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah

When Taharqa was about 20 years old, he participated in a historic battle with the Assyrian Emperor, King Sennacherib at Eltekeh. At the request of Hezekiah King of Israel’s, Taharqa and the Egyptian/Kushyte army managed to stall the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem, the capital of Ancient Israel. In the bible he is called Tirhakah. He is one of the few Pharaoh’s mentioned in the bible.

which is the correct spelling? Taharqa or Tirhakah
i'm assuming one is the translated hebrew version and the other the arabic phonetical version??

 

[Rekorb]

@Anwulika

 

[Yehuda]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Matter of fact, Gospel of Mark isn't even original itself, it borrows from another earlier text that archaeologists and critics have called "The Gospel of Q". All of the Gospels, sans Gospel of John, borrows from Q.

literary criticism is unnecessarily tough on bible text. the q document, as was stated earlier, is the original document for the three gospels, largely and mostly given to mark (which leads some to believe that mark is Q abridged).

The evidence for Q is not very strong which is why some of the most respected modern critics have suggested that it could be just a theologians' myth.

One of the greatest blind spots of modern Biblical criticism is a lack of understanding of oral tradition. It's accuracy, authority, and ubiquity are too often underplayed. There's no solid evidence that the shared material we refer to as "Q" isn't just the community's known, oral stories about Jesus. There's no evidence at all they ever had to exist in written form or already have been compiled before the Gospel authors did so. They were just the stories that the entire community knew and repeated, in many cases likely in a pseudo-formulaic manner.

No, I am not Catholic.

Just referring to the 1,500 year period when the only Christian denomination was Catholicism.

Just looking at what things came to be with Popes Clement, Victor, Melchiades, and Sylvester.

Y'all always be forgetting the Eastern church. The Catholic church was NEVER the only Christian denomination. The church in Jerusalem, the church in Alexandria, the church in Antioch, the church in Athens, they were all around before the Catholic church even existed. Several of them (especially Egypt and Syria, and later Ethiopia as well) were never under the authority of the Roman Catholics in any absolutely controlling way, and the Greeks/Romans/Turks/etc. also divorced themselves from the Catholics long before that 1500 year mark you mention.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

The evidence for Q is not very strong which is why some of the most respected modern critics have suggested that it could be just a theologians' myth.

One of the greatest blind spots of modern Biblical criticism is a lack of understanding of oral tradition. It's accuracy, authority, and ubiquity are too often underplayed. There's no solid evidence that the shared material we refer to as "Q" isn't just the community's known, oral stories about Jesus. There's no evidence at all they ever had to exist in written form or already have been compiled before the Gospel authors did so. They were just the stories that the entire community knew and repeated, in many cases likely in a pseudo-formulaic manner.






Y'all always be forgetting the Eastern church. The Catholic church was NEVER the only Christian denomination. The church in Jerusalem, the church in Alexandria, the church in Antioch, the church in Athens, they were all around before the Catholic church even existed. Several of them (especially Egypt and Syria, and later Ethiopia as well) were never under the authority of the Roman Catholics in any absolutely controlling way, and the Greeks/Romans/Turks/etc. also divorced themselves from the Catholics long before that 1500 year mark you mention.

Then what's the source then of Gospel of mark, since it's the oldest?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Then what's the source then of Gospel of mark, since it's the oldest?

The sum total of the personal experiences and oral traditions of the community. You're talking something written only ~30 years after the events it depicted, you don't need a damn book to tell you what happened, the people who were there....were still there.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

The sum total of the personal experiences and oral traditions of the community. You're talking something written only ~30 years after the events it depicted, you don't need a damn book to tell you what happened, the people who were there....were still there.

Could have sworn Gospel of mark was 70 years after Christ died

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Could have sworn Gospel of mark was 70 years after Christ died

Dating is of course really hard, but the majority put Mark at 60-70A.D., with Christ's death (with much more confidence) at 30A.D. Matthew and Luke are placed at 70-80A.D. and John at 90-100A.D.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

Dating is of course really hard, but the majority put Mark at 60-70A.D., with Christ's death (with much more confidence) at 30A.D. Matthew and Luke are placed at 70-80A.D. and John at 90-100A.D.

Have you read the theory on Gospel of Mark using literary allusions to The Odyssey?

 

[Chez Lopez]

The evidence for Q is not very strong which is why some of the most respected modern critics have suggested that it could be just a theologians' myth.

One of the greatest blind spots of modern Biblical criticism is a lack of understanding of oral tradition. It's accuracy, authority, and ubiquity are too often underplayed. There's no solid evidence that the shared material we refer to as "Q" isn't just the community's known, oral stories about Jesus. There's no evidence at all they ever had to exist in written form or already have been compiled before the Gospel authors did so. They were just the stories that the entire community knew and repeated, in many cases likely in a pseudo-formulaic manner.

I agree with this. And i disagree with my former statement on how Q is probably Mark. The Q would more than likely be Matthew, if Q existed as the historians say it did. However there were many written accounts along side oral history. You are very right about the accuracy of oral tradition, it is an undermined art form.

What is equally as interesting is the original texts as well, such as the original hebrew matthew text.

 

[MostReal]

great thread
why was the breh @Chez Lopez bushed?

 

[MMS]

I agree with this. And i disagree with my former statement on how Q is probably Mark. The Q would more than likely be Matthew, if Q existed as the historians say it did. However there were many written accounts along side oral history. You are very right about the accuracy of oral tradition, it is an undermined art form.

What is equally as interesting is the original texts as well, such as the original hebrew matthew text.

Qoph?

Qof in gematria represents the number 100. Sarah is described in Genesis Rabba as בת ק' כבת כ' שנה לחטא‎, literally "At Qof years of age, she was like Kaph years of age in sin", meaning that when she was 100 years old, she was as sinless as when she was 20.[4]

We are living in a world of illusion