So your theory is the new testament was fabricated by the Catholic Church to condemn the Catholic Church and orthodox church as the great apostasy. And then proceeded to fulfill their own prophecy about the little horn power which lines up perfectly with Daniel. It's sad people like you can make money lieing to people like this.
Jacob, your emotion was on a much higher level than in the past. nice job. Great guest and discussion, I would love to see Dr. Trobisch interacting with some of your peers.
@@christopherlord3441 yes, it is great to allow scholars to fully express themselves… although i think it might come at the cost of more fully exploring those ideas through dialog
Very enlightening. It always baffles me why so few other scholars raise issue with the omniscient Third Person narrator in the Gospels. That in itself smacks of fiction writing.
"modern" genre conventions are based on ancient ones, by and large. Nothing new under the sun and all that. Alsoz the gospels fit neatly into literary conventions of the period, as does the acts of the apostles, being that the "acts of" was in itself a travelogue trope of the Roman period. If I'm not mistaken, even the official Roman newspape was called "Acts of the Day" but don't quote me on that. @@jeffmacdonald9863
This is not a new revelation. I recall reading German church historian Karlheinz Deschner. One of his works, published in 1980, is titled 'The Falsified Belief'. The author demonstrates in detail how the gospels and various church dogmas were created. His books were not translated into English.
Jacob, I've tuned in to a ton of this type of content over the past decade or more and your channel is simply the best. Allowing the guest to talk and not framing over worded BS questions is a breath of fresh air.
I just bought the book! So glad to see Dr. Trobisch back. His arguments from your last interview really changed my thinking, along with the Patristica group. Looking forward to this.
The thing is, if Trobisch is even half right about this, then most "critical scholars" are a joke. Dupes, almost all of them, reading the canonical letters of Paul as historical sources.
Scholars, most of which get their degrees for parroting what they have been told. Most aren’t critical thinkers. Oh, you got a degree, nice, come up with something new or be a puppet.
So, when someone says a Pauline letter was written in the first century, one should say a Pauline letter that shows up in the Marcionite collection was written in the first century but the edited canonical edition was completed when?
Great scholar,erudite humbleness and brilliantly realistic prespective. Ordering the book. Thank you Jacob for hosting Dr.David an episode that is truly enlightening.
Great interview! David Trobisch is always illuminating. Would be great to have him discuss things with Marcus Vinzent to sort out authenticity of Marcion’s Paul (Marcus now believes Marcion inherited the letters whereas Trobisch thinks Marcion produced them)!
Need to point out a major flaw with his argument. Star Wars is not about the future. It's a history about what happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away..."
I didn't expect to like this interview, because I thought it might go too far off the rails. Whether his name was ever Saul or Paul, I think some early church leader wrote at least some of the "authentic" letters of Paul. I of course knew that half of them have been very well demonstrated to be "inauthentic," and I knew that even the supposedly authentic ones were pastiches of different letters, not what they purport to be. But this interview helped me really consider the implications of what is known about those letters and the nature of religious literature writing early in the common era. As he says, we don't know that there wasn't an early leader who wrote the authentic letters, but we really don't know much about him even assuming there was. I suspect there was, because just wholesale inventing some of it would make less sense to me. Like all the stuff that makes Paul look like a petulant cult leader. I would think if one was completely inventing a heroic early church leader, one would leave out stuff like that. And the stuff that makes it clear that Paul was kind of buying himself into the original Torah-observant church with donations from his gentile flock. I guess that's kind of the criteria of embarrassment, which I don't generally agree with. But this is the kind of thing I really think they'd take out if they were just inventing a founder from scratch. And yet, even if my suspicion is correct and a guy existed who wrote earlier versions of the authentic letters, we have no way of knowing how well the extant versions of his letters reflect his opinions. Very interesting.
There's a whole lot of the NT that just doesn't make sense if it's all invented from scratch. Why present Paul as at odds with the earlier Torah-observant church at all? And then why use Acts to try to cover those differences? Why invent 4 conflicting, but interdependent Gospels, rather than just one coherent story?
Theoretically true, but it does push it right back to within a few years of the alleged events. In theory, Paul could have fallen for a hoax perpetuated by James and Peter about James's nonexistent brother, but that seems pretty far fetched. Obviously that doesn't mean the resurrection was real - some kind of post bereavement visionary experience is the more likely spark for that idea. But really, here we're talking about Paul himself being faked. The letters being invented at a later date by some other party, not about the letters as evidence for Jesus.
24 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@jeffmacdonald9863 He explained why. To move from a church based on Jesus to a church based on Christ. Readers from the 2nd century on identify more readily with Paul because his experience was through a vision rather than direct interaction with Jesus. I am not buying his argument tho', because of all the mundane minutia in Paul's letters that have nothing to do with anything. Paul's letters reveal a distinct personality. Whether the guy's actual name was "Paul" or not is kind of irrelevant. Why invent a person that nobody has ever heard of.
It still makes no sense. Pretend to discover some letters from some unknown preacher who you claim spread Christianity, founded churches and taught a different version of Jesus that nobody knows about? Just go out there and preach the new version yourself. That's what Paul did. (More accurately really, from what I understand of the consensus scholarship, what Peter and James did, since they were already teaching the importance of faith in the resurrection, just that you also had to keep the Law).
24 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@jeffmacdonald9863 And there's no doubt that there were preachers spreading various forms of christianity at the time, and that there was a shift from Jewish to Roman. Paul's letter are consistent with known events, so there's no reason to make it up.
The only words Paul even claimed to have heard from Jesus were "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me". He then takes that as his authority for dictating pretty much every aspect of Christianity, unilaterally revising Jewish law, "don't worry about circumcision, no longer required, as of right now, poof, law gone, you're welcome". Seems rather a long stretch.
I think Paul invented the entire thing. I just would love to know why.
24 วันที่ผ่านมา +2
Paul also claimed that the jesus cult existed before he converted. In fact, he discusses that at length, and with much better detail than his supposed vision.
@@chiararomano1818 Ignoring the navel-gazing of Churchianity, the Gospels (dozens of them as found at Nag Hammadi) were an attempt to create a Hebrew version of the Mystery Religions which dealt with the mysteries of Death and Rebirth. All the key myths such as Virgin Birth of a Son of God, Crucifixion and Resurrection/Rebirth are copied from older traditions and their true mystical meanings referring to attaining Gnosis are well known.
Jacob ty for your hard work. I really like your style and it appears you have a no nonsense nose for the truth...no sensationalism, just real hard possible facts. Love it! quickly becoming one of my favs, maybe most fav researcher, keeping these scholars on their toes. Peace.
If Dr. Trobish is suggesting that Marcion is the originator of the Pauline epistles, and he mentioned that these epistles are shorter than what we know are those in the present day canon, was such mentioned by those who criticized Marcion? For instance, Dr. Trobish mentioned that Marcion's version of the epistle to the Romans stopped at chapter 14, and yet the present day canon of Paul's epistle to the Romans has considerable extra text with chapters 15 and 16, such an omission would surely have been mentioned by his detractors.
that is the point. we do not have the marcion letters. We only can reconstruct them because the detractors explicitly say he removed chapter 15 and 16.
@@DominikPlaylists Sorry I missed that claim that the detractors explicitly said he removed them. If that is the case, then Marcion could not have been the originator of the Pauline letters, if that was Dr. Trobish's claim. I found his presentation somewhat confusing, quite frankly.
@@jamesshepherd6491 the pint is that the detractors were just lying to discredit him. it was these detractors who added chapter 15 and 16 to his more original versions.
I thought you said earlier that those omissions from Romans WAS mentioned by his detractors. I guess I will have to view this video for a second time. I find Dr. Trobish to be less than plain in his presentation, and I don't know if I can stomach listening to it again.
Hi Jacob. Could Prof. Trobisch be asked where in Talumd -- as he references at 14:50-15:01 - that the Talmud references the 'Poor" was a designation of the early church at Jerusalem rather than meaning the economicallly poor. Jerome concluded that Paul was referring to the apostolic church as the "Ebion" in Galatians -- "they asked me to remember the poor at Jerusalem" -- to be the self-designation of the church operating at Jerusalem under the 12's & James' jurisdiction. Thanks. Doug D.
26:25 Very important point! Literature, especially a single account, can rarely be relied on. It is important to get some kind of independent confirmation. And if the issue in question might have left archeological evidence, that's the direction to look. I like to remind people who claim there is next to no evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great that there is in fact _lots_ of contemporaneous archeological evidence of his existence as well as the events surrounding him.
True for Alexander, but he was a conquering Emperor. More normal people like Jesus and Paul don't leave the same kind of archeological evidence. No grand buildings to their honor in their lifetimes. No coins minted nor proclamations carved in stone. What would you expect to see from them?
Yes, but independent confirmation from other written sources can also work. Archeology has a lot of issues too. Like it teaches us that literally 100% correlation between where most ancient civilizations lived and where the most dry areas in the world are that preserve structures the longest. And it still somehow teaches that first crops were domesticated 10000 years after what is shown by DNA evidence.
Dr. Markus Vinzent doesn't believe he wrote them, he gathered them into the first new testament and brought them to Rome. Then the Church Fathers mangled the message. It's a really interesting perspective.
@@kosmicwizard I have also been following and trying to learn from Dr. Vinzent & colleagues about fhe key role of Marcion & his collection. Given the scale of opposition to it, it seems amazing the scholars have as much material as they do. Anyway, as a normie layperson, I rely heavily on the opinions trustworthy scholars. That said, it is a puzzle to me that prior to Marcion the trail apparently goes cold and there is neither reception history nor external attestation of Paul's letters. Dr. Trobisch makes a strong case that the letter collection is a literary construct to help folllowers place themselves in the sect's beliefs and practices. I think Dr. Vinzent, or perhaps Dr. Bilby, noted in another video that the lexicography of Marcion's letter collection + Evangelion match. Plus the narrative of sea and ship travel may be a common literary trope of the time but also Marcion was a weatlhy educated ship magnate. I live in Utah and have gone down a deep Mormon studies rabbit hole, leading me back into Xian studies. Joseph Smith Jr dictated the Book of Mormon to scribes in relatively short order after years of rehearsing many of the stories to family + KJV bible study of his own. I think it is totally plausible that Marcion became familiar with early Christ followers in his travels ad perhaps proto-Mark, and eventually authored the entire thing, dictating to scribes as wealthy patrons would do. The Book of Mormon is a bit of a hot mess in terms of narrative and theological consistency. We need not assume one primary author must also be fully clear and consistent, especially 2K, not just 200, years later in terms of manuscript evidence.
@@dennythedavinchi3832 Ever studied Mormonism and Joseph Smith Jr? Why do any authors or storytellers ever produce anything? We have evolved as highly social storytelling apes as a means of community cohesion, power, influence, and sometimes just a creative impulse.
@@kosmicwizard I think the "proof" that he did not even realize is that nobody after Marcion knew that the 3 pastoral letters were forged until modern times. Every single other canon that included Paul's letters included the pastorals or a part of them.
47:30 It's really great to hear someone focus in hard on what real evidence there is for the existence of Paul. This really clarified things a lot for me.
@@thomasprislacjr.4063 There is forgiveness of a particular sin, like David's adultery. There is also a final judgement to decide on eternal life. At that judgement only Christ's propitiating sacrifice avails. Else as Paul says our faith is in vain. 1 Cor. 15:14.
Actually they're not, including the story of Noah's Ark. They're completely different stories with completely different points. The only similarity is the flood, but a flood story can be found in every ancient story around the world.
The New Testament myths (including Virgin Birth of a Son of God, Crucifixion and Resurrection/Rebirth) in the Gospels [dozens of them as found at Nag Hammadi] were all copied from older Mystery Religions and other traditions and are allegories referring to the attainment of Gnosis.
We have two different authors here: one Paul, the one writing letters. Whether the letters are seen as genuine or not by most scholars, there is no letter that mentions a shipwreck. Then there is another author, referred to as Luke. In his book that we call "Acts of the apostles", he describes the shipwreck. The first author could very well be a person writing letters, and others could have faked letters in his name or edited them. The second could then have writing a fictional story about him and his life and companions, describing.
I very much enjoy and appreciate these talks. Thanks so much. It's so fascinating to learn 9 out of 10 of the written letters during that time weren't actually authored by the author. I think the whole thing was and is a giant propaganda and control mechanism. I'm a seer and I don't see these stories as facts. I was in a strict southern Baptist 'school'. Forced to memorize and quote the King James Bible. I've never felt actual magic from any of those people. My gut instinct is that they used propaganda to control the masses back then just as much as today. Even more perhaps. Why would it surprise anyone, especially considering how much control the church did end up exerting over populations that would otherwise not bow to Jewish lords. It's so strange that Christians vehemently dislike Jews but are worshiping the Jewish God, bloodlines, stories. It's absurd.
I haven’t heard the name Trobisch since we read « I loved a girl » in the late 60’s at Bible camp in Wisconsin, so I looked it up and sure enough, Walter Trobisch, your guest’s father, was the author!
That people 2-3thousand years ago still believed in magic is no surprise, science was new and untested at that time. That people in the last two centuries still believe in magic is testament to the power of those books to own minds through fear and ignorance.
I believe in God and Jesus, as I was raised to. However, one thing to remember is that every religious script known to man was indeed, written by the hand of other men. As we know, man is corruptible. I say, go with what your heart tells you. Be a good human being, do your best. Let God sort it out.
Good episode from a great scholar! We consider Marcion to have been losing side, but we also consider Paul to have been on the winning side. This seems like a contradiction to me. Marcion may not have prevailed on his concept of the deity, but I think he won on basically every other point.
Actually. Marcion was probably just an evolution of yet another earlier orthodoxy that is already lost. Marcion brought 10 letters to Rome. And then they forged 3 pastorals and built something on top of his gospel. But likely he or his friends did that to somebody earlier as we known out of the 10, at least 3 were still forged earlier.
I understand that Marcion's canon of Christian scriptures was the first such canon, and when Marcion was declared a heretic, this urged the 'Church' to create it's own canon. Perhaps the Muratorian canon was its first attempt in the late second century AD. I loved the video. Thanks so much.
@@cbmacs Thanks. That seems odd to me though since it was near the end of the 4th century that the NT canon was firmly established, and the Muratorian was far from complete. I will look into this further. Thanks again.
Actually the earliest mention of any collection is by Papias probably around year 110AD, so 20-30 years earlier than Marcion as far as I am aware. We know there is a gospel of Matthew but we can be 100% sure it has nothing to do with what we know as gospel of Matthew. The problem is that what Papias mentions are things so lost to history we can't even really speculate about them.
@@DominikPlaylists Thanks. So, I am still wondering what point or points was the video trying to present. I guess I can write it all off as a big waste of time. Thanks again.
@@jamesshepherd6491 that Marcion was a source for Mark, Matthew, and Luke. People consider these books very sacred so understanding how they came about is interesting to many.
You have presented a well thought out and cogent arguement. You convincingly posited that rather than an expression of the Word of God, the New Testament is merely a contrivance of men. You expertly expose the historic unreliability of the men involved w/ it's compilation and compare contemporary writers and writings for additional context. As i quickly scrolled through your video titles, i notice many (not all) seem focused on discrediting christianity. This is ok, but your channels "About " section begins: "History Valley podcast is a world history/religious history channel...". I did not come across any titles that suggested similar type critiques/examination of the Torah. Surely, the historic unreliability of writers in the Torah writing period is even greater, and even less is known about the collection of writers involved in it's compilation not to merit a similar critique as presented here regarding the NT. I think it's of value to focus on the subjects on this channel, I just respectfully suggest, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that you are more clear on what this channel is actually "About". Granted, I did not review your entire archive or dive into the other content yet, so if i'm mistaken i sincerely ask forgiveness.
I'm really trying to figure out, if Marcion was first. A mystical or spiritual intuition of "the Christ" would be a grand concept imo. I think with the tools academia and scholars have available they could determine which was first however there is debate. Perhaps my confidence in literary scholarship is misplaced if they can not get consensus on which was first thru their tools of academia. hmmm
There is just a lot of inertia in the academia so scholars are rather restraint when they talk about sensitive topics like this. I actually spent many many hours researching what historical analysis tells us. Marcion was undoubtedly earlier than canonical gospels, there should be no debate on purely historical grounds. But the kicker is that he was not the first and likely just one of many iterations of what was orthodox.
There is no doctrine within Christianity that Bible books are the infallible words of God and it is heretical to treat them that way. They were originally collected for their usefulness and popularity, nothing else.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 maybe but I do believe many Christians today absolutely think every word of the english translation is the true word of God and many others at least think it's inspired. I myself believe it's all a man-made creation as the morals and knowledge of god seem to be on par with the morals and knowledge of men at the time. Nothing divine there at all.
24 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
@@kubhlaikhan2015 so...they are the fallible words of god?
So a lot of fiction, fake, contradictions, fabrication. N a lot quite untrue n fallible. Some stories n antecedents are not even from the jewish god or people. So the bible is then not sacred. How much is fake@@kubhlaikhan2015
Ya like Isaiah 7 14 when the church deleted the part that says," is with child " the part that shows the woman was already pregnant when Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz.
24 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@cpnlsn88 why would anyone assume that, given church leaders' repression of heretics.
generally you delete a word or a sentence, but not a chapter in the middle of a book. Example, the lord of the rings. You can delete the name Rivendell from every place and just call it an elven city and the readers would likely never notice. But if you delete a whole chapter about going to Rivendell, it would be obvious to everyone something is missing.
8:04. Marcion clearly writes that Jesus descended from the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was never born. Jesus, like God, has been there from the very beginning. “Before Abraham I was”
It seems to me that the Catholic Church was so successful in creating a beautiful myth of its origin that it created a movement that wanted to go directly to the beautiful but fictional sources and believed that the pope and the Catholic Church stood in the way. I.e. that it created its own downfall!
A fascinating perspective Although, one wonders why Paul and his disputes with the super apostles would have been invented from whole cloth. Also, as i understand it, there are the “genuine” letters that seem to cohere stylistically to evidence originating from a single author
Yeah, the NT really makes no sense as any kind of coherent creation. It's the work of multiple authors, over decades, addressing different issues from different viewpoints and with different theologies. Why, as you say invent Paul's disputes with other apostles? While implying those apostles are already leaders in the movement? Why write one stylistically coherent set of letters claiming to be from Paul, then add more that differ both stylistically and in their message and concerns, but that also claim to be from Paul? Why write 4 distinct Gospels, with distinct messages, that copy from each other, but also introduce contradictions?
Dr carrier says acts is complete fiction but Paul’s letters were real, what if Paul was writing imaginary bullcrap to imaginary churches? But I think the scholars say these churches were real and had responded to letters of Paul.. so he’s probably real Paul writing about Jesus was all celestial Christ, Paul used midrash and pesher techniques using imagination via the OT messiah verses like Daniel
Well, even if Jesus and Paul were fake, somebody did write all these teachings. Maybe his name was Marcion or Apollonius or Joey Sixpack, but it's can't be just fabrications all the way down. At least with modern tools we know large fragments of the 7 letters were written by the same person.
@DominikPlaylists somebody writing the letters and Paul being a real person is two different things. In fact the conclusion that half of those letters were written by "not Paul" kind of proves my point. Paul doesn't need to have existed and the contents of the letters can be complete BS, while the letters still exist. Responses to those letters would be great, I've done a cursory search for them and didn't find anything. Letters TO Paul would be great. Or some historian writing about a serial murderer named Saul who was killing Christians... seems like something someone might write down. The fact he "changes his name" from Saul to Paul is more support that someone can just make up a person whole cloth because Paul actually doesn't exist since he is Saul. Once you start adding up all these deets, he starts to look like a made up guy. But I agree someone wrote the letters, just like someone wrote the inauthentic ones.
@@thetruest7497 yeah, I am very skeptical for the same reasons you are however I find it much more historically likely somebody existed who had these kinds of ideas and that it was not just Marcion sitting on the porch and saying, "you know what would be fun, inventing my own cinematic universe and a theology to go with it".
@DominikPlaylists someone had the ideas, that's why they're written down. But whether or not that person had the biography we see for Paul is the question. The inauthentic letters are precisely what you are claiming is less likely. Someone (we don't know who) sitting on the porch making 💩 up. I liken it to the Netflix show Bridgerton and character Lady Whistledown.
How did you know ?? Ask the internet : Is Bible passage has a captain of fifty? ° - then connect the Washington Times journal: Inside the Ring : China weighs use of nuclear weapons in space ° Read Revelation 6 : 13 Deuteronomy 28 - 23 - 24 ✨
The modern plural is "brothers." Surprised you don't know that. What's your native language? Nobody has been saying "bretheren" since the 16th century.
@@donnievance1942 what is your native language? The plural brethren is generally used for members of an organization, especially a religious body, whereas the plural brothers is used in the familial sense as well as for larger groups.
Even according to OT scripture, Gods law is for all of man, 2 examples: Ecclesiastes 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. Please also see: - Isaiah 66:18-24 (ALL flesh will bow before me, people from different nations will become preists and Levites) - Exodus 12:48-49 - Numbers 15:15-16 - Leviticus 24:22 - Numbers 9:13-14 - Genesis 7:1, 6:8, 6:9 (God saved Noah because of his righteousness, not his bloodline) - Isaiah 56: 6-7 (a house of prayer for all nations, their burnt offerings will be accpeted)
Even Jerome knew in the 300's that the original Matthew was still in a library for reference or translating - dated before 40 CE. The rest was invented - but not the original Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew. Paul was a certified liar and idiot. "Romans Proves Paul Lied - Have We Inherited Lies From Our Fathers?" Read that one! We all have altered accounts.
I think the whole of trying to decipher the ancient writings is fallacy in that no reasonable comparison is done with earlier eastern texts.. At this point we all know the old testament and new testament are bogus; how about some real etymology? It is all hot air unless you take it in as a global assessment. Almost all western literature I have heard or seen of antiquity is just a reflection of earlier eastern acknowledgement; or Sumerian/ Babylonian. The 42 laws of Maat are a great example of Biblical plagiarism.
Why stop at the new Testament.. the Old testament the Vedas , the Quran and continue with the whole world history, European Asian and African . The whole thing and even this channel it's fake news.
No, the writter of Luke says he is not a eye witness but is taking down testimony from eye witnesses. All the gospels are anonymous. Paul says he heard from christ on the Damascus road that one time but all his teaching comes from him and was very wrong on many issues such as Hebrews 9 22 states, there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. That is incorrect as there are many examples of people achieving forgiveness in the Hebrew scriptures with prayer and repentance only. If you can be forgiven with sincere repentance before Jesus came then why is he needed?
@@dirtypickle77Luke says that he writing of "things accomplished amoung us" which he has "followed closely" . Obviously he is saying that he is an eye witness. He adds that there are (other) eye witnesses.
WTF is this nonsense about "Theophilus as the implied publisher who assembles the collection"? Or it being presented to the public while Paul is in Rome? Or even the NT being published a century after Paul's death? None of that fits anything we know about the early history of the Bible. Traditionally or as critical scholars have tried to reconstruct it.
Politics n power. Never change. The bibles were just another tool for power as was the religion as abused. Human history is just such. No difference. Looking at Gaza, I puke to think those brutes are chosen by God lol
The omniscient narrator, yeah the word, in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god. Your just coming to the realization of the fact the it is the luteral word of God, paul wrote the letters, moses wrote the pentatuech but God made all things, he made paul and moses. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not made anything that was made. Jesus is the narrator. Man this guy has a lot to learn.
Please. The Quran cannot be fabricated because it has higher intelligence in its writings as a sign of its authenticity. We Muslims are not that dim-witted. 💯✅✅
At the origin of Islam is a Jewish Christianity that held that Jesus is the Messiah but not divine. The word “Muhammad” was originally a title for the Jewish Messiah. It is taken from the Song of Songs (5:16). The first “Muhammad” was Jesus! If you read the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in this light you can see how “Muhammad” and Jesus are nearly interchangeable. Only much later, in the 8th or 9th century, did Muhammad come to be regarded as the Arabian prophet. The Hadith provide all the “biographical” information concerning Muhammad, and they come from the 8th and 9th century.
The shroud of turin is authentic. The carbon dating was from a piece of the cloth that was added later. There is no explanation for how it could have been made. It is the burial cloth of the resurrected Christ.
I don't know if the shroud of Turin is authentic but even if it were that would only prove Jesus was buried. That would not be a very earth shattering revelation for either christians or non-christians.
@@charlesjoyce982 my point is that even I was certain it was Jesus burial cloth, "burst of energy" is not even a thing. I can come up with some ways how the image could have been created, but a "burst of energy" is just a term from a Red Bull commercial, nothing else.
Cheap ad hominem. Dr. Trobisch's language was a little strong, but I hear him arguing for a lot less certainly about the authenticity of Paul's letters, rather than alleging that the letters are probably inauthentic. That no one in the 2d Cent. argues that Paul didn't exist or was unimportant strongly supports the conclusion that he did exist and did write at least some influential letters about Christianity. How many is debatable. The Ebionites attacked Paul as a heretic and a liar, but they seem to accept his influence as real.
This video didn't assert that Paul wasn't historically real-- only that his purported letters are likely literary redactions of whatever he may have actually written, and they have an uncertain status in regard to any item of their contents.
@donnievance1942 Unless what he actually wrote can stand alongside what we have, no valid assertion of that kind can be legitimately made. It's all imaginary. Thede is nothing in the extant Paul we have that could not have been penned by him.
Trobisch was the scholarly expert in residence at the Museum of the Bible in DC, playing a crucial role in sorting out the myths from the artifacts of history. And he is not alone in his views. They are shared by a vibrant and growing group of scholarly experts today (Vinzent, BeDuhn, Tyson, Klinghardt, Nicolotti, Gramaglia, Poirier, Litwa, Nina Livesay, myself, and many others). Our work builds on, but goes well beyond, the shared views of many of the leading German scholars of the mid-19th century who pursued early Christian history as a science, not a cottage industry of early orthodox myth-reinforcement.
@markgbilby You sound like a bookflap blurb. And did not answer my direct allegation. How does a museum curator "separate myth from artifact" legitimately; just curious. The world of biblical archaeology is loaded with these clickbait poseurs lol.
@@James-ll3jb Plenty of juicy and very specific details on this very thing are to be found in the saga of Dirk Obbink written up by the investigative journalist Ariel Sabar.
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
➡📚 amzn.to/3YUwoYd
So your theory is the new testament was fabricated by the Catholic Church to condemn the Catholic Church and orthodox church as the great apostasy. And then proceeded to fulfill their own prophecy about the little horn power which lines up perfectly with Daniel. It's sad people like you can make money lieing to people like this.
Jacob, your emotion was on a much higher level than in the past. nice job. Great guest and discussion, I would love to see Dr. Trobisch interacting with some of your peers.
Also, Franz Kafka is a philosopher king
@@jackpatterson8389❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ qp
Very interesting. Also the format of allowing these knowledgeable scholars to talk at length without trying to steer or interrupt them is very good.
That's where Jacob excels. 😊
@@christopherlord3441 yes, it is great to allow scholars to fully express themselves… although i think it might come at the cost of more fully exploring those ideas through dialog
Very enlightening. It always baffles me why so few other scholars raise issue with the omniscient Third Person narrator in the Gospels. That in itself smacks of fiction writing.
Believers claim “it was God witnessing to the unwitnessable”
@@BagzAndPresident Be interesting to compare to other similar biographical works of the time.
I'd hesitate to use modern genre conventions to judge.
"modern" genre conventions are based on ancient ones, by and large. Nothing new under the sun and all that.
Alsoz the gospels fit neatly into literary conventions of the period, as does the acts of the apostles, being that the "acts of" was in itself a travelogue trope of the Roman period.
If I'm not mistaken, even the official Roman newspape was called "Acts of the Day" but don't quote me on that. @@jeffmacdonald9863
Thanks Jacob. Keep up the good work 🎉
This is not a new revelation. I recall reading German church historian Karlheinz Deschner. One of his works, published in 1980, is titled 'The Falsified Belief'. The author demonstrates in detail how the gospels and various church dogmas were created. His books were not translated into English.
I bet he wasn't to popular back in the 80s with a message like that.
Jacob, I've tuned in to a ton of this type of content over the past decade or more and your channel is simply the best. Allowing the guest to talk and not framing over worded BS questions is a breath of fresh air.
Thanks Jacob Berman for bringing another great guest!
I just bought the book! So glad to see Dr. Trobisch back. His arguments from your last interview really changed my thinking, along with the Patristica group. Looking forward to this.
Yea but jacob needs to have more energy
No. He is listening intently..
He's probably Canadian, Septics can't keep quiet for more than 30 seconds...
Great guest! Planning to buy his new book soon.
Finally, the argument that must be made.
Excellent interview - thank you Jacob ❤
The thing is, if Trobisch is even half right about this, then most "critical scholars" are a joke. Dupes, almost all of them, reading the canonical letters of Paul as historical sources.
Yep. That's the point.
They are. And?
Scholars, most of which get their degrees for parroting what they have been told. Most aren’t critical thinkers. Oh, you got a degree, nice, come up with something new or be a puppet.
So, when someone says a Pauline letter was written in the first century,
one should say a Pauline letter that shows up in the Marcionite collection was written in the first century
but the edited canonical edition was completed when?
Great scholar,erudite humbleness and brilliantly realistic prespective.
Ordering the book.
Thank you Jacob for hosting Dr.David an episode that is truly enlightening.
This was a good one. A keeper.
Great lecture by David! Hope he is back soon!
Great interview! David Trobisch is always illuminating. Would be great to have him discuss things with Marcus Vinzent to sort out authenticity of Marcion’s Paul (Marcus now believes Marcion inherited the letters whereas Trobisch thinks Marcion produced them)!
Need to point out a major flaw with his argument. Star Wars is not about the future. It's a history about what happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away..."
Good point. He loves using Harry Potter analogies, too. I don't think either work
I didn't expect to like this interview, because I thought it might go too far off the rails. Whether his name was ever Saul or Paul, I think some early church leader wrote at least some of the "authentic" letters of Paul. I of course knew that half of them have been very well demonstrated to be "inauthentic," and I knew that even the supposedly authentic ones were pastiches of different letters, not what they purport to be. But this interview helped me really consider the implications of what is known about those letters and the nature of religious literature writing early in the common era.
As he says, we don't know that there wasn't an early leader who wrote the authentic letters, but we really don't know much about him even assuming there was. I suspect there was, because just wholesale inventing some of it would make less sense to me. Like all the stuff that makes Paul look like a petulant cult leader. I would think if one was completely inventing a heroic early church leader, one would leave out stuff like that. And the stuff that makes it clear that Paul was kind of buying himself into the original Torah-observant church with donations from his gentile flock. I guess that's kind of the criteria of embarrassment, which I don't generally agree with. But this is the kind of thing I really think they'd take out if they were just inventing a founder from scratch. And yet, even if my suspicion is correct and a guy existed who wrote earlier versions of the authentic letters, we have no way of knowing how well the extant versions of his letters reflect his opinions. Very interesting.
There's a whole lot of the NT that just doesn't make sense if it's all invented from scratch. Why present Paul as at odds with the earlier Torah-observant church at all? And then why use Acts to try to cover those differences? Why invent 4 conflicting, but interdependent Gospels, rather than just one coherent story?
Theoretically true, but it does push it right back to within a few years of the alleged events. In theory, Paul could have fallen for a hoax perpetuated by James and Peter about James's nonexistent brother, but that seems pretty far fetched.
Obviously that doesn't mean the resurrection was real - some kind of post bereavement visionary experience is the more likely spark for that idea.
But really, here we're talking about Paul himself being faked. The letters being invented at a later date by some other party, not about the letters as evidence for Jesus.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 He explained why. To move from a church based on Jesus to a church based on Christ. Readers from the 2nd century on identify more readily with Paul because his experience was through a vision rather than direct interaction with Jesus. I am not buying his argument tho', because of all the mundane minutia in Paul's letters that have nothing to do with anything. Paul's letters reveal a distinct personality. Whether the guy's actual name was "Paul" or not is kind of irrelevant. Why invent a person that nobody has ever heard of.
It still makes no sense. Pretend to discover some letters from some unknown preacher who you claim spread Christianity, founded churches and taught a different version of Jesus that nobody knows about?
Just go out there and preach the new version yourself. That's what Paul did. (More accurately really, from what I understand of the consensus scholarship, what Peter and James did, since they were already teaching the importance of faith in the resurrection, just that you also had to keep the Law).
@@jeffmacdonald9863 And there's no doubt that there were preachers spreading various forms of christianity at the time, and that there was a shift from Jewish to Roman. Paul's letter are consistent with known events, so there's no reason to make it up.
Great guest. Fascinating.
I have thought Paul was a fictional character for a while.
The only words Paul even claimed to have heard from Jesus were "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me". He then takes that as his authority for dictating pretty much every aspect of Christianity, unilaterally revising Jewish law, "don't worry about circumcision, no longer required, as of right now, poof, law gone, you're welcome". Seems rather a long stretch.
I think Paul invented the entire thing. I just would love to know why.
Paul also claimed that the jesus cult existed before he converted. In fact, he discusses that at length, and with much better detail than his supposed vision.
@@chiararomano1818 Ignoring the navel-gazing of Churchianity, the Gospels (dozens of them as found at Nag Hammadi) were an attempt to create a Hebrew version of the Mystery Religions which dealt with the mysteries of Death and Rebirth. All the key myths such as Virgin Birth of a Son of God, Crucifixion and Resurrection/Rebirth are copied from older traditions and their true mystical meanings referring to attaining Gnosis are well known.
Jacob ty for your hard work. I really like your style and it appears you have a no nonsense nose for the truth...no sensationalism, just real hard possible facts. Love it! quickly becoming one of my favs, maybe most fav researcher, keeping these scholars on their toes. Peace.
If Dr. Trobish is suggesting that Marcion is the originator of the Pauline epistles, and he mentioned that these epistles are shorter than what we know are those in the present day canon, was such mentioned by those who criticized Marcion? For instance, Dr. Trobish mentioned that Marcion's version of the epistle to the Romans stopped at chapter 14, and yet the present day canon of Paul's epistle to the Romans has considerable extra text with chapters 15 and 16, such an omission would surely have been mentioned by his detractors.
that is the point. we do not have the marcion letters. We only can reconstruct them because the detractors explicitly say he removed chapter 15 and 16.
@@DominikPlaylists Sorry I missed that claim that the detractors explicitly said he removed them. If that is the case, then Marcion could not have been the originator of the Pauline letters, if that was Dr. Trobish's claim. I found his presentation somewhat confusing, quite frankly.
@@jamesshepherd6491 the pint is that the detractors were just lying to discredit him. it was these detractors who added chapter 15 and 16 to his more original versions.
I thought you said earlier that those omissions from Romans WAS mentioned by his detractors. I guess I will have to view this video for a second time. I find Dr. Trobish to be less than plain in his presentation, and I don't know if I can stomach listening to it again.
It's 100% proven that Marcion had Paul's epistles first. No question about it.
Hi Jacob. Could Prof. Trobisch be asked where in Talumd -- as he references at 14:50-15:01 - that the Talmud references the 'Poor" was a designation of the early church at Jerusalem rather than meaning the economicallly poor. Jerome concluded that Paul was referring to the apostolic church as the "Ebion" in Galatians -- "they asked me to remember the poor at Jerusalem" -- to be the self-designation of the church operating at Jerusalem under the 12's & James' jurisdiction. Thanks. Doug D.
Thanks!
Wow! Powerful video! I now understand why Paul is so critical in the Jesus myth! Thank you!
26:25 Very important point! Literature, especially a single account, can rarely be relied on. It is important to get some kind of independent confirmation. And if the issue in question might have left archeological evidence, that's the direction to look. I like to remind people who claim there is next to no evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great that there is in fact _lots_ of contemporaneous archeological evidence of his existence as well as the events surrounding him.
True for Alexander, but he was a conquering Emperor. More normal people like Jesus and Paul don't leave the same kind of archeological evidence. No grand buildings to their honor in their lifetimes. No coins minted nor proclamations carved in stone.
What would you expect to see from them?
Yes, but independent confirmation from other written sources can also work. Archeology has a lot of issues too. Like it teaches us that literally 100% correlation between where most ancient civilizations lived and where the most dry areas in the world are that preserve structures the longest. And it still somehow teaches that first crops were domesticated 10000 years after what is shown by DNA evidence.
Exellent. Thanks for the interview.
Thank you. Watching from Alaska. 🤔
Straight forward, but still don't get what made Marcion write this kind of confusing motivated literature from first time.
Dr. Markus Vinzent doesn't believe he wrote them, he gathered them into the first new testament and brought them to Rome. Then the Church Fathers mangled the message. It's a really interesting perspective.
@@kosmicwizard I have also been following and trying to learn from Dr. Vinzent & colleagues about fhe key role of Marcion & his collection. Given the scale of opposition to it, it seems amazing the scholars have as much material as they do.
Anyway, as a normie layperson, I rely heavily on the opinions trustworthy scholars. That said, it is a puzzle to me that prior to Marcion the trail apparently goes cold and there is neither reception history nor external attestation of Paul's letters. Dr. Trobisch makes a strong case that the letter collection is a literary construct to help folllowers place themselves in the sect's beliefs and practices. I think Dr. Vinzent, or perhaps Dr. Bilby, noted in another video that the lexicography of Marcion's letter collection + Evangelion match. Plus the narrative of sea and ship travel may be a common literary trope of the time but also Marcion was a weatlhy educated ship magnate.
I live in Utah and have gone down a deep Mormon studies rabbit hole, leading me back into Xian studies. Joseph Smith Jr dictated the Book of Mormon to scribes in relatively short order after years of rehearsing many of the stories to family + KJV bible study of his own.
I think it is totally plausible that Marcion became familiar with early Christ followers in his travels ad perhaps proto-Mark, and eventually authored the entire thing, dictating to scribes as wealthy patrons would do. The Book of Mormon is a bit of a hot mess in terms of narrative and theological consistency. We need not assume one primary author must also be fully clear and consistent, especially 2K, not just 200, years later in terms of manuscript evidence.
@@dennythedavinchi3832 Ever studied Mormonism and Joseph Smith Jr? Why do any authors or storytellers ever produce anything? We have evolved as highly social storytelling apes as a means of community cohesion, power, influence, and sometimes just a creative impulse.
@@kosmicwizard I think the "proof" that he did not even realize is that nobody after Marcion knew that the 3 pastoral letters were forged until modern times. Every single other canon that included Paul's letters included the pastorals or a part of them.
Thanks
47:30 It's really great to hear someone focus in hard on what real evidence there is for the existence of Paul. This really clarified things a lot for me.
"This must stop!" I completely agree.
The old Testiment was just a rip off of Akkadian and Sumerian tales. Do that video next.
@@thomasprislacjr.4063 And not the history of Israel ⁉️
@@thomasprislacjr.4063 There is forgiveness of a particular sin, like David's adultery. There is also a final judgement to decide on eternal life. At that judgement only Christ's propitiating sacrifice avails. Else as Paul says our faith is in vain. 1 Cor. 15:14.
there are already 1000s of videos on that though. old news.
Actually they're not, including the story of Noah's Ark. They're completely different stories with completely different points. The only similarity is the flood, but a flood story can be found in every ancient story around the world.
The New Testament myths (including Virgin Birth of a Son of God, Crucifixion and Resurrection/Rebirth) in the Gospels [dozens of them as found at Nag Hammadi] were all copied from older Mystery Religions and other traditions and are allegories referring to the attainment of Gnosis.
I need to watch again. There were some comments offered as asides that really stopped me cold!
“Paul” and Josephus have the same “shipwrecked in Malta” story, with a shitload of parallels in each narrative. That was a perception changer for me.
We have two different authors here: one Paul, the one writing letters. Whether the letters are seen as genuine or not by most scholars, there is no letter that mentions a shipwreck.
Then there is another author, referred to as Luke. In his book that we call "Acts of the apostles", he describes the shipwreck. The first author could very well be a person writing letters, and others could have faked letters in his name or edited them.
The second could then have writing a fictional story about him and his life and companions, describing.
I very much enjoy and appreciate these talks. Thanks so much. It's so fascinating to learn 9 out of 10 of the written letters during that time weren't actually authored by the author.
I think the whole thing was and is a giant propaganda and control mechanism. I'm a seer and I don't see these stories as facts. I was in a strict southern Baptist 'school'. Forced to memorize and quote the King James Bible. I've never felt actual magic from any of those people. My gut instinct is that they used propaganda to control the masses back then just as much as today. Even more perhaps. Why would it surprise anyone, especially considering how much control the church did end up exerting over populations that would otherwise not bow to Jewish lords. It's so strange that Christians vehemently dislike Jews but are worshiping the Jewish God, bloodlines, stories. It's absurd.
Great guy! Very sophisticated
I haven’t heard the name Trobisch since we read « I loved a girl » in the late 60’s at Bible camp in Wisconsin, so I looked it up and sure enough, Walter Trobisch, your guest’s father, was the author!
I think it's interesting the Marcionite collection includes non-authentic Pauline letters like 2Thess, Eph, Col.
But the Marcionite gospel supposed to be an edition of the Gospel of Luke.
Always love your right to the point questions. Hope you are well!
Great guest, very informative. I learnt a lot. Keep Up the good work
That people 2-3thousand years ago still believed in magic is no surprise, science was new and untested at that time. That people in the last two centuries still believe in magic is testament to the power of those books to own minds through fear and ignorance.
I believe in God and Jesus, as I was raised to. However, one thing to remember is that every religious script known to man was indeed, written by the hand of other men. As we know, man is corruptible. I say, go with what your heart tells you. Be a good human being, do your best. Let God sort it out.
Good episode from a great scholar! We consider Marcion to have been losing side, but we also consider Paul to have been on the winning side. This seems like a contradiction to me. Marcion may not have prevailed on his concept of the deity, but I think he won on basically every other point.
Actually. Marcion was probably just an evolution of yet another earlier orthodoxy that is already lost. Marcion brought 10 letters to Rome. And then they forged 3 pastorals and built something on top of his gospel. But likely he or his friends did that to somebody earlier as we known out of the 10, at least 3 were still forged earlier.
I really adore you Jacob! I’m new to your channel and happy I found you! Great work!
If they could only find one, which one would you want, Q gospel or Marcion's bible?
I vote for Dead Sea scrolls. They probably give us better view of original christianity than either of these 2.
🎉🎉😊 good stuff!!
I understand that Marcion's canon of Christian scriptures was the first such canon, and when Marcion was declared a heretic, this urged the 'Church' to create it's own canon. Perhaps the Muratorian canon was its first attempt in the late second century AD. I loved the video. Thanks so much.
Several to many scholars now date the Muratorian List to the 4th century
@@cbmacs Thanks. That seems odd to me though since it was near the end of the 4th century that the NT canon was firmly established, and the Muratorian was far from complete. I will look into this further. Thanks again.
Actually the earliest mention of any collection is by Papias probably around year 110AD, so 20-30 years earlier than Marcion as far as I am aware. We know there is a gospel of Matthew but we can be 100% sure it has nothing to do with what we know as gospel of Matthew. The problem is that what Papias mentions are things so lost to history we can't even really speculate about them.
@@DominikPlaylists Thanks. So, I am still wondering what point or points was the video trying to present. I guess I can write it all off as a big waste of time. Thanks again.
@@jamesshepherd6491 that Marcion was a source for Mark, Matthew, and Luke. People consider these books very sacred so understanding how they came about is interesting to many.
You have presented a well thought out and cogent arguement. You convincingly posited that rather than an expression of the Word of God, the New Testament is merely a contrivance of men. You expertly expose the historic unreliability of the men involved w/ it's compilation and compare contemporary writers and writings for additional context. As i quickly scrolled through your video titles, i notice many (not all) seem focused on discrediting christianity. This is ok, but your channels "About " section begins: "History Valley podcast is a world history/religious history channel...". I did not come across any titles that suggested similar type critiques/examination of the Torah. Surely, the historic unreliability of writers in the Torah writing period is even greater, and even less is known about the collection of writers involved in it's compilation not to merit a similar critique as presented here regarding the NT. I think it's of value to focus on the subjects on this channel, I just respectfully suggest, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that you are more clear on what this channel is actually "About". Granted, I did not review your entire archive or dive into the other content yet, so if i'm mistaken i sincerely ask forgiveness.
The whole channel is deception. Its sick but I can only hope Christ can forgive them!
I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on revelations.
I'm really trying to figure out, if Marcion was first. A mystical or spiritual intuition of "the Christ" would be a grand concept imo. I think with the tools academia and scholars have available they could determine which was first however there is debate. Perhaps my confidence in literary scholarship is misplaced if they can not get consensus on which was first thru their tools of academia. hmmm
There is just a lot of inertia in the academia so scholars are rather restraint when they talk about sensitive topics like this. I actually spent many many hours researching what historical analysis tells us. Marcion was undoubtedly earlier than canonical gospels, there should be no debate on purely historical grounds. But the kicker is that he was not the first and likely just one of many iterations of what was orthodox.
Marcion being a Gnostic is probably why not much from him is extant.
This is a fresh one.
Fictional latter are canonized as Inspired word of god and are presented as such in a book called bible
There is no doctrine within Christianity that Bible books are the infallible words of God and it is heretical to treat them that way. They were originally collected for their usefulness and popularity, nothing else.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 maybe but I do believe many Christians today absolutely think every word of the english translation is the true word of God and many others at least think it's inspired. I myself believe it's all a man-made creation as the morals and knowledge of god seem to be on par with the morals and knowledge of men at the time. Nothing divine there at all.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 so...they are the fallible words of god?
So when did God get his Press pass? Or did he write under a pseudonym?
So a lot of fiction, fake, contradictions, fabrication. N a lot quite untrue n fallible. Some stories n antecedents are not even from the jewish god or people. So the bible is then not sacred. How much is fake@@kubhlaikhan2015
That was awesome.
The Romans kept records.What do they have to say?
What is this guy saying by _you cannot delete, you can only add_
We have a lot of examples of deletions.
I'm assuming there is a tendency to add rather than delete when one manages the text.
Ya like Isaiah 7 14 when the church deleted the part that says," is with child " the part that shows the woman was already pregnant when Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz.
@@cpnlsn88 why would anyone assume that, given church leaders' repression of heretics.
generally you delete a word or a sentence, but not a chapter in the middle of a book. Example, the lord of the rings. You can delete the name Rivendell from every place and just call it an elven city and the readers would likely never notice. But if you delete a whole chapter about going to Rivendell, it would be obvious to everyone something is missing.
@@DominikPlaylists
Matthew omits whole pericopes in Mark. Luke disregards 2 of 20 pages in Mark, even if he could access that content in Mathew.
At 1:01:53 he says it’s fictional? What is fictional?
8:04. Marcion clearly writes that Jesus descended from the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was never born. Jesus, like God, has been there from the very beginning. “Before Abraham I was”
It seems to me that the Catholic Church was so successful in creating a beautiful myth of its origin that it created a movement that wanted to go directly to the beautiful but fictional sources and believed that the pope and the Catholic Church stood in the way. I.e. that it created its own downfall!
A fascinating perspective Although, one wonders why Paul and his disputes with the super apostles would have been invented from whole cloth. Also, as i understand it, there are the “genuine” letters that seem to cohere stylistically to evidence originating from a single author
Yeah, the NT really makes no sense as any kind of coherent creation. It's the work of multiple authors, over decades, addressing different issues from different viewpoints and with different theologies.
Why, as you say invent Paul's disputes with other apostles? While implying those apostles are already leaders in the movement? Why write one stylistically coherent set of letters claiming to be from Paul, then add more that differ both stylistically and in their message and concerns, but that also claim to be from Paul?
Why write 4 distinct Gospels, with distinct messages, that copy from each other, but also introduce contradictions?
Interesting. Once I came to the conclusion that Jesus was a complete fabrication I looked towards Paul. Paul too seems to be a created character.
Dr carrier says acts is complete fiction but Paul’s letters were real, what if Paul was writing imaginary bullcrap to imaginary churches? But I think the scholars say these churches were real and had responded to letters of Paul.. so he’s probably real
Paul writing about Jesus was all celestial Christ, Paul used midrash and pesher techniques using imagination via the OT messiah verses like Daniel
Well, even if Jesus and Paul were fake, somebody did write all these teachings. Maybe his name was Marcion or Apollonius or Joey Sixpack, but it's can't be just fabrications all the way down. At least with modern tools we know large fragments of the 7 letters were written by the same person.
@DominikPlaylists somebody writing the letters and Paul being a real person is two different things. In fact the conclusion that half of those letters were written by "not Paul" kind of proves my point. Paul doesn't need to have existed and the contents of the letters can be complete BS, while the letters still exist. Responses to those letters would be great, I've done a cursory search for them and didn't find anything. Letters TO Paul would be great. Or some historian writing about a serial murderer named Saul who was killing Christians... seems like something someone might write down. The fact he "changes his name" from Saul to Paul is more support that someone can just make up a person whole cloth because Paul actually doesn't exist since he is Saul. Once you start adding up all these deets, he starts to look like a made up guy.
But I agree someone wrote the letters, just like someone wrote the inauthentic ones.
@@thetruest7497 yeah, I am very skeptical for the same reasons you are however I find it much more historically likely somebody existed who had these kinds of ideas and that it was not just Marcion sitting on the porch and saying, "you know what would be fun, inventing my own cinematic universe and a theology to go with it".
@DominikPlaylists someone had the ideas, that's why they're written down. But whether or not that person had the biography we see for Paul is the question. The inauthentic letters are precisely what you are claiming is less likely. Someone (we don't know who) sitting on the porch making 💩 up.
I liken it to the Netflix show Bridgerton and character Lady Whistledown.
I’d like to hear dr Richard carrier debate this guys work
I bet a bunch of Christians would get a kick out of this interview and make their day.😂
How did you know ??
Ask the internet :
Is Bible passage has a captain of fifty? °
- then connect the Washington Times journal:
Inside the Ring : China weighs use of nuclear weapons in space °
Read Revelation 6 : 13
Deuteronomy 28 - 23 - 24
✨
Marcion was clearly not first. The gospel uses the Jewish scriptures to create the narrative. So no matter what he is derivative
The word ' brother' does have a plural, you know. "Brethren."
The modern plural is "brothers." Surprised you don't know that. What's your native language? Nobody has been saying "bretheren" since the 16th century.
@@donnievance1942 what is your native language? The plural brethren is generally used for members of an organization, especially a religious body, whereas the plural brothers is used in the familial sense as well as for larger groups.
So does the old.
STAR WARS takes place in the past. It literally says that in the first frame of the film.
Is it reasonable to assert that people would allow themselves to be executed for something they knew to be a lie? It's just a thought.
The collection for the poor of jerusalem isn't in vinzents marcionite Paul, fwiw
Robbing Peter to pay Paul when Paul is an allegory .......Wallmark of the Cozen ones!👏🏽😆🤣
The new Testament makes up less than half of the Christian scriptures.
Mark...Marc...Marcion?
that is what you get for translating to English via 4 other languages. It should read "Μᾶρκον... Μᾶρκον..... Μᾶρκίον?"
Meanwhile in another world. I AM SPARTACUS!!! Do you not understand, yet ? I wash my hands of this matter , the choice is yours. 🌎✌️🌍
What is the 666th usage of the name jesus in the new testament
depends on the language and version.
Of course it was! It was created to allow Gentiles to worship a Hebrew God.
Even according to OT scripture, Gods law is for all of man, 2 examples:
Ecclesiastes 12:13
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.
Please also see:
- Isaiah 66:18-24 (ALL flesh will bow before me, people from different nations will become preists and Levites)
- Exodus 12:48-49
- Numbers 15:15-16
- Leviticus 24:22
- Numbers 9:13-14
- Genesis 7:1, 6:8, 6:9 (God saved Noah because of his righteousness, not his bloodline)
- Isaiah 56: 6-7 (a house of prayer for all nations, their burnt offerings will be accpeted)
Even Jerome knew in the 300's that the original Matthew was still in a library for reference or translating - dated before 40 CE.
The rest was invented - but not the original Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew. Paul was a certified liar and idiot.
"Romans Proves Paul Lied - Have We Inherited Lies From Our Fathers?" Read that one! We all have altered accounts.
Ghost writing is an old profession.
I think the whole of trying to decipher the ancient writings is fallacy in that no reasonable comparison is done with earlier eastern texts.. At this point we all know the old testament and new testament are bogus; how about some real etymology? It is all hot air unless you take it in as a global assessment. Almost all western literature I have heard or seen of antiquity is just a reflection of earlier eastern acknowledgement; or Sumerian/ Babylonian. The 42 laws of Maat are a great example of Biblical plagiarism.
No it wasn’t actually. But I did enjoy your little fairy tale.
Why stop at the new Testament.. the Old testament the Vedas , the Quran and continue with the whole world history, European Asian and African . The whole thing and even this channel it's fake news.
Who fabricated the New Testament ❓️Why❓️Luke begins by saying that he is an eye witness. Paul says that he received the gospel from Christ.
No, the writter of Luke says he is not a eye witness but is taking down testimony from eye witnesses. All the gospels are anonymous. Paul says he heard from christ on the Damascus road that one time but all his teaching comes from him and was very wrong on many issues such as Hebrews 9 22 states, there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. That is incorrect as there are many examples of people achieving forgiveness in the Hebrew scriptures with prayer and repentance only. If you can be forgiven with sincere repentance before Jesus came then why is he needed?
@@dirtypickle77 Though Paul almost certainly didn't write Hebrews.
@ Please check. John’s gospel and Revelation. What are you trying to prove❓
@@dirtypickle77 Luke is writing about “narrative of things ACCOMPLISHED ANOUNG US”. Eye witness testimony DELIVERED TO US”❗️
@@dirtypickle77Luke says that he writing of "things accomplished amoung us" which he has "followed closely" . Obviously he is saying that he is an eye witness. He adds that there are (other) eye witnesses.
Or ponder (Neville Goddard Justified States.)
worshiping words that nobody can agree on
Jews?
WTF is this nonsense about "Theophilus as the implied publisher who assembles the collection"? Or it being presented to the public while Paul is in Rome? Or even the NT being published a century after Paul's death?
None of that fits anything we know about the early history of the Bible. Traditionally or as critical scholars have tried to reconstruct it.
Politics n power. Never change. The bibles were just another tool for power as was the religion as abused. Human history is just such. No difference. Looking at Gaza, I puke to think those brutes are chosen by God lol
The omniscient narrator, yeah the word, in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god. Your just coming to the realization of the fact the it is the luteral word of God, paul wrote the letters, moses wrote the pentatuech but God made all things, he made paul and moses. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not made anything that was made. Jesus is the narrator. Man this guy has a lot to learn.
So was the Koran.
How so?
Please. The Quran cannot be fabricated because it has higher intelligence in its writings as a sign of its authenticity. We Muslims are not that dim-witted. 💯✅✅
Listen from the 57 minute mark.
At the origin of Islam is a Jewish Christianity that held that Jesus is the Messiah but not divine. The word “Muhammad” was originally a title for the Jewish Messiah. It is taken from the Song of Songs (5:16). The first “Muhammad” was Jesus! If you read the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in this light you can see how “Muhammad” and Jesus are nearly interchangeable. Only much later, in the 8th or 9th century, did Muhammad come to be regarded as the Arabian prophet. The Hadith provide all the “biographical” information concerning Muhammad, and they come from the 8th and 9th century.
The title of this video is itself a LIE. He is talking about Paul's letters while claiming that the New Testament is fabricated ‼️
Thanks for the unsupported assertion.
Did you even watch the video?
The shroud of turin is authentic.
The carbon dating was from a piece of the cloth that was added later.
There is no explanation for how it could have been made.
It is the burial cloth of the resurrected Christ.
I don't know if the shroud of Turin is authentic but even if it were that would only prove Jesus was buried. That would not be a very earth shattering revelation for either christians or non-christians.
@DominikPlaylists
The image was produced miraculously by His resurrection. The event resulted in an enormous burst of energy that made the image.
@@charlesjoyce982 my point is that even I was certain it was Jesus burial cloth, "burst of energy" is not even a thing. I can come up with some ways how the image could have been created, but a "burst of energy" is just a term from a Red Bull commercial, nothing else.
@@DominikPlaylists
Lets hear those ways.
you can have your view, but it's just an opinion. there are other scholars who say the gospels were first. you haven't proven anything.
No sane person questions the historical existence of Paul.This guy is an excellent examole of self-delusion.
Pathetic.
It was all Made Up. Paul, Jesus, Ringo and all the others.....
Cheap ad hominem. Dr. Trobisch's language was a little strong, but I hear him arguing for a lot less certainly about the authenticity of Paul's letters, rather than alleging that the letters are probably inauthentic. That no one in the 2d Cent. argues that Paul didn't exist or was unimportant strongly supports the conclusion that he did exist and did write at least some influential letters about Christianity. How many is debatable. The Ebionites attacked Paul as a heretic and a liar, but they seem to accept his influence as real.
This video didn't assert that Paul wasn't historically real-- only that his purported letters are likely literary redactions of whatever he may have actually written, and they have an uncertain status in regard to any item of their contents.
@donnievance1942 Unless what he actually wrote can stand alongside what we have, no valid assertion of that kind can be legitimately made. It's all imaginary. Thede is nothing in the extant Paul we have that could not have been penned by him.
This man is intellectually disingenuous
Trobisch was the scholarly expert in residence at the Museum of the Bible in DC, playing a crucial role in sorting out the myths from the artifacts of history. And he is not alone in his views. They are shared by a vibrant and growing group of scholarly experts today (Vinzent, BeDuhn, Tyson, Klinghardt, Nicolotti, Gramaglia, Poirier, Litwa, Nina Livesay, myself, and many others). Our work builds on, but goes well beyond, the shared views of many of the leading German scholars of the mid-19th century who pursued early Christian history as a science, not a cottage industry of early orthodox myth-reinforcement.
@markgbilby You sound like a bookflap blurb. And did not answer my direct allegation.
How does a museum curator "separate myth from artifact" legitimately; just curious.
The world of biblical archaeology is loaded with these clickbait poseurs lol.
@@James-ll3jb Plenty of juicy and very specific details on this very thing are to be found in the saga of Dirk Obbink written up by the investigative journalist Ariel Sabar.
The Septuagint is the source of all of it!!
how was Mathew mark(Luke] and John, Luke,,,