Imagine trying to understand the Star Wars universe, if fanfic was all that remained. Would you be able to reconstruct the original movie trilogy, using only the fan fiction as your source material? I wouldn't have faith in the accuracy of such a reconstruction.
Dr. Tabor - There seems to have been a major shift in biblical scholarship that places Marcion's Gospel at the beginning. I am thinking of the work of Klinghart, BeDuhn, Vinzent, Trobisch, and others. Why is Marcionite priority not included in these larger discussions? Am I missing something?
Great comment. I too have been waiting for Dr Tabor to engage with this scholarship and at least make some preliminary critiques. He is generally very open to new understanding.
I should clarify that my question is not directed at Dr. Tabor... it is directed to Dr. Tabor. I'm just interested in learning why this major shift isn't being discussed more... It seems like the synoptic problem is moving strongly in the direction of Marcionite priority. This has been well documented relatively recently by Mark G. Bilby, PhD.
@ It's a bit more complicated than that... I suggest you start with "The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon," by Jason BeDuhn. That will catch you up to speed on the direction contemporary scholarship is moving. Important books have been subsequently published, but that book is a great introduction.
_"I don't understand why anyone follows the teachings of Paul."_ Paul created Christianity in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophecy expired unfulfilled.
@@jamesharkins6799correct, but the reason why will be hard for many Christians to accept. The historical Jesus is King Izates II of Osorene. He was an Essenes mystic who established the Military Order of the Nazarene (Scythian Enaree) which the Knights Templars are a recreation of and are whom the Jedi in Starwars are partly an inspiration of. The Essenes were part of the 2nd Temple era Judaism, which is today the Freemasonry which developed out of the Knights Templars chapters. The knowdgle of which is derived from the 5 Egyptian mystery schools established by the Hyksos-Egyptian viceroy ‘Joseph’, son of Jacob (Yacub-Har) whose entire Egyptian name was Zaph-Nath Ptah-Neith meaning ‘Nath, Son of Ptah and Neith’ referring to the Egyptian Gods of creation. This is quite the contrast to the modern ‘Judaism’ which is really Edomism aka Pharisees Jewishism. Paul is Yosef Ben Mattityahu (Matthew) who was commander of the legion of galille turned slave of Commander Vespasian who then fled with Izates II to Edessa. By the time of the Judean revolt of 70AD he betrayed King Izates/Jesus and joined Vespasian who adopted him receiving the name Josephus Flavius. Josephus helps Vespasians son Titus defeat Izates/Jesus who was crucified, but Josephus overcame with grief and took him down, much to Vespasians discontent. Vespasian then exiled Izates/Jesus, having the Legio II Adiutrix transport him to Britannia where he was then held at the Deva Virtix fort in what is now Chester, England. After this ordeal, Vespasian instructed Jospehus to pacify the Judeans of Nationalism, turning them into a global peoples. He did this by stripping apart the 50 books of the Old Testament down to 27, which he then reformatted using the Gamaliel interpretation of the Talmud to produce the New Testament. In it, he goes by ‘Saul’ as Yosef, then ‘Paul’ as Josephus. The Judeans were then subjugated using the New Testament, producing the first Christian’s. By Constantine’s time the network of these Christian’s were used to circumvent Romes bloated beuracracy to connect with the people, giving them power which they then used to kill off Constantine’s entire bloodline and root themselves into power over Rome, which became the Ity (State) of the Christian’s.
I have a theory (with very little evidence) that Saul of Tarsus is the grandson of a Cilician Pirate, who was given Roman citizenship. He has knowledge of the mysteries, and is able to turn the story of Jesus into a Mystery adaptable religion. There are a few passages in Acts, like when the Synagogue of Freedmen come to test Stephen and then give false witness about him, Cilicia is specifically mentioned. When Saul is taken by the Roman guard and he says he comes from "no ordinary city" it sounds like the kind of code language that secret societies use to recognize each other, and he is then granted permission (while being arrested) to give a speech before the crowd. He also tells the Captain that he was given Roman citizenship at birth.
Any thoughts on the possibility of the Gospel of Thomas being an early source? It's a collection of sayings with no narrative. Stevan Davies wrote a book about it with his insights to the meanings of the teachings.
@@herinshyes, the version we have is older than Q. BUT I find it highly likely it is a copy of an earlier quotes gospel with some sectarian additions, but with the majority if not all of the early quotes maintained. It shares 80% of its quotes with the Synoptics in some form, I think they all derived from the same source that Thomas is most indicative of.
@@slicktrickyesI tend to agree, although I think the version we have may not be identical to the foundational version that is from the mid first century likely originating in Syria or Jordan (as in I think if we are to find an early copy it’ll likely be in one of those places, although possibly someplace in Lebanon or maybe southern Turkey along the coast of the Mediterranean somewhere, although maybe it’s just in the Vatican vault).
Is Quelle similar to the Gospel of Thomas? Could it really be just a list of teachings? I wonder if we’ll ever uncover a hard copy of the source-wouldn’t that be absolutely reMARKable?
You are almost there. Not sure why you did not identify Mark with Paul (and link to the Septuagent). You are probably correct about Matt being a cutdown (which had material repeated (or sourced from?) the Didache, which I would associate with James the Just. What makes Luke and Acts different? Peter, and James and John (whose mother was Salome the sister of Jesus - who probably sourced Infancy story) and because they were on Tabor and so knew that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnate.
@@ChrisMusante please explain how anyone would think that John’s gospel is “gnostic”. It bears no such resemblance. There was no such thing as orthodoxy in CE 150!
While the Gospel of John is not typically classified as a Gnostic text in the classical sense, it does contain some elements and themes that are similar to those found in Gnostic texts. Some scholars have noted that the Gospel of John shares certain affinities with Gnostic thought, such as: 1. Dualism: John's Gospel presents a strong dualism between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, which is reminiscent of Gnostic dualism. 2. Mystical language: John's Gospel uses mystical language, such as the concept of the "Logos" (Word), which is similar to Gnostic terminology. 3. Esoteric knowledge: John's Gospel suggests that Jesus imparted secret knowledge to his disciples, which is a theme common in Gnostic texts. However, it's essential to note that the Gospel of John is still firmly rooted in Jewish-Christian tradition and is not a Gnostic text in the same vein as, for example, the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocryphon of John. Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann have explored the Gnostic elements in John's Gospel, but most scholars today consider it a unique blend of Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic influences, rather than a purely Gnostic text.
Mainstream is that the different gospels were used by different communities and that there might have been a Johannine Community where John's gospels and letters originated. Similarly, there was a Marcionite community that used Marcion's gospel, and the community who wrote the last version of the Didache that used Matthew's gospel and called it The Gospel in the Didache. . . . Some communities might have united against Marcion's community and against the Ebionite communities and threw their gospels together (while agreeing to disagree about when to celebrate Easter). Those some communities became the proto-orthodox.
Isn't the Evangelion of Marcion Proto-Luke circa 144AD? i.e. therefore derived from Proto-Mark circa 135AD and none of them are before 100AD, if Mark was "First"
Although, he may have spoken to them in his youth. In my late '60s I now recall clearly conversations with elderly people in my youth, discussions about events now a century in the past. Also, these authors may have been collecting notes for decades prior to publishing their completed work.
Mark would have been in Alexandria circa 65ad (after Nero's persecution). Perhaps he wrote his Gospel from memory using information received from Peter while in Rome before 64ad. . Matthew left Jerusalem perhaps 55ad, travels to parts in the East, then travels to Ethiopia circa 67ad to find Mark's Gospel. As a true Apostle that walked with Jesus, he then expands upon that gospel. He is then martyred circa 68ad. Luke has a copy of both gospels from Mark and Matthew and perhaps others. Luke is a true 'Pauline' and he fashions his gospel towards the Acts of the Apostles, which was largely about Paul. Luke's gospel has the most embellishment which may come from 'Q.' John, another true Apostle that walked with Jesus, indeed known as John the Beloved, takes issue with all of the previous gospels and tries to focus his gospel on the spiritual teachings of Jesus. He is less concerned about the historical Jesus and more concerned about transcending the current reality.
Dr Price and other repeaters claim the Gospel of Thomas knows nothing of a crucifixion. However, one verse runs something like: " blessed is he who has crucified the world and has no one left to crucify them"
Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the most severe crimes that included, as a punishment, being left on the cross to die a slow death and denied a proper burial ritual; to be left to rot and be eaten by carrion as an example to others. It is absolutely absurd to claim that Jesus was given the most severe punishment available, scourged, nailed to a cross, and then permitted to be taken down on the same day for a proper burial. If there was no intent to leave him on the cross as an example they could have killed him in any number of more mundane ways - and what need for the titulus crucis? But Christians will cite other verses of the Bible to try and demonstrate, despite claiming they were harsh oppressive overlords, the Romans were really very chummy with the Israelite's and did whatever they were asked. Biblical claims are not worth considering - especially if they can't even provide, for instance, a single contemporary claim, outside the Bible, that Roman's had a tradition of releasing seditious prisoners. Another claim is that Josephus said 'the crucified were taken down and buried before sunset' - but, he wasn't talking about Romans, he was referring to the Idumeans and what happened before the Romans arrived. And it isn't even clear that these burials occurred - "Josephus wants to stress that those whom the Idumeans killed were dishonored: they were not given decent burials. He contrasts this heinous behavior with that of “the Jews,” who allegedly buried even crucified victims in accordance with the Law of Moses, before sunset." - Ehrman There is also a passage About Josephus requesting some crucified friends (still alive) be taken down from the cross. But, if it happened, he also claims, at the time, to have been on a mission as an 'envoy of Caesar', and went directly to Caesar to request they be saved. There isn't even a scrap of evidence that Joseph of Arimathea existed to ask that Jesus be taken down - or that he had any authority to do so (or that the Romans were so conveniently the bad guys, or good guys, depending on a need to advance the story). We also hear assertions that the Romans commonly gave the bodies of the executed to family for burial. But every instance I've seen of this says 'the executed', not 'the crucified' - which again, was the most severe punishment and included defilement of the body. I don't dispute those executed by more mundane methods may have been allowed a proper burial. Lastly, there was apparently an ossuary found with the remains of a crucified person, but this is just bones in a box- It doesn't mean the remains weren't recovered after the body had been decayed - or furtively removed from some death pit after the fact.
And the voice was misquoted at the Jordan baptism from psalm 2:7 "This is my Son, today I have begotten thee". For OBVIOUS reasons. But once you read Romans 1:3-4 you figure out the virgin birth is a myth added to the story. The virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth was clearly defined thruout the OT. It is NOT a woman named Mary and her firstborn is not a man named Jesus.
The gospels are surely filled with allegory and metaphor and were never meant to be taken as literal. But someone, probably John the Baptist or James actually did write incredible spiritual truths which were also edited by Rome. Paul is a false character who was used to take John's teachings and distort them. That is easy to assertain. The epistles contradict themselves within the same books and even same chapters. It's a sloppy job of editing, but easy to divide out the truth. I believe John was the Son of the High Priest who went rogue as at one point he gathered with the High Priest and leaders in the temple as part of his family and leaders. You have to read carefully to notice it. So yes, I do believe John was anointed by God to reveal a new covenant but I don't believe most of the gospel stories.. especially those with ridiculous miracles like coins in fishes mouths, walking on water, Lazarus resurrection, Jesus resurrection story. All metaphor and edited on top of that. Such a shameful mess and deception over 2k years.
34:40 Some interesting verses that could explain why Jesus didn't let the would-be disciple go and bury his father: Numbers 19::14 "Whoever touches one [..] who has died naturally, [..] shall be unclean seven days." Numbers 19::22 "Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be unclean until evening." Numbers chapter 6 "The Nazirites" Numbers 6::7-8 "Even if their father or mother, brother or sister, should die, they may not defile themselves, because their consecration to God is upon their head. All their days as nazarite they are holy to the Lord." Numbers 6::12 "The former time shall be void because the nazarite was defiled." And Jesus was likely a nazarite.
Mat Goodwin ( praise to him for speaking out) but I feel like saying , where has he been for the last 50 years while an isolationist Muslim community has been growing in my home town and now at a wild guess occupying at least a third of the local township and spreading further and further into the suburbs. Must be much more than 6% of the population here, more like 26% . It's not news ! Been going on way before the 2000s, where has he been? Its old news not new news !!
My answer would have been " You are my beloved son..." But isn't this problem just a perspective problem? I mean from Christ's perspective God would have said "You are my..." As he was speaking to him, but the rest of the crowd probably heard the same meaning the only way to properly write that down as far as the boys were concerned would have been to write it, "This is my beloved son..." Because God wasnt talking to them he was talking to Jesus ...? No?
No offense James but I'm tired of Greek primacy , the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic : th-cam.com/play/PLt6BmToNiaSejbAHN36-gAPRLka0G2FDN.html&si=EyaVP4gWFaRYYXNB
Sorry to break it to you, but Jesus’ teachings were his interpretation of something like the previous 5000 years or more of Eastern philosophy! Nothing but nothing about Christianity is original - not the virgin birth, not the cross, not the crucifixion, nor what he taught!
I completely disagree with the entire "Q" hypothesis. One reason for this is because it uses the late writing of the Gospels. However, if the Gospels were written as late as these scholars suggest, why is the persecution of Christians by Nero, the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 never mentioned in any of the four Gospels? Surely the Gospel writers would have pointed to the destruction of the Temple and say, "See, Jesus' prophecy was correct!" They don't. Why does Luke include things in his Gospel (and Acts) that only people of that time (AD 50-AD60) would have known? When you look at it in the historical context of events (like when the Apostles died) and other writings from the period, the "Q" hypothesis falls apart. Indeed, although there are similarities amongst the Gospels, the differences in how things are presented support different authors, not a common source. If you had a common source, everything would agree. There are modern scholars who give a date for the writing of Mark (writing down Peter's statements) to around AD 50, with Luke interviewing people and writing around AD 53 (with Acts written around AD 60, before James' martyrdom in AD 61). Matthew was probably written around the same time as Luke, suing Mark as the basis, with John likely written sometime later, but still before AD 70. I would also point out that one reason why the late writing of the Gospels was accepted. It is because of Jesus' prophecy that the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. However, using a prophecy as an excuse to post-date the Gospels is ridiculous. Anyone who was paying close attention to the politics and animosity that the Jews had towards the Romans during the 1st Century AD would have realized that the whole thing was going to blow up eventually, and that it was highly likely that the Temple would be destroyed in the ensuing war. It would be like saying that John Brown's prediction that the US would be plunged into a civil war should be ignored and his statement on the gallows attributed to an anonymous writer after 1865 because it was a prophecy. It is patently absurd.
@@EvilXtianity The comparison of the Covenant Standards from 3000 years ago - unknown in Synagogue or Temple of Jesus days - when compared to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew are a nearly perfect match - and the original Standards easily expose the alterations Rome made to Matthew. This is the proof Elohim said to use to know a true prophet from a false prophet. Those teachings are now found in our Deuteronomy 4, 12,13, 18, and are easily shown to be based on the ancient account. The "Standards" are the unaltered Decrees, Blessings, and Curses as an indivisible unit. THE VALEDICTION OF MOSES by Idan Dershowitz was published in 2021, and is in effect 'Proto-Deuteronomy' of about 3 pages, not 34 chapters we now have. Judaism altered the Covenant of Elohim, and Jesus teachings were restoring what Judaism stole from mankind - modern proof Jesus had to be inspired by God - and proof Matthew (Hebrew or Aramaic) is likely the only book of the NT that is needful. Do a web search for "Romans Proves Paul Lied" and "Onediscipletoanother".
@@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536 Haven't read the book, but have had interest in any question needing resolution. From what I learned, the Hebrew Matthew had no virgin birth narrative - was charged against the early Jewish Christians. I regularly follow the YT channel "Jesus Words Only", and Douglas has done videos on this matter specifically. For myself, the teachings of Jesus are the focus of Matthew and the gospel of Jesus, having long ago concluded most of the rest of the NT isn't worthy of study - spurious writings promoted by Rome. The genealogy fits when a minor correction is made to say Joseph was the father of Jesus.. No one has the records to check - and Luke defies known genealogy. God said the determination of a true prophet from a false prophet is found in what they teach - not who gave birth to them...
@@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536 Not personally, but Douglas Deltondo of "Jesus Words Only" YT channel has at least one video message about it - Jospeh was the father of Jesus. Jesus was 'begotten' at his baptism by John - otherwise that account doesn't make sense, and it's the only Oracle of God in the Psalms.
lol what i like most abut the shroud is that it shows a dead guy. if only someone had thought to do some animation instead of one big still frame. we already knew jesus was dead, it's the "coming back to life bit" that needs attention.
It's a dead guy whose proportions are all out of whack and certainly not a first century person from Israel. Surely if a tri-omni god wanted to give us decent proof that his quasi-human son got wrapped up in such cloths he could've performed a better miracle.
@@cygnustsp "It's a dead guy whose proportions are all out of whack..."_ The anatomical proportions of the figure depicted on the Shroud do not match those of an actual human, but conform to the proportions of the Gothic art of the Fourteenth Century. On a typical human the head from the top of the eyebrows to the top of the skull forms around 40% of the head. But on the Shroud the head from the eyebrows up forms only 25% of the head. This shortening of the upper part of the head is a typical anatomical mistake made by first-time life artists. Further, the head is 5% too large for the body.
_"The Native tongue Matthew dates to before 40 CE..."_ Are you asserting Matthew spoke and wrote in high-level Greek? When know Matthew is dated to after 70 AD because the authors of Mark and Matthew both describe paying a Temple tax that was enacted after 70 AD and that Matthew copied Mark.
@@herinsh Prior to 70 AD the local currency was the Tyrian Shekel which was collected by the Temple for tithes and offerings and also formed the civil currency used by Rome in the area. This currency was forcibly imposed by Rome when Pompey Magnus conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC. After 70, Rome decided to punish the Jews by making them pay for a renovation of a Temple to Jupiter in Rome in place of the normally required sacrifices to Roman gods. This tax (Imperial Tax) was paid in the Denarius, which bore the image of the current emperor Vespasian. Roman citizens were specifically excluded from the tax requirement. Mark and Matthew both wrote about paying this tax.
@@herinsh The tax was initially imposed by Roman emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War, or first Jewish revolt of AD 66-73. The tax was imposed on all Jews throughout the empire, not just on those who took part in the revolt against Rome. The tax was imposed after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 in place of the levy (or tithe) payable by Jews towards the upkeep of the Temple. The amount levied was two denarii, equivalent to the one-half of a shekel that observant Jews had previously paid for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem. The tax was to go instead to the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, the major center of ancient Roman religion. The fiscus Iudaicus was a humiliation for the Jews. In Rome, a special procurator known as procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum was responsible for the collection of the tax. Only those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it.
@@EvilXtianity Nope. You are aware that Jerome knew of the Original Matthew, and it was not Greek? Focus on the teachings of Jesus - the rest is questionable.
Your reasoning that Mark made a "mistake" in Mark 1:2 and that Matthew also saw it as a mistake and did some handiwork to cover up Mark's ineptitude when editing Mark's gospel account for inclusion into his own gospel account, would force me to wonder about 1. Mark's reliability and qualifications as a gospel writer 2. Matthew's willingness to conceal an error made in Mark's gospel, and 3. Your Patience in seeing a matter through to a more logical conclusion than points 1 & 2 being the most likely solutions to the Mark 1:2 "problem". Perhaps you should keep in mind that in the original there are no verse separations by number, meaning that, Mark obviously had in mind the Isaiah quote, which immediately follows the Malachi quote, and, of course, is on the same subject, which Malachi's verse introduces, leading to the Isaiah quotation. Do you truly think Mark did not know whose book he was quoting when he introduced the Isaiah quote he had referenced with a Malachi quote? Should Mark have taken five minutes to stop and explain to his Gentile audience who he was quoting for each syllable when he was simply trying to bring home a strong point from Isaiah that made the best identifying reference to his own calling? My personal opinion is that you are reading too much into Luke's motives. You do not only have Luke moving the remarks of John the Baptist to another spot, but you have Luke changing the quotation from one John the Baptist made, to Luke inserting it as a Jesus quote to fit the line in, with the motive of concealing Mark's "mistake" at the same time. For me, that is a heck of a stretch and it's apparently based on your motive to cite examples of your theory at work, that of Matthew editing Mark. And if you're correct, neither Mark or Matthew should have been given the honor of having their apparently very "shady" gospel accounts preserved in the Bible. Or do they get a pass because Mark was only guilty of *one* mistake, and Luke, of only *one* instance of concealing error.
Israel becoming a nation in 1948 does not fulfill Bible prophecy! “One left, one taken” does to teach the rapture doctrine invented in 1830 AD, but was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD when the “Christians were taken” when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20) and fled the city as Jesus instructed. When Jesus talked of the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, Matt 24 and Luke 21, he made no mention of the possibility of return and restoration. And Luke’s gospel is the one that sets out most clearly that all the promises of restoration are met in Jesus. The prophecies in the Bible mostly relate to events that have already past. The Jews were promised a return to their homeland after the Babylonian exile, which was fulfilled in Old Testament times, between 538 and 445 B.C. You can read about these in Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament (the Tanakh).
you have not carefully examined the historical nature of the prophetic realm in its cyclical nature, none of these historical events are complete fulfillments only partial. perhaps you should revisit the cronology of the tenach because much is yet to be fulfilled
Joshua 21:43- The Promise Fulfilled So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.
Noah had three son’s, one of them was Ham, the father of Africa. Ham had a son named Cush. Cush had a son named Nimrod. The Book of Jubilees mentions the name of "Nebrod" (the Greek form of Nimrod) only as being the father of Azurad, the wife of Eber and mother of Peleg (8:7). This account would thus make Nimrod an ancestor of Abraham, and hence of all Hebrews. The hieroglyphs in Misraim, It clearly depicts the Hebrew slaves with afros and beards.
Ancient Egyptians called their land kemet, meaning land of the blacks. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalm 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22; 1 Chronicles 4:40. Ham named his son Cush. Cushi" is a Hebrew term for a black person. Mistaken for Hamites Genesis 50:11 - And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said, This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians: wherefore the name of it was called Abelmizraim, which is beyond Jordan. Exodus 2:19 - And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock. Acts 21:38 - Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
I grew up Jehovah's Witness, left in 1997 when i realized their notion that the first century Christians were all united in the same belief and we had the same was absolute nonsense. It's still fascinating to me to try and figure out just what was going on, but there's no way they had any idea about only 144000 people going to heaven, or two different groups of Christian classes, or that everybody knew Jesus preexisted as God's first angelic creation, or that his resurrection was a glorious restoration of a spirit body, or that 1900 years later he would decide that the board members of the Watch Tower Society would be his visible leaders on earth that would be responsible for proclaiming to the nations that he had returned as king invisibly in 1914. And of course blood transfusions were wicked and shunning of former members was righteous. Thanks dr Tabor, great stuff as usual.
Dr. M. David Litwa as well as the Patristica TH-cam channel are amazing resources to see the impact that Marcion and his gospel had on Luke and history of church groups. Cheers.
The 144,000 were of the twelve tribes of Israel. The next sentence or so, mentions something to the effect of selected gentiles. I didn't notice that in my first couple readings.
I think since it talks about how God predestined some to be adopted and glorified before the foundations of the world were created is God's choice who is saved and who isn't.
I can appreciate your decision. The book about the αποκαλυπσισ to Yoannes (John) speaks of ONE people (chapter 7): He first heard Israel, the 12 tribes. All counted. Then he saw: From ALL nations AND tribes they come. They are ONE people, uncountable by man, and serve in (i.e. as) the temple and dwelling (ναοσ) of God. It is ONE people, one flock, from Israel and from the nations. He and they will be with mankind. He is the Coming One, ImmanuEl, the Son of Man.
@@cygnustsp The descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, will be Black. Noah had three son’s, one of them was Ham, the father of Africa. Ham had a son named Cush (a Black man). Cush had a son named Nimrod (a Black man) The Book of Jubilees mentions the name of "Nebrod" (the Greek form of Nimrod) only as being the father of Azurad, the wife of Eber and mother of Peleg (8:7). This account would thus make Nimrod an ancestor of Abraham, and hence of all Hebrews. The hieroglyphs in Misraim, It clearly depicts the Hebrew slaves with afros and beards.
will you make posts regarding julius africanus mention of relatives of jesus being leaders in judea, or about the jewish "bishops" of jerusalem ? (maybe even covering the apocrhypal work "epistle of james to quadratus")🙏
Family of Jesus: Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser had a daughter named Thea, the ‘Musa of Orania’. Augustus found her a slave girl and gifted her to Phraates IV, Cleoptars ex husband. Young Thea became his favorite concubine. Thea and Phraates IV produced a son, Phraates V, upon which Thea assassinated Phraates IV and made herself Queen Mother and her son King. Overtime Thea and her son would have an incest relationship. Thea and Phraates V produced Shalmath, the ‘Helena of Adiabene’, and her brother ‘Monabazus I’. They both had an incest relationship, producing Monabazus II (James) who became replaced his father as King of Adiabene. After the birth of Monabazus II (James), Monabazus I gifted Shalmath (Helena) to King Agbarus V of Osorene. They concieved a twins, Izates II (Jesus), and Judas (Thomas). But a scandal occured wherein Agbarus V thought he was Helenas 2nd children with her brother Monabazus I and they were deported back to Adiabene. Monabazus I, not wanting to have succession issues between Monabazus II and Izates II, had Izates II sent to the Kingdom of Characene in what is now Basra, Iraq. There he served on the Royal Court where he met his future wife Princess Symacho, the Mary of Magdalene. Mary the Wife, with whom he bore children. King Agbarus V loved Izates II, despite the scandals surrounding his birth, and communicated with him regularly. Eventually Kinf Agbarus V proclaimed Izates II his heir. Many Kings and Priests from the east would visit Agbarus V to meet his son Izates II, as per custom, not knowing the scandal. They came with gifts and money. This included a Garment and 30 pieces of silver, which he had sent to Izates II. Izates II kept the garment, but donated the silver to the Temple of Jerusalem. But the Pharisees of the Temple did not like Izates II, he was outspoken agaisnt usury, and conducted an investigation on them over corruption. The Pharisees manipulated his twin brother Judas (Thomas), paying him the 30 pieces of silver to dispose of his brother to become heir. But he was found out. Judas sought forgiveness, his punishment was being exiled to India with nothing but the cloths on his back. That is where the ‘Jesus in India’ story ark begins. But Judas is Thomas, not Jesus. When Izates II became King of Osorene, he adopted the title ‘Izas Manu IV’. ‘Izas Manu’ in Pahlavi Asaracid translated to ‘Iesus Rex’ in Imperial Roman, meaning ‘Sun King’ in English. Thus ‘Izas Manu IV’ means the ‘4th Sun King’. Later on, Iesus was latinaized to Jesus, and combined with the English translation of Rex to produce Jesus King, from which the popular phrase ‘Jesus is King’ is derived. The Sun King of Osorene, alternatively named after its capital Edessa (Sanlurfa) meaning ‘Heaven’. The Kingdom of Heaven, is the Kingdom of Osorene. Jesus refers to Izates II, and Thomas refers to his twin Judas. When the Judean revolt of 70AD occured, Izates/Jesus was defeated. Rome made his elder brother Monabazus II of Adiabene (James) King of Osorene. His wife Symacho, the Mary of Beothus, also known as Mary Magdala (Magdalene), fled to France. There her descendants established the House of Orange, and then Holland, and then the Kingdom of Netherlands. The modern day maternal descendant of Shalmath, the Mary of Magdala, is Princess Catharina-Amalia of Orange, heir to the Kingdom of Netherlands.
@@Achill101 Yeah you are right, I should have said that when Adam was created he was given dominion and rulership over the earth, which includes the subsequent practice of keeping the Sabbath which was made for humans after they were created. Animals don't keep the Sabbath.
@ezekielsaltar4728 - in the bible, many commandments don't seem to apply for people outside the covenant at Sinai. There's no indication in the bible that Adam or Noah or Abraham kept the Sabbath.
@@Achill101 Judaism believes that Abraham kept the Law/Torah. Noah had to know the Law to separate the clean and unclean animals. Adam probably kept the Sabbath since it was created right after his creation.
The Gospel of Thomas is Q, or rather proto-Thomas. Why isn't that obvious? Look Virtually all of Q1 is in it, and none of Q3. The only thing in Q1 clearly not in Thomas is the turn the other cheek/love your enemy, which the Didache says comes from Jesus' teachings, not Jesus (Paul who had good reason for enemies to be loved.)
@@joshuadavie3091 Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 "18-I also said to myself, "As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19-Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20-All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21-Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" 22So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?"
@@DwayneShaw1 great, a quote from before Jesus arrived to this earth and expounded upon some Jewish concepts. What you’ve quoted is not in context with what I am talking about.
Thomasine Priority: Thomas the Christ “In this India there is a scattered people, one here, another there, who call themselves Christians, but are not so, nor have they baptism, nor do they know anything about faith. Nay, they believe St Thomas the great to be Christ.” (Jordanus, Mirabilia Descripta, H. Yule (tr.), London, 1893, 31) Jesus had a family. Jesus the Christ was the spiritual Divine twinned to the physical man Judas Thomas "The Twin" and Judas Thomas' father was Judas of Galilee. Judas of Galilee was executed after leading a tax revolt against Rome in 6CE (Josephus), the exact same time a 12 yr old Jesus/Judas disappears for 17+ years before returning to begin his ministry. Judas of Galilee was heir to the Davidic line (Josephus), on his death his oldest son Jesus/Judas would have been heir aka King of the Jews, the real reason behind Jesus' crucifixion. Judas of Galilee had two sons executed in 46CE by the Romans (Josephus), named James & Simon, same as the named brothers of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels. Judas of Galilee was the founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Josephus), often associated with the Zealots movement, Simon the Zealot was a brother of Jesus according to the New Testament. Menahem ben Judah is claimed by some scholars to be a son of Judas of Galilee but the math doesn't work as Menahem was present in the Jewish conflicts of 66-70CE, other scholars note he was likely a grandson of Judas of Galilee meaning Judas of Galilee had a third son named Judas, Judah ben Judah, aka Jesus. Jesus having a son named Menahem = Family 💯 **INTERMISSION** Rewind the tape to the beginning of Jesus' ministry... on his return from a 17+ year absence studying eastern religions in India, Jesus/Judas rejects the violent revolutionary ways of his earthly father & brothers, preaching a path of radical non-violent resistance to his followers. My cracked out theory on Jesus/Judas continues from there... Jesus performed no miracles, no resurrections, prophesied nothing, no revelations, not even rapture, But he could read and write & the Bible holds the receipts. I find it odd that some of our trusted Christian church leaders and scholars, both true blue & lipstick varieties, are quick to gloss over Christ’s literacy or even assert Christ’s illiteracy while simultaneously attributing all sorts of magical nonsense to his name. How you gonna elevate this guy to god-tier status, yet preach he can’t read? Of course God reads, reads great! writes great too! Jesus according to Christians is the real deal, the whole Enchilada, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha & the Omega, yet also according to them he can’t write Alpha or Omega. That’s crazy thinking, blasphemy even, all the best stuff in the Bible was written by Jesus. Receipts? Jesus Christ (Didymus Judas Thomas) authored The Gospel of Thomas. Read here the opening lines of The Gospel of Thomas (Leloup Translation)… “These are the words of the Secret. They were revealed by the Living Yeshua. Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.” Note the unusual doubling of the Twin generic descriptor, sandwiching the common Judas name. Didymus = Twin (Greek) Judas = Name Thomas = Twin (Aramaic) Judas, according to the Bible, was a brother & devoted servant of Jesus Christ (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55; Jude 1). His twin (Acts of Thomas). The spiritual (divine) Christ paired to the physical (human) Judas. Jesus WAS Judas. In the Gospel of Thomas there were no miracles, no resurrections. Jesus predicted no future events, he was no prophet, no revelations or rapture. All prophesy attributed (falsely) to Jesus was culled from the Jewish Tanakh and retrofitted as Roman propaganda to co-opt, conflate & corrupt Judaism w/ the upstart Jesus’ movement, neatly consolidating control of both under Rome, effectively killing 2 birds with 1 stone. So how then did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Simple, he (Jesus/Judas) turned himself in & cut a deal with Pilate to fake crucifixion avoiding further unrest in the Jewish population (exactly what you would hope for & expect from a Jesus). The deal was after the crucifix fake-out Jesus would bounce & so he did becoming St.Thomas/St.Jude traveling far & wide, converting about a billion more ppl to Christianity before dying in his 100s. Additional odds & ends that support this theory (greatly abridged for time). ◇ While the two written accounts we have of Judas’ death following his “betrayal” of Jesus in the New Testament differ greatly, on one point they both agree Judas died simultaneous with Jesus dying on the cross. ◇ NT Jude 1:1 identifying Judas as a brother to James but a “servant” of Jesus. ◇ The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (apostle of Jesus), Ch. 216 - Judas takes on appearance of Jesus, later crucified in Jesus’ place. ◇ St. Jude is most often depicted wearing a giant medallion around his neck with the life-sized head of Jesus on it (google it), that’s 2000 yrs before modern rappers made this a thing & fashionable. They literally got Jude walking around, spreading Christ’s word “wearing the face of Jesus”. The truth hidden in plain sight. ◇ Judas of Galilee (google him) was the father of Jesus/Judas, Judah ben Judah. Jesus/Judas was the father of Menahem, Menahem ben Judah. ◇ In sharp contrast to the synoptic Gospels’ liberal use of the sayings in Thomas’ Gospel, chopping them up and sprinkling them about freely, The Gospel of John contains far fewer examples of overlapping content with The Gospel of Thomas. This drop off due to the fact of John being authored in direct opposition to Thomas. A point by point takedown and smear campaign (e.g., “Doubting Thomas”, Faith trumps Knowledge) targeting Thomas to discredit and flush out the remaining followers of early Christ movements, movements still having legs and remaining popular despite the introduction and heavy promotion of the 3 synoptic Gospels being widely disseminated across all Roman territories. John’s underlying agenda accounts for the dramatic shift in tone, structure & narrative, making a clean break from messaging of synoptic Gospels. John was a hit piece against early Christians/Gnostics. ◇ [Thomasine Priority: The Thomas/Pentecost Connection](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/7A0mcnCYku) ◇ [Thomasine Priority: The World Is A Bridge](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/ZH4lZn4OyP) ◇ [Thomasine Priority: Thomas the Christ](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/ngd8GJza90) ◇ [Thomasine Priority: The 2 Become 1](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/D5213orgS8) ◇ [Twinned Passages Found in The Gospels of Judas and Thomas](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/cVLWHl3CBy) ◇ [OSHO: Jesus Never Died On The Cross](th-cam.com/video/rVP3Jsp8CE8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=lp-7AOGzJffcM-Jl) In closing, is a very good reason why all of the earliest known examples of Christian texts, Mark, Thomas, Paul's Epistles, Marcion's Luke, lack an account of the child Jesus' Virgin birth. Docetism was ubiquitous across the first Christ movements, for the individual a Virgin birth in Spirit was the core truth of these varied movements that would later come to fall under the umbrella term of Gnostics. It wasn't until decades perhaps scores of years after when the proto-orthodoxy under the guidance of Rome took hold that we have the Gospels of Matthew and an edit of Luke appear with the first accounts of the child Jesus and his miraculous Virgin birth, near 100 years after this supposed miracle of miracles occurred. Rome was never about a blanket persecution of all early Christians as history would have us believe, through a weaponized proto-orthodoxy/orthodoxy Rome targeted and memory-holed the Docetists, those having achieved gnosis who walked in the Spirit of Christ, the true Christians. Gnosis could never work with Rome's grand plan of centralized control of the population through the Church. Rome couldn't steal it, so they had to kill it. Thomas, Logion 79 (Leloup) A woman in the crowd said to him: “Blessed are the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” He answered: Blessed are those who listen to the Word of the Father and truly follow it, for the day will come when you will say: Blessed are the womb that has never borne and the breasts that have never nursed. IMHO
Good evening Dr. James, i liked this lecture, it is useful, but don't you think Jesus was a human being because after all he went to John to pabtise him and to be forgiven by the God and i don't think that was a compliement for John
John a Jew did not baptize as we know it but was doing mikvah typical commanded by YEHOVAH in the laws to the Jews and ANY CONVERTS! YASHUA demanded John "had to fulfil all righteousness -of My Fathers laws" and do mikvah, Neither YOHAN NOR YASHUA WERE PROTESTANTS!
@blkshk1 of course non of them Yohan and Yashua were Protestants. However, if the God to sent his son to people to teach them, why would he approved Yohan as a teacher. If Yohan is approved by the God to teach his laws, then Judasim is perfectly true religoun, but you know it conflicts with Christianity in that they didn't believe in Jesus as a teacher approved by the God...while true Jewish believers belived in Jesus as a teacher approved by the God. Jews and specially praists of the temple at that time believed in Yohan as a profit because he was sort of a rebel against Romans while Jesus didn't fight Romans so that specially praists of the temple fought Jesus and claimed he was a lyer. However Jews had a solid teaching from their father the prophet Abraham and lately by Moses that there is only one God and no human can be a God. Jews prophets gave verses of a coming Christ after Moses and it might seem a problem of understanding the word cause a Christ means a teacher, guider, prophet, and messenger, but to claim a Christ is a son of God isn't a realistic translation. And Jewish prophets didn't mention that the Christ will be a son of God so why the God didn't inform his chosens about this, cause it is not an ordinary thing
What if God came to earth as a human but didn't bother to write anything down for mankind when he had the perfect chance? That would be weird huh? But here's the obvious source for the "blessed are they" list. "-Blessed are those who know the mysteries of god. -Blessed is he who hallows his life in the worship of god, he whom the spirit of god possesseth, who is one with those who belong to the holy body of god. -Blessed are the dancers and those who are purified, who dance on the hill in the holy dance of god. - Blessed are they who keep the rite of Cybele the Mother. - Blessed are the thyrsus-bearers, those who wield in their hands the holy wand of god. - Blessed are those who wear the crown of the ivy of god. -Blessed are they: Dionysus is their god!" The Bacchae, Euripides, 405 BC
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture, or monument and is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
@@EvilXtianity Yeah where's all the carpentry he supposedly did for a living? Wouldn't they all have miraculous powers, having been crafted the Son of God himself? Yet no Apostle even bothered to buy a birdhouse from him. Wouldn't a lot people have been boasting about their stuff made by Jesus? The obvious fact is that Jesus never worked a day in his life and lived with his mom in his 30s, if he lived at all.
@@TheDanEdwards _"Unless at least one of the Jesus' in Josephus book on the Jews was really written by Josephus, in which case it is late first century."_ References to Jesus are not found in the oldest manuscripts of his Antiquities of the Jews. There are no known manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century and the oldest which do survive were edited by Christian monks. Josephus says that he drew from and "interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures". His main source was the Gospel According to Luke who in turn copied from from the Gospel According to Mark. None of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus. In the third century, Origen wrote extensively about Josephus, even about the very chapter that contains the Testimonium, but never mentioned or referred to the Testimonium in any way. This is inconceivable if the Testimonium had existed at that time. Since the first mention of that passage came from Eusebius, we can conclude that is when it was created. Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen never wrote about the Testimonium passage. Origen even mentions Josephus but never mentioned the Testimonium. Further evidence of a fraud is if you remove the Testimonium from its larger context, the previous paragraph flows together. The Testimonium is out of place because it was crudely inserted centuries later.
@@RolanRoyce _"Yet no Apostle even bothered to buy a birdhouse from him."_ Wouldn't you expect that if God walked around town for thirty years and then died and then the sun went dark for three hours and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" that the locals would have noticed?
I absolutely love how the entirety of "scholarship" is predicated on completely stripping the word of God from the earth. People with forked tongues always ask, "Did God REALLY say...? Lol. It's exactly why the masses fully reject academia in their *high places.* The idols simply aren't made from wood, silver, gold, or stone anymore, huh?
@DwayneShaw1 Magical claims like everything came from nothing? Or that somehow 3 manuscripts and a handful of papyrus scraps are more weighty than 40,000?
@@jeremyhinken3365 - the number of manuscripts has absolutely no bearing on whether what the manuscripts say is true. As to the claim that everything came from nothing -- science makes no such claim, there is no scientific conclusion on what may have happened before the Big Bang - and no reason to assume magic. In fact, there is no scientific concensus that a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - but IF that is YOUR claim ... A 'Prime Mover' creator god cannot exist. Assuming a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - IF the claim is 'something can't come from nothing' [*] then something certainly can't exist in nothing either (because it's nothing). If this Prime Mover created 'everything', where did he exist before he created a place in which to exist? (answers akin to "He's the Great and Powerful Oz" - are neither satisfactory, logical, or demonstrable) - 'Being' implies a place in which to 'be'. There had to be some form of spacial construct for this god to exist in before he could exist in it. Also, nothing can happen without the forward momentum of time. So a Prime Mover couldn't have created time, without 'time' to do it, either. Religions, by their own arguments, have created a god that is nothing existing nowhere at no time. All theists can do is make vague unproven magicval gap filler claims that are childish and absurd Not to mention that vague deistic arguments for a god are completely pointless - because a god that doesn't interact with It's creation is as irrelevant as a god that doesn't exist (this applies to all lessor god claims too). The only relevant arguments for religion must be about what this supposed god does for, or to, the universe - not whether a god merely exists... and ALL specific claims about magical interactions of a deity are unproven, illogical, and absurd - and often horridly immoral; thereby rendering the entire premise moot. Claiming, "God exists outside space and time" is incoherent and vague -- unless 'outside space and time' can be clearly defined and proven to exist one might as well insist, "God exists banana".... Both statements are equally absurd. Saying something manifests without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent - and if you can't get past, "in the beginning", there's really nothing left to talk about. [*] - a contingency argument can't be conditional - that's just arguing with yourself
There is no valid evidence to suggest "Q" ever existed. It is merely an attempt to "muddy the water" by panicked apologists who are horrified that far too many people now know Mark is the oldest gospel, in it jesus is not a god, merely a prophet tapped by god for a mission and is completely mortal. And that if you read the gospels in written order the jesus tale is an obvious "big fish" tale being fan-fic'd to be more fantastical with each rendition.
Here’s my theory, Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by divine guidance from the Holy Spirit, they were intended for people in different places in their spiritual journey of becoming a Christian. If the wording is similar or identical then that is evidence of God’s involvement in the creation of the Holy Bible.
_"Here’s my theory, Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by divine guidance from the Holy Spirit..."_ So God helped them write in advanced Greek? Why couldn't God himself just write his own words?
Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are? Which was Jesus's sixth commandment? (Notice that Jesus lists only the secular commandments that make no mention of God): 1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19) 2. Honor thy father and mother: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19) 3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:20)
WHO CARES? Even IF such a bloke existed-what does that say about the existence of some magical being aka god?! NOTHING! Adults believing in gods are no different than toddlers believing in Santa Claus. GROW UP!
This is a historical critical literary analysis. You are in the wrong forum. Literary source arguments do not depend on theism or anti-theism arguments.
@jbartlett5497 Yeahhh, think you're in the wrong place dude. This isn't ain't for silly people. This is "Academia", it ain't even for most Christians!
Faith (like imagination) is a human faculty-just depends on where-in what-in who you place it. You're going to believe in something-or trust in-or lean on something-whether your relationships-other people-your own agency/abilities/health-what have you? Proverbs 14.15 says, 'the naive [pethiy] believe every word.' Existence is deeply paradoxical. In that consciousness is irreducible to material existence i.e. cannot be recreated in a lab. It's all absurd. I say belief is nothing more or less than an opinion. Either fundamentalism is found wanting (remember the Novum Organon and the "idols of the mind"?). I can agree, belief in gods (phenomenological world view) is rather primitive or naive ("we all grew up with fairytales"). "The lunatic, the lover, and the poet Are of imagination all compact. One sees more devils than vast hell can hold: That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic, Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt. The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven, And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. Such tricks hath strong imagination That if it would but apprehend some joy It comprehends some bringer of that joy; Or in the night, imagining some fear, *How easy is a bush supposed a bear!* " That world view repurposed, contextualized and redeemed-transcends. The most persuasive mark of intelligent design is paradox. That you can doubt this, further attests. My opinion-that no matter what we actually discover in this life, inconsideration is inevitable-thus understanding is interminable. So wherever there is doubt/uncertainty, there may always be room for faith. I mean in no doctrinal sense of the term (e.g. "THE Faith i.e. dogmatic faith)-personally, defer to that expression left in Mark 11.22-simply, "have faith in God" and you won't be disappointed. Yet as James 2.22 would have us understand, your faith is made complete by what you do (a matter of integrity).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the baptism of Jesus, but they don't exactly agree on the wording of God's voice. Here's what each gospel says: - *Matthew 3:17*: "And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" ¹ - *Mark 1:11*: "And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'" ¹ - *Luke 3:22*: "And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased.'" ¹ 1 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus It's worth noting that these accounts are based on the earliest manuscripts available. However, the exact wording might vary slightly depending on the translation and manuscript used.
Imagine trying to understand the Star Wars universe, if fanfic was all that remained. Would you be able to reconstruct the original movie trilogy, using only the fan fiction as your source material? I wouldn't have faith in the accuracy of such a reconstruction.
Great point
Dr. Tabor - There seems to have been a major shift in biblical scholarship that places Marcion's Gospel at the beginning. I am thinking of the work of Klinghart, BeDuhn, Vinzent, Trobisch, and others. Why is Marcionite priority not included in these larger discussions? Am I missing something?
Great comment. I too have been waiting for Dr Tabor to engage with this scholarship and at least make some preliminary critiques. He is generally very open to new understanding.
I should clarify that my question is not directed at Dr. Tabor... it is directed to Dr. Tabor. I'm just interested in learning why this major shift isn't being discussed more... It seems like the synoptic problem is moving strongly in the direction of Marcionite priority. This has been well documented relatively recently by Mark G. Bilby, PhD.
I would like to address the question at Dr. Tabor. What say you on Marcion good sir? Q is so 20th century.
Think about it. Marcion is much later.
@ It's a bit more complicated than that... I suggest you start with "The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon," by Jason BeDuhn. That will catch you up to speed on the direction contemporary scholarship is moving. Important books have been subsequently published, but that book is a great introduction.
Love your content. Thank you. Looking forward to watching this
You may enjoy reading “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” by DS WAGGONER.
Watching you Professor gives me a sense of peace in addition to the knowledge you share. Thank you.
I love you for making this available to the masses, thank you, Dr. Tabor!
Thank you Sir, enjoying every upload you make!
I don't understand why anyone follows the teachings of Paul. Paul's teachings differ from the reported words of Jesus.
...history consistently shows that large portions of EVERY Human Society Prefer 'Shallow' Certainty over Wise Ambivalence...
_"I don't understand why anyone follows the teachings of Paul."_
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophecy expired unfulfilled.
@@EvilXtianity I know but Paul's Christianity has little to do with Jesus and nothing to do with Christ.
@@jamesharkins6799correct, but the reason why will be hard for many Christians to accept.
The historical Jesus is King Izates II of Osorene. He was an Essenes mystic who established the Military Order of the Nazarene (Scythian Enaree) which the Knights Templars are a recreation of and are whom the Jedi in Starwars are partly an inspiration of.
The Essenes were part of the 2nd Temple era Judaism, which is today the Freemasonry which developed out of the Knights Templars chapters. The knowdgle of which is derived from the 5 Egyptian mystery schools established by the Hyksos-Egyptian viceroy ‘Joseph’, son of Jacob (Yacub-Har) whose entire Egyptian name was Zaph-Nath Ptah-Neith meaning ‘Nath, Son of Ptah and Neith’ referring to the Egyptian Gods of creation. This is quite the contrast to the modern ‘Judaism’ which is really Edomism aka Pharisees Jewishism.
Paul is Yosef Ben Mattityahu (Matthew) who was commander of the legion of galille turned slave of Commander Vespasian who then fled with Izates II to Edessa. By the time of the Judean revolt of 70AD he betrayed King Izates/Jesus and joined Vespasian who adopted him receiving the name Josephus Flavius.
Josephus helps Vespasians son Titus defeat Izates/Jesus who was crucified, but Josephus overcame with grief and took him down, much to Vespasians discontent. Vespasian then exiled Izates/Jesus, having the Legio II Adiutrix transport him to Britannia where he was then held at the Deva Virtix fort in what is now Chester, England.
After this ordeal, Vespasian instructed Jospehus to pacify the Judeans of Nationalism, turning them into a global peoples. He did this by stripping apart the 50 books of the Old Testament down to 27, which he then reformatted using the Gamaliel interpretation of the Talmud to produce the New Testament. In it, he goes by ‘Saul’ as Yosef, then ‘Paul’ as Josephus.
The Judeans were then subjugated using the New Testament, producing the first Christian’s. By Constantine’s time the network of these Christian’s were used to circumvent Romes bloated beuracracy to connect with the people, giving them power which they then used to kill off Constantine’s entire bloodline and root themselves into power over Rome, which became the Ity (State) of the Christian’s.
I have a theory (with very little evidence) that Saul of Tarsus is the grandson of a Cilician Pirate, who was given Roman citizenship. He has knowledge of the mysteries, and is able to turn the story of Jesus into a Mystery adaptable religion. There are a few passages in Acts, like when the Synagogue of Freedmen come to test Stephen and then give false witness about him, Cilicia is specifically mentioned. When Saul is taken by the Roman guard and he says he comes from "no ordinary city" it sounds like the kind of code language that secret societies use to recognize each other, and he is then granted permission (while being arrested) to give a speech before the crowd. He also tells the Captain that he was given Roman citizenship at birth.
Kermit zarleys interwoven gospels is an incredible tool for learning the story of Jesus.
Any thoughts on the possibility of the Gospel of Thomas being an early source? It's a collection of sayings with no narrative. Stevan Davies wrote a book about it with his insights to the meanings of the teachings.
@@kanifalam7835 not a chance, probably mid to late 2nd century.
Thomas predates all four canonical Gospels and is a foundational text for all of Christianity.
@@herinshyes, the version we have is older than Q. BUT I find it highly likely it is a copy of an earlier quotes gospel with some sectarian additions, but with the majority if not all of the early quotes maintained. It shares 80% of its quotes with the Synoptics in some form, I think they all derived from the same source that Thomas is most indicative of.
@@slicktrickyesI tend to agree, although I think the version we have may not be identical to the foundational version that is from the mid first century likely originating in Syria or Jordan (as in I think if we are to find an early copy it’ll likely be in one of those places, although possibly someplace in Lebanon or maybe southern Turkey along the coast of the Mediterranean somewhere, although maybe it’s just in the Vatican vault).
@Thor-Orion I vote the Vatican vault, sure they saved at least 2 or 3 from the burn pile.
I don't know how Mark and Luke can have any 'Red Letter' material. One would have to receive that material in person.
Luke interviewed the witnesses directly. Mark wrote for Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Thank you for putting this on TH-cam.
@@KendraAndTheLawWhat does anything matter then
It's part of history
I must have misheard when I thought you said 'Thomas the Engine' - but that *would* be quite a gospel...
He is a diesel lol, I learned everything I know about people from Thoma the tank..... oh and I'm never wrong lol
Great show 👏
Is Quelle similar to the Gospel of Thomas? Could it really be just a list of teachings? I wonder if we’ll ever uncover a hard copy of the source-wouldn’t that be absolutely reMARKable?
You are almost there. Not sure why you did not identify Mark with Paul (and link to the Septuagent). You are probably correct about Matt being a cutdown (which had material repeated (or sourced from?) the Didache, which I would associate with James the Just. What makes Luke and Acts different? Peter, and James and John (whose mother was Salome the sister of Jesus - who probably sourced Infancy story) and because they were on Tabor and so knew that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnate.
I think Q is likely an earlier version of Thomas. What do you think?
Epiphane was valuable in this discussion of the Jesus movement.
Excellent,ty. I've read that the L and M sources may trace back to the 60s ce.
It is my understanding that the Gospel of John was initially rejected; considered 'gnostic' by the orthodox church until 180 AD.
@@ChrisMusante please explain how anyone would think that John’s gospel is “gnostic”. It bears no such resemblance. There was no such thing as orthodoxy in CE 150!
While the Gospel of John is not typically classified as a Gnostic text in the classical sense, it does contain some elements and themes that are similar to those found in Gnostic texts.
Some scholars have noted that the Gospel of John shares certain affinities with Gnostic thought, such as:
1. Dualism: John's Gospel presents a strong dualism between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, which is reminiscent of Gnostic dualism.
2. Mystical language: John's Gospel uses mystical language, such as the concept of the "Logos" (Word), which is similar to Gnostic terminology.
3. Esoteric knowledge: John's Gospel suggests that Jesus imparted secret knowledge to his disciples, which is a theme common in Gnostic texts.
However, it's essential to note that the Gospel of John is still firmly rooted in Jewish-Christian tradition and is not a Gnostic text in the same vein as, for example, the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocryphon of John.
Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann have explored the Gnostic elements in John's Gospel, but most scholars today consider it a unique blend of Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic influences, rather than a purely Gnostic text.
Mainstream is that the different gospels were used by different communities and that there might have been a Johannine Community where John's gospels and letters originated. Similarly, there was a Marcionite community that used Marcion's gospel, and the community who wrote the last version of the Didache that used Matthew's gospel and called it The Gospel in the Didache.
. . . Some communities might have united against Marcion's community and against the Ebionite communities and threw their gospels together (while agreeing to disagree about when to celebrate Easter). Those some communities became the proto-orthodox.
Isn't the Evangelion of Marcion Proto-Luke circa 144AD? i.e. therefore derived from Proto-Mark circa 135AD and none of them are before 100AD, if Mark was "First"
Luke in 95, about 60 years after the cross, seems unlikely, since Luke says he spoke with people who knew Him
Although, he may have spoken to them in his youth. In my late '60s I now recall clearly conversations with elderly people in my youth, discussions about events now a century in the past. Also, these authors may have been collecting notes for decades prior to publishing their completed work.
I know something that may help. perhaps when you talk about this you add a Venn Diagram for the sources explanation.
Mark would have been in Alexandria circa 65ad (after Nero's persecution). Perhaps he wrote his Gospel from memory using information received from Peter while in Rome before 64ad.
.
Matthew left Jerusalem perhaps 55ad, travels to parts in the East, then travels to Ethiopia circa 67ad to find Mark's Gospel. As a true Apostle that walked with Jesus, he then expands upon that gospel. He is then martyred circa 68ad.
Luke has a copy of both gospels from Mark and Matthew and perhaps others. Luke is a true 'Pauline' and he fashions his gospel towards the Acts of the Apostles, which was largely about Paul. Luke's gospel has the most embellishment which may come from 'Q.'
John, another true Apostle that walked with Jesus, indeed known as John the Beloved, takes issue with all of the previous gospels and tries to focus his gospel on the spiritual teachings of Jesus. He is less concerned about the historical Jesus and more concerned about transcending the current reality.
Professor, have you considered the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Why did Kermit waste his time harmonizing the Gospels When Tatian did as much in his Diatessaron?
@@NGC6144 because we don’t have a good copy of the original, just citations telling us it was written
@@herinsh Reconstructions are readily available.
@ but they are not complete and they don’t have the context of the original author, just an educated guess
Us skeptics raised in the “coC” have a unique hunger for the truth about the REAL first century church!
Dr Price and other repeaters claim the Gospel of Thomas knows nothing of a crucifixion. However, one verse runs something like: " blessed is he who has crucified the world and has no one left to crucify them"
Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the most severe crimes that included, as a punishment, being left on the cross to die a slow death and denied a proper burial ritual; to be left to rot and be eaten by carrion as an example to others.
It is absolutely absurd to claim that Jesus was given the most severe punishment available, scourged, nailed to a cross, and then permitted to be taken down on the same day for a proper burial. If there was no intent to leave him on the cross as an example they could have killed him in any number of more mundane ways - and what need for the titulus crucis?
But Christians will cite other verses of the Bible to try and demonstrate, despite claiming they were harsh oppressive overlords, the Romans were really very chummy with the Israelite's and did whatever they were asked. Biblical claims are not worth considering - especially if they can't even provide, for instance, a single contemporary claim, outside the Bible, that Roman's had a tradition of releasing seditious prisoners.
Another claim is that Josephus said 'the crucified were taken down and buried before sunset' - but, he wasn't talking about Romans, he was referring to the Idumeans and what happened before the Romans arrived. And it isn't even clear that these burials occurred - "Josephus wants to stress that those whom the Idumeans killed were dishonored: they were not given decent burials. He contrasts this heinous behavior with that of “the Jews,” who allegedly buried even crucified victims in accordance with the Law of Moses, before sunset." - Ehrman
There is also a passage About Josephus requesting some crucified friends (still alive) be taken down from the cross. But, if it happened, he also claims, at the time, to have been on a mission as an 'envoy of Caesar', and went directly to Caesar to request they be saved. There isn't even a scrap of evidence that Joseph of Arimathea existed to ask that Jesus be taken down - or that he had any authority to do so (or that the Romans were so conveniently the bad guys, or good guys, depending on a need to advance the story).
We also hear assertions that the Romans commonly gave the bodies of the executed to family for burial. But every instance I've seen of this says 'the executed', not 'the crucified' - which again, was the most severe punishment and included defilement of the body. I don't dispute those executed by more mundane methods may have been allowed a proper burial.
Lastly, there was apparently an ossuary found with the remains of a crucified person, but this is just bones in a box- It doesn't mean the remains weren't recovered after the body had been decayed - or furtively removed from some death pit after the fact.
@DwayneShaw1 im not sure what your response has to do with my comment.
What does this verse have to do with the crucifixion of the messiah (as)?
where does the diatesseron by tatian fit in?
And the voice was misquoted at the Jordan baptism from psalm 2:7 "This is my Son, today I have begotten thee". For OBVIOUS reasons. But once you read Romans 1:3-4 you figure out the virgin birth is a myth added to the story. The virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth was clearly defined thruout the OT. It is NOT a woman named Mary and her firstborn is not a man named Jesus.
it's all a myth
The gospels are surely filled with allegory and metaphor and were never meant to be taken as literal. But someone, probably John the Baptist or James actually did write incredible spiritual truths which were also edited by Rome. Paul is a false character who was used to take John's teachings and distort them. That is easy to assertain. The epistles contradict themselves within the same books and even same chapters. It's a sloppy job of editing, but easy to divide out the truth. I believe John was the Son of the High Priest who went rogue as at one point he gathered with the High Priest and leaders in the temple as part of his family and leaders. You have to read carefully to notice it. So yes, I do believe John was anointed by God to reveal a new covenant but I don't believe most of the gospel stories.. especially those with ridiculous miracles like coins in fishes mouths, walking on water, Lazarus resurrection, Jesus resurrection story. All metaphor and edited on top of that. Such a shameful mess and deception over 2k years.
Saw the thumbnail, and for a second, was like "ooh, that's a lotta cinnamon." 🫣
Kernit is using the "Calloway" system of theology.
nice
Why do you think they dont teach us this in church?
I suspect that an oral version of the Gospel of Thomas is the Q source. ... is that like d-day? Q-source?
Let me link hebrew audio gospel of John
Luke interviewed the witnesses. Matthew wrote first. Mark wrote for Peter later. John wrote last.
34:40 Some interesting verses that could explain why Jesus didn't let the would-be disciple go and bury his father:
Numbers 19::14
"Whoever touches one [..] who has died naturally, [..] shall be unclean seven days."
Numbers 19::22
"Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be unclean until evening."
Numbers chapter 6 "The Nazirites"
Numbers 6::7-8
"Even if their father or mother, brother or sister, should die, they may not defile themselves, because their consecration to God is upon their head. All their days as nazarite they are holy to the Lord."
Numbers 6::12
"The former time shall be void because the nazarite was defiled."
And Jesus was likely a nazarite.
Mat Goodwin ( praise to him for speaking out) but I feel like saying , where has he been for the last 50 years while an isolationist Muslim community has been growing in my home town and now at a wild guess occupying at least a third of the local township and spreading further and further into the suburbs. Must be much more than 6% of the population here, more like 26% . It's not news ! Been going on way before the 2000s, where has he been? Its old news not new news !!
My answer would have been " You are my beloved son..." But isn't this problem just a perspective problem? I mean from Christ's perspective God would have said "You are my..." As he was speaking to him, but the rest of the crowd probably heard the same meaning the only way to properly write that down as far as the boys were concerned would have been to write it, "This is my beloved son..." Because God wasnt talking to them he was talking to Jesus ...? No?
No offense James but I'm tired of Greek primacy , the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic :
th-cam.com/play/PLt6BmToNiaSejbAHN36-gAPRLka0G2FDN.html&si=EyaVP4gWFaRYYXNB
Definitely Hebrew. 👍
Sorry to break it to you, but Jesus’ teachings were his interpretation of something like the previous 5000 years or more of Eastern philosophy! Nothing but nothing about Christianity is original - not the virgin birth, not the cross, not the crucifixion, nor what he taught!
Nonsense.
The earliest Christian authors seem aware of "sayings" but unaware of ant narrative pertaining thereto.
I completely disagree with the entire "Q" hypothesis. One reason for this is because it uses the late writing of the Gospels. However, if the Gospels were written as late as these scholars suggest, why is the persecution of Christians by Nero, the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 never mentioned in any of the four Gospels? Surely the Gospel writers would have pointed to the destruction of the Temple and say, "See, Jesus' prophecy was correct!" They don't. Why does Luke include things in his Gospel (and Acts) that only people of that time (AD 50-AD60) would have known? When you look at it in the historical context of events (like when the Apostles died) and other writings from the period, the "Q" hypothesis falls apart. Indeed, although there are similarities amongst the Gospels, the differences in how things are presented support different authors, not a common source. If you had a common source, everything would agree.
There are modern scholars who give a date for the writing of Mark (writing down Peter's statements) to around AD 50, with Luke interviewing people and writing around AD 53 (with Acts written around AD 60, before James' martyrdom in AD 61). Matthew was probably written around the same time as Luke, suing Mark as the basis, with John likely written sometime later, but still before AD 70.
I would also point out that one reason why the late writing of the Gospels was accepted. It is because of Jesus' prophecy that the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. However, using a prophecy as an excuse to post-date the Gospels is ridiculous. Anyone who was paying close attention to the politics and animosity that the Jews had towards the Romans during the 1st Century AD would have realized that the whole thing was going to blow up eventually, and that it was highly likely that the Temple would be destroyed in the ensuing war. It would be like saying that John Brown's prediction that the US would be plunged into a civil war should be ignored and his statement on the gallows attributed to an anonymous writer after 1865 because it was a prophecy. It is patently absurd.
Why does Paul hardly mention anything in the Gospels?
...Ahh...
The Gospel of MaMaLuJo...
Jesus was the source - Matthew is altered, but largely intact - Luke is second hand and heresay - which explains the variances.
_"Jesus was the source..."_
Source?
@@EvilXtianity The comparison of the Covenant Standards from 3000 years ago - unknown in Synagogue or Temple of Jesus days - when compared to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew are a nearly perfect match - and the original Standards easily expose the alterations Rome made to Matthew. This is the proof Elohim said to use to know a true prophet from a false prophet. Those teachings are now found in our Deuteronomy 4, 12,13, 18, and are easily shown to be based on the ancient account. The "Standards" are the unaltered Decrees, Blessings, and Curses as an indivisible unit. THE VALEDICTION OF MOSES by Idan Dershowitz was published in 2021, and is in effect 'Proto-Deuteronomy' of about 3 pages, not 34 chapters we now have. Judaism altered the Covenant of Elohim, and Jesus teachings were restoring what Judaism stole from mankind - modern proof Jesus had to be inspired by God - and proof Matthew (Hebrew or Aramaic) is likely the only book of the NT that is needful. Do a web search for "Romans Proves Paul Lied" and "Onediscipletoanother".
Have you read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” (DS WAGGONER)? Mind-bending
@@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536 Haven't read the book, but have had interest in any question needing resolution. From what I learned, the Hebrew Matthew had no virgin birth narrative - was charged against the early Jewish Christians. I regularly follow the YT channel "Jesus Words Only", and Douglas has done videos on this matter specifically. For myself, the teachings of Jesus are the focus of Matthew and the gospel of Jesus, having long ago concluded most of the rest of the NT isn't worthy of study - spurious writings promoted by Rome. The genealogy fits when a minor correction is made to say Joseph was the father of Jesus.. No one has the records to check - and Luke defies known genealogy. God said the determination of a true prophet from a false prophet is found in what they teach - not who gave birth to them...
@@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536 Not personally, but Douglas Deltondo of "Jesus Words Only" YT channel has at least one video message about it - Jospeh was the father of Jesus. Jesus was 'begotten' at his baptism by John - otherwise that account doesn't make sense, and it's the only Oracle of God in the Psalms.
I was wondering why you haven't done a study on the shroud of Turin at least for yourself, I think your theology may be refined.
That has been conclusively established to be a medieval creation.
lol what i like most abut the shroud is that it shows a dead guy. if only someone had thought to do some animation instead of one big still frame. we already knew jesus was dead, it's the "coming back to life bit" that needs attention.
Because it's BS
It's a dead guy whose proportions are all out of whack and certainly not a first century person from Israel. Surely if a tri-omni god wanted to give us decent proof that his quasi-human son got wrapped up in such cloths he could've performed a better miracle.
@@cygnustsp
"It's a dead guy whose proportions are all out of whack..."_
The anatomical proportions of the figure depicted on the Shroud do not match those of an actual human, but conform to the proportions of the Gothic art of the Fourteenth Century. On a typical human the head from the top of the eyebrows to the top of the skull forms around 40% of the head. But on the Shroud the head from the eyebrows up forms only 25% of the head. This shortening of the upper part of the head is a typical anatomical mistake made by first-time life artists. Further, the head is 5% too large for the body.
The Native tongue Matthew dates to before 40 CE... Consensus doesn't mean it's true.
_"The Native tongue Matthew dates to before 40 CE..."_
Are you asserting Matthew spoke and wrote in high-level Greek?
When know Matthew is dated to after 70 AD because the authors of Mark and Matthew both describe paying a Temple tax that was enacted after 70 AD and that Matthew copied Mark.
@@EvilXtianity hello there was no temple in that time period. Better check your sources.
@@herinsh
Prior to 70 AD the local currency was the Tyrian Shekel which was collected by the Temple for tithes and offerings and also formed the civil currency used by Rome in the area. This currency was forcibly imposed by Rome when Pompey Magnus conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC. After 70, Rome decided to punish the Jews by making them pay for a renovation of a Temple to Jupiter in Rome in place of the normally required sacrifices to Roman gods. This tax (Imperial Tax) was paid in the Denarius, which bore the image of the current emperor Vespasian. Roman citizens were specifically excluded from the tax requirement. Mark and Matthew both wrote about paying this tax.
@@herinsh
The tax was initially imposed by Roman emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War, or first Jewish revolt of AD 66-73. The tax was imposed on all Jews throughout the empire, not just on those who took part in the revolt against Rome. The tax was imposed after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 in place of the levy (or tithe) payable by Jews towards the upkeep of the Temple. The amount levied was two denarii, equivalent to the one-half of a shekel that observant Jews had previously paid for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem. The tax was to go instead to the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, the major center of ancient Roman religion. The fiscus Iudaicus was a humiliation for the Jews. In Rome, a special procurator known as procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum was responsible for the collection of the tax. Only those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it.
@@EvilXtianity Nope. You are aware that Jerome knew of the Original Matthew, and it was not Greek? Focus on the teachings of Jesus - the rest is questionable.
Your reasoning that Mark made a "mistake" in Mark 1:2 and that Matthew also saw it as a mistake and did some handiwork to cover up Mark's ineptitude when editing Mark's gospel account for inclusion into his own gospel account, would force me to wonder about 1. Mark's reliability and qualifications as a gospel writer 2. Matthew's willingness to conceal an error made in Mark's gospel, and 3. Your Patience in seeing a matter through to a more logical conclusion than points 1 & 2 being the most likely solutions to the Mark 1:2 "problem". Perhaps you should keep in mind that in the original there are no verse separations by number, meaning that, Mark obviously had in mind the Isaiah quote, which immediately follows the Malachi quote, and, of course, is on the same subject, which Malachi's verse introduces, leading to the Isaiah quotation. Do you truly think Mark did not know whose book he was quoting when he introduced the Isaiah quote he had referenced with a Malachi quote? Should Mark have taken five minutes to stop and explain to his Gentile audience who he was quoting for each syllable when he was simply trying to bring home a strong point from Isaiah that made the best identifying reference to his own calling? My personal opinion is that you are reading too much into Luke's motives. You do not only have Luke moving the remarks of John the Baptist to another spot, but you have Luke changing the quotation from one John the Baptist made, to Luke inserting it as a Jesus quote to fit the line in, with the motive of concealing Mark's "mistake" at the same time. For me, that is a heck of a stretch and it's apparently based on your motive to cite examples of your theory at work, that of Matthew editing Mark. And if you're correct, neither Mark or Matthew should have been given the honor of having their apparently very "shady" gospel accounts preserved in the Bible. Or do they get a pass because Mark was only guilty of *one* mistake, and Luke, of only *one* instance of concealing error.
False premise.
Israel becoming a nation in 1948 does not fulfill Bible prophecy!
“One left, one taken” does to teach the rapture doctrine invented in 1830 AD, but was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD when the “Christians were taken” when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20) and fled the city as Jesus instructed.
When Jesus talked of the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, Matt 24 and Luke 21, he made no mention of the possibility of return and restoration. And Luke’s gospel is the one that sets out most clearly that all the promises of restoration are met in Jesus.
The prophecies in the Bible mostly relate to events that have already past. The Jews were promised a return to their homeland after the Babylonian exile, which was fulfilled in Old Testament times, between 538 and 445 B.C. You can read about these in Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament (the Tanakh).
you have not carefully examined the historical nature of the prophetic realm in its cyclical nature, none of these historical events are complete fulfillments only partial. perhaps you should revisit the cronology of the tenach because much is yet to be fulfilled
@ I love it when people respond; “You’re wrong “, without citing any verse as to why.
Joshua 21:43-
The Promise Fulfilled
So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.
Noah had three son’s, one of them was Ham, the father of Africa. Ham had a son named Cush. Cush had a son named Nimrod.
The Book of Jubilees mentions the name of "Nebrod" (the Greek form of Nimrod) only as being the father of Azurad, the wife of Eber and mother of Peleg (8:7). This account would thus make Nimrod an ancestor of Abraham, and hence of all Hebrews.
The hieroglyphs in Misraim, It clearly depicts the Hebrew slaves with afros and beards.
Ancient Egyptians called their land kemet, meaning land of the blacks.
The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalm 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22; 1 Chronicles 4:40.
Ham named his son Cush. Cushi" is a Hebrew term for a black person.
Mistaken for Hamites
Genesis 50:11 -
And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said, This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians: wherefore the name of it was called Abelmizraim, which is beyond Jordan.
Exodus 2:19 -
And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
Acts 21:38 -
Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
I grew up Jehovah's Witness, left in 1997 when i realized their notion that the first century Christians were all united in the same belief and we had the same was absolute nonsense. It's still fascinating to me to try and figure out just what was going on, but there's no way they had any idea about only 144000 people going to heaven, or two different groups of Christian classes, or that everybody knew Jesus preexisted as God's first angelic creation, or that his resurrection was a glorious restoration of a spirit body, or that 1900 years later he would decide that the board members of the Watch Tower Society would be his visible leaders on earth that would be responsible for proclaiming to the nations that he had returned as king invisibly in 1914. And of course blood transfusions were wicked and shunning of former members was righteous. Thanks dr Tabor, great stuff as usual.
Dr. M. David Litwa as well as the Patristica TH-cam channel are amazing resources to see the impact that Marcion and his gospel had on Luke and history of church groups. Cheers.
The 144,000 were of the twelve tribes of Israel. The next sentence or so, mentions something to the effect of selected gentiles. I didn't notice that in my first couple readings.
I think since it talks about how God predestined some to be adopted and glorified before the foundations of the world were created is God's choice who is saved and who isn't.
I can appreciate your decision. The book about the αποκαλυπσισ to Yoannes (John) speaks of ONE people (chapter 7):
He first heard Israel, the 12 tribes. All counted.
Then he saw: From ALL nations AND tribes they come. They are ONE people, uncountable by man, and serve in (i.e. as) the temple and dwelling (ναοσ) of God.
It is ONE people, one flock, from Israel and from the nations.
He and they will be with mankind. He is the Coming One, ImmanuEl, the Son of Man.
@@cygnustsp The descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, will be Black.
Noah had three son’s, one of them was Ham, the father of Africa. Ham had a son named Cush (a Black man). Cush had a son named Nimrod (a Black man)
The Book of Jubilees mentions the name of "Nebrod" (the Greek form of Nimrod) only as being the father of Azurad, the wife of Eber and mother of Peleg (8:7). This account would thus make Nimrod an ancestor of Abraham, and hence of all Hebrews.
The hieroglyphs in Misraim, It clearly depicts the Hebrew slaves with afros and beards.
Q sayings
will you make posts regarding julius africanus mention of relatives of jesus being leaders in judea, or about the jewish "bishops" of jerusalem ? (maybe even covering the apocrhypal work "epistle of james to quadratus")🙏
Family of Jesus:
Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser had a daughter named Thea, the ‘Musa of Orania’. Augustus found her a slave girl and gifted her to Phraates IV, Cleoptars ex husband. Young Thea became his favorite concubine. Thea and Phraates IV produced a son, Phraates V, upon which Thea assassinated Phraates IV and made herself Queen Mother and her son King. Overtime Thea and her son would have an incest relationship.
Thea and Phraates V produced Shalmath, the ‘Helena of Adiabene’, and her brother ‘Monabazus I’. They both had an incest relationship, producing Monabazus II (James) who became replaced his father as King of Adiabene.
After the birth of Monabazus II (James), Monabazus I gifted Shalmath (Helena) to King Agbarus V of Osorene. They concieved a twins, Izates II (Jesus), and Judas (Thomas). But a scandal occured wherein Agbarus V thought he was Helenas 2nd children with her brother Monabazus I and they were deported back to Adiabene.
Monabazus I, not wanting to have succession issues between Monabazus II and Izates II, had Izates II sent to the Kingdom of Characene in what is now Basra, Iraq. There he served on the Royal Court where he met his future wife Princess Symacho, the Mary of Magdalene. Mary the Wife, with whom he bore children.
King Agbarus V loved Izates II, despite the scandals surrounding his birth, and communicated with him regularly. Eventually Kinf Agbarus V proclaimed Izates II his heir. Many Kings and Priests from the east would visit Agbarus V to meet his son Izates II, as per custom, not knowing the scandal. They came with gifts and money. This included a Garment and 30 pieces of silver, which he had sent to Izates II. Izates II kept the garment, but donated the silver to the Temple of Jerusalem.
But the Pharisees of the Temple did not like Izates II, he was outspoken agaisnt usury, and conducted an investigation on them over corruption. The Pharisees manipulated his twin brother Judas (Thomas), paying him the 30 pieces of silver to dispose of his brother to become heir. But he was found out. Judas sought forgiveness, his punishment was being exiled to India with nothing but the cloths on his back. That is where the ‘Jesus in India’ story ark begins. But Judas is Thomas, not Jesus.
When Izates II became King of Osorene, he adopted the title ‘Izas Manu IV’. ‘Izas Manu’ in Pahlavi Asaracid translated to ‘Iesus Rex’ in Imperial Roman, meaning ‘Sun King’ in English. Thus ‘Izas Manu IV’ means the ‘4th Sun King’. Later on, Iesus was latinaized to Jesus, and combined with the English translation of Rex to produce Jesus King, from which the popular phrase ‘Jesus is King’ is derived.
The Sun King of Osorene, alternatively named after its capital Edessa (Sanlurfa) meaning ‘Heaven’. The Kingdom of Heaven, is the Kingdom of Osorene.
Jesus refers to Izates II, and Thomas refers to his twin Judas.
When the Judean revolt of 70AD occured, Izates/Jesus was defeated. Rome made his elder brother Monabazus II of Adiabene (James) King of Osorene.
His wife Symacho, the Mary of Beothus, also known as Mary Magdala (Magdalene), fled to France. There her descendants established the House of Orange, and then Holland, and then the Kingdom of Netherlands.
The modern day maternal descendant of Shalmath, the Mary of Magdala, is Princess Catharina-Amalia of Orange, heir to the Kingdom of Netherlands.
Anytime you see "son of man" just substitute "Adam". Adam was created before the Sabbath, so that is why Adam is lord of the sabbath.
The 2nd sentence sounds like a non-sequitur. Earlier creation doesn't mean lordship. Fishes aren't lord of land animals.
@@Achill101 Yeah you are right, I should have said that when Adam was created he was given dominion and rulership over the earth, which includes the subsequent practice of keeping the Sabbath which was made for humans after they were created. Animals don't keep the Sabbath.
@ezekielsaltar4728 - in the bible, many commandments don't seem to apply for people outside the covenant at Sinai. There's no indication in the bible that Adam or Noah or Abraham kept the Sabbath.
@@Achill101 Judaism believes that Abraham kept the Law/Torah. Noah had to know the Law to separate the clean and unclean animals. Adam probably kept the Sabbath since it was created right after his creation.
If only Q could be found. I find John is the best Gospel. The other 3 are all Pauline
No, they aren't.
The Gospel of Thomas is Q, or rather proto-Thomas. Why isn't that obvious? Look Virtually all of Q1 is in it, and none of Q3. The only thing in Q1 clearly not in Thomas is the turn the other cheek/love your enemy, which the Didache says comes from Jesus' teachings, not Jesus (Paul who had good reason for enemies to be loved.)
I take it that you dont believe the Bible is inerrant and from the hand of God?
Why can’t ’Q’ be Jesus? Can anyone answer?
Christian see jesus everywhere’s 😂 but in fact jesus is anywhere in our Tenack or Torah 😂 he didn’t save himself, son of god die on the cross? 😂😂😂
Each one of us are sons and daughters of God and we too will die. It is part of this life’s journey. Peace brother.
@@KingDavid1979what about Adam? What does the prophet Zechariah mean when it is said, "Here is the man whose name is the Branch" (Joshua)?
@@joshuadavie3091 Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 "18-I also said to myself, "As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19-Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20-All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21-Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" 22So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?"
@@DwayneShaw1 great, a quote from before Jesus arrived to this earth and expounded upon some Jewish concepts. What you’ve quoted is not in context with what I am talking about.
Probably not
Thomasine Priority: Thomas the Christ
“In this India there is a scattered people, one here, another there, who call themselves Christians, but are not so, nor have they baptism, nor do they know anything about faith. Nay, they believe St Thomas the great to be Christ.” (Jordanus, Mirabilia Descripta, H. Yule (tr.), London, 1893, 31)
Jesus had a family.
Jesus the Christ was the spiritual Divine twinned to the physical man Judas Thomas "The Twin" and Judas Thomas' father was Judas of Galilee.
Judas of Galilee was executed after leading a tax revolt against Rome in 6CE (Josephus), the exact same time a 12 yr old Jesus/Judas disappears for 17+ years before returning to begin his ministry.
Judas of Galilee was heir to the Davidic line (Josephus), on his death his oldest son Jesus/Judas would have been heir aka King of the Jews, the real reason behind Jesus' crucifixion.
Judas of Galilee had two sons executed in 46CE by the Romans (Josephus), named James & Simon, same as the named brothers of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels.
Judas of Galilee was the founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Josephus), often associated with the Zealots movement, Simon the Zealot was a brother of Jesus according to the New Testament.
Menahem ben Judah is claimed by some scholars to be a son of Judas of Galilee but the math doesn't work as Menahem was present in the Jewish conflicts of 66-70CE, other scholars note he was likely a grandson of Judas of Galilee meaning Judas of Galilee had a third son named Judas, Judah ben Judah, aka Jesus.
Jesus having a son named Menahem = Family 💯
**INTERMISSION**
Rewind the tape to the beginning of Jesus' ministry... on his return from a 17+ year absence studying eastern religions in India, Jesus/Judas rejects the violent revolutionary ways of his earthly father & brothers, preaching a path of radical non-violent resistance to his followers. My cracked out theory on Jesus/Judas continues from there...
Jesus performed no miracles, no resurrections, prophesied nothing, no revelations, not even rapture, But he could read and write & the Bible holds the receipts.
I find it odd that some of our trusted Christian church leaders and scholars, both true blue & lipstick varieties, are quick to gloss over Christ’s literacy or even assert Christ’s illiteracy while simultaneously attributing all sorts of magical nonsense to his name. How you gonna elevate this guy to god-tier status, yet preach he can’t read? Of course God reads, reads great! writes great too! Jesus according to Christians is the real deal, the whole Enchilada, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha & the Omega, yet also according to them he can’t write Alpha or Omega. That’s crazy thinking, blasphemy even, all the best stuff in the Bible was written by Jesus.
Receipts?
Jesus Christ (Didymus Judas Thomas) authored The Gospel of Thomas.
Read here the opening lines of The Gospel of Thomas (Leloup Translation)…
“These are the words of the Secret. They were revealed by the Living Yeshua. Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.”
Note the unusual doubling of the Twin generic descriptor, sandwiching the common Judas name.
Didymus = Twin (Greek) Judas = Name Thomas = Twin (Aramaic)
Judas, according to the Bible, was a brother & devoted servant of Jesus Christ (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55; Jude 1). His twin (Acts of Thomas). The spiritual (divine) Christ paired to the physical (human) Judas. Jesus WAS Judas. In the Gospel of Thomas there were no miracles, no resurrections. Jesus predicted no future events, he was no prophet, no revelations or rapture. All prophesy attributed (falsely) to Jesus was culled from the Jewish Tanakh and retrofitted as Roman propaganda to co-opt, conflate & corrupt Judaism w/ the upstart Jesus’ movement, neatly consolidating control of both under Rome, effectively killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
So how then did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Simple, he (Jesus/Judas) turned himself in & cut a deal with Pilate to fake crucifixion avoiding further unrest in the Jewish population (exactly what you would hope for & expect from a Jesus). The deal was after the crucifix fake-out Jesus would bounce & so he did becoming St.Thomas/St.Jude traveling far & wide, converting about a billion more ppl to Christianity before dying in his 100s.
Additional odds & ends that support this theory (greatly abridged for time).
◇ While the two written accounts we have of Judas’ death following his “betrayal” of Jesus in the New Testament differ greatly, on one point they both agree Judas died simultaneous with Jesus dying on the cross.
◇ NT Jude 1:1 identifying Judas as a brother to James but a “servant” of Jesus.
◇ The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (apostle of Jesus), Ch. 216 - Judas takes on appearance of Jesus, later crucified in Jesus’ place.
◇ St. Jude is most often depicted wearing a giant medallion around his neck with the life-sized head of Jesus on it (google it), that’s 2000 yrs before modern rappers made this a thing & fashionable. They literally got Jude walking around, spreading Christ’s word “wearing the face of Jesus”. The truth hidden in plain sight.
◇ Judas of Galilee (google him) was the father of Jesus/Judas, Judah ben Judah. Jesus/Judas was the father of Menahem, Menahem ben Judah.
◇ In sharp contrast to the synoptic Gospels’ liberal use of the sayings in Thomas’ Gospel, chopping them up and sprinkling them about freely, The Gospel of John contains far fewer examples of overlapping content with The Gospel of Thomas. This drop off due to the fact of John being authored in direct opposition to Thomas. A point by point takedown and smear campaign (e.g., “Doubting Thomas”, Faith trumps Knowledge) targeting Thomas to discredit and flush out the remaining followers of early Christ movements, movements still having legs and remaining popular despite the introduction and heavy promotion of the 3 synoptic Gospels being widely disseminated across all Roman territories. John’s underlying agenda accounts for the dramatic shift in tone, structure & narrative, making a clean break from messaging of synoptic Gospels. John was a hit piece against early Christians/Gnostics.
◇ [Thomasine Priority: The Thomas/Pentecost Connection](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/7A0mcnCYku)
◇ [Thomasine Priority: The World Is A Bridge](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/ZH4lZn4OyP)
◇ [Thomasine Priority: Thomas the Christ](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/ngd8GJza90)
◇ [Thomasine Priority: The 2 Become 1](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/D5213orgS8)
◇ [Twinned Passages Found in The Gospels of Judas and Thomas](www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/s/cVLWHl3CBy)
◇ [OSHO: Jesus Never Died On The Cross](th-cam.com/video/rVP3Jsp8CE8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=lp-7AOGzJffcM-Jl)
In closing, is a very good reason why all of the earliest known examples of Christian texts, Mark, Thomas, Paul's Epistles, Marcion's Luke, lack an account of the child Jesus' Virgin birth. Docetism was ubiquitous across the first Christ movements, for the individual a Virgin birth in Spirit was the core truth of these varied movements that would later come to fall under the umbrella term of Gnostics. It wasn't until decades perhaps scores of years after when the proto-orthodoxy under the guidance of Rome took hold that we have the Gospels of Matthew and an edit of Luke appear with the first accounts of the child Jesus and his miraculous Virgin birth, near 100 years after this supposed miracle of miracles occurred.
Rome was never about a blanket persecution of all early Christians as history would have us believe, through a weaponized proto-orthodoxy/orthodoxy Rome targeted and memory-holed the Docetists, those having achieved gnosis who walked in the Spirit of Christ, the true Christians. Gnosis could never work with Rome's grand plan of centralized control of the population through the Church.
Rome couldn't steal it, so they had to kill it.
Thomas, Logion 79 (Leloup)
A woman in the crowd said to him: “Blessed are the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” He answered: Blessed are those who listen to the Word of the Father and truly follow it, for the day will come when you will say: Blessed are the womb that has never borne and the breasts that have never nursed.
IMHO
Your taking information from the kahbalah serious? You better get Oprah and Madonna on to verify your theories.
Good evening Dr. James, i liked this lecture, it is useful, but don't you think Jesus was a human being because after all he went to John to pabtise him and to be forgiven by the God and i don't think that was a compliement for John
John a Jew did not baptize as we know it but was doing mikvah typical commanded by YEHOVAH in the laws to the Jews and ANY CONVERTS!
YASHUA demanded John "had to fulfil all righteousness -of My Fathers laws" and do mikvah, Neither YOHAN NOR YASHUA WERE PROTESTANTS!
@@blkshk1aye, how can one protest those whose authority is denied? Along with their christologies?
@blkshk1 of course non of them Yohan and Yashua were Protestants. However, if the God to sent his son to people to teach them, why would he approved Yohan as a teacher. If Yohan is approved by the God to teach his laws, then Judasim is perfectly true religoun, but you know it conflicts with Christianity in that they didn't believe in Jesus as a teacher approved by the God...while true Jewish believers belived in Jesus as a teacher approved by the God. Jews and specially praists of the temple at that time believed in Yohan as a profit because he was sort of a rebel against Romans while Jesus didn't fight Romans so that specially praists of the temple fought Jesus and claimed he was a lyer. However Jews had a solid teaching from their father the prophet Abraham and lately by Moses that there is only one God and no human can be a God. Jews prophets gave verses of a coming Christ after Moses and it might seem a problem of understanding the word cause a Christ means a teacher, guider, prophet, and messenger, but to claim a Christ is a son of God isn't a realistic translation. And Jewish prophets didn't mention that the Christ will be a son of God so why the God didn't inform his chosens about this, cause it is not an ordinary thing
What if God came to earth as a human but didn't bother to write anything down for mankind when he had the perfect chance? That would be weird huh? But here's the obvious source for the "blessed are they" list.
"-Blessed are those who know the mysteries of god.
-Blessed is he who hallows his life in the worship of god,
he whom the spirit of god possesseth, who is one
with those who belong to the holy body of god.
-Blessed are the dancers and those who are purified,
who dance on the hill in the holy dance of god.
- Blessed are they who keep the rite of Cybele the Mother.
- Blessed are the thyrsus-bearers, those who wield in their
hands the holy wand of god.
- Blessed are those who wear the crown of the ivy of god.
-Blessed are they: Dionysus is their god!"
The Bacchae, Euripides, 405 BC
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture, or monument and is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record.
Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
@@EvilXtianity Unless at least one of the Jesus' in Josephus book on the Jews was really written by Josephus, in which case it is late first century.
@@EvilXtianity Yeah where's all the carpentry he supposedly did for a living? Wouldn't they all have miraculous powers, having been crafted the Son of God himself? Yet no Apostle even bothered to buy a birdhouse from him. Wouldn't a lot people have been boasting about their stuff made by Jesus? The obvious fact is that Jesus never worked a day in his life and lived with his mom in his 30s, if he lived at all.
@@TheDanEdwards
_"Unless at least one of the Jesus' in Josephus book on the Jews was really written by Josephus, in which case it is late first century."_
References to Jesus are not found in the oldest manuscripts of his Antiquities of the Jews.
There are no known manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century and the oldest which do survive were edited by Christian monks.
Josephus says that he drew from and "interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures". His main source was the Gospel According to Luke who in turn copied from from the Gospel According to Mark. None of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
In the third century, Origen wrote extensively about Josephus, even about the very chapter that contains the Testimonium, but never mentioned or referred to the Testimonium in any way. This is inconceivable if the Testimonium had existed at that time. Since the first mention of that passage came from Eusebius, we can conclude that is when it was created.
Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen never wrote about the Testimonium passage. Origen even mentions Josephus but never mentioned the Testimonium.
Further evidence of a fraud is if you remove the Testimonium from its larger context, the previous paragraph flows together. The Testimonium is out of place because it was crudely inserted centuries later.
@@RolanRoyce
_"Yet no Apostle even bothered to buy a birdhouse from him."_
Wouldn't you expect that if God walked around town for thirty years and then died and then the sun went dark for three hours and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" that the locals would have noticed?
I absolutely love how the entirety of "scholarship" is predicated on completely stripping the word of God from the earth. People with forked tongues always ask, "Did God REALLY say...? Lol. It's exactly why the masses fully reject academia in their *high places.* The idols simply aren't made from wood, silver, gold, or stone anymore, huh?
scholarship doesn't place any credibility on magical claims -- nor should it
@DwayneShaw1 Magical claims like everything came from nothing? Or that somehow 3 manuscripts and a handful of papyrus scraps are more weighty than 40,000?
@@jeremyhinken3365 - the number of manuscripts has absolutely no bearing on whether what the manuscripts say is true. As to the claim that everything came from nothing -- science makes no such claim, there is no scientific conclusion on what may have happened before the Big Bang - and no reason to assume magic.
In fact, there is no scientific concensus that a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - but IF that is YOUR claim ... A 'Prime Mover' creator god cannot exist. Assuming a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - IF the claim is 'something can't come from nothing' [*] then something certainly can't exist in nothing either (because it's nothing). If this Prime Mover created 'everything', where did he exist before he created a place in which to exist? (answers akin to "He's the Great and Powerful Oz" - are neither satisfactory, logical, or demonstrable) - 'Being' implies a place in which to 'be'. There had to be some form of spacial construct for this god to exist in before he could exist in it. Also, nothing can happen without the forward momentum of time. So a Prime Mover couldn't have created time, without 'time' to do it, either. Religions, by their own arguments, have created a god that is nothing existing nowhere at no time. All theists can do is make vague unproven magicval gap filler claims that are childish and absurd
Not to mention that vague deistic arguments for a god are completely pointless - because a god that doesn't interact with It's creation is as irrelevant as a god that doesn't exist (this applies to all lessor god claims too). The only relevant arguments for religion must be about what this supposed god does for, or to, the universe - not whether a god merely exists... and ALL specific claims about magical interactions of a deity are unproven, illogical, and absurd - and often horridly immoral; thereby rendering the entire premise moot.
Claiming, "God exists outside space and time" is incoherent and vague -- unless 'outside space and time' can be clearly defined and proven to exist one might as well insist, "God exists banana".... Both statements are equally absurd. Saying something manifests without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent - and if you can't get past, "in the beginning", there's really nothing left to talk about.
[*] - a contingency argument can't be conditional - that's just arguing with yourself
There is no valid evidence to suggest "Q" ever existed. It is merely an attempt to "muddy the water" by panicked apologists who are horrified that far too many people now know Mark is the oldest gospel, in it jesus is not a god, merely a prophet tapped by god for a mission and is completely mortal. And that if you read the gospels in written order the jesus tale is an obvious "big fish" tale being fan-fic'd to be more fantastical with each rendition.
Here’s my theory, Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by divine guidance from the Holy Spirit, they were intended for people in different places in their spiritual journey of becoming a Christian. If the wording is similar or identical then that is evidence of God’s involvement in the creation of the Holy Bible.
_"Here’s my theory, Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by divine guidance from the Holy Spirit..."_
So God helped them write in advanced Greek?
Why couldn't God himself just write his own words?
Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are?
Which was Jesus's sixth commandment?
(Notice that Jesus lists only the secular commandments that make no mention of God):
1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
(Matthew 19:17-19)
2. Honor thy father and mother:
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother.
(Mark 10:19)
3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments:
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother.
(Luke 18:20)
Who authored those books?
You were doing ok until the last sentence
Here's my theory. The bar for authenticity is low for "Christian" source material. **NOT GOOD^^ when comparing traditions from the big 3.
WHO CARES? Even IF such a bloke existed-what does that say about the existence of some magical being aka god?! NOTHING! Adults believing in gods are no different than toddlers believing in Santa Claus. GROW UP!
We're here to learn history
Do you also go into videos about The Hobbit and scream about how it's all made up? Or do you not do that because that's a crappy thing to do?
This is a historical critical literary analysis. You are in the wrong forum. Literary source arguments do not depend on theism or anti-theism arguments.
@jbartlett5497 Yeahhh, think you're in the wrong place dude. This isn't ain't for silly people. This is "Academia", it ain't even for most Christians!
Faith (like imagination) is a human faculty-just depends on where-in what-in who you place it. You're going to believe in something-or trust in-or lean on something-whether your relationships-other people-your own agency/abilities/health-what have you? Proverbs 14.15 says, 'the naive [pethiy] believe every word.' Existence is deeply paradoxical. In that consciousness is irreducible to material existence i.e. cannot be recreated in a lab. It's all absurd. I say belief is nothing more or less than an opinion. Either fundamentalism is found wanting (remember the Novum Organon and the "idols of the mind"?). I can agree, belief in gods (phenomenological world view) is rather primitive or naive ("we all grew up with fairytales").
"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet
Are of imagination all compact.
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold:
That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt.
The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
Such tricks hath strong imagination
That if it would but apprehend some joy
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
*How easy is a bush supposed a bear!* "
That world view repurposed, contextualized and redeemed-transcends. The most persuasive mark of intelligent design is paradox. That you can doubt this, further attests. My opinion-that no matter what we actually discover in this life, inconsideration is inevitable-thus understanding is interminable. So wherever there is doubt/uncertainty, there may always be room for faith. I mean in no doctrinal sense of the term (e.g. "THE Faith i.e. dogmatic faith)-personally, defer to that expression left in Mark 11.22-simply, "have faith in God" and you won't be disappointed. Yet as James 2.22 would have us understand, your faith is made complete by what you do (a matter of integrity).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the baptism of Jesus, but they don't exactly agree on the wording of God's voice. Here's what each gospel says:
- *Matthew 3:17*: "And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" ¹
- *Mark 1:11*: "And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'" ¹
- *Luke 3:22*: "And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased.'" ¹
1 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus
It's worth noting that these accounts are based on the earliest manuscripts available. However, the exact wording might vary slightly depending on the translation and manuscript used.
Those three agree. The witnesses dictated to translators, who had to choose their own way to express what they heard.