I’ve been stumbling on this word for a while and looking for clear explanation. He was going to die then why I am thirsty? IT is to fulfill one of the written prophecies in the OT. But I wanna why? The significance of those words?

I.e. would atonement offerings have been made to the ba’alim of Canaan, or to other ANE gods?

From my understanding, scholars often assume Paul was aware of this custom when quoting or referring to the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. But how confident can we really be about that? Could it be possible that Paul simply understood Kyrios in the sense of 'master' or 'lord,' with no particular connection to the divine name tradition? What evidence supports the scholarly consensus here?

In this quote from against marcion 4.5."Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Ioannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cuius interpres Marcus" when tertullian says "licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur" should it be translated in the indicative mood or subjunctive since I know that concessive clauses that start with licet typically follow the subjunctive mood but every translation I found that it's translated in the indicative. How should this phrase be translated?

All the Gospels report several instances of Jesus miraculously raising people from the dead (the daughter of Jairus in the three Synoptics, the son of the widow of Nain in the Gospel attributed to Luke, and Lazarus in the Gospel attributed to John). Jesus himself affirms that he is able to raise the dead and has done so in Q (Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23). This means that the belief in Jesus raising people from the dead is independently attested in Q, the Gospel attributed to Mark, and the Gospel attributed to John. Additionally, the Gospel attributed to Luke contains a unique account. Acts also includes stories of the Apostles raising people from the dead, such as Paul and Peter. Papias wrote that Jesus resurrected a very rich young woman and that the daughters of Philip the deacon told stories of people being miraculously resurrected.

In the Tanakh, there are stories of prophets like Elisha and Elijah resurrecting dead people (1 Kings and 2 Kings), and it is also stated that in the end times the dead will be raised.

The Talmud also contains stories of people being raised from the dead (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 10a).

Could all of this suggest that the historical Jesus and his disciples actually believed they could raise the dead, or that they experienced events that led them to believe they could do so?

John 19:25 says:

What is the scholarly consensus on this? Was Mary of Clopas really the sister of Mary?

Also, if some do think that the two Marys were sisters, what is the base rate for this name in the Jewish context at the time? How often did parents name multiple daughters Mary?

I thank everyone in advance.

Scholars such as Paula Fredriksen, James Tabor, David Bentley Hart and Albert Schweitzer, among others, frequently say that the apostle Paul believed that salvation is not so much about legalistic notions of justification, but about being liberated from hostile cosmic entities.

This, of course, makes a lot of sense when one analyzes the broader world of Paul: both Jewish apocalypticism and Greek middle Platonism are nice homes for this idea. Yet, reading the actual Pauline letters, I don't find lots of explicit citations. Paul writes about sin and death as a cosmic power in Romans 6, he mentions the elemental principles of the world in Galatians 4, and he briefly talks about rulers and powers in 1 Corinthians 15.

Yet what seems (mostly) absent to me are personal entities (gods, demons, evil angels) on the center of Paul's writing. He talks about concepts which are personified, like death and corruption, but I can't find depictions of evil personal powers.

Am I missing something? Can anyone provide verses from the authentic epistles in which Paul talks about evil cosmic entities?

Is papias fragment v said by him?

Is so why did he say that God will send a Paraclete , traditionally this Paraclete is believed to be the Holy Spirit . How is the Holy Spirit believed to interact with humanity?

I'm not sure when the term "the living God" started to be used, but to me it always meant that essentially everybody else worshiped false God's made out of gold and silver, and that they were not alive. Which is the classical monotheistic viewpoint.

However, when you're considering the historical evidence that worshiping the one true, God actually meant worshiping one God that existed out of many… What does the connotation "living God" actually mean? Or did that term arise with monotheism?

I was talking to my very religious friend about, well, religion and how much translations and interpretations have been used to bastardize the core ideas of the bible. My friend recommended the book “Pagan Christianity” By Frank Viola and George Barna. I’m about half way through the book, but I’ve already noticed a pretty big flaw in the reasoning.

The crux of book is that nearly all aspects of modern day “church” are cultural additions from Pagans. Everything from the way it’s conducted to the layout of the buildings enforces a Pagan understanding of religion and in many ways goes against the original plan. The Original plan for the “church” being a kin to a cross between a bible study and an AA meeting where everyone participates and shares something that made them feel god’s love. It was supposed to take place spontaneously and often in private homes instead of at fixed times in fixed buildings with a clear authority figure.

The thing that bothers me about it though is Frank and George places the blame for this “original sin” of Paganizing Christianity on Emperor Constantine.

This bothers me because it was Constantine who ordered the formalization of the Bible itself. Sure, he didn’t personally do the formalization and left it up to Christian “leadership”, and I’m sure there’s another layer where we can call the authority of this “leaderhsip” into question as well. However, it still feels, maybe not hypocritical, but some kind of dishonesty to accuse Constantine of bastardizing a religion using a canon he formalized.

Now, ultimately, I think Frank and George are right and their idea for how church should be conducted covers a lot of gripes I have about contemporary christianity. However, I have no idea what the theological/apologetic stance is on this because, honestly, this isn’t my field of interest usually.

Disclosure: I’m an Atheist who’s done very little of reading the bible itself. I have an interest mostly in the historical and cultural impacts of Christianity and on it.

So, are Frank and George’s ideas sound generally?

Are my concerns considered in contemporary scholarship or is this just an axiom that the bible is a sound source even with possible meddling?

What is the single best work on the idea of Jesus' failed prophecy and delayed second coming; ideally a work that goes through all major passages and contextualizes them in the broader milieu?

Listen, I know Paul is no philosopher, so he may not be clear with some of his words, but I was reading some things about Paul and women and I came across 1 Corinthians 11:3 (NRSV):

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man[a] is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.

What do scholars say about this verse? Were women seen as some kind of ontologically inferior being in relation to men or it's just a matter of authority/functional order/organization in the church?

So it's well known that the accounts of Jesus's Sanhedrin trial are riddled with erroneous details, whether in terms of logistics (at night during the Sabbath), the fact that the best attested detail we have about Jesus is that he was given a Roman execution, and the clear polemical anti-Jewish sectarian intent of the Gospel authors writing many decades later once the ways between Christians had Jews had parted significantly.

There's also the fact that we have more reliable evidence from Josephus that James was stoned to death for violating the Law on orders of Ananus, who was related to Caiaphas, the high priest depicted in the Gospels as having masterminded Jesus's execution. This was first brought to my attention in a chapter by Richard Bauckham in an edited volume about James which suggested that there may have been long-lasting family feud between Caiaphas / Ananus and Jesus / James.

I accepted this interpretation until I just had the thought earlier today; rather than Ananus and James having animosity towards each other because Caiaphas condemned Jesus to death, what if this idea has got the causality twisted? Since the evidence for the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus and Caiaphas's role in it is so flimsy, the most reliable thing we know about him is that he was crucified by Romans, and the evidence of the execution of James by high priest Ananus is much stronger, what if the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus is a retrospectively projected account based on the memory of James's execution? Perhaps the reasoning by the Gospel authors / sources was: "Ananus executed James. His blood Caiaphas was high priest in Pilate's time; surely he did the same to Jesus." Josephus also reports the execution being seen by the public as illegal and a miscarriage of justice since it was done during the transition period between Roman governors and on presumably trumped up charges. This has striking similarity with the account of Jesus's trial being a miscarriage of justice and also where the Roman authorities weren't the ones to blame (according to the Gospels).

This all fits in with the polemical desire of the authors to distance themselves from the recently rebellious Jews and ingratiate themselves with the Romans. It also explains the erroneous element that in one or more of the Gospels (I'm going off memory), Jesus is put on trial by the Sanhedrin, but this isn't sufficient due to the nature of the testimony given by witnesses or the fact that they can't authorise capital punishment, so they have to go to Pilate anyway, as if the whole thing was superfluous. Couple this with the fact that the punishment (crucifixion) isn't what would've been appropriate (stoning) for the blasphemy charge that the Sanhedrin charged him with (which incidentally is what was executed for, and by stoning), and the fact that (unfortunately I'm going by memory again) the Sanhedrin may have actually had the power to condemn people for internal religious matters, as indicated by Pilate's hesitancy to get involved in the Gospels.

Have any scholars theorised this? What do you think?

I am trying to better understand the positions of Collins and Longman. Can someone who understands more than I do explain:

1. What each scholar believes can be known about the authorship of Daniel (and its composite layers if they believe it contains them).

2. How strongly they seem to be convinced of their positions?

Brief answers are just as welcome as long answers — I appreciate them both!

Is there any records of how the divine council worked what gods where there and who the 70 sons of El were was there ever any myths that were found of this gods pre dating the development of monotheism Are there any story's of Lucifer/Satan that pre date the narrative of Lucifer being a fallen angel was there any records of if and how Lucifer was worshipped.

From a polytheistic christian

Sure , Daniel was reading Jeremiah but couldn't the prophecy in Daniel 9:25+ have been a new one not related to Jeremiah?

I need some help. I have a Jewish friend who doesn’t like King Ezana cus she says he’s killed Jews to convert to Christianity. I affirmed to her that I don’t agree with him doing that, however I would like to know did king Ezanas reign kills Jews to convert?

Thanks this is a historical apologetics question.