2025 Bible Study Group

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Genesis 4

9 Then Yahweh said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to Me from the ground.

We've already covered Genesis but I just couldn't get this passage out of my head the other day. I've often been fascinated by ghost stories. I've read folklore from Japan, which is littered with them. I've always wondered why someone would come up with the concept. Why would you fear that someone is out for revenge against you from beyond the dead? Even the Apostles believed in ghosts. Twice they thought Christ was a ghost. First when He was walking on the sea. Second when He had risen from the dead. I then realized that the fear of a vengeful spirit can be traced back to Genesis in the Cain and Abel story. Genesis doesn't say it in the exact words but the concept is there. It's also a huge boon for the fact that people's spirits do live on after their bodies expire, despite many secularists claiming that the Old Testament doesn't teach life after death. Biblically, I do not grant human ghosts. The Bible says that it is appointed once for men to die and after that comes the judgement. But I do grant that demons roam the Earth seeking people to torment. What seems to be a common theme in ghosts stories is that the spirit is so hell-bent on revenge that they no longer resemble the human person they were when they were living, but become beings of pure vengeance and malice, only maybe being appeased by elaborate rituals.

 

[Samseau]

Example…there have been priests that have admitted to selling and snorting meth, embezzling church funds, molestation, having girlfriends and mistresses, etc. yet their parishioners (mostly women) still follow them. That is the power of authority and why we should be careful who we listen to.

This is only a problem in the RCC, within Orthodoxy such Priests are immediately defrocked once exposed.

And even in the RCC, the problems of their clergy are vastly overstated, and at least 95% of them are good men.

It is far safer within the Catholic or Orthodox Churches than any secular institution.

Genesis 4

We've already covered Genesis but I just couldn't get this passage out of my head the other day. I've often been fascinated by ghost stories. I've read folklore from Japan, which is littered with them. I've always wondered why someone would come up with the concept. Why would you fear that someone is out for revenge against you from beyond the dead? Even the Apostles believed in ghosts. Twice they thought Christ was a ghost. First when He was walking on the sea. Second when He had risen from the dead. I then realized that the fear of a vengeful spirit can be traced back to Genesis in the Cain and Abel story. Genesis doesn't say it in the exact words but the concept is there. It's also a huge boon for the fact that people's spirits do live on after their bodies expire, despite many secularists claiming that the Old Testament doesn't teach life after death. Biblically, I do not grant human ghosts. The Bible says that it is appointed once for men to die and after that comes the judgement. But I do grant that demons roam the Earth seeking people to torment. What seems to be a common theme in ghosts stories is that the spirit is so hell-bent on revenge that they no longer resemble the human person they were when they were living, but become beings of pure vengeance and malice, only maybe being appeased by elaborate rituals.

I think you are reading that passage too literally, God is not saying Abel's blood is actually speaking, but that God knows Abel was murdered and the blood of such a murder is deeply offensive to God.

The OT often uses human emotions to describe a being completely outside of normal human emotion. It's more of a limitation than description.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I think you are reading that passage too literally, God is not saying Abel's blood is actually speaking, but that God knows Abel was murdered and the blood of such a murder is deeply offensive to God.

The OT often uses human emotions to describe a being completely outside of normal human emotion. It's more of a limitation than description.

The New Testament takes it literally:

Matthew 23:35 So that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Revelation 6:10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Master, holy and true? Will You not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

Revelation 16:6 for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.”

"The blood of Abel" is Moses' way of saying that Abel himself still speaks after his death, as all the martyrs in Heaven do.

 

[Samseau]

The New Testament takes it literally:





"The blood of Abel" is Moses' way of saying that Abel himself still speaks after his death, as all the martyrs in Heaven do.

This is indeed metaphorical language. It's not blood literally speaking, nor is it a ghost or disembodied spirit, it's more of God's knowledge of that person speaking for them. That's what it means to say, "Their blood is speaking," as in, the crime of who shed that blood has guilt upon them because of the anguish of the person who was slain. God knows who that person who was slain, and knows who they will be on resurrection day.

 

[SeekingGod]

This is only a problem in the RCC, within Orthodoxy such Priests are immediately defrocked once exposed.

And even in the RCC, the problems of their clergy are vastly overstated, and at least 95% of them are good men.

It is far safer within the Catholic or Orthodox Churches than any secular institution.

The media will circulate these stories because of an anti-Christian bias yet they do happen. Because Orthodox priests can marry, it does lessen the chances for improper behavior. In Orthodoxy I have heard that instead of the lording behavior that the priests and clergy consider themselves more as servants than brandishing their power over you.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Romans 14

5 One person judges one day above another, another judges every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Paul expounds on Christian liberty and defends the freedom of the conscience. What days people regard, what foods they eat, all of these are matters of conscience and should not cause division in the Church. This of course did not bear out in the history of the Church, as sect upon sect would schism and divide over trivial matters and man-made traditions. Nevertheless, any church that holds fast to the Word of God would do well to heed the Apostle's word.

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you view your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, TO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

No church has the authority, nor even the ability, to bind the conscience, but each man will give an account of himself to God, and God will be the Judge of all. Do not attempt to usurp God's judgment seat.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather judge this—not to put a stumbling block or offense before a brother. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is defiled in itself; but to him who considers anything to be defiled, to him it is defiled.

If you consider yourself bound in one area, do not seek to bind the conscience of a brother who considers himself free. And if you are free, do not offend the brother who considers himself bound, but be considerate of him so as to not cause him to stumble.

 

[Tippy]

Romans 14

I think this book is key as it talks about not condemning another believer. I see it often even on these forums those considering themselves 'more' Christian or 'better' Christians lauding that over others.

There is another passage about putting faith above rituals/traditions.

When I read this section, I start thinking about all these infightings between Orthodox and Catholics about which one is 'correct' and I start wondering is faith really being put at the center or more a stubborness about tradition that Paul is warning against here?

I think Paul is urging a unit over core values and beliefs rather than a separation over secondary ones. Yet I don't see this happening in the churches today. Quite the opposite.

'If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning' - simple but true.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Romans 15

8 For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, 9and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy

Paul reaffirms that Christ saves both Jews and Gentiles. We take this for granted in our time, but in their time that was a revolutionary idea, or rather a reforming idea.

14 But I myself am also convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, having been filled with all knowledge and being able also to admonish one another.

Being filled with all knowledge, knowing all things; this type of language exists throughout the New Testament with regard to the Church. It is a prophesy about the New Covenant from Jeremiah being fulfilled. Paul doesn't make a big point about it here, but it will come up in John's literature in a bigger way.

16 for me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

This is the only other time in the New Testament that a Christian is described as a priest, other than when Peter calls all Christians priests. Paul considers his ministry to target the Gentiles especially as he is the Apostle to the Gentiles. He likens his ministry to that of a priest who is offering Gentiles up to God through the Gospel.

 

[Tippy]

Romans 15 -

Starts off with some references to scripture predicting Christ is coming and then ends with some of Paul's travel plans and where he is going next and also encourages others to pray for him. He also admonishes selfishness and encourages us to avoid merely living for ourselves

There is a reference to Isaiah, which mentioned the heir to 'David's throne' will come (though I always found references like this quite vague). Apparently Jesus came as a servant to the jews to fulfil one part of promises God made but also to gentiles to give Glory to God for his mercies to them.

Can't take away a huge amount from this chapter except Paul seemed so by himself in these letters and I don't know exactly how Paul rose to such prominence that these letters be included in the canon.

As part of this chapter talks about giving of money to the poor the importance of Charity is also highlighted here.

Creates a picture of Paul a man on a mission and devoted and makes me think it's needed to have a life with a purpose beyond our pleasures or desires but instead in service of others.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Romans 16

Paul salutes a list of people. Most notably missing from this list is Peter. Tradition says that Peter founded the Church in Rome and served as it's first Bishop, so for Paul to not mention him here is a glaring omission.

19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all. Therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

This verse would otherwise be considered a throwaway by most people, but it struck me like a bolt of lightning one time. I read it at a point in my life when I was trying to do both, be wise in both good and evil. But the admonition says to be wise in good and innocent/ignorant in what is evil. It made me realize that not all ignorance is bad.

20 And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

This is a neat verse for a few reasons. It harkens back to the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15, the seed who will crush the head of the serpent. But it identifies the seed as God and the serpent as Satan. Paul also says that God will do it under the Church's feet, which is a way of saying that the Church will share in God's victory over Satan.

Made it through Romans. It's troubling that @Bizet has not returned. Hopefully he's doing ok.

 

[Samseau]

Tradition says that Peter founded the Church in Rome and served as it's first Bishop, so for Paul to not mention him here is a glaring omission.

I believe when Paul wrote these letters, Peter was still serving as de facto Patriarch of Antioch. Most of Peter's ministry was served in Antioch to Jews converting to Christianity, who had fled Jerusalem after the persecution of Christians began in earnest after the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

 

[Tippy]

Romans 16

Starts with a lot of shout outs to various church members.

Ends with a reminder that this plan is now open to gentiles and confirms explicitly that this religion is not for jews alone any longer.

And that's it for Romans.

Certainly more enjoyable to read than the at times slog of Genesis...and where do we go from here?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Romans 16

Starts with a lot of shout outs to various church members.

Ends with a reminder that this plan is now open to gentiles and confirms explicitly that this religion is not for jews alone any longer.

And that's it for Romans.

Certainly more enjoyable to read than the at times slog of Genesis...and where do we go from here?

Check out page 9. John is next

 

[NSOE]

One question I have about Genesis 2 is that if the Garden of Eden is a real place, where is it? Can it still be accessed somehow?

Also, what about dinosaurs? Did God create those or are they a hoax?

I accept the Bible story literally now, as a kid in religious ed classes I was thought by Catholic teachers that it was metaphorical.
I don't know if this video has the answers, haven't watched it but saw others by the man:

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I was thought by Catholic teachers that it was metaphorical.

I once said in a room full of Catholics that Genesis was literal history and not metaphorical and received blank stares in response. They're good guys, many of them are my friends, and they're genuinely seeking the Lord, but I greatly underestimated how much the secular narrative has influenced the Church.

There are thematic elements to Genesis that connect to the rest of the Bible, but these should not be mistaken for mere allegory. The problem in the Evangelical world tends to be to view it as only history, so they fail to see how it applies to their lives now; it becomes rote trivia. The problem in the Mystical world is that they view it as only allegory, so there is no historical or physical grounding for the spiritual reality; it all becomes very woo-woo and pie in the sky very fast.

 

[NSOE]

Eden was a real place. They did eat fruit, and both animals and humans were meant to live forever. I guess God could have told Adam and Eve not to do a hand stand, or not to cross some line, instead of forbidding them to eat what the tree of knowledge bore.
You're not fully guilty by just thinking about something, but how do you act out your desire of acquiring the knowledge of good and evil? Even if you had all the books at your fingertips to read, it wouldn't do.
God made that particular physical act explicitly synonymous with reaching for that knowledge. Now that the "crime" is committed in your mind and executed in the physical realm, you're fully culpable- you've followed through with the choice you had made. Pushed the 'give it to me' button.
Had they tried the fruit from the tree of life next, they'd live forever with evermore decaying bodies, so God threw them out.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

In the beginning (Hebrew) was the Logos (Greek). The first verse of John's Gospel is addressed to both audiences. The Gospel going out to Jews and Greeks is a huge theme that carries throughout this Gospel. The first verse expressly identifies Jesus as God.

11 He came to what was His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Christ came to the Jews first and they did not receive Him. But to everyone who believed in Him, they became sons of God. Again, the Scriptures do not give the will of man this all-powerful central place of importance, but rather God. This will come up again in John 3.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Just as Paul had a special enemy in the Judaizers, John had an enemy in the Gnostics, who denied that Christ was truly man. John routinely emphasizes the human nature of Jesus, while also maintaining His Divinity.

15 John bore witness about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has been ahead of me, for He existed before me.’ ” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Even though John the Baptist was older than Jesus, he can say that Jesus existed before Him because Jesus is God the Son and has always existed. This will come up again in John 8. V18, He has exegeted Him. The person of Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father. They are not the same persons, but they have the same character, and are of the same Divine Nature. This will come up again especially in John 14.

 

[Gazza]

A friend of mine had some Jehovas witness folk knock on his door one day. He was friendly towards them. Then he asked them to read John 1:1 from their “bible” to them. It read… In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God. Amazing how one alteration of a paragraph can distort so many unsuspecting minds.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

A friend of mine had some Jehovas witness folk knock on his door one day. He was friendly towards them. Then he asked them to read John 1:1 from their “bible” to them. It read… In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God. Amazing how one alteration of a paragraph can distort so many unsuspecting minds.

The silly thing about all of that nonsense is that in Jehovah's False Witnesses, there is no God. There is no one uncreated being who created everything from nothing. There is only anthropology, no theology. It's all about men ascending to be greater men.

 

[Tippy]

John 1 -

Summary - John is preaching in Israel and baptizing people. Says Jesus is coming.

Then Jesus comes along and John confirms it is him.

Jesus picks some disciples and says 'you will see heaven open and the angels of God going up and down on the Son of Man, the one who is he stairway between heaven and earth' - this conjures an image of a Jesus ladder though I understand it's not a literal climbing on Jesus but him making that connection.

Analysis - For a long time I thought John the Baptist was John the author though it is not the case.

It's easy to be cynical about this thinking 'What would you think if someone like Johhn The Baptist was out in the streets today?' Yet he had a large following. I wonder if there were other preachers at the same time who we just don't know about and if these people were the version of 'influencers' in their own time.

It's always hard to get my head around all this happening in Israel, a place I've never been to and I tend to think of more as a Jewish place yet is key to Christianity here. Was Christianity still considered Judaism here and when exactly did the split occur? If the earliest version of Christianity IS Judaism is it not problematic for Ortho bros and Catholics obsessed with being the 'true' church because they are what they consider the ones closest to the earliest itirations?

I can't quite figure out exactly why these specific men were chosen as the disciples and why it was limited to the number it was. Were they just the first ones or did they have some special aura?