1 in 4 Maui children 'likely' missing from school as classes resume. Could be up to a thousand children burned alive because Democrats were too incompetent to sound a fire siren and had a water god worshipping diversity hire.

submitted by Chipit from (thepostmillennial.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Jesus was absolutely Jewish and proudly states this repeatedly in the Bible.

It is written that he stated this, translated through several languages and revised on several occasions according to modern interpretation. And by modern, I mean the interpretation of those who lived several hundred years after the fact.

[–]makesyoudownvote 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yup, the oldest complete version of the bible was written in 300 AD, and includes this statement. It's certainly possible/plausible this was added in that 300 years, however given the political climate in that period, and in the 1700 years after this, it seems unlikely this would have been added any time later than the immediate time after Jesus's death as Christians and Jews drifted further apart and more contemptuous of eachother.

If anything references to the Jewish origin would have been toned down or removed in that time in order to further distinguish Christians from Jews, much like was done with the later King James translation, which was written at a time of particular anti-semetism and pious identity politics of the early 17th century.

It's no coincidence that it was commissioned two years after the founding of the Dutch East India company (VOC) by 7-11 Jewish merchants. England had founded it's own competing East India Company (EIC) and was particularly resentful of the success of it's rival in the VOC.

So I guess that's true, but for that fact the entire Bible is. If you used half a brain cell you could easily see it wouldn't make sense to add that contextually. If you are doubting that, the entirety of the religion itself is in question far earlier.

Keep in mind also, early Christianity had far more variations than you see today where pretty much all modern Christianity is a branch of Catholicism. In the first few centuries you had very different forms of Christianity like Gnosticism which is more similar to Buddhism in ideology. It took the least Jewish approach to the religion of all known early Christian branches.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Believe it or not there was a very strong motivation in the first 3 centuries to add such a statement. Marcion was teaching that the Old Testament and Jewish God are the demiurge and different from the Father, and he was quite successful. For whatever reason this ENRAGED the church fathers to the point where they blamed EVERYTHING on Marcion, even though to me his views clearly look like nothing more than an understandably misguided understanding of the Old Testament. People STILL struggle with the Old Testament for all the same reasons, and it's not hard to see why. From everything I've gathered Marcion was probably an honest person who took the rampant corruption of the church and its persecution of him as proof that he was right. They even tampered with the New Testament and added a bunch of stuff to it, and then blamed him for supposedly removing it. He became the scapegoat, they called him the literal child of the devil for centuries, and Martin Luther is the only one who has ever been considered a worse heretic than him.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I also wouldn't say gnosticism was the "least Jewish". The entire Old Testament looks like gnostic allegory to me, and the missionary Paul seems to agree.