Mark's Gospel Shamelessly Imitates Homer & Vergil To Construct Jesus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Mark's Gospel Shamelessly Imitates Homer & Vergil To Construct Jesus
In a remarkable display of intellectual audacity, Robyn Faith Walsh deftly tackles Derek Lambert's incisive inquiry from MythVision: Does Mark's Gospel shamelessly mimic the illustrious tales of Homer's Odyssey and Vergil's Aeneid to weave its captivating narrative of Jesus? The enigmatic nature of Jesus' concealed identity in Mark's Gospel has confounded scholars for well over a century, yet compelling evidence compels us to perceive this motif as a skillful literary device, inviting readers to revel in the sheer pleasure of the narrative, rather than clinging to its historical veracity.
See full video over on @History-Valley
• Video
Grab Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's book 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
==============================
*RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Check out MVP Courses
www.mvp-courses.com
Sign up for Dr. Kipp Davis Course "The Real Ancient Israelite Religions"
mythvisionpodcast.com/israeli...
Sign up for Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-...
Sign up for Bart's new Mark course "The Unknown Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown...
Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/fir...
Sign up here for Dr. M. David Litwa's course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mys...
Sign up here for Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - The Quest For The Historical Jesus - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jes...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Finding Moses - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/vir...
Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/res...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gen...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/chr...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus call himself God webinar - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
============================
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
============================
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 / derekpodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
===========================
👉👉 Checkout Our Other TH-cam Channel:
www.youtube.com/ @mythvisionclips
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
===========================
#mythvision #MythVisionPodcast #mvp #dereklambert
See full video over on @JacobBermanHistoryValley
th-cam.com/video/QAvsaR4UBM8/w-d-xo.html
Grab Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's book 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Do you respond to comments? I'd like to give you some information about the KJV Bible
Idiotic speculations trying to put 2 and 2 together. Not very intelligent.
Derek means well but boy oh boy he greases up the guests wayyy too much it’s even awkward for them…
Attention all sheep level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 10 33 eastren
@@thevulture5750 What a dumb thing to say. Are you from some specific cult, are you on drugs or did I misunderstand your comment? And if so, how exactly.
Always had doubts growing up about the Christian narrative, but when I studied Homer and Virgil at Uni, it became clear that, oh, they're just using literary devices!
Exactly, so how to go about getting the reading of the classics into the mainstream American education culture? Most probably impossible...especially considering the toxic literary suppression movement now taking place.
@@robdavinroy1761 Outside of America, and I'm only one datum, but I had no exposure to Classics until Uni. Went to a fair average school, not the best but far from the worst, and that kind of literary discussion simply wasn't to be found. A shame, as reading Classics opens you up to not only different stories and moral discussions, but a reflection on the societies and cultures they came from. I find that if schools can't improves a student's future pay packet they're not interested in teaching it.
@@RickReasonnz You make a great point. I am an American engineer but I have been working overseas for the past 6 years but only recently forced myself to start reading the classics, only because I started reading the works of Dr. Carier and Dr. Macdonald. I experienced the typical indoctrination growing up in the USA of only getting the Christian story, having no clue on the Greco Roman world and the influence on the Greek gospel writers. Let us hope more people will start reading and opening up their eyes.
@@robdavinroy1761 It's wild how little emphasis is put on the fact that the gospels were written in Greek. It would be like having a Bible written in German in the 1940's and pretending it didn't matter at all what was happening in that culture at the time.
@@Okijuben It is truly wild and sadly the norm for the past 2000 years. Personally, my whole life up until the last 2 years I had not really thought about it much. I was force-fed as a child to accept the gospels as written by first-hand eyewitnesses of Jesus. 99 % of Christians in the world do not take the time to examine the literature, and just follow the priests, ministers, preachers, and apologists like sheep. I was one of them, let's hope the world starts changing for the better.
It makes total sense that the influences all around the authors and the way they were educated would be incorporated into their writing of the gospels. I’m on board with this totally.
I also believe that these people are really onto something! This is excellent absolutely first rate scholarship! I, myself, am now trying to find the Universal Ice Age Hunter Gatherer Psychological Legacy Jungian level in this direction if Homer's "Odyssey" and the Sumerian "Epic of Gilgamesh" are really deep structure "Star Stories" still having deep psychological currency in the Messianic Apocalyptic Vedic-Zoroastrian-Mithraic-Gnostic World Age Passage context corruption of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century,
"Astrotheology for Life: Unlocking the Esoteric Wisdom of Ancient Myth"_David Warner Mathisen_2017
"Islands in the Sky: The Four-Dimensional Journey of Odysseus through Space and Time"_Rose Hammond_2012
"Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible"_Philippe Wajdenbaum _2014
Every new interview on Myth Vision-History Valley-Gnostic Informant-Esoterica is a gold mine!
Thanks Derek for seeking truth instead of mere consensus. " God may be high, but truth is higher still." Kirpal Singh.
"Truth is under me" ~ a deluded demon, probably would mint it in coins too, and the demon would change it's name from two-syllable Gudan to something more one-syllable like El or Zues or Yah or God.
@@letsomethingshineStay off the drugs, bro
He seems to have found nothing but consensus in this video. There’s absolutely no disagreement and a whole lot of laughing and backslapping going on with this group. I would actually like to hear somebody with a dissident voice.
The dam doors have burst open!!! Derek the work you’re doing with these scholars/historians is priceless for telling the truth about religions. So many have been indoctrinated/psychologically conditioned to take this Bible only a certain way, but you’ve provided a way out by providing the truth behind the texts for thousands if not millions as these videos get more viral. As one of came out of Christianity recently and you helped significantly, I just wanna say thank you. Salute
I feel like we’re on the cusp of some big paradigm shifts thanks to MacDonalds ‘Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels‘. Thanks for sharing Robyn Faith Walsh’s knowledge!
The ancient Christian elites knew this, but they decided to hide it. The dumber neocon ones often remain more confident, and the smarter liberal ones can find tricks and moves to snake out of almost anything. That's where the term "Dark Age" comes from. The rich love to pretend their manipulation tools are new and unique and thus not psychological manipulation tools at all.
One thing I find problematic that the "secret hero" is a foundational psychological archetype.
Look at modern day superheroes. Hard baked in.
Same exact archetype. Unrecognized hero.
Thats because we all play this archetype subconsciously. A product of our egos.
We are all the unrecognized "secret hero"
Now scale back. Job. Oldest book in the Bible, undoubtedly carried over from Babylon.
Job is also a normal guy to the outside world, but is in fact the subject and hero of a great existential wager
@@samuelsmithe2386
Its not enough to be the 1 billionth son of god. Now you must be the messiah with 1 billion likes and subscriptions.
The cynic told alexander, step out of the sun...
yeah, narcissism and hero worship go hand in hand.
Job. i wonder about the shema israel. Once you don't read the name as a nation, but the name of someone who struggles with god, its like a summary.
@@samuelsmithe2386 Job is not a normal guy at all he is super wealthy and counsel, essentially a local judge but the point you are making is pertinent in the sense that the entire religion is about the internal journey, told via homer, astrology, Zoroastrianism aided with psychedelic drugs. God is within you, the Kingdom is within you the new Jerusalem is you, the third temple is you, the father, the son, the spirit, it is all you. The prodigal son and the father you, the woman of samaria you, the soldier and the child..you, John the baptist. you, the resurrected christ.. you, It's all you.
Thankyou. Also ‘John’ shares this use of imagery from Odysseus’s disguised return to Ithaca and abuse in his own palace. The Prologue’s Greek has “the world did not recognise him” and “He came to his own property and his own people did not welcome him” then it calls Jesus “monogenes huios” in the best text ( one and only son) which is what Telemachus repeatedly calls himself before Odysseus reveals himself after Telemachus is hugged by the swine herd. The Prologue then says Jesus can reveal who the father is because he is in the embrace of the father. -Dr G.Craig Fairweather.
Exactly Derick! At the end of the day your faith is your faith. And may your God go with you
Kudos for the Dave Allen reference.
Nobody reading the Gospels 2000 years ago would be in any doubt that they were written as motifs of Homer, on the contrary they would have expected it for it to even be taken seriously. No new saviour for the empire would cut the mustard if he did not have the same story arc BUT also up to date characteristics of all the previous saviours
Greek is separated from Greek literature?
The original gospels were written in Greek 😂😅
Excellent video. Thanks 🙏
The hymn of The Pearl states, “For I had clothed me as they were, That they might not guess I had come.” This is found in Buddhist teaching called “The Teacher Unknown,” where the Buddha says that he makes his appearance just like his audience (also pirated into Gospel of Phillip and 1 Cor. 9:22). The Gospel of Philip states: “Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.”
This section could have been lifted from several Buddhist sources, such as the following Pali source: “There are various kinds of assemblies, O Ananda; assemblies of nobles, of Brahmans, of householders, of bhikkhus and of other beings. When I used to enter an assembly, I always became, before I seated myself, in color like unto the color of my audience (the rags in Gospel of Thomas and birds in the Sanghbhedavastu) and in voice like unto their voice. I spoke unto them in their language and then with religious discourse, I instructed, quickened, and gladdened them. But when I spoke, they knew me not and would say, ‘Who may this be who thus speaks a man or a god?’ Then having instructed, quickened, and gladdened them with religious discourse, I would vanish away. But they knew me not, even when I vanished away.”
After listening and reading to thousands of hrs on Christianity after I deconstructed my faith, I can sum up the gospels as this. The gospels are equivalent to movies you see today where it says “based on a true story” and that can sway tremendously on how much truth there is vs embellishment. The Gospels were used to paint a portrait i.e a movie about Jesus to supplement the theology and to capture converts with a blockbuster hit with the gentiles who were more attuned to literary classics.
Pretty much. Although I would add a big part of it is also celebrating/reinforcing already held beliefs. For example I think it’s hard to say Mark wasn’t writing for people who were already sold. Continuing with the blockbuster analogy think of something like Passion of the Christ today. It does both. But yes essentially it is to package an idea of Jesus to believers and non-believers alike.
Dr. Ehrman summed it up when he said that Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not the teachings of Jesus.
I really love the fact that you're able to present all of this as if it's new information, and to many it no doubt is, but it isn't as though people haven't heard these ideas for two thousand years. Keep kicking against the goads, Derek!
Glad to see you discussing this 🙋🏻♂️
Derek and Jacob, keep these scholars coming! And I'm glad Robyn Faith Walsh could have a productive conversation with James Valiant. It's not that long ago that scholars would view people such as James as cranks who are beneath them and therefore do not deserve a hearing. That's why Francesco Carotta couldn't get much traction with the academia in Europe.
Content starts at 4:24
Get the tissues at the ready. There's going to be plenty of tears in the comments! 😂😂😂
Actually we R laughing hilariously at this drivel: Derek is nothing but consistent!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Would you like a tissue? 😂
If something is done in secrecy then it gains longevity because it can’t be publicly scrutinized
The notion of Homer- and Virgil-related mimesis renders interpretation of the Gospels more sophisticated--the kind of stuff graduate students delve into.
Because it is sophisticated lit .
Not really. That's just how they taught writing.
You learned to read by reading Homer.
You learned to write by copying Homer.
You learned to write your own story by copying elements of Homer and adapting them to a new narrative.
Homer was the primary pedagogical tool. Homer was one of the primary features of entertainment. By the time you were writing your own stories you were so thoroughly familiar with Homer that riffing on his work was second nature.
Not to say the gospels are unsophisticated, just not especially so and not to any sort of graduate level. They meet the expectation of what any educated writer would have been trained to produce at the time. The whole process only seems advanced looking backwards because we no longer teach things that way and we've broken down the process of teaching reading and writing into more fundamental components.
@@rainbowkrampus Still, making Circe's little pigs into Jesus' and Polyphemus into the plurally possessed madman would seem quite clever, especially as a hypertextual play on things .
@@RocketKirchner For their time, Odysseus, Jesus, etc are low bar compared to Shakespear which is low bar compared to JRR Tolkin.
@@letsomethingshine Well yes, and long live JRRT! (His work that is) to
Great vid. It's so much going on, I'm not sure how people still cling to this books
Because they believe whats going on is bible prophecy
They don't read it carefully, nor look out the context from outside sources. They are just skimming the beginning quickly scrolling through to the end, and clicking "ACCEPT" with no good questions asked. They are assuming the best out of religions when all religions/corporations want to do is religion/pyramid, not necessarily look out for the best interests of those that click "ACCEPT."
Because they are true
Revelation describes an Extra Terrestrial take over of planet Earth for a thousand year reign that will never end. Everything else is just the lead up to that.
Every time somebody clarifies that the earliest writings about Jesus came from Paul...who freely admits to never actually meeting Jesus when he was alive...I can't help but to think of Dr. Richard Carrier's euhemeristic hypothesis. While Dr. Bart Ehrman is adamant that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that all the teachings Paul attributes to his "visions" of Jesus could _still_ have been merely that...attribution, essentially adopting one of the many would-be messiahs in 1st Century Judea and _projecting_ his own philosophy _onto_ that person, who...as Aron Ra describes and Dr. Ehrman agrees...wouldn't recognize himself in the stories _about_ him or teachings attributed _to_ him.
16:21 - Literally tens of millions of Americans _today_ strongly believe that...despite having _zero_ academic or professional credentials..."Common Sense," enables them to understand any number of highly complex topics _better_ than people who have dedicated their entire adult lives to those specific fields, _and_ those who seek power (many of whom _also_ have no relevant academic or professional expertise) encourage...if not exemplify...this arrogant ignorance, telling their constituents, "You and I know better than _them."_ (See: Dunning Kruger Effect)
It's genuinely fascinating to realize this is a fundamental aspect of early Christianity...and the Hellenistic mythologies (and political rhetoric) that clearly _influenced early Christianity.
Same with the concept of the self-made man. How many people in D.C. were only able to achieve success, "...all on their own," _after_ their parents handed them a small fortune?
Great video! I knew about the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism, a result of Persian conquest and occupation, so learning about Hellenistic influences...makes perfect sense.
Great video!
Odysseus fought in the trojan war for 10 years and then took 10 years to return home. Thus he was gone for 20 years in total. Dogs wouldn't generally live that long, so it is no wonder that he died after smelling his master
haha,
The guy in the middle is so cute, his facial expressions 😂🥰
Haha.. True
I appreciate the attention to mimesis theory. I do, however, have issues with its limited scope. I'm with Dr. M. David Litwa here. There's just so much more than mimesis going on in late antiquity. I mean, why is it so profound to discover that the ancients could imitate or change their myths and tales just like we moderns do? There were probably hundreds of different "comic book" versions of Homer and Virgil as there are of Batman and Wolverine.
I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with limiting scope.
The mimesis hypothesis is only meant to explain one aspect of the gospels. It's not trying to account for everything and never claims to.
This is the foundation of a good scientific approach. Isolating variables.
@@rainbowkrampus I think the commonsense approach here is integrating variables. Why isolate the textual data when commonplace dynamic cultural interaction is easily evinced?
My sense these are different without a distinction. Whether it's in the air or in a specific book or story that created the air in the first place the point is it comes from Greek literature and very much so. Litwas point/distinction adds no value, nor does it solve any problems or clear any mystery up.
Plus, Mac Donald's examples are just too numerous, too synchronous, too on the nose to just be in the air.
Disclaimer: I don't know sh't technically.
I'm so on this way of thinking!
Thank you for this format
Mark used the litererary device of the tragic hero then flipped the script from tragedy to commendia with the resurrection
Mark never said Jesus was resurrected
@@unknownpirate3290 The book called "Mark" has the resurrection part added to it later, given the evidence that only "newer" dated versions include the resurrection part. That means the original version flipped the script from a tragic hero to a "mystery cliff hanger." Later people thought a cliff hanger wasn't good enough, so they made it into commendia theater, which is what modern Church denominations are today.
Yep. And that is way beyond using a “trope”.
Mark ends at 16:8.
The young man before that real ending states that Jesus of Nazareth has been raised .
Start of Ch 16 the young man says he was raised
These discussions are fascinating and would love to see a lot of these and similar points made with the aide of a historical, graphic timeline. It's so difficult to keep all this stuff straight in terms of chronology, and indeed, any theory or analysis is utterly dependent on a sequence of events.
We should ask Matt of Useful Charts to make a chart about that. He’s already made several with timelines related to the Bible, the gospels and other religion topics.
What is the song at the beginning of the video? Fits perfect to the intro to the interview.
There's ALWAYS 'a book' involved!!!
"MacDonald's thesis has not found acceptance and has received strong criticism by other scholars.[5][6][7][8][9] Karl Olav Sandnes notes the vague nature of alleged parallels as the "Achilles' heel" of the "slippery" project. He has also questioned the nature of the alleged paralleled motifs, seeing MacDonald's interpretations of common motives. He states, "His [MacDonald's] reading is fascinating and contributes to a reader-orientated exegesis. But he fails to demonstrate authorial intention while he, in fact, neglects the OT intertextuality that is broadcast in this literature."
Daniel Gullotta from Stanford similarly writes "MacDonald’s list of unconvincing comparisons goes on and has been noted by numerous critics. Despite MacDonald’s worthy call for scholars to reexamine the educational practices of the ancient world, all of the evidence renders his position of Homeric influential dominance untenable."[10]
Adam Winn, though adopting MacDonald's methods of mimetic criticism, concluded after a detailed analysis of MacDonald's theses and comparisons between Homer and Mark that "MacDonald is unable to provide a single example of clear and obvious Markan interpretation of Homer... because MacDonald's evidence is at best suggestive, it will ultimately convince few."[11]
Kristian Larsson discusses the concept of intertextual density and its application in what MacDonald views as one of the most convincing cases of Markan imitation, namely the Cyclops - Circe complex in Odyssey 9-10 and the Gerasene demoniac story in Mark 5.[12]
David Litwa argues that problematic parts of MacDonald's thesis include that he construes both large ranges of similarity in addition to large range of difference as evidence for parallel, that he alters his parallels in order to make them more convincing like suggesting that Jesus walking on water is comparable to Athena and Hermes flying above water, that he has an inconsistent application of his own six criteria (where he often uses only one or two to establish parallel and thus relies largely on loose structural standards of similarity), and that he often has completely unconvincing parallels such as his comparison of Odysseus on a floating island to Jesus sitting in a boat that floats on water."
So many religions claim their particular religion is a pure , unigue and seperate divine vision from the religions before and around them.
We're special , join us and believe what we believe.
Are you educated in any subject? Let's chat.
@20july1944 I have recommended repeatedly that you look into the origins of the obviously fictional Abrahamic god. Have you done it yet? Scholarship below.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. His pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@epicofatrahasis3775
Thats a lot of great stuff in there !
Do you have the info in your comment anywhere that's easily shareable .
Thanks 👍
Fascinating, thank you.
The New Testament is clearly a syncretism. And Philo was the beginning of that syncretism that we know. And Philo is the clue by calling the right hand angel of God the logos and John calls Jesus the Logos.
The Gospels are not just referencing Greek myths but Greek Philosophers.
Which famous Greek was accused of heresy and sentenced to death Socrates (like Jesus)
Which Greek taught live thy neighbor and counted fishes with accuracy Pythagoras.
Which Greek taught the eternal renewal of life Empedocles (who was also a God man)
Xenophanes taught monotheism God is one and criticize Homer for portraying the polytheistic Gods as morally weak.
Heraclitus gives the Logos idea as the underlying fabric of creation the immanence of the transcendent. (Jesus is the word made flesh)
The Pythagorean line Philosophy rejected superstition. But they are also credited with creating the Orphic mysteries.
In Paul he asks people to find Jesus within. And in Socrates menos he shows a slave boy how to find virtue within. Which happens to be deductive reason which is a type of logos.
I think many Protestants are in abject denial.
But Greek Orthodox still considers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle proto-saints.
I mean, the bible authors were literate Greeks. They knew the Greek classics. It's not some great revelation that references to classic Greek stories would show up in the New Testament.
Right? As i've been saying they will EXPECT this style of writing not be crazily surprised by it.
People tend to forget that the "secret hero" is a foundational psychological archetype.
Look at modern super heroes.
Same exact archetype. Unrecognized hero.
Thats because we all play this archetype subconsciously. A product of our egos.
We are all the unrecognized "secret hero"
yep
Anti Hero?
@@sophiawilson8696 same thing - maybe just not as conformist
I really think using the word trope is trivializing and undercutting what Dr. Dennis McDonald has clearly shown. Mark and Luke go well beyond using tropes. They are blatantly writing parrallels to the Greek literary works, almost writing the same stories in chronological order with definitely the same emotional context, but then elevating and sensationalizing to make Jesus higher than the previous Greek/Latin heroes. I respect Dr. Robin, but it feels to me like she is resisting calling a spade a spade…. Bart Ehrman is even more resistant and also likes to to use the word trope. To me it’s dismissive of what Dr. Mac has clearly shown.
Well said.
Agreed. "Trope" is starting to be used like "meme". This work is too important for that kind of language. However, the rest of this video is fascinating.
@@davekearney1944 Agreed! She is a great scholar.
The guy in the middle can't stop
Your faith is your faith if you keep it to yourself. But, it’s also worrying that you find yourself believing BS when there is no demonstrable evidence for your belief.
It actually resonates with Christian tradition which states Peter preached the gospel to Roman Soldiers.
The emperor as everyman reminds me of the same image Trump used to win over the masses. The idea of a man of inherited wealth being portrayed as a self-made man of the people for the people
James was talking of Titus' birth in a little shack in a slum area of The City (Rome) and immediately I thought of Abe Lincoln's shack in Kentucky where he was born and where he grew up.
" something going on" lol
Please run a jesus historicity course by richard carrier
This is why in the first place, Flavius Josephus wrote the new testament in greek...
14:18 I've noticed several religious groups and more explicitly, cults (as we currently use the word with its negative connotation), where the founders and leading members, those most involved in actively organizing and growing the group, tend to be more educated than the followers. And there also tend to be a small number of wealthy members who are given privileged positions in return for their financial support.
It's like explaining the battle of Yavin by saying George Lucas was inspired by old Japanese WW2 movies. Might be true, but is totally irrelevant. Someone that actually watched the movie would probably know it's about blowing up the Death Star.
I think the point in Mark is that there are people on the outside that believe only for their own personal gain, so those people are told to be silent. Like the demons will recognize his power over them, the sick recognize his power over their disease and the apostles are tempted by those earthly things as well. Even today, it's how people act, they believe because of miracles and because of authority and it's the reason they tell other people to believe. So Mark calls them outsiders who don't understand the message of the Gospels. It's also the reason people don't believe and reject Him, so it goes both ways.
The idea of the Messiah is just the same problematic. Even today, most Christians don't believe he was, which is why they wait for a second coming. But they will tell everybody he was, without evidence and that they should believe without evidence. Same with the Son of God idea that comes from demons. All those things are problematic and should not matter at all, and yet it's the only thing people care about, especially scholars.
Pretty sure Homer and Virgil did not even exist when the Gospel was first mentioned in Genesis 3:15. Any similarities described by Homer and Virgil et al are due to a handed down distorted copy of the original narrative. So you have your 'history' back to front.
The pagan Galatians would have by and large spoken some sort of Gaulish or proto-Gaulish -- an early Celtic language. The individual Galatians Paul communicated with, I assume knew Greek? If so they must have been rather uncommon folks.
@@nodruj8681 Are you sure? Most of Galatia was still Celtic wilderness much like the US west throughout the 19th Century. The only places where Paul would have written letters to his faithful in were all Roman cities in the south end of the Galatian province.
Wasn't there also lack of recognition on The Road to Emmaus? Was that in Luke?
My thought as well! In fact, I think it fits the Homeric model a little more obviously.
@@brianholly3555 Now, how can we draw Derek's attention to this portion of the conversation?
Entirely possible when you're talking about the basic structure of the literature; as for the historicity of the central figure, I'm sticking with my Spartacus theory!
What's the Spartacus theory?
@@mattr.1887 First, look up Spartacus and see why his legend is so noteworthy and why he's better remembered than most of the Roman rulers!
not wonder but wonders (Herakles)
Dam Derek 3 AD breaks, jesus man. It's a 22 min video. 😂
You misspelled Virgil
John Keegan observes in his History of warfare that historians cannot tell you the influence Aristotle had on Alexander the Great.
If Paul had employed the Parable of the Prodigal Son on Mars Hill instead of his lame rabbinical legalism of his "unknown god" argument, he probably would have had a far more favorable response,
The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a recasting of The Odyssey, When first we meet Odysseus, he is weeping, His men have become swine and the gods will not allow him to return to Faithful Penelope because of his insolent pride in his taunting of Polyphemus,
Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud,
Like the Prodigal son, Odysseus is allowed to return to Ithaca, where he has the homecoming of the Vietnam combat vet, Bit. unlike Odysseus, who is mistaken for a beggar by everyone buy Argos, his dog, who dies from joy on recognizing him, the Prodigal Son's father recognizes him from a distance and, like a faithful dog greeting his soldier/Master returning from a deployment in the sandbox. he rushes out to celebrate his safe return, And, of course, the older son displays the resentment of the false suitors, who wait ambush for Agamemnon,
I don't know how to tell yo this, but Jesus is a profoundly Hellenistic Jew, The Overture to the Gospel of John cold have been the mission statemen of Philo of Alexandria with it's mid-Platonic LOGOS, Like Odysseys, Jesus is the LOGOS. , Jesus perfects Moses's Shema, which is a three legged stool of heart, soul and strength, by adding Plato to create a Shema that is Four Square to the Earth of Heart, soul, mind and strength,
Rome was a Republic one hundred years before Plato started composing The Republic which is a sociology of Sparta. (Just for the record, the Terran Federation is based on the sociology of The Republic, The US Army combat veterans of Vietna are the first generation of Starship Troopers. Joe Haldeman, the author of The Foreever war, a squeal to Starship Troopers, was a Starship Trooper. Jimi hendrix was a Starship Trooper and his cover of The Anthem is what it is like to follow Yaweh, Queen of Battle into Hell as a Starship Trooper. Not that it matters, but Jimmy Tabor is preaching from the Gospel of those who were scared shitless of going to Vietnam.)
Jesus's death on the corss is a divine endorsement of Socrates's submission to the secular law of Athens, The Cross is the Cup p Jesus wishes to pass Him by in Gethsemane Socrates is the moment history pivoted from the Homeric aesthetic of duty to the gods to the ethic of man's duty to man, John 11:35 is the chiasmatic moment when history pivoted for BCE to CE. and the Jewish GOd Hupothesis was validated with the Resurrection,
In the final analysis, Jesu is the essential metric of Socrates influence on Alexander the Great, The Gospel of Mark doesn't rip off Homer: it leaves his foot prints on the moon with Apollo 11.
Curious - the thumbnail of Jesus looks a lot like Viggo Mortensen playing Aragorn in LOTR.
Closer to Jim Cavaziel in The Passion of the Christ.
@@RickReasonnz Come to think of it that’s probably who It is. Personally I never bothered to see the film. Hitch called it “gay sado-porn,” remember?
@@danielschaeffer1294 Remember, they made the film for Christians, who delight in a bit of the ol' self-flagellation. Hitch was right, it was porn for Christians.
Vergil?
I expect to see a video by (oh my brother) Testify shortly
Shakespeare wrote about Greek mythology *YET* he never saw what you geniuses are seeing. You guys deserve a cookie 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ody has been away 20 years. How old is this dog?
It is spelled Virgil.
Jesus was on the fringe once 😂
So, was Q source based on Homer & Vergil?
PS, is it true that majority of bible scholars reject that Mark is based Homer & Vergil?
@@bunchlead Q wasn't based on anything since it didn't exist.
What most Bible scholars reject or accept is kinda moot since most of them are christian and many of them have signed statements of faith affirming that Jesus was real etc. etc.
i.e. Their opinion is so incredibly biased that they've effectively rendered themselves irrelevant to the conversation, lacking any capacity for objectivity.
@@rainbowkrampus LOL ,at your unbiased propaganda 🤣
@@rainbowkrampus
Q does exist. It consists of the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark, passages that are often long and word for word or nearly word for word the same. Those passages still exist.
Now, the Greek document from which those passages were taken does not exist, but the passages themselves exist, embedded in Matthew and Luke.
@@rainbowkrampus Most scholars before the Homer theory ever existed believed in Q?
Just as "Ruach Elohim" from Genesis 1 is "Spirit of God" and not "Spirit God", "Yahweh Elohim" from Genesis 2 is "LORD of God" and not "LORD God".
As if some Yahu from Edom and Seir (judges 5, deut 33) is the LORD of God...
Seriously, nobody sees the character from Genesis 2 for the usurper/deciever it is?
Is it not obvious?
Usurper: the LORD of God
(Yahweh Elohim)
Deciever: the LORD your God
(Yahweh your Elohim)
Here are seven differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh" as they appear in the Names of God (NOG) translation of the Bible:
1. "Ruach Elohim" is first mentioned in Genesis 1:2, where it is translated as "God's Spirit." "Ruach Yahweh" is first mentioned in Judges 3:10, where it is translated as "the LORD's Spirit."
2. "Ruach Elohim" is used throughout the Old Testament to describe the Spirit of God in general, while "Ruach Yahweh" is often used specifically in reference to the Spirit of God acting in a prophetic or empowering way, as in Judges 14:6 where Samson is "filled with the Spirit of Yahweh" to defeat a lion.
3. "Ruach Elohim" is sometimes used to describe the breath of life given to all creatures, as in Job 34:14-15 where it says that if God were to "gather back his breath [ruach]," all life would perish. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this sense.
4. In some passages, the two terms are used interchangeably. For example, in Isaiah 61:1, the Spirit of the Lord [Ruach Yahweh] is said to be upon the prophet, while in Ezekiel 11:5, the same phrase is translated as "the Spirit of God [Ruach Elohim] came upon me."
5. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the creation of humans in Genesis 2:7, where it says that Yahweh "breathed the breath [ruach] of life into [Adam's] nostrils." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context.
6. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the work of the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2, where it is said that "the Spirit of Yahweh will rest on him." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this passage.
7. "Ruach Elohim" is used in the New Testament to refer to the Holy Spirit, as in Luke 3:22 where the Spirit descends on Jesus at his baptism "in bodily form like a dove." "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in the New Testament.
Here are seven more differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh" in the Bible:
1. "Ruach Elohim" is used in Psalm 51:11 where David asks God not to take his Spirit away from him, whereas "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this context.
2. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with dreams and visions in Numbers 12:6, where it says that Yahweh spoke to Moses in a dream and a vision, "but not like [He spoke] to [His] servant Moses, who had a close relationship with [Yahweh]." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this passage.
3. "Ruach Elohim" is used in 1 Samuel 10:10 where it says that the Spirit of God came upon Saul and he prophesied along with a group of prophets. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this context.
4. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with judgment in Isaiah 4:4, where it says that Yahweh will "wash away the filth of Zion's people...by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context.
5. "Ruach Elohim" is used in Job 33:4 where Elihu says that "the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this passage.
6. Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the exodus from Egypt in Isaiah 63:14, where it says that "the Spirit of Yahweh led [the Israelites] through the desert." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context.
7. Ruach Elohim" is used in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 where Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit revealing God's wisdom to believers. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this passage.
Whom does the gerasene demoniac in Marks gospel represent?
the GOSPELS.
basically the FANFICTION work of some ANCIENT jewish greek FANBOY (mark) about his imagined earthly epic adventures of his god-hero, then plagiarized by THREE OTHER (that we know of) jewish greek FANBOYS for their own theological narrative.
There were at least 60 gospels. Not all are found. Many are preserved. Others fragments were found.
The infancy Gospels are definitely Fan Fiction.
The Gospel of Peter ends were they open the tomb and a giant crucification pops out that is so large it reaches the heavens, which is a bit over the top.
🔵 Since we did create ourselves and we didn't either create the foods and fruits suiting our smartly structured bodies to sustain us alive, (this prerequisite is exactly the same for animals) ...
🔵 Since we are using physical laws and principles we didn't know could exist, neither created nor did we establish them...
🔵 Since we have been given a wonderfully created brain and mind, to observe, think and ponder on things...
🔴 I am compelled to deduct I that there is a Very, Very High Intelligence behind all that‼️
And that Intelligence /IS/ THE LONE, TRUE AND LEGITIMATE DIVINE; From whom emanate: Love, Benevolence, Righteousness, Peace, Kindness et Justice...
⚠️That said, /all/ religions are Fake and man made. All religious books (torah, bible, quran etc) are FAKED WORDS of That Divine.
There is an early reference to the Christians in Lucian of Samosota. Where Lucian (who was satirical comedian) was saying the Christians were always trying to find their new Socrates.
So yes the early Christians were highly educated.
They were Hellenized Jews and Greek converts to Judaism very educated in ancient culture.
Luke John and the rest of them never existed
There's a lot of coincidences. So what?
Thy guy in the middle clearly has a crush on the woman... 😁
And who doesn’t?
@@danielschaeffer1294 Stole my answer.
Plug in those pithy words of wisdom as the godman wanders about performing miracles where his perfect father failed.
If you are telling a lie, you'll have different versions.
Not if you base your lie on an earlier version that has the same reason/ goal with the lie. Regards from south Sweden
We should thank Kevin for making the babbling and especially the lying so obvious.
There were 2 other guys crucified with Jesus. We're they IMITATING HOMER? Or just victims of circumstances?
How do you know they were real and crucified?
@@epochalypsemeow5732 You mean they were making a movie on the set? Theory: fake moon landings vs fake crucifixions?
😱 “Shamelessly imitated” is a very clickbait-y way to say “deliberately worked with a Homeric concept”.
One thing I didn’t understand from this interview was that RFW says the Messianic Secret theory is bad because it’s a literary device and not a theological one. Well for one thing…I don’t know how you can divorce theology from the gospels. For another I understood the Messianic Secret to BE a literary device. I thought that’s how Dr Tabor taught it in his class on Mark’s gospel and from what I understood him to say, he was just repeating a traditional understanding of how Mark arranged his gospel. It was quite a heavy emphasis on literary devices.
I mean, let’s just suppose for the sake of it Mark’s point was simply that Jesus wasn’t known to be the Messiah when he was alive but that’s because his followers were idiots. That’s what I would call a theological point (Jesus is the Messiah) and he’s using the Messianic Secret as a literary device to make it. So it seems like an unnecessary distinction?
Wilhelm Wrede long ago put forward the theory that Mark "invented" the Messianic Secret idea to downplay the fact that Jesus (unlike in the GoJ), didn't go around calling himself the Messiah (Christ) all the time. Almost no scholars hold to that any more.
See my own idea above.
Like Darth Vader, Jesus was a composite man, and they both had virgin births. Only Darth was proven to be the Chosen One in less than a lifetime, and Jesus ... Well, you know.
All interesting considerations, but none of it leads to anything meaningful or conclusive. Shots in the dark.
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 1:11 KJV
That was shortly before Jesus’s wandering ministry takes place. Not quite the same harsh judgment that was given to Odysseus when his journey started.
Jesus did receive that glowing tribute at the outset, but spending 40 days in the desert with Satan while knowing he was going to be crucified was no picnic either.
@@davekearney1944 That good sense of selfless sacrifice that was anticipated from the onset also doesn’t seem to be on the mindset of Odysseus with his intent.
12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
Mark 9:12 KJV
Pretty woman !
Why comment this?
Not convincing! Only because Jesus keeps his Christhood secret and Odysseus keeps his identity secret in a part of the odyssey that does not mean that Mark got his idea from the odyssey.
OF COURSE NOT.
Not convincing at all.
I am about to propose a better reason for why Jesus kept his messianic identity silent, and it is hinted at in what follows.
___________
Mistaken, but not wrong?
AS a teenager, I began admiring Jesus when I first read his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. As I grew older and studied him more carefully, I started seeing that Jesus, like his predecessor John the Baptizer, thought - and proclaimed - that the end of the world was going to arrive within his own generation. But unlike John who stressed the coming of God’s fiery wrathful punishment, Jesus emphasized the good news of God’s rapidly approaching Kingdom.
Although ultimately I felt compelled to acknowledge that Jesus’ proclamation went unfulfilled, I continued admiring him, and still do, for this reason: I became convinced that Jesus expected his death would almost immediately be followed by his being gloriously lifted up before the eyes of all the world so that people everywhere could see his death as a loving, forgiving gift of God intended for the benefit of all humanity.
In other words, it now seems to me that Jesus expected that his dying would soon wonderfully and completely fulfill Isaiah 52:13-53:12 for the sake of everyone on earth, and this understanding of God’s intended “will” was so unanticipated in Jesus’ time that even he had to struggle with it in Gethsemane (Mark 14:33-36).
A short while later, as he was standing before his examiners, he told them that they would see him exalted “at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark14:62, quoting Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14). I now think that Jesus did not intend his words to them as a warning, but an incentive, for he felt that they - even they - would soon see and surely appreciate what God had done for all the world, including them. (Note also Luke 12:10a.)
“But wait a minute,” someone will object. “What Jesus was expecting did not happen. He was mistaken.”
In attempting to answer that, I find myself in agreement with historian Dale C. Allison who replied to similar objections by stating, “I think Jesus had it right: he so thirsted for justice on such a grand scale that he had to embrace his [Jewish] tradition’s belief in the transcendence of history and death. He may have been mistaken, but he wasn’t wrong.” (“The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate,” p. 105.)
Although subsequent events did not fulfill Jesus’ expectations, his unique view of his people’s fervent hopes may still be seen as wondrously compassionate and inclusive.
__________
See the youtube videos “Jesus Laid Bare - Imagined Conversations with Jesus” parts 1-4 and part 5 "Why Was Jesus Silent About Himself?" when it becomes available.
That, plus Jesus’s ultimate goal wasn’t to just get back to his little kingdom. That he was doing his sacrificing in his kingdom and was pleased by his divine Father when he starts out his wandering ministry.
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 1:11 KJV
@@kevinx7015
Actually, the words Jesus heard at his baptism (Mark 1:11) may have been his first firm indication that HE was to be the promised divinely Spirit-anointed "son" who would be given the nations as his possession (Psalm 2:7-9) AND his first firm indication that HE was to be that one described in Isaiah as the servant with whom God was so PLEASED and DELIGHTED (both translations possible, Isaiah 42:1) because he would fulfil God's will (53:10) by dying for "many" (53:11-12) -- for Israel and the world .
All of that Jesus believed would take place and be divinely revealed to Israel and all the world very soon after his death (Mark 9:1; 14:62).
It was only when that did not happen and the years wore on that it was felt by Paul and others that the resurrected Jesus was commissioning THEM to carry the message to others. Paul's first missionary journey did not take place until about sixteen years after the crucifixion.
@@jamesboswellii2034 1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Mark 9:1 KJV
So, who were the ones Jesus was saying that to and where is the evidence showing their deaths?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14:62 KJV
So where is it distinguished that this witnessing was to happen in that person’s mortal lifetime?
@@kevinx7015
According to Mark 9:1, Jesus told his twelve that not all of them would die before they would see the kingdom of God come with power.
According to Matthew 16:28, he told them they would not die before they would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Note also Matthew 25:31).
According to Mark 14:61-62, Jesus told the Council (the high priest and chief priests and elders and scribes who were about to condemn him) that they would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.
In both cases, Jesus was predicting something they would see before they all died, and they all died.
unconvincing to say the least but this type of literary criticism is never convincing to me
If Jonah, David, Joshua, Joseph and Mosses all mimic Christ then why should we see similarities to Christ in mythology as weird? I just see it as God doing his thing.
Main point is very interesting, but historically incorrect. My book "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is in the final stage, and can be made available for preview for the sake of science. Will save a lot of effort on top untold pile of manhours already wasted on this travesty.
New testament was written in Hebrew, originally. Is it possible that whoever translated (A Greek individual, or scribe.. 'Woe to you, scribes..") added their own.. inspired twist on things..?
Its really stretching to believe that twists and translations are inspired. How do you know which ones are the right ones?
@@mouthpiece200 why?
@@mouthpiece200 in this scenario, the Hebrew would be the original.
@@thatswhatshesaid5419 I'm not sure how much evidence there is that it was originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic rather). But that's not the point. I don't see how a departure (twist) from the original could be inspired. If god wanted to inspire something, just make it accurate from the beginning. It creates a can of worms if changes can be more inspired than the original, because there is an infinite possible number of changes, but only one original. How would we know if a change was inspired?
Except they weren’t written in Hebrew original mark is in koine Greek. Maybe they were but for what we now officially they were not
jesus probably never existed can we talk about that being plausible
Think you all know every thing , hold on you will all find out, very soon .The fire will be very hot ,trust me.
Are Catholics Christians? Do they believe in salvation by faith through Christ and that He alone can save not the Pope or the Catholic church?
Attention all sheep level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 10 33 eastren
Do you have to lack common sense to be a biblical scholar or they just happen to lack common sense?
This woman never talks about Barnabas. She's a hypocrite. The early church clearly replaced true apostle Barnabas with false apostle Paul as Jesus told Barnabas to write and the coming of Prophet Muhammad.
[Proof "the Bible" is not the Word of God/Proof the Christ is the Word of God/the Word of God is Elohim]
Compare John 1: 1-5 and Genesis 1: 1-5:
John 1
Names of God Bible
The Word Becomes Human
1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was already with God in the beginning.
3 Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
4 He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.
5 The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.
Genesis 1
Names of God Bible
The Creation
1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water.
3 Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. 4 Elohim saw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 5 Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.
[Elohim (God) from Genesis 1 vs
Yahweh Elohim (LORD of God) from Genesis 2]
Compare these two verses:
2 Samuel 24:1
Names of God Bible
David’s Sin-He Takes a Census
24 Yahweh became angry with Israel again, so he provoked David to turn against Israel. He said, “Go, count Israel and Judah.”
and
1 Chronicles 21:1
Names of God Bible
David Counts the People
21 Satan attempted to attack Israel by provoking David to count the Israelites.
🤔
It's important to note that different scholars and theologians have different interpretations of the relationship between Elohim (Genesis 1) and Yahweh (Genesis 2) in the Hebrew Bible, and there is no consensus on whether they are different deities or different names for the same deity.
However, here are five hypothetical reasons some scholars might consider:
1. Different Title/Name: The title and name Elohim and Yahweh are distinct, and they are used in different contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars argue that this suggests that they represent different conceptions of the divine, and that they might have originally been separate deities that were later merged.
2. Different Characteristics: Elohim is often portrayed as a more distant, transcendent deity, while Yahweh is portrayed as a more personal, immanent deity. Some scholars argue that these different characteristics suggest that they are different deities.
3. Different Origins: Some scholars argue that the name Yahweh is associated with the southern kingdom of Judah, while the name Elohim is associated with the northern kingdom of Israel. This difference in origin could suggest that they were originally separate deities worshipped by different communities.
4. Different Roles: Elohim is often associated with creation and judgment, while Yahweh is often associated with salvation and redemption. Some scholars argue that these different roles suggest that they are different deities with distinct spheres of influence.
5. Different Historical Contexts: The use of the name Elohim is more prevalent in the early books of the Hebrew Bible, while the name Yahweh becomes more prominent in later books. Some scholars argue that this suggests that the conception of the divine changed over time, and that Elohim and Yahweh might represent different deities worshipped at different points in history.
Proof that Voldemort is real:
1. Mentioned in "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (Book 1):
- Voldemort's real name is Tom Marvolo Riddle. He was a powerful dark wizard who sought immortality and dominion over the wizarding world.
- Hagrid reveals that Voldemort killed Harry's parents, Lily and James Potter, on October 31, 1981, and attempted to kill Harry but failed, resulting in the infamous scar on Harry's forehead.
2. Explored in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" (Book 2):
- Tom Riddle's diary, which Harry encounters, is a Horcrux containing a piece of Voldemort's soul. It provides clues to Voldemort's past and his involvement in opening the Chamber of Secrets fifty years earlier.
3. Central figure in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (Book 4):
- Voldemort returns to power after years of being presumed dead. He regains his physical form and begins to plot his revenge against Harry Potter and the wizarding community.
- Voldemort uses the Triwizard Tournament to capture Harry and use his blood in a ritual to restore his full strength.
4. Explored further in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" (Book 5):
- Voldemort's followers, known as Death Eaters, cause havoc and engage in battles against members of the Order of the Phoenix, a group fighting against Voldemort's forces.
- Voldemort attempts to possess Harry's mind and uses a connection between them called the "connection of their wands."
5. Progresses in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (Book 6):
- Voldemort continues to gain power and infiltrate the Ministry of Magic. He assigns Draco Malfoy a task to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts.
Why would Voldemort go through all that if he’s not real!?
U 2 R hilarious 🤣
The Gospel of John has a relationship to the Pythagorean philosophies. Pythagoras was taught by Jews in Egypt and Mt. Caramel and the Essenes and Philo were Pythagorean.
There were four different Jewish sects: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots (the Sikarim)
At the end of Gospel of John is a direct reference to Pythagoras the counting of the fishes, the story is nearly identical. And this is after the resurrection.
The Pythagoreans believed in Metempsychoses reincarnation.
Origin was also a Pythagorean and wrote that every human being will reincarnate until perfected like Christ.
What the Gospel of John is the reincarnated Pythagoras Or the perfected Pythagoras is Christ.
The one God In Pythagoreanism was the Monad which is the number one. But they Pythagoreans did not believe that one and two were real numbers. Three is the first real number. This is the origin of the Trinity, God in three faces or three modes or three as one. Plato said the entire world is made of invisible triangles.
This is for you Derek.
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
2 Timothy 4:3-5
Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
1 Timothy 4:7
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter 1:16
Eyewitnesses. Got it?
Robyn Walsh has lots of arrogance, she exaggerates, her arguments are speculative, imaginary, she is trying hard to make a career by destroying Jesus . Others have tried the same thing in the past.
Reduced to simplest terms Jesus really did live, he rose from the dead, he lives today and he is Lord of Lord's, King of Kings, and our only hope. We live by faith, not by academia.
richard etc: No, there is no good, credible, extra-biblical, contemporary evidence that the "Jesus" character described in the New Testament actually existed. None. See if you can find some.
You have been misled, as so many of us were.
Fringe theory.
Great argument 😂
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
@@Suzume-Shimmer Fringe theory in the field. That’s not debatable so i don’t need to argue.
@@chadtyrone is Macdonald’s theory about Mark a fringe theory in the field ? YES. No need to argue. Sorry
@@Sinouhe Calling anything fringe theory is an argument. And a lazy one with little merit.
Its an argument that says next to nothing considered how many ideas begin as fringe. Including the whole of Christianity.
What I want to know is why did President Obama not stop the 9/11 attack.
No, they don't. They are not the genre of epics.
This is such a lame argument.
Christianity is like a sharp object. Constantly kicking it isn't helping you. You're just showing how much like Saul of Tarsus you really are.
Then when do we get our Damascus Road experience?
@@SPL0869 When you travel on Damascus road.
@@tryme3969 you seem to be confused about Paul: BHI ?
@@tryme3969 I’m not sure who liked your circular drivel but that’s all it was circular drivel . Try actually answering the question next time. It might show that you have a shred of credibility
Wowww Derrick. You have 165 likes and 1.4 million views! I'm on a UTUBE christian channel. Only got 7 likes and 300 views. Hmmmm MAYBE there is No God?