3 ways Jesus read the bible.

[Mudhammam]

Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God

Remember Christians have never actually been able to agree on what they believe. So, yes, some believe he was God incarnate... others believe he was God's son... others believe he was the Messiah and not God... others believe he was a celestial spirit without a physical body...

Take your pick.

[vorlon13]

Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God

Remember Christians have never actually been able to agree on what they believe. So, yes, some believe he was God incarnate... others believe he was God's son... others believe he was the Messiah and not God... others believe he was a celestial spirit without a physical body...

Take your pick.

Indeed, Christians are amazing in their disagreeableness. Even the width of a hat brim has triggered a schism.

The width of a hat brim! Think about it. From the smallest inconsequential molecule to the fundamental nature of God has been cited as the reason why our 'flock' is right, and the rest of you are going to burn in ETERNAL torment forever.

[Minimalist]

The biggest fucking problem with the article is that there was no fucking bible in the first century.

The OT - as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls - had not been compiled into a single book and that process was not completed until c. 200 AD. And, of course, there was no NT as that collection of shit had not been written and could not be written while the purported godboy was still "alive."

Echo.... Echo.. Echo..

Do you have the beginnings of a thought bouncing around inside your empty skull, drippy?

It must be very lonely.

[Aractus]

I did find a rather interesting article here. I wanted to know you alls thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/...lp00000592

The Tanakh is 22 Hebrew(/Aramaic) scrolls, or 49 books. In addition to the Tanakh they had the Oral Torah and other Rabbinic Literature which today would be represented by the Talmud.

So the first argument is mostly wrong. Yes Jesus had extrabiblical texts he was taught, however no it was not "read with a creative flare". The reality is that the extrabiblical material was central to the understanding of the Tanakh, and in particular the Pentateuch.

The second argument is also wrong. Jesus didn't "pick and choose", he viewed the whole of the Tanakh as equal, this can be proved time again. He refers to it as "the Law and Prophets" for instance, which is a term referring to the whole of the Tanakh - if he didn't believe it was all valid he wouldn't have used the term. He also quotes from all three sections of the Tanakh (Law, Prophets and Psalms/Writings).

The final argument is at least partly true, however "his Bible"? Jesus may never have owned his own text, he studied from temple scrolls and probably rabbinic owned scrolls as well, but the idea that he had his own set of 22 Hebrew scrolls is unfounded.

Most of the early Christians from about c. 40-45 AD onward were in fact unable to read the Hebrew scriptures, and relied on the Greek translations available at the time that would later become the LXX. But then there are exceptions. And examples in the NT, so for instance it is quite apparent that Paul in fact quotes from the Greek texts more than he does from the Hebrew texts. Luke on the other hand does not. And contrary to early church history and to contemporary scholarship belief, "Luke" (the author of Luke-Acts) could not have been a gentile Christian as he displays far too much knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures by competently quoting directly from it rather than the LXX, generally. Although it should be noted that Paul clearly refers to Luke as a Jew in Colossians 4:14 meaning that it should come as no surprise that the church fathers in the 2nd century got that fact wrong and that Paul who actually knew Luke got it right.

---

---

I did find a rather interesting article here. I wanted to know you alls thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/...lp00000592

1. Jesus didn't stick to what "the Bible says," but read it with a creative flare that had little if any connection to what the biblical writer actually meant to say.

Ah, no. This artical was written on the bias that Jesus was just some teacher/rabbi that christians took to. Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God and as such had the authority to extend/complete the law/passages as He saw fit. 'Christians' do not have that authority, that is why we are told to not go beyond the authority of Scripture.

2. Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

Again no. Jesus is God and has the Authority to reach far and beyond the understanding of any specific teacher. Including Moses. The Pharisees saw this and it severly angered them. Jesus teaching with the Authority of Moses is mentioned several times, throughout the gospels, and is looked on by the religious leaders unfavoriably, as it usurped their authority.

3. Jesus read his Bible as a Jew, not an evangelical (or even a Christian).

Ahhh ha, no. Jesus was only ever once recorded reading from the Holy Scripture. Everything else He refernces was from memory. Remember writing material was extremely rare and vauable, meaning everyone did not have a 'bible.' In Judaism only the levitical priests were authorized to possess them. Jesus was from the tribe of Juda and not Levi. Meaning even if he could afford to have a 'bible' (which is a 4th century construct) He would not be allowed to carry it.

further more When one was selected to read from the Holy Scripture as a Jew then, Great effort and care is taken to make sure every syllable is pronounced and enunciated correctly. They are even required to read with a special stick (Yad) and place it beneath each word so as to not carlessly handle or misspeak God's word, (and to keep the unclean from touching God's word.) This whole paragraph is bunk. No one including Christ when reading the scripture took liberties as a Jew.

---

Why am I not surprised that you can't give any details in your answer?

To this assertion; "Remember writing material was extremely rare and vauable, meaning everyone did not have a 'bible'"; of yours I say: WRONG! Writing material was common, literacy was not anywhere near as high as it is today, writing material was somewhat expensive - however that would not preclude ordinary literate people from making their own notes or their own copies of the scriptures. In fact, by the time of Jesus at least one near complete translation into Greek already existed, and in the 2nd century AD there were at least 5 different complete Greek translations of the Tanakh.

Jesus learned the scriptures, so it is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that he bothered to copy them in written form.

While it is true that it would take a lot of time and effort to create a complete copy of the Tanakh, it would certainly be possible and was likely more common to make copies of particular sections (eg the "book" or the "scroll" etc) if desired. Most people received the text verbally spoken by Rabbis, however they could read the scrolls if they wanted and whenever they wanted just like you can read from a pew Bible in your church.

[psychoslice]

Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God

Remember Christians have never actually been able to agree on what they believe. So, yes, some believe he was God incarnate... others believe he was God's son... others believe he was the Messiah and not God... others believe he was a celestial spirit without a physical body...

Take your pick.

And there are those who thought he was a very naughty boy.

[Aractus]

---

The biggest fucking problem with the article is that there was no fucking bible in the first century.

The OT - as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls - had not been compiled into a single book and that process was not completed until c. 200 AD.

---

That's a fringe theory. It has almost no evidence. And even if it were true, which it isn't (because eg. Josephus says the 22 scrolls were the Tanakh), it's already been well established that the Tanakh was not systematically modified between the time of the DSS (2nd cent. BC - 2 cent. AD.) and the time of the Masoretes (9th - 10th cent. AD).

What is, however true, and the point that you should probably be making is that there was a Tanakh, but there was not yet a Talmud which was finalised late 4th - early 5th cent. AD.

[Drich]

Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God

Remember Christians have never actually been able to agree on what they believe. So, yes, some believe he was God incarnate... others believe he was God's son... others believe he was the Messiah and not God... others believe he was a celestial spirit without a physical body...

Take your pick.

God is a title and not a name. Jesus was God incarnate, and Jesus is the Son of the Father God. Jesus was the messiah, and still God.

Those who believe Jesus was a spirit are not Christian as to be a believer of Christ we must all believe He was Born of woman, therefore he was coporeal, and not just a spirit.

---

Echo.... Echo.. Echo..

Do you have the beginnings of a thought bouncing around inside your empty skull, drippy?

It must be very lonely.

I just wanted to see how far you were willing to copy what I have already said.

[Mudhammam]

Those who believe Jesus was a spirit are not Christian as to be a believer of Christ we must all believe He was Born of woman, therefore he was coporeal, and not just a spirit.

Your entitled to build any picture you need to. Further more I believe God will support you where you are right and forgive you where you are wrong, just as He supports me where I am right and give me forgiveness where I am wrong. God has given us the freedom to both be wrong, so long as we both keep seeking the truth, and do not become luke warm in our beliefs.

Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.

I worship the God of the bible and not the god of popular christianity. I have constructed a vision of the God of the bible by only using what the bible says He is like. In some areas we agree and in others we do not.

Does it make me more Christian and someone else less? No not at all.

Drich's split personality disorder (or as they probably call it in his household, his "inner holy trinity") would seem to be the only way to make sense of this. Christians were never instructed by God to limit their understanding of him through the Bible alone (that would be the demands of the Church, which Drich also submits to the Bible without hint of irony) nor does the Bible offer a single clear interpretation from which to reach a decisive conclusion about the nature of God and Jesus, as hordes of Christians make hilariously obvious.

[ThomM]

Most Christians who have read the bible many times have no idea what it really teaches. Such is the fate of 'sinful' Man.

Actually - most xtians have NOT read the whole bible - and literally have NO idea of the things that are in it.

Of course - the claim that the christ "read" the bible - when the christ is a MYTH - is nonsense as well - but if YOU actually read the bible - you can see how the "christ" actually misquoted the bible several times as well.

[Drich]

Why am I not surprised that you can't give any details in your answer?

I can go as deep as you want sport. I generally make my initial offering light and easy to understand because most of you dont respond well to anything you are not specifically looking for. You want to get technical and back everything said let's do that.

To this assertion; "Remember writing material was extremely rare and vauable, meaning everyone did not have a 'bible'"; of yours I say: WRONG! Writing material was common, literacy was not anywhere near as high as it is today, writing material was somewhat expensive - however that would not preclude ordinary literate people from making their own notes or their own copies of the scriptures. In fact, by the time of Jesus at least one near complete translation into Greek already existed, and in the 2nd century AD there were at least 5 different complete Greek translations of the Tanakh.

Wow, this is awesome. Not your failed facts, but the fact that you provided a list of things you have not researched, which is what you blindly accused me of.

Today the Bible is widely available in a single volume, easy to use and often small enough to slip into a pocket. We do not realize what an advantage we have in comparison with people of the first century. The normal form of the book then was the scroll; a book with pages, the codex, was used at that time mainly for note taking. It developed to become the normal book form over the next two or three centuries. This means that a Jew who owned a Bible in Jesus’s time would have had an armful of scrolls. Since every copy was made by hand, books were not cheap, although we should not exaggerate their cost; a copy of a lengthy book like Isaiah might take a professional scribe three days or so to make, so the price would be his wages and the cost of the materials. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that many individual Jews would own a complete set of the Scriptures, but according to Luke 4, a small town like Nazareth had a copy of Isaiah in its synagogue, so undoubtedly it held rolls of the Torah and, it is likely, the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Millard_Jesus.shtml

Scribes commanded a higher wage than the typical laborer (They were paid by the line, and a typical laborer was paid by the day.)
http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/scribes.htm
In the parable of the workers we have a day's wage set at a denarius
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=NKJV
and again here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius

So to say writting material was very expensive (scribe included because as you pointed out the literacy rate was very low less than 5%) is a very accurate statement. Especially to the average person which Christ was. This also accounts for the reason that scriptures were generally only found in the temple in smaller towns

Jesus learned the scriptures, so it is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that he bothered to copy them in written form.

Actually according to Luke 2 @ age 12 he already had a profound understanding of God's word. considering His father's profession at the time He would not have been able to read or write by conventional means.

Here's a question: If He had a profound understanding of "His[/quote] Father's business" at 12, what need would he have to burden himself with the expense and care of 20+ scrolls?

While it is true that it would take a lot of time and effort to create a complete copy of the Tanakh, it would certainly be possible and was likely more common to make copies of particular sections (eg the "book" or the "scroll" etc) if desired. Most people received the text verbally spoken by Rabbis, however they could read the scrolls if they wanted and whenever they wanted just like you can read from a pew Bible in your church.

Not likly. Luke records in Chapter 4 that Jesus had access to Isaiah through the Nazerath's copy of scripture was contained in the synagogue.

Scrolls were not made avaiable all day every day to everyone.
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm