Thank you!
I have not found the concept of an individual's God in the Old Testament. It seems that He is the God of the people, the Jewish nation, and when He gives instruction or encouragement to individuals, it is usually for the nation rather than the person. When Jews pray they often refer to themselves in the plural, as representing the Jewish people rather than only themselves. The psalms refer to individuals, but they were meant to be sung by the congregation, not just David. It is the nation which inherits the earth, not the individuals.
Also, I know that in the book of Daniel the angel instructs that Daniel must live, and die, and then be resurrected to receive his reward, but otherwise I have found very little about the resurrection of individuals. The visions of the heavenly kingdom seem to me to be an earthly civilization, uniquely good and governed by the One God, a continuation of earth's life rather than a heavenly afterlife. It is also a place where people can be expected to die -- though their lives will be long and full. I do not see evidence that the New Jerusalem is made of resurrected souls of the elect throughout history. Hell is the grave rather than a place of future judgement.
I don't find a Hell or Heaven that seems familiar to Christianity in earlier scriptures. The afterlife seems to have been evolved, rather than revealed. (I get frustrated when things evolve. I want them to be true RIGHT AWAY!
)
Why was the Septuagint used as the source for the New Testament? It was Greek. Wouldn't the Bible have been studied in Hebrew? (Maybe the authors were influenced by gentile occupation.) Matthew uses the Septuagint to claim the prophecy of virgin birth; in this Isaiah verse, the Hebrew bible does not specify that the mother was virgin, and the context seems to have been an immediate prophecy for Ahaz rather than a far-reaching one: by the time the boy was a few years old, he would be eating milk and honey, because the famine would be over. (I don't claim to understand the book of Isaiah, however.)
Also, I have read that the earliest version of Mark, which may be the earliest New Testament text, made no reference to a virgin birth or to the bodily resurrection of Christ.
And the Pharisees:
I am upset by the disrespect given to Pharisees. I have never witnessed any "foaming at the mouth" blaspheming of them, but somehow it is usually implied. They are equated with satan; they practically share a brain with him. If anyone sympathizes with Pharisees, it usually sounds like this: "We, too, could be just as bad as them, if we aren't careful."
The reality of the Roman rule does not play a part in most Christian stories. The only oppressors are those pointy-bearded, beady-eyed Pharisees, who were involved in spiritual cannibalism and were constantly plotting Jesus's demise. When they debate with Jesus, it is viewed as proof of how much they hated Him and His Father. The entire tragedy of the crucifiction is blamed on Pharisees, if it isn't blamed on Jewish nature in general, regardless of the fact that Jesus was tried by the Sadducean High Priest who was kind of a puppet for the Romans, and condemned by a really bad Pontius Pilate, who was under other gentile jurisdictions.
Pharisees argued; it was almost a lifestyle. There is a story (I wish I remember which book it was in) that a good Jewish toddler, in the idyllic time of King David, was so excellent in logic and so knowledgable of Torah that he could prove a bacon cheeseburger was kosher. Why shouldn't lawyers argue with Jesus, who apparently loved to argue right back? He is frequently pictured in a hoarde of Pharisees (or lawyers or scribes), all arguing long into the evening. He is asked for his opinions on laws and customs; he asks his own questions.
Pharisees were respectful; they called one another 'Sir', as they also called Jesus. They were fair-minded, and often amended Mosaic laws to prevent an injustice being done: for instance, the law called for 40 lashes for certain offenses, but the Pharisees lowered the number to 39, because the whipper might make a counting mistake and over-punish someone. Also, if a rich man was on a journey and became hungry, he was allowed to eat from the crops reserved for the poor, because he was -- at that moment -- a poor man. When he had his riches again he could repay what he had eaten.
Noahide Laws:
Gentiles were not required to fulfill the entire Law in order to be right with the Jewish God, unless they chose to convert to Judaism. They could be "God-fearers", or Devout; they were accepted under the basic commands God gave to Noah rather than 613 commands given to Moses. They abstained from eating the lifeblood (some versions of this prohibition were against the eating of an animal that was still alive), they refrained from adultery and murder, etc. This is pretty much the decision of James concerning gentile Christians.
Why does Christianity teach that everlasting damnation is automatic and there are only two (really just one) ways to escape: the complete Law, which is considered intrinsically impossible to fulfill, and belief in Christ? Why was an intermediary required, when it hadn't been before?
That's all I can think of tonight. I appreciate anyone's responses! I will give you free coffee:
Show Posts
). 
(Also, I don't believe that way anymore.)