What if there is no abrahamic god?

Are you serious. You take verses out of context regularly as anyone can see. You're having a laugh. You have no idea of reality.

Solomons 700 wives, some going back to their Parents several hundred miles away till Solomon calls them.

I'm assuming your post is just a big joke.

 

1. Similar to the Gospel writers and Jesus?

2. Similar to how Jesus is a crap God because he is in the process of being upstaged by allah?

 

We have ourselves someone who knows the history of the church, thank you. Actually, the debates did not end with Constantine, they accelerated and remain so to this day. But your point is accurate, the debates about the dual nature of Jesus were continuous, violent and dangerous for hundreds of years ending in the split of the church into an Eastern and Roman church. Look up Cyrus, his history will reveal some of the intrigues at the time. If you like this stuff, read a wonderful book on it called "the Jesus Wars". It is an outstanding history of the church from around 200CE to 600CE. Very bloody time to be a Christian.

 

Logic it out mate!
Solomon's wisdom was legendary, so no wonder women were queuing up to have him father their babies who'd inherit his wise genes and grow up to be doctors, lawyers, chat show hosts, pop stars and so on..

 

Ah. You were joking.

 

1-Thousands saw Jesus strutting his stuff, but hardly anybody had heard of Joe Smith..
2- Christianity is the biggest game on the park, so Allah's got quite a bit of catching up to do..

 

Nope. The Bible CLAIMS thousands saw Jesus. Why don't we have any accounts from those supposed thousands?

You do know all of those red areas on the map also have Muslim populations of various (but growing) sizes, yes?

 

And good for them and others that do good works. What does this have to do with the debate between Sola Fide and works with respect to the salvation formulation given by Jesus ?

 

This is not about what the author of Matt included. It is about his act of omission and that what he omitted changes the picture of Jesus.

The author himself was not an eyewitness to Christ (nor was the Author of Mark for that matter but, at least the Author of Mark was reputed to have gotten his information from a disciple - Peter)

Mark is the earliest gospel (around 65-80 AD) and the closest we have to what the real Jesus was like.

Matthew was written at few decades later (80-100 AD) -after the destruction of the Temple)

Christianity has evolved and this is reflected in how the Author present's Jesus. In Mark Jesus is made divine at the age of 30. There is no "Virgin Birth" and no lineage back to David. Perhaps most importantly is that there is no physical resurrection - no stories Jesus walking around in the flesh after death (the smoking gun in terms of proving that the resurrection is real)

In Matt Jesus is deified at birth and has a lineage back to David (which is important for the Messianic Tradition)
The author also adds a few stories about Jesus appearing in the flesh after death.

That these things do not appear in Mark (used by this unknown author - we have no idea who wrote Matt) but appear in Matt is a source of considerable debate.

These additions are further complicated by the fact that Matt engaged in considerable artistic license by removing a few passages did not portray Jesus and the disciples in a way that he wanted. The point being - was Matt trying to show the historical Jesus or was he trying to portray Jesus in the way that he thought would best fit into the dogma of the day?

When we get to the Gospel of John - written a few decades later (100-120) things get even more complicated.

In John the divinity of Christ evolves even further. Jesus is no longer a man who was part divine as in the previous Gospels. Jesus is shown as being pre-existent with God.

This evolution of the nature and character of Jesus continues. It takes another 200 years to turn Jesus into God but, by decree of Constantine in 325 AD the nature of Christs divinity is elevated further.

My interest is in who the real Jesus was.

 

I looked up Saint Cyrus but did not find much other than he was martyred. The debates on Christ's divinity did indeed rage for centuries (within the church itself) after Constantine.

The subjects of previous persecution then became the persecutors and went after any that did not submit (conversion by the sword). What was viewed as even more dangerous however were "heretics" - Christians that had beliefs that deviated from official Church doctrine.

This was a terrible time knowledge as the Church pro-actively destroyed anything that it found threatening to the Church. They closed down the centuries old schools of Philosophy (think the Plato school was nearly 700 years old) because they wanted to decrease people's ability to "question" and literacy in general declined.

 

Well written and informative.

 

Solomon has gotten credit for projects built by King Omri.. Solomon's prosperity is grossly exaggerated.

 

Omri and his dynasty were far more influential in Palestine than David or Solomon, but were blacked out by scribes because of the Paganism.

 

Because there simply weren't thousands. To anyone who knows Palestine of the time this claim is nonsense. A few road, just tracks to many villages, no communication except by foot.

The only time crowds gathered were for festivals. They were too busy trying to exist. To gather 5000 men into a desert place would have taken days of preparation,. and then feed them with 2 fish and 5 loaves?

 

In the days of Solomon a King's Haram was more a matter of forced sex slavery rather than something a woman willingly consented to.

Just because the might of Thor's Hammer is legendary - does not make it real. We have yet to find any historical references from any cultures that would have neighbored this Wise King - Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and so on.

That said - I will say that the books of the OT attributed to King Solomon (Proverbs/ Ecclesiastes) are among my favorites.

The King himself however was not the smartest tool in the box. At least not by how he is portrayed in certain parts of the Bible.

Here we have a fellow that God actually spoke to ! No need for "faith" ... Solomon had direct contact with God.

Not only this but God gave Solomon great riches and a great kingdom. Supposedly Solomon was given great wisdom as well but, on this I have my doubts.

One of YHWH's main requests of his adherents was not to worship other Gods and not to make idols. Mosaic Law states that if some people in a town start worshiping other Gods - the whole town is to be slaughtered.

Not only did King Solomon build temples and Idols to other Gods - he did so for Child Sacrifice Gods. Now the Israelite's were into child sacrifice in general - but you would think at least Solomon would have put an end to this practice.

What is even more absurd was the rational given. Solomon blamed it on being persuaded by his wives ! The women made him do it !

Here is a fellow who supposedly wrote "better to sleep on the roof than in the same house with a nagging wife" ... this King being supposedly the wisest of the wise - being persuaded by his 700 wives (some who he would not see for at least 2 years ?) to go against the God that spoke directly to him and gave him everything ?

Are these the actions of someone wise ? These are the actions of a spineless fool !!

1 Kings 11

Kind of a dumb-ass would you not say ? Almost hard to believe how someone could be so stupid.

 

1- 2000 years ago hardly anybody could read or write..
2- The muslim areas on the map have Christian populations of various sizes too..

 

What debate? Jesus made it perfectly clear in one short sentence what "work" is needed..-
"The work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28 )

 

1. Yet the Bible got written.

2. Miniscule in comparison with the Muslim population in "Christian" countries (most of which are secular).

 

1- Logic it out mate, what would have been the point of Matthew simply repeating Mark's gospel again?
2- Matthew was one of the disciples, so his street cred was way off the scale..

 

If my maths are correct, Solomon became King 96 years after Omri, so no doubt Solomon had to refurbish some of Omri's old property which was falling down by then and covered in graffiti and full of hippy squatters etc..

 

Just read Jesus Wars. Its not a book with an agenda, it is simply history. Cyrus was a huge player in the early days. He was from Alexandria. At the time, the three centers of Christianity were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. They fought it out.

 

1) The passage you refer to does not even mention heaven. One passage with no context is not proof of much.
2) Believing in Jesus can easily mean believing in the message of Jesus
3) The passages I presented (including an entire sermon which you seem not to want to read) clearly has Jesus saying not all those who "believe in Jesus" will get into heaven .. Only that do the will of the Father which is to believe in the teachings of Jesus and act accordingly.
4) It is not just me making this claim but the the majority of Christianity.
5) The author of John was writing to a Pauline Christian audience. The Jesus of John is different than the Jesus of Mark and Matt ( which has a Jewish Christian perspective), as opposed to Luke and John which has an "anti Jewish" perspective. At the time when the author of John was writing (100-120 AD) the Church was distancing itself from anything Jewish, including the OT and especially OT Law.

Then of course we have James - Brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church - saying that the belief in salvation by faith alone is "useless" and that those that believe in this doctrine are "Foolish". James 2.

As per your contention - there is nothing "perfectly clear" about your isolated out of context "one sentence".

 

The consensus position is that the disciple Matt was not the Author of Matt.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

There are many reasons why the author of Matt would use almost the entire Gospel of Mark in his Gospel. What do any of those reasons have to do with the fact that this author did use the entire Gospel of Mark in his Gospel ?

 

I read a couple of reviews - looks like a good one ! I will pick it up.

Cheers

 

A father was clearly responsible for his children’s education. In addition to teaching his trade to his sons, a father would be highly concerned with their moral and religious education, since a father’s duty was to teach his children the commandments. (See Ps. 78:5.) A father was also required by law to teach his children the meaning and purpose behind the great feasts and the customs associated with them. (See Ex. 13:6–8.)

Simon ben-Shetach, the brother of Queen Alexandra (who reigned over Judea from 76 to 67 B.C.), enacted that “children shall attend the elementary school.” 3 There is some uncertainty that this was universally observed, but this enactment indicates the value that the Jewish people at the time of Christ placed on education. It is likely that many young boys did in fact enjoy some formal education. We do not know whether Jesus received any formal education, particularly in light of JST Matthew 3:24–26 [JST, Matt. 3:24–26], in which we learn that Jesus “spake not as other men, neither could he be taught; for he needed not that any man should teach him.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/jewish-religious-education-in-the-meridian-of-time?lang=eng

Just to study the Torah they had to have the ability to read and write.

In the time of Jesus the Jews were not stupid, ignorant people