Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That was a part of Torah-based approach to family that the Bible's revelations actually overwrote.
It should be noted the Torah itself was ahead of its own time because it was the norm to be able to kill children, which the Torah saw as barbaric. You could say they beat out the Greeks on this.
Spare the rod, spoil the child. Is endorsed by your boy Paul. You know the guy who supposedly wrote over half of the NT.
Except if the son was rebellious or if the child was of the enemy. Remind me what Jeremiah said again about rocks and children.
Paul is not "my boy", if anyone is Jesus is. Jesus is the messenger and takes priority over Paul, who is seen as trying to dilute the message. This shouldn't be unclear, we are talking about the main figure of the Bible versus a prosecutor of his people. Jesus asks us to spare the rod, even when the child is rebellious.
Another thing to note about the last point, it wasn't just any form of rebellion that led to this (in any civilization that wants a steady population, this wouldn't have been a practical teaching even if anyone wanted it to be law). It had more to do with honor. Meanwhile, the whole rocks and children verse is figurative.
Oh this argument again. Yeah without your boy Paul there is no Christianity. Perfect sacrifice, services on Sunday, the lifting of the Moses commandments, Baptism, the proto-Trinity, original sin, the basic organization of the church, the sliding position of women, over half of the NT, the doctrine of salvation, faith vs works debate. Guess who did all this? Without Paul there would be nothing. There was zero plan for the day after.
Also of course the Gospel writers borrowed from Paul, which I doubt you accept but truth doesnt depend on feelings. The Eucharist for example is highly likely to be either Paul inventing it or relating a story such that it would get popular.
Chapter and verse please.
Don't care about apologetics. I care about what the law says.
Just a prank bro!
None of what you describe had any necessary relationship to him. It was already a perfect sacrifice. There were already services on Sunday because that's when Jesus did his services. The Moses commandments were lifted by nobody, but Jesus himself provided commentary on how priority for them would play out. Baptism did not start with Paul or even Jesus, but Jesus popularized it when asking John the Baptist (whose name is literally The Baptist) to baptize him. The trinity was an interpretational teaching and optional (Eastern Orthodox people don't even have it and never did). The position of women was always culturally influenced. Jesus made the eucharist a thing, he literally said "the bread is my body and the wine is my blood". And Jesus first spoke about salvation and faith versus works (I can cite quite a few verses on this). You could say a thing or two about the organization of the church, but then again, there was Catholics versus Eastern Orthodox. As for the gospel writers, perhaps you forget how many there were.
And none of this is apologetics, so much as it's putting words in the mouth of the tradition to apply an absolute approach to interpretation.
As for the sparing the rod...
"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." ~ Mark 10:15
"Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 18:4
"Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 19:13-14
Agh all of this is wrong. Have you ever read your book?
According to whom? Paul. Paul was the one who said that.
Nope. Paul again because the Easter miracle happened on Sunday.
Again No. It was in Paul's letters. You can even trace the line of Pharisee thought (as documented in the Talmud) that led to his conclusion. There is a reason why Christians can eat pork.
Show that to me.
Again. His letters predate the Gospels and I never said Paul invented it, I said he popularized it. Baptism was a sorta off-shot of a related Jewish tradition at that time. If very well could have vanished as a fad.
Yes, I know. I said that. We see hints of the Celestial Jesus in the letters of Paul that evolved eventually into the Trinity.
Nope. If the timeline of events were true the ministry had women on near equal footing which Paul reduced steadily as he lived.
He didn't exist but had he existed he wouldn't have said that. Again Paul. The exact wording is off.
Actually the Gospels came out after Paul and his debate with James :)
Really? Show me Jesus talking about Bishops please.
4 cannon, and 11 non-cannon. Oh did you mean writers? Thousands. Nothing you saw in your KJV Bible even resembles what the original writings were like.
Not one of those supports your claim
See Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24, John 6:35, John 6:51-58, John 15:5, John 19:29-32, Matthew 22:34-40, and Matthew 12, a chapter literally called "Jesus works on the Sabbath". The events in the gospels came before Paul because Paul's conversion was after the last supper. To say his events came before the events in the gospels is very odd in an argument. You can't say "well the gospels were written after", that's like saying Canaanites came after the Hebrews because the Hebrews were written about before the Canaanites were written about. Things exist independently from writing about them.
Not really sure why you included the trinity as a thing anyways if it's not impactful as to whether it's true or not, it would be like saying Paul invented robes. Yeah, and? All three parts of the trinity exist, but seeing it "as a trinity" is not necessary.
When I said the position of women was always culturally influenced, I wasn't saying that in the sense that Paul didn't demote us in favor of men but that that was culturally a non-issue/moot. Paul said at one time we should wear coverings on our head, but that is extremely setting-exclusive, if depictions are anything to go by.
Paul was completely unnecessary with baptism popularization. Traditions don't just vanish like you describe. Or else we wouldn't have a John the Baptist to speak of.
The last verse I gave about children in my previous comment literally and explicitly denounces using any method such as the rod. If that doesn't support what I'm saying, then you've escalated this argument into a matter of understanding as well now, and I cannot explain something to someone who figuratively doesn't speak my language.
I'm surprised I actually agreed with someone on what good manners and good form are before witnessing the argument continue out of the idea I'm not "supposed to" agree with you according to your assumption of what I am. I ethically agree with you, take it or leave it.