Mr. Hammer is just amazing. I could listen to him all day. Sometimes I listen to several of his talks in an afternoon. Truly a gift from God to the world.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Mary.☝️ There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God Who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
I completely agree with you. Matt Baker from UsefulCharts also makes fantastic videos, while John Hamer provides detailed lectures, though with fewer visual effects.
I have to literally check myself from watching too many videos like this! They're so addictive and well researched! I used to find the New Testament so boring, but now seeing it as non literal makes it ten times more interesting!
same here, even as an atheist, it's crucial for us to understand in order to better converse or debate Christians online. If that's what you do, I know it is me, it always interests me why people believe what they do and I find Christians don't know any of this stuff and barely know their bible either
I am mainstream and I will tell you emphatically, I am working on my spirituality, studying early christianity, Zoroastrians, Mithraism, Buddhism, Valentinism, 1st Temple Judaism (original) and Platonic Spiritual concepts as they relate to all these. I am no scholar nor academic and I will tell you this....Prof Hamer (or is it Doctor) is the perfect example of a truth seeker at all costs and caries the lineage and the office of seventy that was meant to be passed as part of the restoration better than any I have seen. Truth at all costs and personal spirituality. What a message. Amazing. A perfect example of what Mormonism or Restoration Christianity should embody. Truth! This is exactly the types of teachings the prophets of all ages teach the masses and get in trouble for..exactly. ty. Just bold, candid, fearless truth, the kind of truth there is no fear to teach. The creator would be/is proud of this kind of truth teaching imo. Please keep it up.
Dump the christian stuff. It's been 2000 years and they don't know anymore than they did last year. And it's changed over 2000 years to fit the times. As for myself I don't need the God of the Bible, some passed off old guy mad at his creation because it doesn't do as he says. I've found ancient Hindu and buddhism a far better fit.
I really appreciate that you make a point of the fact that the Bible is not a history book. My dad and brother are both retired evangelical pastors who have always and continue to believe the Bible is to be taken literally historically and scientifically. My first high school biology class made it impossible for me to believe that. College science classes continued to reinforce that fact. The glaring historical errors cannot be ignored either. Eventually I had to abandon religion completely. Of course now (according to my family) I am at risk of going to Hell. I am perfectly happy to take that risk. It is still interesting to learn about religious mythologies though! Ohio, USA
Protestants don't have a correct understanding of the Bible. With proper.understanding everything aligns. You need to go to the source which is catholic church.
That really shows you don't know much about the Bible. Do you read it. Are you not aware of the hundreds of contradictions ? Or do you chose to ignore them?
@@Isaac5123 I have read the entire Bible multiple times. Both creation stories, both great flood stories, all about the multiple personality deities (El/Elyon/Yahweh/God and his “son” Jesus), the totally conflicting dos and don’ts throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. There is not a single cohesive them, morals, laws or portrayal of any characters. It is historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate and filled with hate and violence. If God were a real person in this earth he would be adjudicated a war criminal. There is nothing about that book that could make anyone a better person. It is wholly reprehensible.
Clear and succinct speaker who handles the topic in a practical and pragmatic manner. I am researching the Book of Kells and Mr. Hamer situates the early authors of the Gospels which serves my purpose.
While I have heard and read most of this before from mutliple sources, this is a easy to follow summary, which no doubt aids in its digestion and recall. Thanks John.
Hey Mr. Hamer, your content is excellent and really like your teaching style. Can you do a video on each Gospel’s christology and Paul’s christology showing example’s from the texts? It would be awesome if you can, thanks for your lectures 👍🏽
1:24:31 I am loving this video. This great material. Just a tiny nick-pick. Of the Three Bible citations referencing Luke, only one is authentically Paul, Philemon. Colossians and 2 Timothy are written by later disciples of Paul decades after his death. Paul never calls Luke a physician.
@@PC-vg8vn of course it’s debatable. Nearly everything in Biblical scholarship is debatable. The question: who wins the debate? I think the critical scholarly conclusions regarding the authentic letters of Paul win the debate. Colossians is more debatable but still falls under deutro-Pauline. 2 Timothy is not seriously debated. Do you not agree?
Thanks for another great lecture. Really appreciate the shout-out to John Dominic Crossan. It'd be wonderful if Mr Hamer and Mr Crossan could have an online discussion about the gospels, early Christianity, etc. 👍
You looked way cooler from the side. I feel like this is an instructional video and I am supposed to focus solely on you and your gestures. Just something to think about. Thanks again for the content
The most recent expansion of the Documentary Hypothesis is that Q was not a single complete document but a collection of documents purporting to be the Logia or Logoi of the Lord. This is actually more in line with what Papias might have been trying to say. It is possible that he was saying there were Markan and Matthian Qs completely unrelated to the gospels having those names attached to them, and John the Elder was recounting how those documents were made. Certainly the description of Mark's Logia and Papias' (or John's) emphasis on its non-chronological ordering doesn't sound at all like the chronologically well-ordered gospel of Mark but more like a Thomas-like "sayings gospel". Later Christians then mistakenly associated what Papias was saying to the gospels they had, but it could be that Papias was talking about two Qs he had had access to, not the gospels.
In trying to establish the existence of a single or series of Q documents Scholars overlook the conduct of services following Christ's ascension. It is clear from Apostolic writings that preaching was not that of humans but that of God's Spirits or angels "overshadowing" the congregational Prophet and using his/her vocal cords to address the gathered brethren. It is most likely that in some instances a scribe would be present to record what was said for the information of members who could not be present. This method of learning about spiritual matters continued until the Emperor Justinian started convening Councils which resulted in the words of spirits being declared heresy and replaced with the words of worldly men. It is most likely those spiritual addresses that were drawn upon by New Testament writers.
I think there is some confusion. The documentary hypothesis does not refer to the Synoptic problem; it refers to the composition of the Torah: E, J, P, and D. The latest addition to this hypothesis is not Q but the Supplementary hypothesis: D is the core corpus and J/E and P are supplementary material added to D. The most recent hypothesis to best understand the Synoptic problem are not different editions or sources of Q, but the Ferrer hypothesis : Q does not exist; Mark is first and Luke uses both Mark and Matthew as sources. Because Q is simply a reconstruction of the material that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark; if Luke used Matthew, the need of Q disappears.
@@michaelhenry1763 Oh, that is correct. I did confuse the two. Thank you. However, I am not talking about the competing alternatives to Q but a redefinition of Q by some scholars. The new hypothesis is that there wasn't a single Q document but instead multiple documents or fragments that in combination give us "Q". In this sense, the original core of Thomas may have been just another version of a Q document. In this interpretation, the Luke-only and Matthew-only Jesus sayings are taken as evidence that the evangelists both had their own Q corpus and that's where the exclusive sayings came from. That is, ALL the traditions that made it into Matthew and Luke came to them already in written form, including their exclusive ones, and those written traditions in separate but compiled documents are what constitute "Q". A variation of this idea is the "stages of Q" hypothesis, where there might have been a separate gospel writing process in which several sayings gospels were compiled from several logia documents and that these sayings gospels were the original "Q" in three forms: Matthian Q, Lucan Q, and proto-Thomas. This is actually not that new. The original scholars who posited the Q document also posited the possibility that there were multiple versions of the Q document because at that time they had not developed our understanding of competing lines of thought in the NT, so they believed that Matthew and Luke both quoted Q unmodified, such that differences in Q sayings between the synoptics can be attributed to both evangelists owning different versions or different fragments of the document. This line of thought was abandoned after scholars figured out the competing ideas situation, but a new version of the idea is now coming back into vogue.
@@andrewsuryali8540 what do you think about this idea? Do you think the gospel writers were only redactors of the source material they inherited or do you think were authors changing and inventing stories to fit their theological need?
Thankyou: Papias’ description of a work by Mark (John Mark) actually fits our ‘John’ much better as: 1) there is an emphasis in in our ‘John’ on several incidents in which Peter figures that do not occur in the Synoptics, 2)plus Papias says the work of Mark (John Mark) is ‘not in order’ and we know the order of incidents such as the Temple clearing and a draught of fish in our ‘John’ etc, is in a very different order to the Synoptics. 3) if you read Papias carefully you will see that he says that Aristion and John who he calls ‘Elders’ are both disciples of Jesus (and knew him) but distinguishes them both from the 12 apostles. This is the reason he uses the term John ‘the Elder’, to distinguish him from, John the Apostle. Just as other people in NT times and today can be described as ‘disciples’ without meaning they are of the 12. Jesus had many disciples/students. How is it that the Elder has such a knowledge and relayed opinion of what this work of John Mark is ?. It is not that he criticises it , rather more likely he is describing it because he ‘the Elder’ distributes it. It has 80years later been called ‘John’.
From about 150 to 160AD there were at least two complete Bibles, which were the old Latin Vulgate and the Syrian text, the Peshitta. Additionally, there was a text from about120 D., that much later on around the 12th century was called the Waldenian. All these Bibles were complete with the gospels in the early second century. It is also well documented that the gospels were written by the eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.
Fantastic lecture again, John! (Nomen est omen?) One issue I can't seem to shake off concerning Luke, though: wouldn't a woman of such high literary and historico-religious learning be exceedingly, almost impossibly rare in the Graeco-Roman world at the time? A fortiori in the context of a relatively early Christian community of converts or second/third generation Jesus believers. Being rich is one thing, writing literary Greek at Luke's level is another... Cheers and thanks again!
Listen I am no expert but I found this book very interesting and it tackles what you are asking "The Revolt of the Widows by Steven L. Davies. It is short but revealing. Best regards
the Alexandrian Church, also known as the Coptic Orthodox Church, acknowledges that the remains of Saint Mark were taken to Rome. In fact, in June 1968, Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria sent an official delegation to Rome to receive a relic of Saint Mark from Pope Paul VI
Why do you think it's a crazy concept? It's historically impossible that they could have lived in the time of the historical Jesus. Therefore it is also impossible that the gospels could possibly have been by the Apostles.
Not the only one. We're not sure who Homer and Esope were and if they even lived. Also the books of the old testament, the Quran and The Epic of Gilgamesh have no known author.
Be discerning. History is incredibly muddy. The only reason they make these assertions is because they dated fragments of paper writings back to then. If you cross reference Acts which Luke wrote, along with his gospel, and Paul’s writing, it’s obvious they were cohorts and friends
2:02 The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, it starts small but eventually grows to a great size. I believe Jesus thought that his ministry was heralding the Kingdom of God on the here and now and destroying the power of Satan, but the ultimate take over of the Kingdom would be when the Son of Man cames in the clouds with great power and glory.
Heads up to all Christians: Just because historians have dated and assumed that these texts are x amount of years old doesn’t mean it’s true. These are incredibly old fragments of documents, and some may have never been discovered, destroyed etc. if you cross reference Acts, with Paul’s writings, Peter’s writings and so on. It is very obvious that all of these men were cohorts. Do not take the word of these secular individuals above the prophecy and coherence of the bible
Eyewitnesses could not exist more than 60 -90 years after said events?! This is mythological! Why did they not record these things in 30 AD? These don’t appear until almost 80 years after the events!?
John the Baptist, the historical Jesus, and his brother James the 'Righteous/law abiding' were all illiterate. All three thought that divine intervention to create an earthly 'Kingdom of God' in Israel would happen in their lifetimes, so it wasn't important that their words be recorded. Christianity isn't based off their teachings, but on the Christology/Theology of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, a guy who didn't care about the teachings of the historical Jesus. The timeline in this video seems sound: all the eyewitnesses were dead or exiled by the Jewish war of 66-70 AD. All that existed of the teachings and acts of Jesus in 70AD were the Q sayings gospel and maybe parts of the gospel of Thomas. The canonical evangelists, among Hellenic 'god-fearers', as well as representatives of other strains in the Hellenic Jesus movement, like Gnostics, concocted their narratives from these few source materials, a lot of hearsay or responding to contemporary critiques. We're living in a time when people are concocting mythologies around Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk, among others. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people in the 1st century might be more concerned with the 'sunk-costs' of their beliefs and responding to criticism than with historical truth.
Because this guy is full of crap- like all these talkers… Prattling on about what he does not know. The Holy Spirit guides everything that IS God’s own History. Why did they not write the Gospels in the year 30?!? Because Christ wasn’t even crucified until 33AD!! Look, this presentation and all such presentations are all crap: The Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written approx the same length of time after Christ’s death than we in 2023 live after the rock band Nirvana had their first record… Get it? John (the Disciple that Christ loved) wrote the last Gospel no later than 95 AD (perhaps earlier)… that’s 60 years after Christ rose from death and then ascended - setting the wheels in motion. There was no Barnes and Noble- there were no lines of readers (few people ever read) no best sellers… Books were rare, handwritten, and far less important than word of mouth and churches at that time. The Christians had Christ’s brother and mother and friends and disciples and were BLOWN AWAY enough for the word to spread EXACTLY like Christ said it would. The Four Gospels were written by those who either knew precisely what they’d seen - or else by those on the peripheries with closeness to those who had seen it ALL… hundreds of people who had seen what Christ was all about were still alive. It’s all simply Truth. The Myrh is Historical Truth… That’s all. Don’t listen to twits like this chap blathering on here… He’s a prat.
And the Practice before Perfect Book of Romulus With 2 baby brothers drifting down the river in a basket and Suckled the Milk from a Wolf Dog? But the Scriptures with baby Moses Drifting down the river was the Script for sure that made Holly wood Billions probably THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. believing it for all these years with little doubt. ALL FALSE THE WORSE BOOK SCAM THEY DARE KEEP RUNNING TODAY AND WANT ATHEIST GONE AND CALL THEM THE ANTICHRIST JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER BEING FOOLS. Can't be Honest unless your evil is Hypocritically backwords beyond Dishonesty and twisted to the indoctrnated brain wash all billions still buy today and would probably commit suicide if they saw the big Scam of fairy tales but actually biggest bought lie to control Billions over billions of ants moght as well be named . Very Frustrating and desturbing.@@wailinburnin
Mark could have been written in the 50s, and Luke in the 60's. There are very few contemporary writings from ancient times. That in itself doesnt mean there were none, just that they may have been lost over time. we dont know. It seems it may have been common practice for students of rabbis to take notes so it's possible such notes were partly used for a Gospel writing.
@@PC-vg8vn In the Holy BIBLE - (the wellspring for ALL our knowledge of Christ via the Holy Spirit who guided the ink and flows alive from it in front of us now) - the words say: The Gospels of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John”. This is all we need to know. God does NOT LIE. Always remember to be absolute in your love of and faith in Him through Christ - and don’t listen to a single word of doubt or their “intellectual” game-playing! Old Scratch … is up to his old bollocks! Christ … God the Father… The Holy Spirit … The Eternal Holy Bible. It’s precisely ALL you need to know. God Bless.
On the symbols of the Evangelists: this tradition is not present in the Orthodox, Greek, Eastern Empire form of Nicene Christianity. At the same time, the Orthodox have also been far more reticent about the Book of Revelations, which is not heard in yearly readings.
No. Since that was said to one person who claimed he was doing all that Jesus had commanded. Despite the misconception by many, giving away all your possessions was not a command.
"The Poor" or "The Poor of Jerusalem" or some permutation thereof might just have been the name of the early christian community. "Give everything to The Poor" just means give everything to the Christians, then.
Does the Bible depict John as an apocalyptic prophet? Don’t crucify me I’ve only just started to read it. I ask because if not, how do historians gather this information when we have limited collections of writings from this era and subject? Genuine question. Not looking to be smart or spark debates. Thanks!
Depends on how you understand " the bible". Quite why the money bags decided to tack the comparatively brief Jesussey onto the Torah and bundle them together is a mystery, since the two religions or whatever you want to call them are wholly unrelated, a mystery and is a bit like tacking popular mechanics onto Mrs/Beaton' Cookery. I guess they thought that the Jesussey(gospels/tale of jesus wasn't long enough and the the Elsies would be impresed by a bigger or big book(which of course the Elsies could not read nor read anything) Quite why some mad bigoted hillbillies none of who are Jews suppose a document pertaining to a religion that is not their religion, the Torah and Judaism to be what they call in their idolatrous fcuk-the-commandments way to be " the-word-of God(as if God uses words or writes books) is also a mystery.
"how do historians gather this information when we have limited collections of writings from this era and subject" Mostly from copies/reproductions of the original/early manuscripts. Reading other people's analysis of the original/early manuscripts. A lot of study is going on today with all fields in looking at the original materials again (not copies) because new technology is discovering a lot more information - but universities have copies.
I have a gripe with Saul of Tarsus. The self proclaimed apostle. I believe this character requires a bit more scrutiny. I will employ this parable: "Imagine you are in nazi Germany in 1940, you are a jew and you are fleeing the nazi regime, here comes a guy that reports you to the authority, you and your whole family and many other people. He reports them knowingly what faith awaits them" Such was the character of Saul of Tarsus, he never saw Jesus or spoken to him but he had a profound hate towards everything Jesus represented. So much was his hate that he persecuted the early followers of Jesus and reported them to the roman authorities understanding full well the consecuences of his actions. Imagine yourself if you would trust such a character, would you invite him to dinner at your family table? Hardly. So this guy "runs out" of people to report and cant get his "fix" anymore and he has a "revelation", in a stroke of genius Saul decides to magically be transformed from a persecutor of christians to the Apostle Paul. But he hadnt understood the message of Jesus at all and this is reflected in the kind of "teachings" he proclaims from now on. He glosses over completely over the core ideas of forgiveness, surrender and renounciation and instead steers the dicussion towards useless rituals and misrepresentaions of the actual thoughts of Jesus. Saul of Tarsus "put in work" towards the derailment of the teaching of Jesus. The message of Jesus were the ideas of forgiveness wich bring freedom to the mind, this contradict directly the "any eye for an eye" of law of Moses. Jesus ideas talk of universal oneness where everything is equal, while judaism promises a position of masterhood to the "chosen people" whith the goyim as subservient. Imho Saul of Tarsus was impressed with the things he have heard of Jesus, while he completely rejected the unifying ideas he, Jesus professed. The messias Saul was waiting for would be the one who establishes "new world order" with jews at the top of the food chain.
I think this is far too fantastical a take to be perfectly honest, I agree with you that Pauline Christianity has been beyond problematic but you're making him out as some sort of super villain, what it appears to me is that whatever happened to him on the road to Damascus, altered his perception of reality PROFOUNDLY, for better or worse, I dont think the evil power hungry Charactur makes sense, historically speaking
@@pebystroll Could make sense. For one, Saul's persecution of the early followers of Jesus, and I mean it like that, not the early christians, the early followers of Jesus, deserves a more thorough look. Jesus is killed, most of the apostles too, and this clown comes out of the blue ranting and raving over Jesus Christ. Now if you have no clue about nondualistic principles and basic models, you are at a severe disadvantage and you cannot even comprehend the actual message of Jesus. If you cant understand Jesus message you are clueless about how it was twisted out of its meaning. Basically reducing the whole thing to a lot of rituals and "pedestalization" of a fantastic image of Jesus. Completely out of reach because we are sinful. Jesus methodology produced a stream of awakened people. This awakening is no more than the direct experience of your own being in the silence of your mind. Simply put a mind at silence enters into a self contemplation mode and since there is no limit in the mind then this contemplation is limitless as well. So "they" execute Jesus, the real apostles and eventually Saul, if he indeed perished (history is not 100% clear on that), he was a friendly fire causality. Thus the coming of Christ was stifled but not snuffed out. By the time the roman empire adopted "Christianity" as its religion oin 313 AD, it was completely neutered, most of people who displayed any signs of being "awake" were hunted down and martired, later to be exploited as images of saints for the church. The newly instituted rituals were growing by the years. These rituals have no fire in them anymore. The "magic" is not happening anymore. Its not like Saul is a super villian but neither is he a "Life of Brian" type of character. He was an educated man, considered himself a jew, a farisee and a roman. He understood the consecuences of his actions persecuted his perceived "enemies" by reporting them on the roman autorities. For so long this was swept under the rug by mentions on the side like :"oh and btw, Paul persecuted christians.." Now that should be taken in consideration for establishing Saul's character rather than beliving his own words. Did he made reparations for the people he persecuted? Leaving letters "omg im so sry i persecuted christians, I am cured now, not Saul anymore im Paul now, 4 rlzs" I understand I drawing a caricature of Saul but the point is valid.
@konstantinNeo Hey that's a very interesting message, it was really great to read, I will definitely think on those points, am I right in sensing some gnostic elements in it? either or thanks for the nice message
@@konstantinNeo i have always felt a bit sceptic about Paul, or maybe more his layouts of everything. why in the world does he understand everything? because he met Jesus he is suddenly so knowledgeable ? without diagnosing him it is fair to say he is a besserwisser-type..
@@kathrine266 Saul never saw Jesus. "According to the New Testament, the initial intention of Saul of Tarsus (who later became the Apostle Paul) when he set out for Damascus was to arrest and bring back to Jerusalem any followers of Jesus he found there. Saul was a devout Pharisee who saw the growing Christian movement as a threat to traditional Judaism. He believed that the followers of Jesus were heretics and that it was his duty to persecute them. In the Book of Acts, it is written that Saul obtained letters from the high priest in Jerusalem, giving him the authority to arrest any Christians he found in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial and punishment. Here is the relevant passage from Acts 9:1-2 (NIV): "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem."" More likely that on his way to Damascus he understood that by posing as an apostle he would be able to get to the core and destroy it from there. He had ran out of people to report to the roman authorities where he was at the moment. And I do not believe his "conversion" because I do understand the message of Jesus, not the absurd bable that is currently in circulation as the "Bible" and Saul most certainly did not echo the message of Jesus. Did Saul dedicate his life to make reparations to the ones he helped to destroy? Nope, he went in on babbling nonesence about Jesus, got nailed himself by the roman autorities and during his depositions probably tried to say he's a double agent pretending to be an apostle. But romans were pretty tough at that time, they weeded out Jesus, his apostles, anyone else who might be in on it as well. The christianity that was adopted by the romans in 311 was almost completely devoid of the actual message of Jesus.
Whatever the veracity of the myth, it did it's role trough the world enough for me to be forgiven. Now that the church lost it's power, no one accuse me, I'm free in my territory. I can have a full life it's weird didn't plan for it. Maybe I'll see the end, this time with nuclear explosions all over the planet. Up to then, I live without having to sale my soul to an organisation to be saved I'm saved, forgiven and have eternal life.
I didn't realize this is connected to the LDS Church. When a religious platform does not really outline its beliefs or which Church it is actually associated with so that you can quickly look up its origins and basic beliefs, take pause.
It's not LDS; first of all LDS is extremely different from the Community of Christ although they share the same origin. (super long story; there's a looong video on it. ;) Community of Christ has taken a very different path, ending up a very liberal church and actually apologizing for the main problems with the book of mormon. However none of that is really relevant in relation to these lectures, which have an academic focus, not a theological focus. The channel is more similar to for example Religion for Breakfast or Bart Ehrman's channel.
Weird didn't realize they were a community of christ church either. I haven't seen him say literally anything about book of Mormon or doctrine and covenants or Joseph Smith or anything like that at all. Not sure if that's important or not
"When a religious platform does not really outline its beliefs or which Church it is actually associated with so that you can quickly look up its origins and basic beliefs, take pause." They have entire lectures posted on this. More than one. You can't expect them to go through that with EVERY lecture they do.
Just on your final answer; I and I’m sure many others would absolutely love to read a Gospel written by you John. Thanks for another amazingly executed lecture.
Could you please explain how come we know that all the books were originally written in Greek`They could aswell have been written originally in Aramaic!
I know a lot of times people think that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and they base that on the language of the day and on the Septuagint but the fact of the matter is Jesus would’ve spoken his native tongue Hebrew, Paul when he was surrounded by the Jews, and beaten, and the Roman captain came and delivered him, he asked to speak to the Jews and they would not listen until he’s spoke the Hebrew tongue so it’s very obvious that Jews will listen to people who speak their language. Jesus was raised in Israel his native tongue would’ve been Aramaic. The one time that Jesus speaks to Paul from heaven, he speaks in the Hebrew tongue, so any extra biblical viewpoints is probably ridiculous, often times they try to discredit Christ Store change his words when the King James Bible faithfully records those words all the way back to the Old Latin Vulgate of 150 A.D.
Hello John. The Book of Kells was discovered in Kells, Ireland and is on display in Trinity College, Dublin. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.
Who told you that "Saint Thomas is buried here in India--at the end of the runway at Chennai International Airport," and why do you believe them, and to what is that relevant?
@@sebolddaniel hmm , who knows? -It probably has to do with types, and of course there are also different types of atheist, more or less bright; those that can see the atheist's paradox and those that cannot.
@@sebolddaniel That does not adress my question which wasWho told you that "Saint Thomas is buried here in India--at the end of the runway at Chennai International Airport," and why do you believe them, and to what is that relevant? But I would have been better off asking a dog, clearly
I don't know man, I didn't see the sun go out, the stars fall down and all the dead float into the sky. If they meant the end of an era, they really should have just said the end of the era.
@@abelbabel8484 stars fall from the sky now. ICBM, drones, nukes. All that was predicted in the bible. But it also predicted what happened in 70 ad and what happened in the Babylonian exile.
@@kydenj28 Yeah, predicted by writers that lived after the events they predicted. I can do that, too. ICBMs, drones and nukes are not stars. If we hammer square pegs into round holes like that, anything goes and nothing means anything.
You simply don’t have the true teachings of Jesus. All you have are conjectures. And many central concepts comes way after Jesus and comes from normal human being like you and me and not divinely guided. Makes you wonder whether Jesus himself would recognise the religion that is attributed to him.
The Holy Quran of the Muslims does talk about the end of the world and the preceding events. But it's always non-committal when it comes to the exact day or time. But generally emphasizes it's nearness. Quran 7:187 They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the Hour: when is its arrival? Say, “Its knowledge is only with my Lord. None will reveal its time except Him. It lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It will not come upon you except unexpectedly.” They ask you as if you are familiar with it. Say, “Its knowledge is only with Allah, but most of the people do not know.” Quran 54:1 The final hour has drawn near and the moon was rent in twain.
(Sorry for the VERY long "comment". But I believe it NEEDS to be said) Hmmm...Kind Sir, Your video "Title and Narrative"; caused me to remember; when I was hosting a "Christian Room", on "Paltalk". Where a Lady came into the room; and she did not like; what I was espousing. So she said, "Pat...where do you get your Authority?" I said, "Jesus". She said, "I KNOW THAT! But where do you get your 'Ultimate' Authority"? I said, "Jesus". She got so mad with me; that she slammed out of the room, and left. Then later, a gentleman came in; and he didn't like what I was saying, either. So, he said, "Pat...What is the Gospel?" I said, "Jesus". He said, "I KNOW THAT! But what is a 'FULL' Gospel?". I said, "Jesus". He also got so mad, he left using bad words. Oh well! Now, the 4 books of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"; is said, they are "Gospels'! Hmmm... Well, yes in some ways', and other ways they strayed away; from what Jesus preached. So, IF I was to be asked, "Pat...Which is the most accurate of those 4 Gospels?" I would say, "The 'Gospel' that Paul wrote, in his 13 books". Which, were MORE in line, with Jesus, EVER! That I do believe. Now, how many, are going to get MAD at me? And slam and blast me, etc! Huh?... ..in any case Brethren, Please Pray OFTEN and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY "God Almighty", true "Gospel"; there will ever have been. And may Jesus bless you, and yours, always. And please, Praise His Holy Name..."THE" Gospel. From here to Forever! AMEN!
Who told you that " Some of the earliest saints in the Church of Rome. Were relatives of the flavians", and why do you believe them and to what is that relevant?
Where do you source the materials that make such blasphemous assertions? It is apparent that not everyone has be been blessed to have had a true Spiritual experience with God Most High/El Elyon through and by His Only Begotten Son Christ Jesus the Anointed Word of God made flesh and the Spirit of Truth the Anointing of that Holy Spirit. Thank God Jesus prayed; forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. There is much deception in this little season of Revelation chapter 20 and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be who choose that way, but straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to everlasting life and few there be who find it. By grace we are saved, thru faith in the death, burial and resurrection of of our Lord and King Christ Jesus, who willing laid down His life for each of us.
There seems to me a strong possibility that our ‘Mark’ is what Papias calls, and highly esteems as, the NARRATIVE of the sayings of the Lord written by Aristion. Aristion was later associated with Smyrna in the Province of Asia. As an early and central origin from someone considered a believer thought to be someone who knew Jesus, it was likely to be widespread which, if it came to be called our ‘Mark’ would explain how this ‘Mark’ ( Aristion’s work) survived. 1) My view is that ‘our Mark’is not the work of Mark that is mentioned by Papias. Papias thinks a work by Mark is a recollection by Peter of the words of Jesus, but not in order (I.e. not within a chronological narrative of Jesus’s life). Our ‘Mark’is too pro-Paul’s Gentile mission and too critical of the Twelve to be from Peter. Our Mark may include collections of preaching material from refugees from the Jewish War, like the mission preaching depicted by the strangely prominent “Philip the evangelist” from Acts, said by Papias to have gone to live his last years in Papias’ own city, Hierapolis, 100km from Ephesus. Also the ‘disciple of the Lord’ Aristion is said by Papias to have written a ‘narrative’ on the logoi (sayings) of Jesus. Maybe ‘our Mark ‘is Aristion’s work, early and popular. Papias is perhaps referring to our current ‘Mark’ when he elsewhere speaks of ARISTION’ s ‘narrative’ on the logia of Jesus. Referring to a true narrative that was made to frame a selection of stories that have themes of missionary activity, opposition by Jewish authorities and Romans, miracles countering evil spirits and suffering martyrdom. Tradition links Aristion to being an ‘elder’ in Smyrna. Revelation and Acts both highlight these concerns around believers experiences in the Province of Asia. Papias seems to say that in his own early years the Elder Aristion and the Elder John (NOT John the apostle) were both alive, and not too far from his own Hierapolis that travellers occasionally relayed accounts of what they had been saying about their own memories of the apostles. talking about the apostles from personal memory and were themselves surviving personal followers of Jesus. This personal prominence and potential authority of authorship, would explain why our so-called ‘Mark’ would be incorporated in our ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’. The fact that Aristion was not an apostle might have given the authors more confidence about changing the order and wording of what they used in our ‘Mark’.
Your post-dating of the Gospels after 70 AD when the Temple fell is likely incorrect. The rationale for this dating is that Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of the Temple, so therefore the Gospels were written after the fall and falsely attributed the prediction to Jesus. However, Jesus's prediction wasn't even fully accurate (not one stone left on top of another), and the Gospels show Jesus worrying about things happening in the future that didn't actually happen (pregnant women in the winter). Additionally, the Gospels don't mention the fall of the Temple, which they could have done, and then attributed the accurate prediction to Jesus to show his supernatural ability. There is no death of Paul in the Gospels, there is no persecution of Christians in Rome during Nero in 65 AD, and other details are omitted that surely would've been included if the Gospels were written during or after that time. The Gospels were written from 57-64 AD, and Corinthians and Acts slightly earlier.
Kinda looks like scholars are trying to change the narrative of the gospels and past. When will humanity learn. This is exactly why history is still repeating. Truth is, it appears we are still walking the exact same paths.
"Humanity" being a species of universal, like universals generally can only be imaginary(cannot be directly immediately personally experienced) History is only s ets of beliefs about the equally imaginary past or pre-now. Men behave like men(human beings/dreaming machines) because they *Are* men men and have no choice; they go on do ing the same things for the same reasons or impulses; push button A or pull lever A. snd you get B and always will, because B is an *automatic* result of A. Men do what they *want* or *like* an cannot and do not *choose their wants and likes and cannot help but be the slaves or creatures of their functions.
Science FICTION began when secular scientists knew Not the source and origin of Life. Science FICTION continued when materialistic neurologists knew Not the source and origin of human Consciousness.
Is there any soundness to the notion that Jesus may have been taken off the cross while stll alive and went incognito, such as the identity of his brother, James, and continued leading the early church in Jerusalem
I enjoy these long format lectures, I do, lots of good info in an engaging presentation and I know going in John is going to be coming from a Universalist non literal perspective but when he makes such antithetical statements such as John and Jesus being cousins was a complete fabrication made up by late date gospel writers, I wish he would give his evidence for that perspective. No matter which side one takes, just saying it doesn’t make it so. I know it’s only a 2 hr lecture, not a semester of classes but I’d like more information and I’m grateful for what they do.
Paul never was against the law in the Torah. That would be ridiculous when Jesus is the Torah. He was against that works of the Torah is needed for salvation. Works if the law are fruit of the spirit and belief!
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36. My favorite. Not even Jesus can fortell the future. As always, excellent Presentation.
To say that "apocalyptic preachers failed" because the world did not end is to miss the point in rather spectacular fashion. Indeed these preachers were actually successful, that's why there were so many of them! These doctrines fulfilled social needs which is why they were continually emerging. By rolling out the specter of the eschaton a priest could menace the powers at be with divine retribution while simultaneously orginizing the wretched into a mass movement that could be used to push for justice. Thereby each apocalyptic preacher had real impacts on his socity, prevokeing real tirmoil and change. They were successful! Besides nobody actually cared all that much weather or not the world really ended or not.
I quite like this reading. There is a school of thought that sees Woke/Climate Alarmism, et al as Christianity 2.0 and I think you've just provided the through line for that hypothesis. The point of Aplocypticism is social change. Interesting. Although Jonestown, Aum Supreme Truth, Waco, etc... do come to mind as well. But then, like the Nazi's, do the apocalyptic change makers implode if they can't bring about their Utopia?
You bring up a fascinating point. I could see your point a little bit. However, for the most part they were not successful. One of the major reasons Christianity was successful was the ditched the immediate end and transformed it to “ eventually” or one day in the far future. This kept the religion going but positive societal change never occurred due to failed apocalyptic callings.
@@michaelhenry1763 This is true if you take the standard narrative, that focuses exclusively on what we call Christians, however my telling of the story ends with the Arab conquests as the meterial culmination of the apocalyptic movement.
Thomas 3:1-3 is evidence that, and this includes the Lazarus story, the resurrection is the Eleusinian ritual. A 3 day NDE/OOBE. It is what Plato was talking about with the cave story. And the myth of Er. Consciousness is fundamental. It is the answer to the measurement problem.
I’m willing to look for the connections between the religions, similarities to the Mysteries etc. - I think it is interesting. - I’m always looking for the cataclysm in the story: death and rebirth of human civilization as represented in different mythological traditions / religions etc. - the part about the individual death and rebirth I think is best described in Brian Muraresku “The immortality Key” (the experience of ego death / “Dying before Dying” as a psychedelic effect sought out by the mystery cults, and originally probably a part of the Christian Holy Sacrament as well). - I happen to just be more interested in the civilizational near death experience (- the whole “Lost Civilization” / Atlantis trip with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson and Robert Schoch etc.) I’m also interested in science, but those two things have almost nothing to do with each other. The measurement problem is an artifact of the locality of the observer: it’s two sides of the same coin: each observation represents a slice of the multiverse. To get rid of the problem, we would need to be the whole multiverse and make each possible observation at once. One might say, that this is where science and religion meet: the postulation of an all encompassing experience (- or should I say experiencer / creator / God / Super-Consciousness). But that’s a rather lose / hypothetical connection between religions and science. I think they are not and can not be about the same thing at all anymore. Science builds the story from low level descriptions, while Religions are the highest level descriptions devotees could aim at. - Those two domains simply can not meet in the middle / describe the same things. Mythology only fits the human experience in a very symbolic manner, which is to say lose manner, which is to say: not at all at the level of “things” in the real world, but only ever at the level of events / synchronicities that “happen” in human interpretation. This was a long and circumspect way of saying, that I probably share some of the same interests as you and other viewers of this channel, but come to radical different conclusions. For me science and religion are just two things I am interested in. They don’t have to integrate at the same level: in fact they can’t, because religion simply is not strictly true in the same sense that science is strictly true. They are both vehicles for us to explore and contend with some underlying realities, but one works in the domain of facts, while the other works in the domain of (flawed) meanings - that aren’t “really” there at the base level, but just get assigned as aesthetic values at the higher level, as some sort of more or less useful (but ultimately flawed) attempts at data compression and storytelling / narration. The human mind is somewhat ill-equipped to deal with the world at the scientific level: it’s a great struggle of abstraction while standing on the shoulders of giants. - While all the symbology narrative of religion comes easy, and begs for interpretations that just flow from our common culture and history and subconscious streams. Very different things indeed. But all terribly interesting.
I think science is a way to arrive at history from the lower level, while religion is a kind of psychotherapy for civilization, helping to deal with the trauma of a civilizational near death experience / cataclysm. - They are fundamentally different things: explaining history scientifically vs processing and reenacting the trauma and dealing with civilizational survivors guilt that came as an effect of a near extinction level event / civilization destroying event.
All Christian churches teach that the narratives and epistles of the New Testament were imparted to their respective authors by the "Holy Ghost" through inspiration. Many churches even contend that it was through "verbal" inspiration, that is to say, by way of "dictation." What proof have the churches for this doctrine? There are only two ways in which it could be proved, one being an express statement on the part of the authors of the New Testament to the effect that the contents of their records and epistles had been imparted, or in fact dictated to them, by the Spirit of God, The only other proof that we could consider would be an express assertion, made at any time or in any place by the Spirit of God, to the effect that the books of the New Testament are "inspired" writings. No other possible method of proof exists. Of the books of the New Testament, only one, The Revelation of John, was communicated by an angel. What is more, John stresses this fact in the very opening sentence of his book. The authors of all the other books of the New Testament say nothing about the operation of any supernatural influence upon the writing of their reports. Luke, on the contrary, expressly states in the first few lines of his gospel that he has compiled his story in quite the ordinary human way. He writes: "Many before me have undertaken to write the story of the well-established events that happened among us. Their accounts agree with what we are told by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who appeared in public to proclaim the truth. Having looked carefully into all of the facts from the very outset, I have also decided to write them down in historical order and to send my account to you, most noble Theophilus, in order that you may convince yourself of the truth of that which you have learned by word of mouth." His account, therefore, contains the things that were told to him by eyewitnesses, and not those that were imparted to him by the "Holy Ghost."
This is nonsense what you are saying! These texts are mythological stories being made up. Christian churches can spout all the mambo jumbo they want about spirits & other supernatural nonsense but these are clearly plagiarized from original Greek literature by literate Graeco-Roman & Hellenized Jews; filled with outlandish inconsistencies, incompatibilities & contradictions. Also they were edited by professional scribes so some original material will be forever lost. We will never know any of the true authors because there were too many all competing to weave a more fantastic tale from existing myths & stealing what they could from the Old Testament just like they stole from the original Greek (they probably saw it as imitation but it was plagiarism plain & simple!)
Luke (there is no real person actually it is the name of the scroll) is stealing from Greek historians his introduction; he plagiarizes the introduction like the rest of the text.
Paul repeatedly states in the epistles that his sources -his *only* sources- are from scripture and revelation. So your op isn’t technically the case as far as inspiration goes. I’m also gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Paul is the only case of a New Testament author that we can loosely say was “divinely inspired” the rest is just church mythology, propaganda & an easy way to gloss over all the contradictions and non sense.
Luke never says that he doesn't like the sources he read. If anything, he was telling Theophilus that he had more information FROM THE EYEWITNESSES that the other accounts did not have. It was NOT that he didn't like them, he was giving the information that eyewitnesses provided to him. You cannot read that passage any other way.
If jesus was so famous how is it that paul has no idea who he is before his ministry? According to jewish law every male must appear in Jerusalem 3x a year and paul would have been included in this and of course would have seen his crucification right?i mean it was a public display and a very very big deal for paul not to have at least Heard of jesus and not learn of his existence from jesus followers?
But how luke who got it ftom witnesses wrote acts after gosoel of luke and paul died in mid 60s ce but his desth is mot mentioned meaning acts is before 65ce and luke godpel earlier ie all lesd than 35 years after assumption of Jesus to heaven Matthew and others mention destruction of yerusalem ehich happened in 70 ce mesning all those books were written before 70ce John lived longest say upto 95ce and writes. 2 books and 3 episltes They sound very similar. All the three peter,mathew died before 70ce so heir writings are eithin that generation
He keeps saying that the church in Jerusalem was called "The Poor" but there is ZERO evidence that that is true. They were called "The Way". That name we have record of but he wouldn't ever use biblical evidence to support his guesswork.
I am not sure if it is important to know who wrote the four gospels but I can make an argument that John and Luke are both written by whom they are attributed based on the authors of the three letters of John and the Acts of the Apostles respectively. A case for Matthew being the writer is based on the fact that the genealogy is of Jesus is traced through Joseph and the account of Jesus' early years is from Joseph's point of view while both are from Mary's in Luke. None of these cases is certain but all reach the level of a reasonable suspicion or better. The claim of John the Baptist was that the reign of God was comming , aka the Messianic Age. According to Paul in is letter to the Galatians those that walk according to the Saintly Spirit are in the reign of God.
Indian to Persian Persian to Judaism Than Bla........ S...... T Christianty Than Islam In Indian & Persian Philosophy Shaitan Was A Title ( Like Advocate) Shaitaan Plea To God For punishing Sinner.. But Ibrahimic Religion & Cult destroyed the Concept. But Now Nothing matters.. Thanks For Ur Time U R Creating The library For upcoming Generations
There is no evidence that John the Baptist ever preached that the end of the world was coming. If you read the New Testament (which the TH-camr tends not to do), John came preaching the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was John's disciple and He also preached the same message. Neither one of these men preached that the end of the world was coming soon.
Jesus's believers had copied three doctrines from jhon the Baptist. 1) washing of sins though such theory was not in the Judaism. 2) God's kingdom is coming soon. 3) Taking baptism in water. Resurrection was copied from Inanna, daughter of Enki. Could you imagine the christinity without these doctrines ?
There’s no such thing as “historical accuracy.” There are other cultures that didn’t view the past as real, which is why they focused on mythology. The point of mythology is to reach truths within. Dr king was right. The story of Jesus had nothing to do with outward appearance. Then again race has nothing to do with outward appearance either. Either way, people need to stop arguing about “facts” and start extracting lessons and asking questions.
Mr. Hammer is just amazing. I could listen to him all day. Sometimes I listen to several of his talks in an afternoon. Truly a gift from God to the world.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Mary.☝️
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God Who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
Just found him today and am presently bingeing his lectures and will go back to listen again.
What a source of historical knowledge he is.
John is a treasure, in my view !
I completely agree with you. Matt Baker from UsefulCharts also makes fantastic videos, while John Hamer provides detailed lectures, though with fewer visual effects.
He is an amazing person
Thanks!
I have to literally check myself from watching too many videos like this! They're so addictive and well researched! I used to find the New Testament so boring, but now seeing it as non literal makes it ten times more interesting!
same here, even as an atheist, it's crucial for us to understand in order to better converse or debate Christians online. If that's what you do, I know it is me, it always interests me why people believe what they do and I find Christians don't know any of this stuff and barely know their bible either
@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 My whole Catholic family doesn't know diddly about it! They read what they've been taught to read
@@unrecognizedtalent3432exactly they don't want us to think for ourselves and find the truth
@Isaac5123 Well I don't know about that Issac. John covers so many subjects so well that he gets your mind curious to know just about everything! 🙂🙂
@@unrecognizedtalent3432 yes curious is the word
As a teacher myself I admire Mr Hamer for his well executed presentation.
ROTFL
You shouldn't teach!
.
What a load of krapp
@@decay-154what is krapp?
Mister Hammer was a lovely altar boy..
F to M?
Love your lectures. Thank you!
I am mainstream and I will tell you emphatically, I am working on my spirituality, studying early christianity, Zoroastrians, Mithraism, Buddhism, Valentinism, 1st Temple Judaism (original) and Platonic Spiritual concepts as they relate to all these. I am no scholar nor academic and I will tell you this....Prof Hamer (or is it Doctor) is the perfect example of a truth seeker at all costs and caries the lineage and the office of seventy that was meant to be passed as part of the restoration better than any I have seen. Truth at all costs and personal spirituality. What a message. Amazing. A perfect example of what Mormonism or Restoration Christianity should embody. Truth! This is exactly the types of teachings the prophets of all ages teach the masses and get in trouble for..exactly. ty. Just bold, candid, fearless truth, the kind of truth there is no fear to teach. The creator would be/is proud of this kind of truth teaching imo. Please keep it up.
What is"spirituality"?
You have not the faintest idea?
*No* surprises there
Dump the christian stuff. It's been 2000 years and they don't know anymore than they did last year. And it's changed over 2000 years to fit the times. As for myself I don't need the God of the Bible, some passed off old guy mad at his creation because it doesn't do as he says. I've found ancient Hindu and buddhism a far better fit.
I really appreciate that you make a point of the fact that the Bible is not a history book. My dad and brother are both retired evangelical pastors who have always and continue to believe the Bible is to be taken literally historically and scientifically. My first high school biology class made it impossible for me to believe that. College science classes continued to reinforce that fact. The glaring historical errors cannot be ignored either. Eventually I had to abandon religion completely. Of course now (according to my family) I am at risk of going to Hell. I am perfectly happy to take that risk. It is still interesting to learn about religious mythologies though! Ohio, USA
Protestants don't have a correct understanding of the Bible. With proper.understanding everything aligns. You need to go to the source which is catholic church.
See you in Hell then.😅
That really shows you don't know much about the Bible. Do you read it. Are you not aware of the hundreds of contradictions ? Or do you chose to ignore them?
@@Isaac5123 I have read the entire Bible multiple times. Both creation stories, both great flood stories, all about the multiple personality deities (El/Elyon/Yahweh/God and his “son” Jesus), the totally conflicting dos and don’ts throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. There is not a single cohesive them, morals, laws or portrayal of any characters. It is historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate and filled with hate and violence. If God were a real person in this earth he would be adjudicated a war criminal. There is nothing about that book that could make anyone a better person. It is wholly reprehensible.
@@26beegee exactly but try and tell a Christian this
Brilliantly conceived and executed.
Clear and succinct speaker who handles the topic in a practical and pragmatic manner. I am researching the Book of Kells and Mr. Hamer situates the early authors of the Gospels which serves my purpose.
While I have heard and read most of this before from mutliple sources, this is a easy to follow summary, which no doubt aids in its digestion and recall. Thanks John.
Love these lectures.
Harmer you are very good scholar well done for educating us
Thank you John. Heartfelt and beautiful. God bless All !
Well done! Balanced, reasonable and helpful!
Incredibly interesting, thank you so much!
Hey Mr. Hamer, your content is excellent and really like your teaching style. Can you do a video on each Gospel’s christology and Paul’s christology showing example’s from the texts? It would be awesome if you can, thanks for your lectures 👍🏽
1:24:31 I am loving this video. This great material.
Just a tiny nick-pick. Of the Three Bible citations referencing Luke, only one is authentically Paul, Philemon. Colossians and 2 Timothy are written by later disciples of Paul decades after his death. Paul never calls Luke a physician.
thats debateable.
@@PC-vg8vn of course it’s debatable. Nearly everything in Biblical scholarship is debatable. The question: who wins the debate? I think the critical scholarly conclusions regarding the authentic letters of Paul win the debate.
Colossians is more debatable but still falls under deutro-Pauline. 2 Timothy is not seriously debated.
Do you not agree?
Nit
@@RobertJohnson-lc5bj thank you , nit- picking . Thank you for the correction.
Thanks for another great lecture.
Really appreciate the shout-out to John Dominic Crossan. It'd be wonderful if Mr Hamer and Mr Crossan could have an online discussion about the gospels, early Christianity, etc.
👍
You looked way cooler from the side. I feel like this is an instructional video and I am supposed to focus solely on you and your gestures. Just something to think about. Thanks again for the content
At 59:35 is the best rebuttal of “but what about all the prophecies?” apologetic assertion that I have heard.
Preterism is the answer to “what about the prophesies” IMO
Love it. Thank you 🙌
Excelent video. Super.
As a skeptic, I must say, this man is an excellent lecturer. 👍
The most recent expansion of the Documentary Hypothesis is that Q was not a single complete document but a collection of documents purporting to be the Logia or Logoi of the Lord. This is actually more in line with what Papias might have been trying to say. It is possible that he was saying there were Markan and Matthian Qs completely unrelated to the gospels having those names attached to them, and John the Elder was recounting how those documents were made. Certainly the description of Mark's Logia and Papias' (or John's) emphasis on its non-chronological ordering doesn't sound at all like the chronologically well-ordered gospel of Mark but more like a Thomas-like "sayings gospel". Later Christians then mistakenly associated what Papias was saying to the gospels they had, but it could be that Papias was talking about two Qs he had had access to, not the gospels.
Makes sense.
In trying to establish the existence of a single or series of Q documents Scholars overlook the conduct of services following Christ's ascension. It is clear from Apostolic writings that preaching was not that of humans but that of God's Spirits or angels "overshadowing" the congregational Prophet and using his/her vocal cords to address the gathered brethren. It is most likely that in some instances a scribe would be present to record what was said for the information of members who could not be present. This method of learning about spiritual matters continued until the Emperor Justinian started convening Councils which resulted in the words of spirits being declared heresy and replaced with the words of worldly men. It is most likely those spiritual addresses that were drawn upon by New Testament writers.
I think there is some confusion.
The documentary hypothesis does not refer to the Synoptic problem; it refers to the composition of the Torah: E, J, P, and D. The latest addition to this hypothesis is not Q but the Supplementary hypothesis: D is the core corpus and J/E and P are supplementary material added to D.
The most recent hypothesis to best understand the Synoptic problem are not different editions or sources of Q, but the Ferrer hypothesis : Q does not exist; Mark is first and Luke uses both Mark and Matthew as sources.
Because Q is simply a reconstruction of the material that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark; if Luke used Matthew, the need of Q disappears.
@@michaelhenry1763 Oh, that is correct. I did confuse the two. Thank you.
However, I am not talking about the competing alternatives to Q but a redefinition of Q by some scholars. The new hypothesis is that there wasn't a single Q document but instead multiple documents or fragments that in combination give us "Q". In this sense, the original core of Thomas may have been just another version of a Q document. In this interpretation, the Luke-only and Matthew-only Jesus sayings are taken as evidence that the evangelists both had their own Q corpus and that's where the exclusive sayings came from. That is, ALL the traditions that made it into Matthew and Luke came to them already in written form, including their exclusive ones, and those written traditions in separate but compiled documents are what constitute "Q".
A variation of this idea is the "stages of Q" hypothesis, where there might have been a separate gospel writing process in which several sayings gospels were compiled from several logia documents and that these sayings gospels were the original "Q" in three forms: Matthian Q, Lucan Q, and proto-Thomas.
This is actually not that new. The original scholars who posited the Q document also posited the possibility that there were multiple versions of the Q document because at that time they had not developed our understanding of competing lines of thought in the NT, so they believed that Matthew and Luke both quoted Q unmodified, such that differences in Q sayings between the synoptics can be attributed to both evangelists owning different versions or different fragments of the document. This line of thought was abandoned after scholars figured out the competing ideas situation, but a new version of the idea is now coming back into vogue.
@@andrewsuryali8540 what do you think about this idea? Do you think the gospel writers were only redactors of the source material they inherited or do you think were authors changing and inventing stories to fit their theological need?
Thankyou: Papias’ description of a work by Mark (John Mark) actually fits our ‘John’ much better as: 1) there is an emphasis in in our ‘John’ on several incidents in which Peter figures that do not occur in the Synoptics, 2)plus Papias says the work of Mark (John Mark) is ‘not in order’ and we know the order of incidents such as the Temple clearing and a draught of fish in our ‘John’ etc, is in a very different order to the Synoptics. 3) if you read Papias carefully you will see that he says that Aristion and John who he calls ‘Elders’ are both disciples of Jesus (and knew him) but distinguishes them both from the 12 apostles. This is the reason he uses the term John ‘the Elder’, to distinguish him from, John the Apostle. Just as other people in NT times and today can be described as ‘disciples’ without meaning they are of the 12. Jesus had many disciples/students. How is it that the Elder has such a knowledge and relayed opinion of what this work of John Mark is ?. It is not that he criticises it , rather more likely he is describing it because he ‘the Elder’ distributes it. It has 80years later been called ‘John’.
From about 150 to 160AD there were at least two complete Bibles, which were the old Latin Vulgate and the Syrian text, the Peshitta. Additionally, there was a text from about120 D., that much later on around the 12th century was called the Waldenian.
All these Bibles were complete with the gospels in the early second century.
It is also well documented that the gospels were written by the eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.
Fantastic lecture again, John! (Nomen est omen?)
One issue I can't seem to shake off concerning Luke, though: wouldn't a woman of such high literary and historico-religious learning be exceedingly, almost impossibly rare in the Graeco-Roman world at the time? A fortiori in the context of a relatively early Christian community of converts or second/third generation Jesus believers. Being rich is one thing, writing literary Greek at Luke's level is another... Cheers and thanks again!
Be nice if this gets a response...
Listen I am no expert but I found this book very interesting and it tackles what you are asking "The Revolt of the Widows by Steven L. Davies. It is short but revealing. Best regards
@@jackhughesbooks thanks buddy ! Cheers
the Alexandrian Church, also known as the Coptic Orthodox Church, acknowledges that the remains of Saint Mark were taken to Rome. In fact, in June 1968, Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria sent an official delegation to Rome to receive a relic of Saint Mark from Pope Paul VI
The fact that we don’t know the authors of the most well known pieces of literature in the world is a crazy concept.
Why do you think it's a crazy concept?
It's historically impossible that they could have lived in the time of the historical Jesus. Therefore it is also impossible that the gospels could possibly have been by the Apostles.
Not the only one. We're not sure who Homer and Esope were and if they even lived. Also the books of the old testament, the Quran and The Epic of Gilgamesh have no known author.
Paul died 40 yrs at least before ‘Luke’ appears!?
20-50 years but yeah
Who told youthat"Paul died 40 yrs at least before ‘Luke’ appears..," and why do you believe them
Be discerning. History is incredibly muddy. The only reason they make these assertions is because they dated fragments of paper writings back to then.
If you cross reference Acts which Luke wrote, along with his gospel, and Paul’s writing, it’s obvious they were cohorts and friends
2:02 The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, it starts small but eventually grows to a great size. I believe Jesus thought that his ministry was heralding the Kingdom of God on the here and now and destroying the power of Satan, but the ultimate take over of the Kingdom would be when the Son of Man cames in the clouds with great power and glory.
I rather like morning glory seeds myself.
Heads up to all Christians:
Just because historians have dated and assumed that these texts are x amount of years old doesn’t mean it’s true. These are incredibly old fragments of documents, and some may have never been discovered, destroyed etc. if you cross reference Acts, with Paul’s writings, Peter’s writings and so on. It is very obvious that all of these men were cohorts. Do not take the word of these secular individuals above the prophecy and coherence of the bible
Eyewitnesses could not exist more than 60 -90 years after said events?! This is mythological! Why did they not record these things in 30 AD? These don’t appear until almost 80 years after the events!?
John the Baptist, the historical Jesus, and his brother James the 'Righteous/law abiding' were all illiterate. All three thought that divine intervention to create an earthly 'Kingdom of God' in Israel would happen in their lifetimes, so it wasn't important that their words be recorded.
Christianity isn't based off their teachings, but on the Christology/Theology of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, a guy who didn't care about the teachings of the historical Jesus. The timeline in this video seems sound: all the eyewitnesses were dead or exiled by the Jewish war of 66-70 AD. All that existed of the teachings and acts of Jesus in 70AD were the Q sayings gospel and maybe parts of the gospel of Thomas. The canonical evangelists, among Hellenic 'god-fearers', as well as representatives of other strains in the Hellenic Jesus movement, like Gnostics, concocted their narratives from these few source materials, a lot of hearsay or responding to contemporary critiques.
We're living in a time when people are concocting mythologies around Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk, among others. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people in the 1st century might be more concerned with the 'sunk-costs' of their beliefs and responding to criticism than with historical truth.
Because this guy is full of crap- like all these talkers… Prattling on about what he does not know. The Holy Spirit guides everything that IS God’s own History.
Why did they not write the Gospels in the year 30?!?
Because Christ wasn’t even crucified until 33AD!!
Look, this presentation and all such presentations are all crap:
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written approx the same length of time after Christ’s death than we in 2023 live after the rock band Nirvana had their first record… Get it?
John (the Disciple that Christ loved) wrote the last Gospel no later than 95 AD (perhaps earlier)… that’s 60 years after Christ rose from death and then ascended - setting the wheels in motion.
There was no Barnes and Noble- there were no lines of readers (few people ever read) no best sellers…
Books were rare, handwritten, and far less important than word of mouth and churches at that time.
The Christians had Christ’s brother and mother and friends and disciples and were BLOWN AWAY enough for the word to spread EXACTLY like Christ said it would.
The Four Gospels were written by those who either knew precisely what they’d seen - or else by those on the peripheries with closeness to those who had seen it ALL… hundreds of people who had seen what Christ was all about were still alive.
It’s all simply Truth.
The Myrh is Historical Truth… That’s all.
Don’t listen to twits like this chap blathering on here… He’s a prat.
And the Practice before Perfect Book of Romulus With 2 baby brothers drifting down the river in a basket and Suckled the Milk from a Wolf Dog? But the Scriptures with baby Moses Drifting down the river was the Script for sure that made Holly wood Billions probably THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. believing it for all these years with little doubt. ALL FALSE THE WORSE BOOK SCAM THEY DARE KEEP RUNNING TODAY AND WANT ATHEIST GONE AND CALL THEM THE ANTICHRIST JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER BEING FOOLS. Can't be Honest unless your evil is Hypocritically backwords beyond Dishonesty and twisted to the indoctrnated brain wash all billions still buy today and would probably commit suicide if they saw the big Scam of fairy tales but actually biggest bought lie to control Billions over billions of ants moght as well be named . Very Frustrating and desturbing.@@wailinburnin
Mark could have been written in the 50s, and Luke in the 60's. There are very few contemporary writings from ancient times. That in itself doesnt mean there were none, just that they may have been lost over time. we dont know. It seems it may have been common practice for students of rabbis to take notes so it's possible such notes were partly used for a Gospel writing.
@@PC-vg8vn In the Holy BIBLE - (the wellspring for ALL our knowledge of Christ via the Holy Spirit who guided the ink and flows alive from it in front of us now) - the words say: The Gospels of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John”.
This is all we need to know.
God does NOT LIE.
Always remember to be absolute in your love of and faith in Him through Christ - and don’t listen to a single word of doubt or their “intellectual” game-playing!
Old Scratch … is up to his old bollocks!
Christ … God the Father… The Holy Spirit … The Eternal Holy Bible.
It’s precisely ALL you need to know.
God Bless.
On the symbols of the Evangelists: this tradition is not present in the Orthodox, Greek, Eastern Empire form of Nicene Christianity. At the same time, the Orthodox have also been far more reticent about the Book of Revelations, which is not heard in yearly readings.
If you sell all you possessions and give to the poor you become the poor do you have to wait for someone else to do the same.
It's a short sighted idea because they believed the world was soon to end
They expected Jerusalem to be destroyed soon. It was.
No. Since that was said to one person who claimed he was doing all that Jesus had commanded.
Despite the misconception by many, giving away all your possessions was not a command.
"The Poor" or "The Poor of Jerusalem" or some permutation thereof might just have been the name of the early christian community.
"Give everything to The Poor" just means give everything to the Christians, then.
Another Ponzi Scheme.
Does the Bible depict John as an apocalyptic prophet? Don’t crucify me I’ve only just started to read it.
I ask because if not, how do historians gather this information when we have limited collections of writings from this era and subject?
Genuine question. Not looking to be smart or spark debates. Thanks!
Depends on how you understand " the bible".
Quite why the money bags decided to tack the comparatively brief Jesussey onto the Torah and bundle them together is a mystery, since the two religions or whatever you want to call them are wholly unrelated, a mystery and is a bit like tacking popular mechanics onto Mrs/Beaton' Cookery.
I guess they thought that the Jesussey(gospels/tale of jesus wasn't long enough and the the Elsies would be impresed by a bigger or big book(which of course the Elsies could not read nor read anything)
Quite why some mad bigoted hillbillies none of who are Jews suppose a document pertaining to a religion that is not their religion, the Torah and Judaism to be what they call in their idolatrous fcuk-the-commandments way to be " the-word-of God(as if God uses words or writes books) is also a mystery.
"how do historians gather this information when we have limited collections of writings from this era and subject"
Mostly from copies/reproductions of the original/early manuscripts. Reading other people's analysis of the original/early manuscripts. A lot of study is going on today with all fields in looking at the original materials again (not copies) because new technology is discovering a lot more information - but universities have copies.
I have a gripe with Saul of Tarsus. The self proclaimed apostle.
I believe this character requires a bit more scrutiny.
I will employ this parable:
"Imagine you are in nazi Germany in 1940, you are a jew and you are fleeing the nazi regime, here comes a guy that reports you to the authority, you and your whole family and many other people. He reports them knowingly what faith awaits them"
Such was the character of Saul of Tarsus, he never saw Jesus or spoken to him but he had a profound hate towards everything Jesus represented. So much was his hate that he persecuted the early followers of Jesus and reported them to the roman authorities understanding full well the consecuences of his actions.
Imagine yourself if you would trust such a character, would you invite him to dinner at your family table? Hardly.
So this guy "runs out" of people to report and cant get his "fix" anymore and he has a "revelation", in a stroke of genius Saul decides to magically be transformed from a persecutor of christians to the Apostle Paul. But he hadnt understood the message of Jesus at all and this is reflected in the kind of "teachings" he proclaims from now on. He glosses over completely over the core ideas of forgiveness, surrender and renounciation and instead steers the dicussion towards useless rituals and misrepresentaions of the actual thoughts of Jesus.
Saul of Tarsus "put in work" towards the derailment of the teaching of Jesus.
The message of Jesus were the ideas of forgiveness wich bring freedom to the mind, this contradict directly the "any eye for an eye" of law of Moses. Jesus ideas talk of universal oneness where everything is equal, while judaism promises a position of masterhood to the "chosen people" whith the goyim as subservient.
Imho Saul of Tarsus was impressed with the things he have heard of Jesus, while he completely rejected the unifying ideas he, Jesus professed. The messias Saul was waiting for would be the one who establishes "new world order" with jews at the top of the food chain.
I think this is far too fantastical a take to be perfectly honest, I agree with you that Pauline Christianity has been beyond problematic but you're making him out as some sort of super villain, what it appears to me is that whatever happened to him on the road to Damascus, altered his perception of reality PROFOUNDLY, for better or worse, I dont think the evil power hungry Charactur makes sense, historically speaking
@@pebystroll
Could make sense.
For one, Saul's persecution of the early followers of Jesus, and I mean it like that, not the early christians, the early followers of Jesus, deserves a more thorough look.
Jesus is killed, most of the apostles too, and this clown comes out of the blue ranting and raving over Jesus Christ.
Now if you have no clue about nondualistic principles and basic models, you are at a severe disadvantage and you cannot even comprehend the actual message of Jesus.
If you cant understand Jesus message you are clueless about how it was twisted out of its meaning. Basically reducing the whole thing to a lot of rituals and "pedestalization" of a fantastic image of Jesus. Completely out of reach because we are sinful.
Jesus methodology produced a stream of awakened people. This awakening is no more than the direct experience of your own being in the silence of your mind. Simply put a mind at silence enters into a self contemplation mode and since there is no limit in the mind then this contemplation is limitless as well.
So "they" execute Jesus, the real apostles and eventually Saul, if he indeed perished (history is not 100% clear on that), he was a friendly fire causality.
Thus the coming of Christ was stifled but not snuffed out. By the time the roman empire adopted "Christianity" as its religion oin 313 AD, it was completely neutered, most of people who displayed any signs of being "awake" were hunted down and martired, later to be exploited as images of saints for the church.
The newly instituted rituals were growing by the years.
These rituals have no fire in them anymore.
The "magic" is not happening anymore.
Its not like Saul is a super villian but neither is he a "Life of Brian" type of character.
He was an educated man, considered himself a jew, a farisee and a roman.
He understood the consecuences of his actions persecuted his perceived "enemies" by reporting them on the roman autorities. For so long this was swept under the rug by mentions on the side like :"oh and btw, Paul persecuted christians.."
Now that should be taken in consideration for establishing Saul's character rather than beliving his own words. Did he made reparations for the people he persecuted?
Leaving letters "omg im so sry i persecuted christians, I am cured now, not Saul anymore im Paul now, 4 rlzs"
I understand I drawing a caricature of Saul but the point is valid.
@konstantinNeo Hey that's a very interesting message, it was really great to read, I will definitely think on those points, am I right in sensing some gnostic elements in it? either or thanks for the nice message
@@konstantinNeo i have always felt a bit sceptic about Paul, or maybe more his layouts of everything. why in the world does he understand everything? because he met Jesus he is suddenly so knowledgeable ? without diagnosing him it is fair to say he is a besserwisser-type..
@@kathrine266
Saul never saw Jesus.
"According to the New Testament, the initial intention of Saul of Tarsus (who later became the Apostle Paul) when he set out for Damascus was to arrest and bring back to Jerusalem any followers of Jesus he found there. Saul was a devout Pharisee who saw the growing Christian movement as a threat to traditional Judaism. He believed that the followers of Jesus were heretics and that it was his duty to persecute them.
In the Book of Acts, it is written that Saul obtained letters from the high priest in Jerusalem, giving him the authority to arrest any Christians he found in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial and punishment. Here is the relevant passage from Acts 9:1-2 (NIV):
"Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.""
More likely that on his way to Damascus he understood that by posing as an apostle he would be able to get to the core and destroy it from there. He had ran out of people to report to the roman authorities where he was at the moment.
And I do not believe his "conversion" because I do understand the message of Jesus, not the absurd bable that is currently in circulation as the "Bible" and Saul most certainly did not echo the message of Jesus.
Did Saul dedicate his life to make reparations to the ones he helped to destroy?
Nope, he went in on babbling nonesence about Jesus, got nailed himself by the roman autorities and during his depositions probably tried to say he's a double agent pretending to be an apostle.
But romans were pretty tough at that time, they weeded out Jesus, his apostles, anyone else who might be in on it as well.
The christianity that was adopted by the romans in 311 was almost completely devoid of the actual message of Jesus.
Whatever the veracity of the myth, it did it's role trough the world enough for me to be forgiven. Now that the church lost it's power, no one accuse me, I'm free in my territory. I can have a full life it's weird didn't plan for it. Maybe I'll see the end, this time with nuclear explosions all over the planet.
Up to then, I live without having to sale my soul to an organisation to be saved I'm saved, forgiven and have eternal life.
What about ibn Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew ?
I didn't realize this is connected to the LDS Church. When a religious platform does not really outline its beliefs or which Church it is actually associated with so that you can quickly look up its origins and basic beliefs, take pause.
It's not LDS; first of all LDS is extremely different from the Community of Christ although they share the same origin. (super long story; there's a looong video on it. ;) Community of Christ has taken a very different path, ending up a very liberal church and actually apologizing for the main problems with the book of mormon. However none of that is really relevant in relation to these lectures, which have an academic focus, not a theological focus. The channel is more similar to for example Religion for Breakfast or Bart Ehrman's channel.
Weird didn't realize they were a community of christ church either. I haven't seen him say literally anything about book of Mormon or doctrine and covenants or Joseph Smith or anything like that at all. Not sure if that's important or not
Kinda surprised someone who is so academic would be a part of the restored church tradition. Lol since book of Mormon is factually pretty untenable
"When a religious platform does not really outline its beliefs or which Church it is actually associated with so that you can quickly look up its origins and basic beliefs, take pause."
They have entire lectures posted on this. More than one. You can't expect them to go through that with EVERY lecture they do.
Just on your final answer; I and I’m sure many others would absolutely love to read a Gospel written by you John. Thanks for another amazingly executed lecture.
Could you please explain how come we know that all the books were originally written in Greek`They could aswell have been written originally in Aramaic!
I know a lot of times people think that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and they base that on the language of the day and on the Septuagint but the fact of the matter is Jesus would’ve spoken his native tongue Hebrew, Paul when he was surrounded by the Jews, and beaten, and the Roman captain came and delivered him, he asked to speak to the Jews and they would not listen until he’s spoke the Hebrew tongue so it’s very obvious that Jews will listen to people who speak their language. Jesus was raised in Israel his native tongue would’ve been Aramaic.
The one time that Jesus speaks to Paul from heaven, he speaks in the Hebrew tongue, so any extra biblical viewpoints is probably ridiculous, often times they try to discredit Christ Store change his words when the King James Bible faithfully records those words all the way back to the Old Latin Vulgate of 150 A.D.
Hello John. The Book of Kells was discovered in Kells, Ireland and is on display in Trinity College, Dublin. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.
Saint Thomas is buried here in India--at the end of the runway at Chennai International Airport
Who told you that "Saint Thomas is buried here in India--at the end of the runway at Chennai International Airport," and why do you believe them, and to what is that relevant?
@@vhawk1951kl Lonely Planet. Doesnt matter to me where he is buried.
@@vhawk1951kl The best way to create an an atheist is six years of Catholic school
@@sebolddaniel hmm , who knows? -It probably has to do with types, and of course there are also different types of atheist, more or less bright; those that can see the atheist's paradox and those that cannot.
@@sebolddaniel That does not adress my question which wasWho told you that "Saint Thomas is buried here in India--at the end of the runway at Chennai International Airport," and why do you believe them, and to what is that relevant?
But I would have been better off asking a dog, clearly
But did all the end times fail? I say it was the end of an era many times. A progress of ends and beginnings.
I don't know man, I didn't see the sun go out, the stars fall down and all the dead float into the sky.
If they meant the end of an era, they really should have just said the end of the era.
@@abelbabel8484 stars fall from the sky now. ICBM, drones, nukes. All that was predicted in the bible. But it also predicted what happened in 70 ad and what happened in the Babylonian exile.
@@kydenj28 Yeah, predicted by writers that lived after the events they predicted. I can do that, too.
ICBMs, drones and nukes are not stars. If we hammer square pegs into round holes like that, anything goes and nothing means anything.
@@abelbabel8484 it's multifaceted prophecies across time.
@@kydenj28 bullshit, cope harder
Jesus was neither catholic nor protestant nor did he found a church
The Gospels were written by Tom, Dick, Harry and Polly. They all shared the Nobel Prize 113
You simply don’t have the true teachings of Jesus. All you have are conjectures. And many central concepts comes way after Jesus and comes from normal human being like you and me and not divinely guided. Makes you wonder whether Jesus himself would recognise the religion that is attributed to him.
The Holy Quran of the Muslims does talk about the end of the world and the preceding events. But it's always non-committal when it comes to the exact day or time. But generally emphasizes it's nearness.
Quran 7:187
They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the Hour: when is its arrival? Say, “Its knowledge is only with my Lord. None will reveal its time except Him. It lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It will not come upon you except unexpectedly.” They ask you as if you are familiar with it. Say, “Its knowledge is only with Allah, but most of the people do not know.”
Quran 54:1
The final hour has drawn near and the moon was rent in twain.
Why does he refer to Q as if that's an actual source and not just a made up source that doesn't actually exist?
(Sorry for the VERY long "comment". But I believe it NEEDS to be said)
Hmmm...Kind Sir, Your video "Title and Narrative"; caused me to remember; when I was hosting a "Christian Room", on "Paltalk". Where a Lady came into the room; and she did not like; what I was espousing.
So she said, "Pat...where do you get your Authority?" I said, "Jesus". She said, "I KNOW THAT! But where do you get your 'Ultimate' Authority"? I said, "Jesus".
She got so mad with me; that she slammed out of the room, and left. Then later, a gentleman came in; and he didn't like what I was saying, either. So, he said, "Pat...What is the Gospel?" I said, "Jesus".
He said, "I KNOW THAT! But what is a 'FULL' Gospel?". I said, "Jesus". He also got so mad, he left using bad words. Oh well! Now, the 4 books of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"; is said, they are "Gospels'! Hmmm...
Well, yes in some ways', and other ways they strayed away; from what Jesus preached. So, IF I was to be asked, "Pat...Which is the most accurate of those 4 Gospels?"
I would say, "The 'Gospel' that Paul wrote, in his 13 books". Which, were MORE in line, with Jesus, EVER! That I do believe. Now, how many, are going to get MAD at me? And slam and blast me, etc! Huh?...
..in any case Brethren, Please Pray OFTEN and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY "God Almighty", true "Gospel"; there will ever have been. And may Jesus bless you, and yours, always. And please, Praise His Holy Name..."THE" Gospel. From here to Forever!
AMEN!
Excellent
Notice that the animal motifs of the gospels are also the same faces of the Ophanim that Ezekiel saw in his book! Interesting
Some of the earliest saints in the Church of Rome. Were relatives of the flavians that arch still exists in Rome You should read it some time
Who told you that " Some of the earliest saints in the Church of Rome. Were relatives of the flavians", and why do you believe them and to what is that relevant?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul.
Forget Ringo!
Where do you source the materials that make such blasphemous assertions?
It is apparent that not everyone has be been blessed to have had a true Spiritual experience with God Most High/El Elyon through and by His Only Begotten Son Christ Jesus the Anointed Word of God made flesh and the Spirit of Truth the Anointing of that Holy Spirit.
Thank God Jesus prayed; forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
There is much deception in this little season of Revelation chapter 20 and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be who choose that way, but straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to everlasting life and few there be who find it.
By grace we are saved, thru faith in the death, burial and resurrection of of our Lord and King Christ Jesus, who willing laid down His life for each of us.
An All powerful God would not let His people be led astray in mass. HE canonized the Gospels. HE wrote the books. Don’t put God in a box.
There seems to me a strong possibility that our ‘Mark’ is what Papias calls, and highly esteems as, the NARRATIVE of the sayings of the Lord written by Aristion. Aristion was later associated with Smyrna in the Province of Asia. As an early and central origin from someone considered a believer thought to be someone who knew Jesus, it was likely to be widespread which, if it came to be called our ‘Mark’ would explain how this ‘Mark’ ( Aristion’s work) survived.
1) My view is that ‘our Mark’is not the work of Mark that is mentioned by Papias. Papias thinks a work by Mark is a recollection by Peter of the words of Jesus, but not in order (I.e. not within a chronological narrative of Jesus’s life). Our ‘Mark’is too pro-Paul’s Gentile mission and too critical of the Twelve to be from Peter.
Our Mark may include collections of preaching material from refugees from the Jewish War, like the mission preaching depicted by the strangely prominent “Philip the evangelist” from Acts, said by Papias to have gone to live his last years in Papias’ own city, Hierapolis, 100km from Ephesus. Also the ‘disciple of the Lord’ Aristion is said by Papias to have written a ‘narrative’ on the logoi (sayings) of Jesus. Maybe ‘our Mark ‘is Aristion’s work, early and popular. Papias is perhaps referring to our current ‘Mark’ when he elsewhere speaks of ARISTION’ s ‘narrative’ on the logia of Jesus. Referring to a true narrative that was made to frame a selection of stories that have themes of missionary activity, opposition by Jewish authorities and Romans, miracles countering evil spirits and suffering martyrdom.
Tradition links Aristion to being an ‘elder’ in Smyrna. Revelation and Acts both highlight these concerns around believers experiences in the Province of Asia. Papias seems to say that in his own early years the Elder Aristion and the Elder John (NOT John the apostle) were both alive, and not too far from his own Hierapolis that travellers occasionally relayed accounts of what they had been saying about their own memories of the apostles. talking about the apostles from personal memory and were themselves surviving personal followers of Jesus. This personal prominence and potential authority of authorship, would explain why our so-called ‘Mark’ would be incorporated in our ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’. The fact that Aristion was not an apostle might have given the authors more confidence about changing the order and wording of what they used in our ‘Mark’.
I wan to know why Jesus didn't write anything down?
Where did you take the date 167BCE? How many years earlier was it exactly the "time" of Daniel?
You are a tremendous blessing 🟧🟪🟦🟥🟨🟫🟩
Your post-dating of the Gospels after 70 AD when the Temple fell is likely incorrect. The rationale for this dating is that Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of the Temple, so therefore the Gospels were written after the fall and falsely attributed the prediction to Jesus. However, Jesus's prediction wasn't even fully accurate (not one stone left on top of another), and the Gospels show Jesus worrying about things happening in the future that didn't actually happen (pregnant women in the winter). Additionally, the Gospels don't mention the fall of the Temple, which they could have done, and then attributed the accurate prediction to Jesus to show his supernatural ability. There is no death of Paul in the Gospels, there is no persecution of Christians in Rome during Nero in 65 AD, and other details are omitted that surely would've been included if the Gospels were written during or after that time.
The Gospels were written from 57-64 AD, and Corinthians and Acts slightly earlier.
Kinda looks like scholars are trying to change the narrative of the gospels and past. When will humanity learn. This is exactly why history is still repeating. Truth is, it appears we are still walking the exact same paths.
"Humanity" being a species of universal, like universals generally can only be imaginary(cannot be directly immediately personally experienced) History is only s ets of beliefs about the equally imaginary past or pre-now.
Men behave like men(human beings/dreaming machines) because they *Are* men men and have no choice; they go on do ing the same things for the same reasons or impulses; push button A or pull lever A. snd you get B and always will, because B is an *automatic* result of A. Men do what they *want* or *like* an cannot and do not *choose their wants and likes and cannot help but be the slaves or creatures of their functions.
There's evidence in the New Testament that Matthew Mark Luke John Paul James and Peter all knew each other.
“Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.”
-Voltaire
Science FICTION began when secular scientists knew Not the source and origin of Life.
Science FICTION continued when materialistic neurologists knew Not the source and origin of human Consciousness.
Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar!
.
Jesus was largely referring to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Which of course happened within that generation, about 40 years later.
Is there any soundness to the notion that Jesus may have been taken off the cross while stll alive and went incognito, such as the identity of his brother, James, and continued leading the early church in Jerusalem
I enjoy these long format lectures, I do, lots of good info in an engaging presentation and I know going in John is going to be coming from a Universalist non literal perspective but when he makes such antithetical statements such as John and Jesus being cousins was a complete fabrication made up by late date gospel writers, I wish he would give his evidence for that perspective. No matter which side one takes, just saying it doesn’t make it so. I know it’s only a 2 hr lecture, not a semester of classes but I’d like more information and I’m grateful for what they do.
Calling a travel book author such as Josephus a Historian is overly generous.
Apocalypse means lifting up the veil to reveal
Paul never was against the law in the Torah. That would be ridiculous when Jesus is the Torah.
He was against that works of the Torah is needed for salvation. Works if the law are fruit of the spirit and belief!
Did you say 666 verses?
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Matthew 24:36.
My favorite. Not even Jesus can fortell the future.
As always, excellent Presentation.
To say that "apocalyptic preachers failed" because the world did not end is to miss the point in rather spectacular fashion. Indeed these preachers were actually successful, that's why there were so many of them!
These doctrines fulfilled social needs which is why they were continually emerging. By rolling out the specter of the eschaton a priest could menace the powers at be with divine retribution while simultaneously orginizing the wretched into a mass movement that could be used to push for justice. Thereby each apocalyptic preacher had real impacts on his socity, prevokeing real tirmoil and change. They were successful! Besides nobody actually cared all that much weather or not the world really ended or not.
Keep irrationalizing, Christian.
@@sufficientmagister9061Were you dropped as a small child? I made exclusively meterialist arguments. You should learn to read more carefully.
I quite like this reading. There is a school of thought that sees Woke/Climate Alarmism, et al as Christianity 2.0 and I think you've just provided the through line for that hypothesis.
The point of Aplocypticism is social change. Interesting.
Although Jonestown, Aum Supreme Truth, Waco, etc... do come to mind as well.
But then, like the Nazi's, do the apocalyptic change makers implode if they can't bring about their Utopia?
You bring up a fascinating point. I could see your point a little bit. However, for the most part they were not successful. One of the major reasons Christianity was successful was the ditched the immediate end and transformed it to “ eventually” or one day in the far future.
This kept the religion going but positive societal change never occurred due to failed apocalyptic callings.
@@michaelhenry1763 This is true if you take the standard narrative, that focuses exclusively on what we call Christians, however my telling of the story ends with the Arab conquests as the meterial culmination of the apocalyptic movement.
Thomas 3:1-3 is evidence that, and this includes the Lazarus story, the resurrection is the Eleusinian ritual. A 3 day NDE/OOBE.
It is what Plato was talking about with the cave story.
And the myth of Er.
Consciousness is fundamental.
It is the answer to the measurement problem.
I’m willing to look for the connections between the religions, similarities to the Mysteries etc. - I think it is interesting. - I’m always looking for the cataclysm in the story: death and rebirth of human civilization as represented in different mythological traditions / religions etc. - the part about the individual death and rebirth I think is best described in Brian Muraresku “The immortality Key” (the experience of ego death / “Dying before Dying” as a psychedelic effect sought out by the mystery cults, and originally probably a part of the Christian Holy Sacrament as well). - I happen to just be more interested in the civilizational near death experience (- the whole “Lost Civilization” / Atlantis trip with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson and Robert Schoch etc.)
I’m also interested in science, but those two things have almost nothing to do with each other.
The measurement problem is an artifact of the locality of the observer: it’s two sides of the same coin: each observation represents a slice of the multiverse. To get rid of the problem, we would need to be the whole multiverse and make each possible observation at once. One might say, that this is where science and religion meet: the postulation of an all encompassing experience (- or should I say experiencer / creator / God / Super-Consciousness).
But that’s a rather lose / hypothetical connection between religions and science. I think they are not and can not be about the same thing at all anymore.
Science builds the story from low level descriptions, while Religions are the highest level descriptions devotees could aim at. - Those two domains simply can not meet in the middle / describe the same things. Mythology only fits the human experience in a very symbolic manner, which is to say lose manner, which is to say: not at all at the level of “things” in the real world, but only ever at the level of events / synchronicities that “happen” in human interpretation.
This was a long and circumspect way of saying, that I probably share some of the same interests as you and other viewers of this channel, but come to radical different conclusions.
For me science and religion are just two things I am interested in. They don’t have to integrate at the same level: in fact they can’t, because religion simply is not strictly true in the same sense that science is strictly true. They are both vehicles for us to explore and contend with some underlying realities, but one works in the domain of facts, while the other works in the domain of (flawed) meanings - that aren’t “really” there at the base level, but just get assigned as aesthetic values at the higher level, as some sort of more or less useful (but ultimately flawed) attempts at data compression and storytelling / narration. The human mind is somewhat ill-equipped to deal with the world at the scientific level: it’s a great struggle of abstraction while standing on the shoulders of giants. - While all the symbology narrative of religion comes easy, and begs for interpretations that just flow from our common culture and history and subconscious streams. Very different things indeed.
But all terribly interesting.
I think science is a way to arrive at history from the lower level, while religion is a kind of psychotherapy for civilization, helping to deal with the trauma of a civilizational near death experience / cataclysm. - They are fundamentally different things: explaining history scientifically vs processing and reenacting the trauma and dealing with civilizational survivors guilt that came as an effect of a near extinction level event / civilization destroying event.
Worship the Creator, not the Creation .
All Christian churches teach that the narratives and epistles of the New Testament were imparted to their respective authors by the "Holy Ghost" through inspiration. Many churches even contend that it was through "verbal" inspiration, that is to say, by way of "dictation."
What proof have the churches for this doctrine?
There are only two ways in which it could be proved, one being an express statement on the part of the authors of the New Testament to the effect that the contents of their records and epistles had been imparted, or in fact dictated to them, by the Spirit of God, The only other proof that we could consider would be an express assertion, made at any time or in any place by the Spirit of God, to the effect that the books of the New Testament are "inspired" writings. No other possible method of proof exists.
Of the books of the New Testament, only one, The Revelation of John, was communicated by an angel. What is more, John stresses this fact in the very opening sentence of his book. The authors of all the other books of the New Testament say nothing about the operation of any supernatural influence upon the writing of their reports. Luke, on the contrary, expressly states in the first few lines of his gospel that he has compiled his story in quite the ordinary human way. He writes: "Many before me have undertaken to write the story of the well-established events that happened among us. Their accounts agree with what we are told by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who appeared in public to proclaim the truth. Having looked carefully into all of the facts from the very outset, I have also decided to write them down in historical order and to send my account to you, most noble Theophilus, in order that you may convince yourself of the truth of that which you have learned by word of mouth." His account, therefore, contains the things that were told to him by eyewitnesses, and not those that were imparted to him by the "Holy Ghost."
This is nonsense what you are saying! These texts are mythological stories being made up. Christian churches can spout all the mambo jumbo they want about spirits & other supernatural nonsense but these are clearly plagiarized from original Greek literature by literate Graeco-Roman & Hellenized Jews; filled with outlandish inconsistencies, incompatibilities & contradictions. Also they were edited by professional scribes so some original material will be forever lost. We will never know any of the true authors because there were too many all competing to weave a more fantastic tale from existing myths & stealing what they could from the Old Testament just like they stole from the original Greek (they probably saw it as imitation but it was plagiarism plain & simple!)
Luke (there is no real person actually it is the name of the scroll) is stealing from Greek historians his introduction; he plagiarizes the introduction like the rest of the text.
@@RamismTamoid could you give a reference for Luke's stealing his introduction from Greek historians?
It does not seem to allow the ref url ?
Paul repeatedly states in the epistles that his sources -his *only* sources- are from scripture and revelation. So your op isn’t technically the case as far as inspiration goes. I’m also gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Paul is the only case of a New Testament author that we can loosely say was “divinely inspired” the rest is just church mythology, propaganda & an easy way to gloss over all the contradictions and non sense.
We don’t know!
Interesting, but please stop overusing the expression "and so forth."
How dare you nit-pick?
Luke never says that he doesn't like the sources he read. If anything, he was telling Theophilus that he had more information FROM THE EYEWITNESSES that the other accounts did not have. It was NOT that he didn't like them, he was giving the information that eyewitnesses provided to him. You cannot read that passage any other way.
If jesus was so famous how is it that paul has no idea who he is before his ministry?
According to jewish law every male must appear in Jerusalem 3x a year and paul would have been included in this and of course would have seen his crucification right?i mean it was a public display and a very very big deal for paul not to have at least Heard of jesus and not learn of his existence from jesus followers?
But how luke who got it ftom witnesses wrote acts after gosoel of luke and paul died in mid 60s ce but his desth is mot mentioned meaning acts is before 65ce and luke godpel earlier ie all lesd than 35 years after assumption of Jesus to heaven
Matthew and others mention destruction of yerusalem ehich happened in 70 ce mesning all those books were written before 70ce
John lived longest say upto 95ce and writes. 2 books and 3 episltes
They sound very similar.
All the three peter,mathew died before 70ce so heir writings are eithin that generation
He keeps saying that the church in Jerusalem was called "The Poor" but there is ZERO evidence that that is true. They were called "The Way". That name we have record of but he wouldn't ever use biblical evidence to support his guesswork.
Ok but what about the author's of the gospels
Are they really mark john Luke Mathew?is that part of his presentation right?
Acts was possibly written by the writer of Luke to defend Paul in court
I am not sure if it is important to know who wrote the four gospels but I can make an argument that John and Luke are both written by whom they are attributed based on the authors of the three letters of John and the Acts of the Apostles respectively. A case for Matthew being the writer is based on the fact that the genealogy is of Jesus is traced through Joseph and the account of Jesus' early years is from Joseph's point of view while both are from Mary's in Luke. None of these cases is certain but all reach the level of a reasonable suspicion or better.
The claim of John the Baptist was that the reign of God was comming , aka the Messianic Age. According to Paul in is letter to the Galatians those that walk according to the Saintly Spirit are in the reign of God.
We will never know.
So why imagination warned against yet its truth for states of mind can be killer and give life.
Indian to Persian
Persian to Judaism
Than Bla........ S...... T
Christianty Than Islam
In Indian & Persian Philosophy
Shaitan Was A Title ( Like Advocate)
Shaitaan Plea To God For punishing Sinner..
But Ibrahimic Religion & Cult destroyed the Concept.
But Now Nothing matters..
Thanks For Ur Time
U R Creating The library For upcoming Generations
Frankly, I prefer Google. Better informed and more accurate and it gets UPDATED@😂😂😂
As Professor Robert Eisenman says at the end of his book ‘James the brother of Jesus’ - “Whoever James was. So was Jesus”.
There is no evidence that John the Baptist ever preached that the end of the world was coming.
If you read the New Testament (which the TH-camr tends not to do), John came preaching the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was John's disciple and He also preached the same message.
Neither one of these men preached that the end of the world was coming soon.
It was not me!
James was brother jesus he he too was neither catholic nor protestant there fore he was head of synagogue not a church
Jesus's believers had copied three doctrines from jhon the Baptist.
1) washing of sins though such theory was not in the Judaism.
2) God's kingdom is coming soon.
3) Taking baptism in water.
Resurrection was copied from Inanna, daughter of Enki.
Could you imagine the christinity without these doctrines ?
Cheers from Singapore 13.11.23
Why doesnthis damned lecture autoplat aftwr every frikkin' video i ever watch on YT... holy crap.
The gospels were written by
James Bond
Count Dracula
Quetzalcoatl
and
Bumba!
.
There’s no such thing as “historical accuracy.” There are other cultures that didn’t view the past as real, which is why they focused on mythology. The point of mythology is to reach truths within. Dr king was right. The story of Jesus had nothing to do with outward appearance. Then again race has nothing to do with outward appearance either. Either way, people need to stop arguing about “facts” and start extracting lessons and asking questions.