If you translate it properly it doesn't say "thou shalt not kill" it actually says " thou shalt not murder". I also feel like if the Bible is the word of God it wouldn't really have any wrinkles, I strongly feel alots been translated incorrectly so it gets the general idea but anything intricate can be easily misinterpreted.
That is very true. The Old Testament command is do not murder. Jesus, as he does with many commands from the Hebrew Scriptures, transforms that into do not kill, but instead give your life away. That is the path of peace. The Way.
@@commonschurch do you mean like don't defend yourself when attacked when you say "give your life away"? Also, if we didn't kill wouldn't we all need to be vegetarian?
Well, I am a vegetarian, although I wouldn’t prescribe that for anyone else. That said, I think Jesus was nonviolent, and I trust Jesus is the Way. I know it’s fun to dream about scenarios where we would use violence to defend ourselves, or to be the hero in a crisis, but the truth is most of life is not a hypothetical. It is lived by making the most peaceful choice we can in any given moment. Grace and peace
"Marcian, who was a Christian theologian and writer" "thoughtful minds and hearts...[like] Marcian" "we don't have to devalue or dismiss the Bible in order to disarm it" "scripture is selectively edited or interpreted to avoid dealing with the tricky parts" Referring to Marcian this way along with saying he was denounced as a heretic solely for denying the divinity of Jesus and nothing else is an ignorant mischaracterization of his teachings. Marcian didn't "reinterpret" or "edit" scripture (except technically Luke) he threw out what he didn't agree with. He rejected not only the entire Old Testament but also three-fourths of the New Testament. He was a ditheist that believed the god of the Old Testament to be a wholly different and evil being from Jesus' Father. To insinuate that he would not have been deemed a heretic had he not denied Jesus' divinity is preposterous. His beliefs were completely incompatible with Christianity, as he made clear himself by claiming only Paul was a true follower of Jesus. Even more concerning is that this seeming approval of Marcian precedes the proposition that maybe the violence God commits in the Old Testament was how ancient Israel imagined a god might act and "might even be made up." Or that a prophecy from God to Jeremiah was mere community-building propaganda. Maybe we shouldn't be lifting up the guy Polycarp allegedly greeted as, "the first-born of Satan," as an icon of proper Christian thinking, and we definitely shouldn't be looking to him on how to properly read and understand our Bible.
There is a single reference to Marcion in this sermon, but he is certainly not being held up as an example to follow. In fact, his bifurcation of the Hebrew and Christian Gods has been the basis for many antisemitic readings. The only inference is that the question of the violence in Scripture is not a problem in itself. How we answer it is.
He is set up and discussed for well over a minute. How long he is spoken of is irrelevant though. He is inappropriately introduced as a Christian theologian. It is insinuated that his bifurcation of God Himself had nothing to do with his condemnation as a heretic, insinuating that it is not heretical. It is from this seeming endorsement that the discussion briefly moves to the Christian community and its grappling with the Bible's depictions of violence. Marcian is then presented approvingly as having a thoughtful mind and heart who grappled with the things spoken of just prior. He is the example used to show, "that asking questions is an ancient practice of the Church." Using him as the representation for "post-production responses" and bookending the following discussion with positive descriptions of him, whether intended or not, very heavily implies that he is someone from whom we can learn about the things discussed like, "we don't have to devalue or dismiss the Bible in order to disarm it," and "how to best read or if to read at all these texts in a 21st-century life." If he is not being presented as an example to follow, I fail to see why he was mentioned at all, or why his throwing out of over 90% of the Bible is misrepresented as merely editing around the tricky parts of scripture if not to put it in a better light. If the only goal was to give an example of someone who grappled with the violence depicted in scripture, why not pick a Christian leader instead of the guy whose solution was to denounce most of the Bible and was deemed a heretic? Other than his denial of Jesus' divinity, no qualifiers are given for Marcian's teachings; he is presented in the most favorable light possible while still acknowledging his status as a heretic. If someone was introduced to Marcian through this sermon, how are they to glean from it the fact that cutting out the parts of the Bible that upset us is not the right way to go about things? After all, his declaring the "god of the Old Testament" to be a lesser evil god apparently wasn't heretical. Neither was his rejection of well over half the New Testament, nor his denial of Jesus' death and resurrection. Had he accepted Jesus was divine, he would have been A-OK. If someone decided to research this "Christian theologian" after hearing a sermon wherein it's purported that the things we find uncomfortable in scripture up to and including things claimed to be said and done by God Himself were things ancient Israel just invented, if a thoughtful-minded theologian like Marcian thought it ok to throw out these stories that are just made-up community-building propaganda anyway, if denying massive swaths of scripture isn't problematic for Christianity, then it becomes a perfectly legitimate Christian solution to the question of violence to simply say all the "tricky parts" are imaginary. Why is it not ok for me to treat only the parts of scripture that I like as scripture and the rest as made-up hoo-ha?
“Well over a minute” does not exactly make Marcion a central point int he sermon. Regardless, Marcion chose a bad (and antisemitic) solution to a real problem. A real problem we still wrestle with today. How can we worship the God revealed in the Bible, and understood through the lens of Jesus while also rejecting violence.
I would agree that he isn't a central part of the sermon... Anyway, my grievance was in regard to the way he is spoken of and how the sermon's message echoes his (non-romanticized) teaching. This is something that is, again, completely removed from how long he is actually talked about. He could have been spoken of for all of one sentence, but if that sentence mischaracterizes him and his teachings and the following sermon purports similar ideas, it would elicit the same reaction. If one defines God as strictly compassionate and removed from all violence in any context, then they would indeed run into the same dilemma Marcian did. Marcian's solution was to split God and the Bible into the parts he agreed with and the parts he didn't, then follow the god he agreed with. While there is an incongruity between the sermon downplaying his denouncing of the Tanakh and the current condemning of this as bad and antisemitic, if we assume it is indeed wrong to cut out swaths of the Bible that challenge our conceptions, the same core problem remains. The sermon's solution is to take God's actions we don't agree with and deem them fabrications. Both solutions remove "the tricky parts" of scripture, the difference is one says they're true but aren't scripture, and the other says they're scripture but aren't true. Neither of these are tenable nor Christian responses. When Peter refers to Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as actual things that actually happened, are we to assume that what he meant was to remember those things people imagined God doing? Or is the rock upon which Christ's church was built also just playing make-believe? According to the author of Hebrews, God actually did command the killing of any animal that set foot on Mt Sinai. That sounds pretty unloving, I guess he just got confused about which parts of the Tanakh actually count. When Jesus referenced Isaiah 66 as being a real prophecy that will really come to pass, should we conclude the dead bodies being spoken of are just in their heads? Who knows, maybe Jesus saying that was made up, just like some of God's other words and actions. Of course, Marcian was able to avoid such conundrums by not considering 2 Peter, Hebrews, Mark, etc scripture, but that's bad now. Moreover, if ancient Israel was just inventing aspects and actions of God to suit themselves, how do we know any of what they said about Him is true? Do we determine which parts are fact and which are fiction by what we consider loving? Are the positive things done and said by God in the Tanakh only true because they fit our constructed ideal? The idea that "they could imagine a god who would [and] they/we need a god who would" is no less problematic a solution to the question of violence than Marcian's because it similarly makes us the arbiter over scripture to determine what is and isn't true.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
7:23 Nah, y'all are just going out of your way to get us evangelicals riled up now, aren't you? 😆🤣
If you translate it properly it doesn't say "thou shalt not kill" it actually says " thou shalt not murder". I also feel like if the Bible is the word of God it wouldn't really have any wrinkles, I strongly feel alots been translated incorrectly so it gets the general idea but anything intricate can be easily misinterpreted.
That is very true. The Old Testament command is do not murder. Jesus, as he does with many commands from the Hebrew Scriptures, transforms that into do not kill, but instead give your life away. That is the path of peace. The Way.
@@commonschurch do you mean like don't defend yourself when attacked when you say "give your life away"? Also, if we didn't kill wouldn't we all need to be vegetarian?
Well, I am a vegetarian, although I wouldn’t prescribe that for anyone else. That said, I think Jesus was nonviolent, and I trust Jesus is the Way. I know it’s fun to dream about scenarios where we would use violence to defend ourselves, or to be the hero in a crisis, but the truth is most of life is not a hypothetical. It is lived by making the most peaceful choice we can in any given moment. Grace and peace
"Marcian, who was a Christian theologian and writer"
"thoughtful minds and hearts...[like] Marcian"
"we don't have to devalue or dismiss the Bible in order to disarm it"
"scripture is selectively edited or interpreted to avoid dealing with the tricky parts"
Referring to Marcian this way along with saying he was denounced as a heretic solely for denying the divinity of Jesus and nothing else is an ignorant mischaracterization of his teachings.
Marcian didn't "reinterpret" or "edit" scripture (except technically Luke) he threw out what he didn't agree with. He rejected not only the entire Old Testament but also three-fourths of the New Testament. He was a ditheist that believed the god of the Old Testament to be a wholly different and evil being from Jesus' Father. To insinuate that he would not have been deemed a heretic had he not denied Jesus' divinity is preposterous. His beliefs were completely incompatible with Christianity, as he made clear himself by claiming only Paul was a true follower of Jesus.
Even more concerning is that this seeming approval of Marcian precedes the proposition that maybe the violence God commits in the Old Testament was how ancient Israel imagined a god might act and "might even be made up." Or that a prophecy from God to Jeremiah was mere community-building propaganda.
Maybe we shouldn't be lifting up the guy Polycarp allegedly greeted as, "the first-born of Satan," as an icon of proper Christian thinking, and we definitely shouldn't be looking to him on how to properly read and understand our Bible.
There is a single reference to Marcion in this sermon, but he is certainly not being held up as an example to follow. In fact, his bifurcation of the Hebrew and Christian Gods has been the basis for many antisemitic readings. The only inference is that the question of the violence in Scripture is not a problem in itself. How we answer it is.
He is set up and discussed for well over a minute. How long he is spoken of is irrelevant though. He is inappropriately introduced as a Christian theologian. It is insinuated that his bifurcation of God Himself had nothing to do with his condemnation as a heretic, insinuating that it is not heretical. It is from this seeming endorsement that the discussion briefly moves to the Christian community and its grappling with the Bible's depictions of violence. Marcian is then presented approvingly as having a thoughtful mind and heart who grappled with the things spoken of just prior. He is the example used to show, "that asking questions is an ancient practice of the Church."
Using him as the representation for "post-production responses" and bookending the following discussion with positive descriptions of him, whether intended or not, very heavily implies that he is someone from whom we can learn about the things discussed like, "we don't have to devalue or dismiss the Bible in order to disarm it," and "how to best read or if to read at all these texts in a 21st-century life." If he is not being presented as an example to follow, I fail to see why he was mentioned at all, or why his throwing out of over 90% of the Bible is misrepresented as merely editing around the tricky parts of scripture if not to put it in a better light. If the only goal was to give an example of someone who grappled with the violence depicted in scripture, why not pick a Christian leader instead of the guy whose solution was to denounce most of the Bible and was deemed a heretic?
Other than his denial of Jesus' divinity, no qualifiers are given for Marcian's teachings; he is presented in the most favorable light possible while still acknowledging his status as a heretic. If someone was introduced to Marcian through this sermon, how are they to glean from it the fact that cutting out the parts of the Bible that upset us is not the right way to go about things? After all, his declaring the "god of the Old Testament" to be a lesser evil god apparently wasn't heretical. Neither was his rejection of well over half the New Testament, nor his denial of Jesus' death and resurrection. Had he accepted Jesus was divine, he would have been A-OK. If someone decided to research this "Christian theologian" after hearing a sermon wherein it's purported that the things we find uncomfortable in scripture up to and including things claimed to be said and done by God Himself were things ancient Israel just invented, if a thoughtful-minded theologian like Marcian thought it ok to throw out these stories that are just made-up community-building propaganda anyway, if denying massive swaths of scripture isn't problematic for Christianity, then it becomes a perfectly legitimate Christian solution to the question of violence to simply say all the "tricky parts" are imaginary. Why is it not ok for me to treat only the parts of scripture that I like as scripture and the rest as made-up hoo-ha?
“Well over a minute” does not exactly make Marcion a central point int he sermon. Regardless, Marcion chose a bad (and antisemitic) solution to a real problem. A real problem we still wrestle with today. How can we worship the God revealed in the Bible, and understood through the lens of Jesus while also rejecting violence.
I would agree that he isn't a central part of the sermon...
Anyway, my grievance was in regard to the way he is spoken of and how the sermon's message echoes his (non-romanticized) teaching. This is something that is, again, completely removed from how long he is actually talked about. He could have been spoken of for all of one sentence, but if that sentence mischaracterizes him and his teachings and the following sermon purports similar ideas, it would elicit the same reaction.
If one defines God as strictly compassionate and removed from all violence in any context, then they would indeed run into the same dilemma Marcian did. Marcian's solution was to split God and the Bible into the parts he agreed with and the parts he didn't, then follow the god he agreed with. While there is an incongruity between the sermon downplaying his denouncing of the Tanakh and the current condemning of this as bad and antisemitic, if we assume it is indeed wrong to cut out swaths of the Bible that challenge our conceptions, the same core problem remains. The sermon's solution is to take God's actions we don't agree with and deem them fabrications. Both solutions remove "the tricky parts" of scripture, the difference is one says they're true but aren't scripture, and the other says they're scripture but aren't true. Neither of these are tenable nor Christian responses.
When Peter refers to Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as actual things that actually happened, are we to assume that what he meant was to remember those things people imagined God doing? Or is the rock upon which Christ's church was built also just playing make-believe? According to the author of Hebrews, God actually did command the killing of any animal that set foot on Mt Sinai. That sounds pretty unloving, I guess he just got confused about which parts of the Tanakh actually count. When Jesus referenced Isaiah 66 as being a real prophecy that will really come to pass, should we conclude the dead bodies being spoken of are just in their heads? Who knows, maybe Jesus saying that was made up, just like some of God's other words and actions. Of course, Marcian was able to avoid such conundrums by not considering 2 Peter, Hebrews, Mark, etc scripture, but that's bad now.
Moreover, if ancient Israel was just inventing aspects and actions of God to suit themselves, how do we know any of what they said about Him is true? Do we determine which parts are fact and which are fiction by what we consider loving? Are the positive things done and said by God in the Tanakh only true because they fit our constructed ideal? The idea that "they could imagine a god who would [and] they/we need a god who would" is no less problematic a solution to the question of violence than Marcian's because it similarly makes us the arbiter over scripture to determine what is and isn't true.
Well rejecting divine violence is the central presupposition of this series :)
God IS Love. Period.
ruclips.net/video/S15kZum37tI/видео.html