Comments by "Roope Reimi" (@Yurikon3) on "History Summarized: Spread of Christianity" video.

Ah yes, it is common syndrome of taking one verse outside of context. I think it is always sometimes more holier to see Atheist and Christian actually calmly researching The Bible without bit-size arguments. At least in those occasions people tend to become wiser. Another problem which a bit irks me is to try reflect some events or people to modern equivalents without proper reason or context. For example equaling OT's "godless" to modern atheist is far-fetched cause most of the ancients believed in certain forces and these forces drove or encouraged acts. Gods were usually also those who made judgements about person's acts. So if one's personal judge had twisted view of justice, expect them to do some bad stuff. Modern atheist's are most likely ready to approve most of the moral guidelines and are more baffled about some irksome interpretations which even most Christians are irked. Or simply atheists have trouble to believe in something which they cannot see and exactly prove, which in sense is not unhealthy approach, even Bible commends people who have open minds to ideas expressed but still make sure they hold some salt in them. I think Biblical "belief" of the ancients was more nuanced than just believing in entity A or B. It seemed to also be interested in what kind of deity is one actually following. Accept cruel god, become cruel person. Accept too permissive god, become too permissive. Accept fair and balanced god, become balanced person. I think it is not waste of time for atheist to figure out the character of God from The Bible, even if they don't have actual belief cause it might transform them. And if they ever meet God, at least they can agree with His terms.
12
I think it might be cause Paul had to deal with Greek philosophy of the time which was indeed a bit confusing. I must admit that out of the all denominations I find Orthodoxy the most balanced in its dealing with mystery and practicality but I think all denominations might have it right in some things, but lack in others. Folks keep bashing Chatolism but I think it arises mostly from "flesh", pettiness or something. I don't believe in sanctity of Pope, but as a system it seems to have an understanding about the grandness of God and also of important of unity to certain degree. I think there are more proper ways to judge people than their beliefs. It is the fruit of their beliefs which usually reveal weaknesses in actions.
7
I have taken a dip into looking into some ANE (ancient near east) context studies and have come to find out that problems do not necessarily arise from Bible itself but for its early absorb into western philosophy. I have heard some remarks about David De Silva's societal context study of ancient Rome and Israel and how it affects in understanding of Biblical concepts. I have come to carefully think that some concepts like faith and grace have become bit misunderstood and those misunderstandings have been cumulating during the history. I'd dare to say that Jesus was not that weird fellow for the reasons we think (mostly mysterious reasons). All these stances about mysteries and concessions about Trinity might be byproduct of Greek philosophy collapsing with Hebrew teachings of Messiah. Hebrews expected Warrior-King type Messiah, but in Jesus' case he was born as a carpenter in boons of the time (Bethlehem). In other words he didnt have worldly type of "bling" to be considered Messiah. When he proclaimed to be One with The God, He was equalizing His character with The God. For average Jew who, at least on paper, considered oneself respecting God saw it humilating a total nobody equaling Himself to The Greatest. Consider it like some ragged peasant rushing onto the king and one of king's lackeys kicking peasant away. Normally person must be aware of his place in hierarchy before facing a king. But in this case the king might be benevolent or hear the peasant asking permission to speak in the name of someone the king thinks is proper. The king might also lash out to lackey for acting rashly without permission. Anyway. In this case when Jesus equalized Himself to God, He proclaimed The Authority as God's speaker and Son. If someone attacked Him, it equalized for attacking God Himself. Consider oneself if someone hits your own son. It feels like someone has hit yourself. This is also a reason why it was a big act of patience and character on behalf of God because He allowed His Son to die, rather than kill attackers to prevent Jesus' death. It also sets Jesus' last plead in context "Father, don't set them accountable for this sin, they don't know what they are doing...". Forgiveness means ability to not bear grudge and ask revenge (justified return) for crimes committed against them and it is considered good characteristic. Solomon made mistakes, but before those he got the chance to ask God whatever he wanted. Solomon asked wisdom, and it was good wish in The Mind Of God, He even said that instead of asking riches or death of Solomon's enemies, He shall bless Solomo. Jesus' death was absolute humilation, which cruxifiction marked and it was likely to show humanity that even if The God Himself would come down to earth with the best of intentions, humanity would still repeal him cause humanity approves glory which is tainted glory. The lifestyle which Jesus wanted to show was not something to garner points in normal society, but resurrection was a promise that trying to change and live like Jesus did, would not be worthless. Long story short I think that the message Jesus wanted to give was not overtly mysterious or too far from the reach or too hard to understand or even live (it was the outer forces which made it hard). There was not pleas for understanding impossible concepts or strange beliefs. That being said I think that what Jesus is gonna do are not that clear and who he is gonna rebuke and what degree are not in my domain of judgement. I think that those whose heart, even if they might be unperfect, is in right place, is able to recognize and accept Him. Until judgement is made I guess the best believer can do is to be best kind of diplomat for Him.
5
Just as The Bible does not hide the misgivings of its characters, so does not any proper Christian deny the history of their religion. That is not bad but honorable. Even The Bible recommends buying knowledge. While of course Paul implies that knowledge might cause some pride, it is still better get knowledge.
1
Those were not actual brokes of rules cause in the end one must make some laws to ensure chaos does not emerge. The thing was that smaller laws flow from bigger ones. All laws made by rabbis were not bad in nature while some were. I think the problem is that the Christianity nowadays is more The Bible seen through western lenses while it was near eastern in nature. It had bit different way to see society and its philosoph ywas different from Greek one. Some Asian countries in their societal structures might be closer to Biblical systems than some western sects nowadays. It is Big Book and has a lot of stuff so I guess some humility and patience is required with it.
1
He actually met Peter in later phases of life and they accepted him as an apostle so it was not merely on base of revelation. I personally think it was not Paul who made new religion out of anything. It was later interpreters who diversed themselves from Jewish believers and started to use more interpretations based on philosophy of Greeks and Pauls letters outside of their contexes. So if we play blame game this is more of the case of "revolution eating its own children" though not in literal mind.
1