the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
I know that murder is wrong because God says so. Being made in his image, I also know this intuitively. This makes sense to me. My worldview is logically consistent.
Reverse your wording order, ...You know murder is wrong intuitively and so accept that your God is right in saying murder is wrong.
Now what if your God says murder in his name is right? Or this God murders people?
Now you are not "logically consistent" to obey the God, are you?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22011278/new-bible-chapter-hidden-verses-discovered-erased-scribe/.
i wonder what the remaining members of the gb will make of this?.
i excited to read all of this once it’s released and compare with the rest of mathew.
It's a nice find. In brief what is means is the distribution of the Curetonian variants appear to have been more established than what could be earlier demonstrated. No huge revelation. It is interesting that the new fragment agrees with the Curetonian wording in following Luke in including the rubbing phrase and in posing the following objection of the Pharisees as a question rather than a statement as the majority text reads. In my mind this suggests a conscious effort here at harmonization with Luke. Who knows, by this point in time the text was pretty well established and set by tradition.
the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
i thought this was an interesting response to the question.
"being faithful and loyal to god implies or includes.
being faithful to your spouse (hebrews 13:4),.
Loyalty to family is loyalty to family. Loyalty to employer is loyalty to your employer. Loyalty to your nation is loyalty to your nation. Loyalty to the leaders of a church is loyalty to leaders of a church. Etc.
I can and must distinguish these. My loyalties are often divided. My employer may misuse my trust. My nation might be in the wrong. My family may be abusive. My church is no different.
sig other is half assed still in, one family member is in... its been years... wondering if i should just let it be or just call up hq and say i resign... i will be pissed if they announce shit at the kh, though i dont even remember the last one i went to... lol.
for me, its none of anyone elses business... thoughts?.
did the babylonians destroy the jerusalem temple?
personally, i never questioned this, of course they did, doesn't 2 kings 25 say:.
9 and he burned the house of the lord, the king’s house, and all the houses of jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire.
DisiJW....Good observations. Edom and Judah had a long complicated relationship, but clearly there was no love between them in the 6th century. I'm impressed by the Obediah wording condemning Edom
13
You should not have entered the gate of my peopleThis certainly suggests an active role in the devastation.
For me this strengthens the trace evidence, ....I see 3 lines of evidence. The only first-hand account in Jeremiah omits the Temple in the Babylonian destruction and refers to the Temple as accepting sacrifices, (your comment addressed below) and the faulting the Edomites in 1 Esdras (and similarly Obediah).
The Kings abbreviated later retelling is almost certainly drawn primarily from Jeremiah, and the Chronicler was revising Kings. It would seem easiest to believe that Jeremiah was correct that the Babylonians had not burned the Temple, but the Edomites finished the job after he and the others left for Egypt. The later retellings having assumed the Babylonians were responsible or were simply abbreviating the overall episode.
The other proposal, that mention of the Post destruction Temple in Jeremiah, refer to the burned foundations is not impossible of course. The Talmud 6 centuries later interprets this verse in Jeremiah in just this way. However, there is no other evidence and appears to be rather, based upon this verse.
Ezra 2, as you mentioned referred to the mere site as the House of Yahweh. However chapt 3 makes explicit that this was a resumption of sacrifices when the foundation of the Temple had not yet been laid. IOW, the site was not, prior to this, being used for worship.
Like I said provocative, hardly conclusive.
It is in the end a sad story of neighboring nations with so much shared history, perhaps even the worship of the same god, being in the end mortal enemies.
https://www.vastoweb.com/news/cronaca/1118535/ordigno-esplode-davanti-la-chiesa-dei-testimoni-di-geova-a-san-salvo.
The widespread dissemination of hate speech contributes to a climate of hostility in which real hate crimes are generated, and sometimes materialize, from which our country is certainly not immune.
did the babylonians destroy the jerusalem temple?
personally, i never questioned this, of course they did, doesn't 2 kings 25 say:.
9 and he burned the house of the lord, the king’s house, and all the houses of jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire.
Did the Babylonians destroy the Jerusalem Temple?
Personally, I never questioned this, of course they did, doesn't 2 Kings 25 say:
9 And he burned the house of the Lord, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire. (this is cut and paste added as one of the many additions to the end of Jeremiah).
Also at the Chronicler's revision of 2 Kings (2 Chron 36:19):
19 They set fire to God’s temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
Notice however in the most extensive and detailed version of this story at Jeremiah 39, no mention of the Temple:
8 The Babylonians[c] set fire to the royal palace and the houses of the people and broke down the walls of Jerusalem.
No mention of Temple destruction.
Most commentaries have assumed a haplography, a scribal error of omission. That might well be the case, but another issue may suggest the text is accurate.
Recently we discussed Gedaliah as the governor in Jerusalem after the final destruction of Jerusalem. An interesting detail stood out to me in
41:4 The day after Gedaliah’s assassination, before anyone knew about it, 5 eighty men who had shaved off their beards, torn their clothes and cut themselves came from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria, bringing grain offerings and incense with them to the house of the Lord.
Jeremiah not only omits the Temple from the destruction but continues implying the Temple was still accepting worshipers.
So, then who destroyed the Temple?
1 Esdras 4;45 You also vowed to build the temple, which the Edomites burned when Judea was laid waste by the Chaldeans.
The Edomites? That seems to be consistent with the spirit of Psalm 137:
7
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
Anyway it's all provocative. Perhaps the Babylonians themselves had not destroyed the Temple but after the last evacuation after Gedaliah's assassination some Edomites entered the city to burn the Temple. It wouldn't be surprising if retelling the stories 50 years later the author lumped together closely timed events and blamed Babylon.
Drawing from observations by Richard Friedman.
the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
Habakkuk famously declared that what he was told would happen for those who devoted their lives to Yahweh worship, never happened. It seemed clear that Yahweh wasn't even watching them. However, instead of reconsidering the pointless sacrifices he and his people had made, (maybe even stoning their own children if they left the religion), he imagines Yahweh's reply, "just keep waiting. though it might linger it will not delay," whatever that means.
I attended a funeral yesterday. WELS Lutheran. Very religious family. They have spent thousands of hours sitting on hard wooden benches. Must have heard the pastor declare that the deceased was in heaven now 30 times. Those words didn't keep anyone from mourning.
i always found the account of the "woman at the well" to be particulary interesting.
this unknown shunned woman of ill-repute was specifically sought out and chosen by jesus.
why?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el7dzonv3iy&ab_channel=michaelpapale.
I can't hear you either, but know what you just said. Is God greater than a computer?
My wife pretending to be me typed that.
