Did you get out the wrong side of the bed this morning? Sorry to have wasted 5 minutes of the rest of your life.
I have done some reading on Postflavianism, but far from requiring "minimal" reading to be understood, it appears there is a limitless reading list appended to the bible to explain away every little offensive phrase you can find.
So you are saying that we should have done less work to challenge your generations upon generations of circular reasoning? Are you saying that if your parents had raised you to think that
Popular Mechanics was the true Word of 'God' that you'd yet be doing the same thing. Other than PM's handling of 9/11 what can be gainsayed regarding this scripture? (I have no idea what they say about Climate Change BTW, so let's ignore that too for sake of this conversation.)
I appreciate that you, like many others, have arrived here because of (now) peripheral matters (to me at least), like 9/11 in your case, and thus are surprised to find oneself in a different world than expected. Unfortunately, I spend far too much time having to wrangle with various people's odd takes. In your case you are trying search the heavens for means to justify your generations of superstitions in amalgamated and distilled paganism. These efforts are, of course, demonstration of a lack of faith, as no justification should be needed by a true adherent. To this extent, good for you!!!
In any case, I don't do much commenting on other sites these days, but when I did, I attempted to understand what the respective site was about first.
It seems that as far as your understanding of Christianity goes, you are fiercely defending the papal claim to be the ancient, true and only repository of authority regarding biblical interpretation. That, to me, is a desperately erroneous idea. Christianity is the fulfilment of the Hebrew faith, not an invention of Rome.
Sadly, yes. But take (dark) heart, as it seems that Josephus is really saying that your real Jesus was really in on the Roman plan, as his Galilean Sect was a controlled opposition to facilitate the synthesis of the New Order, till the end of the age, hence Alpha and Omega.
I am very familiar with the book of Ezekiel. Do you have a particular passage in mind?
See this and the link within (of which the latter I do not agree with the particular interpretation, but at least the basis):
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/666-888-and-the-solar-logos.1958/post-6643
And BTW, such as 666 and 888 are highly significant numbers in the Pythagorean solar Sacred Geometry (as is 153 fishies).
Where I come from, a "PK" is a "preacher's kid". Is this what you are saying? There are quite a few of those in my extended family, but fortunately, as they were not raised in modern churches, they have a less jaundiced opinion than they otherwise might.
You really meant "unfortunately". You are welcome.
When I was attending Sunday School, in that 'modern church', the Bible stories were typically cherry-picked as in all other churches. All, I could think of at the time was that the cartoons on TV made more sense. But most people, once told by someone trusted that most anything is sacred will believe that it is true. This is why there are so many disparate world cultures, and even so many disparate sects of genocidal Abrahamic religions.
Ironically, 'modern' church skepticism was given its impetus by the pious literalist fervor of what became the German School to prove that the Bible was historical. The result forced many to adopt their metaphorical approach. But not to worry, the 'liberal' denominational churches are being deliberately folded back into the Mother Church, itself tottering in preparation for the next revelation. else, why would such be needed in the first place?
Oh, yes, there are today some
various stubborn adherents of the old Way, just as 2,000 years prior. Hence:
"Closed minded and stiffnecked" is an unwarranted judgement don't you think? I'm old enough to have formed opinions based on considerable study and life experience, as are you, and it is not surprising that either of us should have the courage of our convictions when it comes to explaining them. I much prefer that someone state his position clearly, whether or not it differs from mine. You acknowledge that PFism is very much in the minority, so much so that I have only heard of it since encountering Jerry recently. So I'm still trying to make sense of it. It flies in the face of everything I know, and I'm having trouble finding its raison d'etre.
No, it was warranted. No different than the stiff-necked freedom hating freedom lovers of American Christian Evangelicalism. These are the Latter Day Zealots whom such as Trump will lead over the figurative cliffs of Gadara (read Atwill's
Caesar's Messiah to appreciate).
Richard, you need to take responsibility for managing your time. If answering forum questions is too much of a distraction from your research, or if it detracts from your zen calm state of mind, there's no obligation for you to reply. But if you do participate in discussion, please try to be polite.
As always.

However, I do not like my silence to be taken as assent, especially on the subjects most important to me.
If indeed you've read this, I'd say you've met the basic prerequisites for an informed New Testament discussion. Rick, would you agree?
Yes, it's a good start.
Here we disagree [w/ Ruby -rs]. The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew. It is Roman and Hellenistic in its outlook. To the extent that it draws on Judaism, it is for the purpose of creating a religious syncretism. It's analogous to a corporate merger & acquisition process. Or, you might say that Rome was devouring the Hebrew religion and digesting it.
The Christian Church was one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church, from its origin in the 1st century AD all the way until the Protestant reformation. Your view that modern Protestant interpretations are on the same footing as ancient Catholic interpretations, is historical revisionism.
And in many places the referenced OT 'prophecies' were butchered by the NT author(s) (for theological expediency), but no mind to the faithful.