Did Jesus call the Old Testament God the Devil, a Murderer and the Father of Lies?

[Angrboda]

Here are some stats from Wikipedia:

In 2012, the US peaked at a total of 4,726 Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions: 3,026 4-year institutions and 1,700 2-year institutions.[1] By 2014–15, the total had declined to 4,627 institutions.[28]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_e...ted_States

I see you wiki page and go all in with National education statistics web site that make both wrong and put 4 years schools at 3011 for the school year of 2018
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Actually, that's what your source gives as the figure for 2014-15, but then, reading comprehension was never your strong suit.

[Bucky Ball]

Satan was "established in Job" about as much as Zeus was established in the Greek myths.
Drich is an ignoramus, and actually knows NOTHING about ancient Hebrew culture.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/art...-of-satan/
The Jewish View of Satan
What is the Jewish view of Satan? Was he a fallen angel? Let us find out in this post. 
Christian View
In Christian belief, Satan is a fallen angel that has freedom of choice and rebels against God. Christians conveniently use the “Satan, to explain any evil or irrational behavior (such as non belief in Jesus as messiah or god). The New Testament is fertile ground for this outlook. It is only here that Satan becomes a wicked, rebellious angel, which quite likely evolved the character called Satan into an evil angel and enemy of God based on theological Persian dualism where such a construct is present.
Jewish View
He (Satan) is clearly subordinate to God, a member of His suite (Heb. Bene ha-elokim), who is unable to act without his permission. Nowhere is he in any sense a rival of God.
The Encyclopedia Judaica
The Christian claim that it was Satan who created evil is utterly fraudulent according to our Tanach:
I (God) form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
God creates all things, not simply good things.
There isn’t a single verse in the entire Tanach that states that Satan ever created evil or ever disobeyed a command from God. Satan is an obedient servant of God in the Tanach who serves the role of man’s accuser in God’s court.
Creation of Temptation
God created the temptation to do evil partially to test our loyalty, and partially to improve us. That is why the word (Satan- שטן) in Hebrew literally means an adversary (Numbers 22:22) that comes to challenge us. We find this notion throughout the Book of Job, where God gives permission to the Satan to challenge the righteous Job.
In fact, one of the most dramatic and powerful expressions of man’s struggle with God and his conscience involves Job and Satan. God had given Satan permission to afflict Job with all manner of hardships and misfortune. In turn, Job loses his family and possessions, and is stricken with boils and disease. As he sits in sheer agony, his close colleagues remark, “Your piety is your foolishness.” Even his wife chews him out, saying, “Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Curse God, and die.” But Job tells them, “You speak as one who is despicable. Should we accept only the good from God and not also accept the evil?”(Job 2:9‑10)
Conclusion
It is the mission of every conscientious person to overcome temptations and do what is correct. The Torah itself (Genesis 4:7) teaches that is a mission within our grasp to fulfill. There is nothing to fear from the temptations of the Satan when one is focused on Godliness and self-improvement.

Drich knows absolutely nothing about Hebrew culture.

[Drich]

I see you wiki page and go all in with National education statistics web site that make both wrong and put 4 years schools at 3011 for the school year of 2018
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Actually, that's what your source gives as the figure for 2014-15, but then, reading comprehension was never your strong suit.

and my original source sampled 2005, then I saw she sampled 14-15 so I then sought a modern number which is why I went "all in" with the 2018 data...

But then Cognitive reasoning apart from a detailed explanation (some people refer to it as hand holding) was never your strong suit..

what I mean to say is unless someone explains in great detail what they do think or said, you miss the point entirely and wrongly assume the fault you wrongly identify was unintentional or their mistake.. IE reading comprehension as apposed to selective sourcing material as explained above.. Which is why I wince every time I have to hand hold you through an explanation.. Because I never know how far down to the base line I must go before you get it... Or how much anger an insult i must endure before you get the 'gotcha' I planned. Then when you finally get it you claim I was not smart enough to engineer such a reveal, and I just happened to 'fall into it each and every time!

[Angrboda]

Actually, that's what your source gives as the figure for 2014-15, but then, reading comprehension was never your strong suit.

and my original source sampled 2005, then I saw she sampled 14-15 so I then sought a modern number which is why I went "all in" with the 2018 data...

But then Cognitive reasoning apart from a detailed explanation (some people refer to it as hand holding) was never your strong suit..

You're a joke Drich. A fact you keep demonstrating time and again. Your opinion notwithstanding, my cognitive reasoning is quite fine. There is not a single thing incorrect about what I said. So, where are you getting your data for 2018 from?

[Minimalist]

"The New Testament, however, was written in Greek.

Even more odd, the Old Testament was written in Greek.  Dripshit has some amusing excuses for that, too.

[Bucky Ball]

and my original source sampled 2005, then I saw she sampled 14-15 so I then sought a modern number which is why I went "all in" with the 2018 data...

But then Cognitive reasoning apart from a detailed explanation (some people refer to it as hand holding) was never your strong suit..

You're a joke Drich.  A fact you keep demonstrating time and again.  Your opinion notwithstanding, my cognitive reasoning is quite fine.  There is not a single thing incorrect about what I said.  But by all means, keep demonstrating why everybody makes fun of you.  So, where are you getting your data for 2018 from?

But he is a very angry old man. Obviously religion did him no good.
He's a perfect advertisement for why no one would want anything to do with his sky fairies and their bullshit.

[Minimalist]

Obviously religion did him no good.

Religion does no one any good.

[Bucky Ball]

Drich

You got caught and now are trying to back out...

If you did not imply any of what I said then why and bring up all those languages? its because you thought those where the languages of the bible!
and you thought you could out 'rank me academically if you knew more of the bible languages than i did!!! what a moron NONE of the languages you mention have any serious part in the bible manuscripts.

---

Actually the one who is caught out here is the ignoramus known as Drich. He is so totally unfamiliar with academics in general, especially the academics associated with the subject he  PRETENDS to know about, he wouldn't know that there is no institution of higher learning that offers NT (Koine) Greek and entitles the course "Koine Greek". It's *just* Greek. To prove I actually did study Greek, here are a few little samples from a paper I wrote (Drich has never written ANYTHING academic, or of note), using Greek to demonstrate that Paul never said that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, and in that tradition being "exalted" (raised up) was in NO way equivalent to being "raised from the dead". Apocalyptic heroes were "exalted" (like the seven sons of Hannah) for their heroism. Christianity twisted to the point of non-recognition what made sense in the culture of the time.
As Ehrman's book is titled "How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee" .... the Fundy BS we know today is FAR from what it meant at the time.

.................................................................................................................................................................

"So lets look at some words. "Resurrection" in English is defined above. Saul's letters were written in Greek In the second chapter of Luke, verse 34, the author has Simeon say, (to Mary and Joseph), "For this child is destined for the rise and fall of many in Israel. The Greek word used, is "anastasin". The Greek word here, is used, as anyone would normally use it in Greek, as in the "rising of the sun", would mean to us. LATER, after cultural and historical overlay, when "anastasin" is used, (just as in the Humpty Dumpty example, ), the word's meaning has TWO different meanings. A normal one, and a religious one. So there is an intra-gospel example of the post event cognitive change. There also is a good example we know of from Saul, and the Gospel of John. When Jesus gets up from the table, at the Last Supper, he (in the Greek), is said to "egeiretai", he "gets up". (For those who know Latin, the similarity is obvious.) When Saul uses this SAME verb in 1 Corinthians, 15:12, it's translated "For if our message is that the Anointed has been raised, how can you possibly be saying there is no such thing as the resurrection of the dead". Thus without the later religious overlay, the phrase SHOULD be translated as "he is gotten up from among the dead". This "gotten up" is equivalent to the way a Greek would have said "I *got up* this morning". (ie got up from a bed). It DOES NOT mean, I "rose from the dead" this morning. It's a raising of (relative) "position" with respect to a previous position."

................................................

"Scholars think the next earliest reference in existing written form to a risen Jesus, is a rather strange "hymn" or poem which we see placed in the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Philippians. Just as in the Old Testament, a "hymn" may be the oldest fragment, placed into another text. In Philippians 2: 6-11, there is a poem called the "Carmen Christi". The name comes from a letter of Pliny the Younger, in which he tells the Emperor Trajan, about (111-112 CE) what he found in the Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, in Asia Minor. The Christian sect was being accused of various crimes, and he could find nothing especially seriously wrong about them. He didn't really know what to do. He says in Latin, "carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem"..or "they chant verses alternately among themselves, in honor of the Christ, as if to a god". That's all he could find. Nothing especially bad. But that's why the hymn is called the "Carmen" Christi.. it's a (probably) chanted hymn. (I personally think he heard the chanting of alternate verses of psalms, but I have no proof, as they were done that way also). This hymn has been studied to death, by scholars. By the 1990's the "hymn" status was even being questioned, but whatever it is, ( a Greek "encomion" ? ), it doesn't really fit with Saul's known writing style. So he got it from somewhere. We know Philippians was a combo job, because, among other things, the author says "finally" more than once, (3:1, 4:8), and more importantly, the tone of the text does not match the surrounding text. Some think from 4:10 on, is yet a third author. Some think the hymn may have come from inside the community at Phillipi, and Saul approved of it, so he included it. In any case, the hymn says Jesus was "super-exalted", after being humbled. What does that mean, exactly ? The academic examination of this poem is extensive, but an interesting part, is in the Greek, the form of preposition and verb compounding, called a "hyperypsosen". It's a linguistic element used which intensifies the verb. "Super-exalted", or "extra-exalted" are just made-up English words which attempt to translate the meaning, as there is not an English equivalent. Anyway, the "high" position is used to intensify the difference from the "humbled" of the low position. Anyway, Saul KNEW the context, and that the Romans would hear of this, and/or, it would be "heard" in a cognitive sense, as a shocking insult. A pathetic criminal, whom the Romans had executed, now was "raised" to a very high position. It was the equivalent to a (political) "obscenity". It would be the same as an American "wacko-preacher" telling HIS audience, in a US military setting, that Osama bin Laden had been raised to the highest place in heaven. There is a VERY strong anti-Imperial "ring" to the last part of the poem. So the first citing of the resurrection theme, can be seen in a striking political context. If you wanted to get the Romans mad at the Christians, or justify Roman anger toward Christians, you would use such a poem."

..........................................................................................................................

"When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *Advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham". There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Sauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually."

[Jehanne]

i also noticed you didn't address the part where top of the top these schools sanction the teaching of Christianity..

Drich,

Can you name a single scholar at Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy League school who publicly defends Biblical inerrancy?

Dawn

[Bucky Ball]

They also teach Buddhism, Comparative Religion, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, Introduction to Islam, etc etc etc.
They "sanction" NOTHING. There is nothing in their course catalogues or any other material that says Christianity is "sanctioned".
The non-fundy Christianity they teach, Drich wouldn't even recognize.
https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
(Martin is an ex-fundy)

They also teach Abnormal Psychology.