Great show. What is the impetus for assuming that Matthew and Luke couldn't creatively originate stories? It's the strangest thing, and not practiced (theoretical sources never mentioned by anyone else) in any other area of history. I believe it was just a desire for early scholars to try and compensate for the lack of contemporary or early sources, and create a bridge to some actual history. But those theories say more about the scholars than any actual history. Why not start with removing all the passages that people like Dennis MacDonald show are inspired by Greek mythology, remove the passages about miracles, remove the passages inspired by Old Testament stories and see what's left? Much less possible historical information to deal with. Possibly nothing. They didn't have a tradition of oral preservation of stories in 1st century Palestine. Writing was in full swing by then. The description of the disciples didn't include anyone with a literate background to be a scribe. The Christian communities Paul was writing to were already divided and competing with each other over theology. Robyn Faith Walsh did a great job of showing how German romanticists introduced the idea of oral communities to the study and origin of the gospels, as they did to bolster their own unknown history (German folklore). But everyone still sticks to the oral tradition narrative. There are emotional reasons for that bias me thinks.
Seeing how Luke so extensively uses Mark & Matthew, and the fact that Luke blatantly acknowledges the PREEXISTENCE of MANY biographies, imagining several sources is the most reasonable default. Have you interacted with Richard Bauckham's multiple books on the gospels (or you are among those eho dismiss them without actually reading all of them)? Alexander The Great repeatedly took actions to imitate plot lines in Greek mythology. Why wouldn't the historical Jesus deliberately do the same (both Jewish scriptures & Homeric & other classical stories)? If McDonald is right about the widespread prominence of Classical myths, then there is no reason the historical Jesus would not have deliberately valued their elements & consciously imitated them. There is no supernatural event in any ancient polytheistic/pagan literature that do not get commonly replicated in our modern times-it's just that many people (& I suspect you're included) insist on living within their bubbles & refusing to properly research modern supernatural & magical events. In summary, I don't see much reason to believe in fictional creativity in prose gospel accounts
@@tsemayekekema2918 Just because Luke mentioned he had sources (note that he does not say anything more than he had accounts), that does not mean the major author of the book we have as L could not use authorial agency. Furthermore, you're bypassing the real creativity in the pile: "Matthew". The primary author of that very much was exercising authorial agency, and that is clearly demonstrated in the nativity portion of that book.
@TheDanEdwards you are also bypassing the real external evidence that proves multiple layers of pre-existing literary sources for "Matthew": Papias who states that the Apostle Matthew wrote a narrative in a SEMITIC language, and that "many" translated that semitic language work in "many different ways" i.e. multiple "many" literary works that have a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels authored by Matthew as one of their sources! Given that it is proven that our canonical "Gospel Of Matthew" cannot have been a direct translation from a Semitic language, but an original Greek composition, we can be sure that the church tradition of identifying it as authored by Matthew, when it could just as easily have been regarded as a variant form of Mark or Luke, does prove that it has one or more sources that where either translations of that Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (authored by the apostle himself), or was itself written by a multilingual author drawing on a Hebrew/Aramaic source right before him, but without any word-for-word direct translation.
@@tsemayekekema2918 Just to be clear here, your argument is that the Gospel of Matthew being an original Greek composition proves that the author wrote it using an authentic Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew"?
I don't think scholars necessarily assume they didn't originate any stories, just that they don't assume they did originate everything they didn't copy from a known source. There was clearly some kind of oral transmission. Not a formal tradition of oral preservation of stories like we see in some pre-literate cultures, but the preachers who spread Christianity did so by talking to people. Telling the stories, sayings, parables, teachings and theology they'd heard themselves. This inevitably leads to different traditions of stories in different groups. We know Matthew and Luke copied Mark. We know the Matthew and Luke shared another source or that one copied from the other. We know there is material unique to each of them. Some of that may have been invented by them, but since it's very likely the different communities they were from had different stories already, it's likely that some of it came from those and there's no way to distinguish which, so scholars talk about the M source and the L source .
Dr. Markus Vinzent and his Patristica crew absolutely smash Markan priority. Marcion priority is the only thing that makes sense.
7 วันที่ผ่านมา +2
Marcion didn't write anything he inherited proto-Luke and some of Paul's letters. MAYBE Marcion created the first NT corpus and did some editing, that's it. Vinzent doesn't say otherwise.
@stefanslater8414 proto-Mark and Q (at minimum) contributed to the Evangelion. But without it the editors / compilers of the Cannonical texts wouldn't have had a reason to create the new testament. It was only in the refutation of Marcion that they built the texts we are now familiar with. AND (as mentioned by Dr. Bilby and Dr. Litwa) we can't look at the proto gospels as fixed documents, they bumped into each other several times, in various years and locals, however, it was only in Rome before 200 that they were finalized. This fact (I believe) is the biggest reason that members of the nascent Catholic church killed Hypatia, and destroyed the library (and the temple dedicated to Serapis) in Alexandria once Pagan Mysteries were outlawed in 396. Things could have been so different and better than they are...
@@kosmicwizard My hunch, from reading Bilby's Gospel of the Poor, is that the Markan proto-gospel comprised a collection of miracle stories. Perhaps this narrative commenced with the calling of Simon and Andrew, followed by the cleansing of the leper and the healing of the paralytic. These acts lead to the call of Levi. The controversy stories (fasting and grain plucking) conclude with a healing on the Sabbath. All this concludes with the calling of the twelve. Simon in renamed Peter. Note the order of Mark and Luke (based on Marcion) dovetail. After the twelve are called, we see Jesus calm the storm, exorcise the demons and stem the woman's bloodflow. By now Herod has heard of these stories. The feeding of the 5,000 culminates with Peter's recognition of Jesus as the Christ, and a lesson by the latter on the son of man and suffering. See how Peter is at the beginning, middle, and end of the story ... Perhaps part of the tradition that canonical Mark was Peter's interpreter. The above and 'Q' passages (a written document or composition?) led to what is known as Marcion's gospel. Forgive the bullet point summation, I don't have the space to cite my sources. Final thought: my hypothesis that proto-Mark was v short is supported by 'Marcion's' text being the first gospel. For Mark, even in canonical form, is less out of lockstep with Marcion's presumed theology than the gospel ascribed to the latter's name. Why didn't use Mark, because the text didn't then exist as a gospel?
The trick here is to consider the Oral Teaching of Jesus as an analoge to greater eastern theologies, and thus more academic and structured as a theological science, than the Greek Narratives about his deeds, which turned into magic and mythological mysticism. With this interpretation the Gospels are mere fairy tales derived from imaginative translations of the original Oral Teachings. I will keep an eye out for further work by Dr. Frank W. Hughes. Good man.
In her book 'The Origins of Early Christian Literature' (pages 155-169), Robyn Faith Walsh expertly refutes the idea proposed here by Hughes that there's good reason to take the author of Luke seriously when he/she says many other gospel-like narratives were floating around at the time of their composition. Walsh surveys a wide range of Greco-Roman literature and demonstrates that references to anonymous sources, claims of eyewitness testimony, and the denigration of competing narratives are easily explained as commonplace rhetorical devices. As she says, "It is within this trajectory that a preface like that to Luke's gospels is intelligible as a rhetorical strategy, and not a concrete account of his writing process.... As a writer, Luke is 'playing the game' of establishing his bona fides, clearly aware of the literary tradition into which he is inserting himself. As such, his preface should not be taken as a reliable description of how information about Jesus or Judea came to him (i.e., via oral tradition)..." There's zero actual material evidence to establish the truthfulness of Luke's claims about eyewitnesses and competing narratives in the preface, while there's ample literary evidence pointing in the direction of rhetorical creativity.
I believe in Markan priority not because of Luke 1:1-4 but because of comparison with the other synoptic gospels. I generally agree that the preface to Luke is mostly a literary convention.
We know that Jews practiced ‘midrash’, creative retelling of biblical stories. Matthew seems to have done that with Mark. Luke seems to have been impelled to write because he didn’t like much of what he found in Matthew.
The predominant theory is still that Luke knew and copied Mark, but not Matthew, isn't it? Based on things like the Markan material being in the same sequence, but the parts that are the same as in Matthew being in different places.
When Luke says there were "many narratives" that doesn't imply that they were in writing or even that Luke had personal knowledge of them. Since he doesn't specifically identify ANY of his sources and relied heavily on Mark and Matthew, Luke's source claims are questionable.
This is debatable. There is a line of scholarship that considers the possibility that Marcion kicked off the business of writing gospels, and others followed to try to counter his influence.
the reality is that whoever invented the first gospel took inspiration from Jesus, son of Nun as the name to give to the protagonist and there is evidence of zealous messianism in the synoptic gospels, especially in Matthew. Jesus never existed. John "the Baptist" existed, he was a revolutionary and was betrayed, arrested and beheaded like all the messiahs/kings who followed one another in the first and second centuries. the last one was Simon bar kokheba
We must always check the sources to establish the authority if the author even in biblical scripture, for we only want to believe the truth, don't we! Mark was the cousin or nephew of Barnabas, a close friend of Paul's till they had a falling out. So Paul recuited both Luke in 46AD and Mark latter...,since the date of Jesus death is given as 33AD we can conclude neither Paul, Luke or Mark ever meet Jesus and never witnessed any biblical events... But their scriptures do seem to make all the main christian biblical claims. Especially when you factor into Paul fighting with Jesus original real 12 Appostles, and stopping them writing or preaching anything Paul was not preaching. (Galatians 1:8-9 &1:13). So what you got with any of them is loads of fabricated nothingness!
At 5 or even 50 feet, surveying the field is too granular and fragmented so see much. At 500 feet, or 50,000 feet patterns emerge that no one on the ground level could have manipulated. Substitute years for feet when surveying the New Testament. Since you've dabbled a bit in Sindonology here (and good on you for being somehow available to even that perspective) you may recall that the image is not visible up close, but whatever else it is, it is a clearly discernable image at a distance that no artist up-close could have painted. Believers will say that the Painter is divine, just as they said that the authors were inspired. The scientists do not necessarily disbelieve but they keep poking around linin cloth or ancient codex for natural and cultural contexts. Besides, divinity can infuse natural and cultural contexts as much or little as inscrutable divinity will.
I'm so glad to be Muslim as it would be terrible trying to convince myself that I was on the right path with only a single source of very weak narration. How is it possible that an entire religion was created from this very weak source?
The Christian faith existed for decades before there were the sources of the gospels. It was the faith and practice of early churches which created the epistles, the gospels, and other writings.
Paul didn't ever know Jesus, he talked of Christ. And while he wrote in the first century, he never wrote a gospel, so what pipurio said is true.
7 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
@@kosmicwizard Nope. pipuro said "there is no evidence that Jesus existed in the first century". Paul's letters were written in the first C and they mention Jesus. So P is demonstrably wrong.
If he had placed a period after the word century, to show that it is a separate yet related point, you wouldn't be able to say that. Paul isn't an eye witness anyway, he never met a man named Jesus Ben Joseph prior to his crucifixion. And hear say isn't documented evidence of his mortal existence. I'm not a mythisist, but I'll meet them halfway, Jesus the man and Christ the Sator were two different beings, Christ was made a historical figure in the life of Jesus (which is different from Pagan Mystery Schools) but not a single person would ever have called Jesus "The Christ." During his life, I'd wager to say that Jesus never heard the term spoken (since he and his followers spoke Aramaic, not Greek). Cheers.
Scholarship nonsense. Battle of Meggido (1500BC ) Thutmose lll is your Moses. Yet if you read the scriptures you will discover how a matrix has been laid over our world and Christ is the escape route. The celestial sphere will show you the dragon,, which is El Shaddai in the hebrew text. Joshua son of Nun, is the egyptian myth of Nun, and the Ankh is an inverted Globus Cruciger... You can believe what you want, but what is called the holy spirit, was present before the big bang, and with the light of consciousness, one can unravel the mystery for yourself.
Urdu is a language associated with Islam in South Asia, and is a symbol of Muslim identity. The association between Urdu and Islam was developed during British colonial rule: @aaronaragon7838
The first Gospel was Matthew , written about 37 AD and in Hebrew . There's enough evidence to suggest that all of the Gospels were actually written first in Hebrew , so if Mark is the "first" , maybe it's just the first that was found but that doesn't prove that it was the first one written
There is a reference by one of the Church Fathers to a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew, but the brief description of it doesn't really match the Matthew we know. If that's to be taken seriously, it was likely a collection of sayings of Jesus that may have been a source for the later Greek gospels. I'm not enough of a linguist to know myself, but my understanding is that while there are a few passages (mostly sayings of Jesus) that show traces of Aramaic (or Hebrew?) roots, most of the gospel text does not. They appear to have been composed in Greek, rather than translated from Hebrew.
The source of mark is the latin Civil war of julius caesar. Nasareth is ravenna. The lake of calilee. Is the sea of calliae north italy. Juilius caesar paid of all the financial debt. Of all the people of rome,rich or poor. This became,,,he took all the sins.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for all your hard work, Jacob. You're a bloody legend, mate.
Great show. What is the impetus for assuming that Matthew and Luke couldn't creatively originate stories? It's the strangest thing, and not practiced (theoretical sources never mentioned by anyone else) in any other area of history. I believe it was just a desire for early scholars to try and compensate for the lack of contemporary or early sources, and create a bridge to some actual history. But those theories say more about the scholars than any actual history.
Why not start with removing all the passages that people like Dennis MacDonald show are inspired by Greek mythology, remove the passages about miracles, remove the passages inspired by Old Testament stories and see what's left? Much less possible historical information to deal with. Possibly nothing.
They didn't have a tradition of oral preservation of stories in 1st century Palestine. Writing was in full swing by then. The description of the disciples didn't include anyone with a literate background to be a scribe. The Christian communities Paul was writing to were already divided and competing with each other over theology.
Robyn Faith Walsh did a great job of showing how German romanticists introduced the idea of oral communities to the study and origin of the gospels, as they did to bolster their own unknown history (German folklore). But everyone still sticks to the oral tradition narrative. There are emotional reasons for that bias me thinks.
Seeing how Luke so extensively uses Mark & Matthew, and the fact that Luke blatantly acknowledges the PREEXISTENCE of MANY biographies, imagining several sources is the most reasonable default. Have you interacted with Richard Bauckham's multiple books on the gospels (or you are among those eho dismiss them without actually reading all of them)?
Alexander The Great repeatedly took actions to imitate plot lines in Greek mythology. Why wouldn't the historical Jesus deliberately do the same (both Jewish scriptures & Homeric & other classical stories)? If McDonald is right about the widespread prominence of Classical myths, then there is no reason the historical Jesus would not have deliberately valued their elements & consciously imitated them. There is no supernatural event in any ancient polytheistic/pagan literature that do not get commonly replicated in our modern times-it's just that many people (& I suspect you're included) insist on living within their bubbles & refusing to properly research modern supernatural & magical events.
In summary, I don't see much reason to believe in fictional creativity in prose gospel accounts
@@tsemayekekema2918 Just because Luke mentioned he had sources (note that he does not say anything more than he had accounts), that does not mean the major author of the book we have as L could not use authorial agency. Furthermore, you're bypassing the real creativity in the pile: "Matthew". The primary author of that very much was exercising authorial agency, and that is clearly demonstrated in the nativity portion of that book.
@TheDanEdwards you are also bypassing the real external evidence that proves multiple layers of pre-existing literary sources for "Matthew": Papias who states that the Apostle Matthew wrote a narrative in a SEMITIC language, and that "many" translated that semitic language work in "many different ways" i.e. multiple "many" literary works that have a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels authored by Matthew as one of their sources! Given that it is proven that our canonical "Gospel Of Matthew" cannot have been a direct translation from a Semitic language, but an original Greek composition, we can be sure that the church tradition of identifying it as authored by Matthew, when it could just as easily have been regarded as a variant form of Mark or Luke, does prove that it has one or more sources that where either translations of that Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (authored by the apostle himself), or was itself written by a multilingual author drawing on a Hebrew/Aramaic source right before him, but without any word-for-word direct translation.
@@tsemayekekema2918 Just to be clear here, your argument is that the Gospel of Matthew being an original Greek composition proves that the author wrote it using an authentic Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew"?
I don't think scholars necessarily assume they didn't originate any stories, just that they don't assume they did originate everything they didn't copy from a known source.
There was clearly some kind of oral transmission. Not a formal tradition of oral preservation of stories like we see in some pre-literate cultures, but the preachers who spread Christianity did so by talking to people. Telling the stories, sayings, parables, teachings and theology they'd heard themselves. This inevitably leads to different traditions of stories in different groups.
We know Matthew and Luke copied Mark. We know the Matthew and Luke shared another source or that one copied from the other. We know there is material unique to each of them. Some of that may have been invented by them, but since it's very likely the different communities they were from had different stories already, it's likely that some of it came from those and there's no way to distinguish which, so scholars talk about the M source and the L source .
Dr. Markus Vinzent and his Patristica crew absolutely smash Markan priority. Marcion priority is the only thing that makes sense.
Marcion didn't write anything he inherited proto-Luke and some of Paul's letters. MAYBE Marcion created the first NT corpus and did some editing, that's it. Vinzent doesn't say otherwise.
@stefanslater8414 proto-Mark and Q (at minimum) contributed to the Evangelion. But without it the editors / compilers of the Cannonical texts wouldn't have had a reason to create the new testament. It was only in the refutation of Marcion that they built the texts we are now familiar with. AND (as mentioned by Dr. Bilby and Dr. Litwa) we can't look at the proto gospels as fixed documents, they bumped into each other several times, in various years and locals, however, it was only in Rome before 200 that they were finalized.
This fact (I believe) is the biggest reason that members of the nascent Catholic church killed Hypatia, and destroyed the library (and the temple dedicated to Serapis) in Alexandria once Pagan Mysteries were outlawed in 396.
Things could have been so different and better than they are...
@@kosmicwizard My hunch, from reading Bilby's Gospel of the Poor, is that the Markan proto-gospel comprised a collection of miracle stories. Perhaps this narrative commenced with the calling of Simon and Andrew, followed by the cleansing of the leper and the healing of the paralytic. These acts lead to the call of Levi. The controversy stories (fasting and grain plucking) conclude with a healing on the Sabbath. All this concludes with the calling of the twelve. Simon in renamed Peter. Note the order of Mark and Luke (based on Marcion) dovetail.
After the twelve are called, we see Jesus calm the storm, exorcise the demons and stem the woman's bloodflow. By now Herod has heard of these stories. The feeding of the 5,000 culminates with Peter's recognition of Jesus as the Christ, and a lesson by the latter on the son of man and suffering.
See how Peter is at the beginning, middle, and end of the story ... Perhaps part of the tradition that canonical Mark was Peter's interpreter.
The above and 'Q' passages (a written document or composition?) led to what is known as Marcion's gospel.
Forgive the bullet point summation, I don't have the space to cite my sources.
Final thought: my hypothesis that proto-Mark was v short is supported by 'Marcion's' text being the first gospel. For Mark, even in canonical form, is less out of lockstep with Marcion's presumed theology than the gospel ascribed to the latter's name. Why didn't use Mark, because the text didn't then exist as a gospel?
The trick here is to consider the Oral Teaching of Jesus as an analoge to greater eastern theologies, and thus more academic and structured as a theological science, than the Greek Narratives about his deeds, which turned into magic and mythological mysticism. With this interpretation the Gospels are mere fairy tales derived from imaginative translations of the original Oral Teachings.
I will keep an eye out for further work by Dr. Frank W. Hughes. Good man.
*analogue
In her book 'The Origins of Early Christian Literature' (pages 155-169), Robyn Faith Walsh expertly refutes the idea proposed here by Hughes that there's good reason to take the author of Luke seriously when he/she says many other gospel-like narratives were floating around at the time of their composition. Walsh surveys a wide range of Greco-Roman literature and demonstrates that references to anonymous sources, claims of eyewitness testimony, and the denigration of competing narratives are easily explained as commonplace rhetorical devices. As she says, "It is within this trajectory that a preface like that to Luke's gospels is intelligible as a rhetorical strategy, and not a concrete account of his writing process.... As a writer, Luke is 'playing the game' of establishing his bona fides, clearly aware of the literary tradition into which he is inserting himself. As such, his preface should not be taken as a reliable description of how information about Jesus or Judea came to him (i.e., via oral tradition)..." There's zero actual material evidence to establish the truthfulness of Luke's claims about eyewitnesses and competing narratives in the preface, while there's ample literary evidence pointing in the direction of rhetorical creativity.
I believe in Markan priority not because of Luke 1:1-4 but because of comparison with the other synoptic gospels. I generally agree that the preface to Luke is mostly a literary convention.
We know that Jews practiced ‘midrash’, creative retelling of biblical stories. Matthew seems to have done that with Mark. Luke seems to have been impelled to write because he didn’t like much of what he found in Matthew.
The predominant theory is still that Luke knew and copied Mark, but not Matthew, isn't it? Based on things like the Markan material being in the same sequence, but the parts that are the same as in Matthew being in different places.
Please turn on the Subtitle/Close Caption, doch!
When Luke says there were "many narratives" that doesn't imply that they were in writing or even that Luke had personal knowledge of them. Since he doesn't specifically identify ANY of his sources and relied heavily on Mark and Matthew, Luke's source claims are questionable.
Marcion
@@kosmicwizard Marcion was after Luke
Nonsense!
He also used infancy thomas
This is debatable. There is a line of scholarship that considers the possibility that Marcion kicked off the business of writing gospels, and others followed to try to counter his influence.
everything exept Ur Markus
the reality is that whoever invented the first gospel took inspiration from Jesus, son of Nun as the name to give to the protagonist and there is evidence of zealous messianism in the synoptic gospels, especially in Matthew. Jesus never existed. John "the Baptist" existed, he was a revolutionary and was betrayed, arrested and beheaded like all the messiahs/kings who followed one another in the first and second centuries. the last one was Simon bar kokheba
Agree with you on the zealous messianism. What is your source about this Jesus, son of Nun?
Oh boy, won't you guys give it a rest already? Submit your essay to a peer reviewed journal and convince the consensus to change.
How do you explain Marcion's Proto - Luke in 144AD? Nothing is First Century.
Marcion just used pre-existing materials. Maybe he edited some. There's nothing to explain.
I can't wait to see your interview with Dr Elizabeth Schrader-Polczer. I would love to meet her.
We must always check the sources to establish the authority if the author even in biblical scripture, for we only want to believe the truth, don't we!
Mark was the cousin or nephew of Barnabas, a close friend of Paul's till they had a falling out. So Paul recuited both Luke in 46AD and Mark latter...,since the date of Jesus death is given as 33AD we can conclude neither Paul, Luke or Mark ever meet Jesus and never witnessed any biblical events... But their scriptures do seem to make all the main christian biblical claims. Especially when you factor into Paul fighting with Jesus original real 12 Appostles, and stopping them writing or preaching anything Paul was not preaching. (Galatians 1:8-9 &1:13).
So what you got with any of them is loads of fabricated nothingness!
First gospel of Jesus/son of hail Zeus Divus Julius Caesar was written by Mark Anthony .
You keep repeating that, but no matter how much your repeat it that does not make it true.
MOAR!
At 5 or even 50 feet, surveying the field is too granular and fragmented so see much. At 500 feet, or 50,000 feet patterns emerge that no one on the ground level could have manipulated. Substitute years for feet when surveying the New Testament. Since you've dabbled a bit in Sindonology here (and good on you for being somehow available to even that perspective) you may recall that the image is not visible up close, but whatever else it is, it is a clearly discernable image at a distance that no artist up-close could have painted. Believers will say that the Painter is divine, just as they said that the authors were inspired. The scientists do not necessarily disbelieve but they keep poking around linin cloth or ancient codex for natural and cultural contexts. Besides, divinity can infuse natural and cultural contexts as much or little as inscrutable divinity will.
I'm so glad to be Muslim as it would be terrible trying to convince myself that I was on the right path with only a single source of very weak narration. How is it possible that an entire religion was created from this very weak source?
The Christian faith existed for decades before there were the sources of the gospels. It was the faith and practice of early churches which created the epistles, the gospels, and other writings.
'these narratives' are straight from the Old testament Greek Jesuses and son of David Absalom.
there is no evidence that Jesus existed in the first century or that the gospels were written in the first century. don't talk bullshit
Paul was writing about Jesus in the first C so that is wrong.
Prove it
Paul didn't ever know Jesus, he talked of Christ. And while he wrote in the first century, he never wrote a gospel, so what pipurio said is true.
@@kosmicwizard Nope. pipuro said "there is no evidence that Jesus existed in the first century". Paul's letters were written in the first C and they mention Jesus. So P is demonstrably wrong.
If he had placed a period after the word century, to show that it is a separate yet related point, you wouldn't be able to say that. Paul isn't an eye witness anyway, he never met a man named Jesus Ben Joseph prior to his crucifixion. And hear say isn't documented evidence of his mortal existence.
I'm not a mythisist, but I'll meet them halfway, Jesus the man and Christ the Sator were two different beings, Christ was made a historical figure in the life of Jesus (which is different from Pagan Mystery Schools) but not a single person would ever have called Jesus "The Christ." During his life, I'd wager to say that Jesus never heard the term spoken (since he and his followers spoke Aramaic, not Greek). Cheers.
Scholarship nonsense. Battle of Meggido (1500BC ) Thutmose lll is your Moses. Yet if you read the scriptures you will discover how a matrix has been laid over our world and Christ is the escape route. The celestial sphere will show you the dragon,, which is El Shaddai in the hebrew text. Joshua son of Nun, is the egyptian myth of Nun, and the Ankh is an inverted Globus Cruciger... You can believe what you want, but what is called the holy spirit, was present before the big bang, and with the light of consciousness, one can unravel the mystery for yourself.
Was luke a woman???
Yes. Luke was a woman, a lesbian who spoke Urdu.
Urdu is a language associated with Islam in South Asia, and is a symbol of Muslim identity. The association between Urdu and Islam was developed during British colonial rule:
@aaronaragon7838
Paul was a pharisee Jew that converted his self to a Hellenistic Jew. Alexander the great was a gay man that was born of a virgin
The first Gospel was Matthew , written about 37 AD and in Hebrew . There's enough evidence to suggest that all of the Gospels were actually written first in Hebrew , so if Mark is the "first" , maybe it's just the first that was found but that doesn't prove that it was the first one written
There is a reference by one of the Church Fathers to a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew, but the brief description of it doesn't really match the Matthew we know. If that's to be taken seriously, it was likely a collection of sayings of Jesus that may have been a source for the later Greek gospels.
I'm not enough of a linguist to know myself, but my understanding is that while there are a few passages (mostly sayings of Jesus) that show traces of Aramaic (or Hebrew?) roots, most of the gospel text does not. They appear to have been composed in Greek, rather than translated from Hebrew.
" There's enough evidence to suggest that all of the Gospels were actually written first in Hebrew"
There is no such evidence.
Authors names were added later.so not from time of stated author. Bad time line.false based.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 The guy's name is papias and he was fruit loops. Completely unreliable source.
The source of mark is the latin
Civil war of julius caesar.
Nasareth is ravenna.
The lake of calilee.
Is the sea of calliae north italy.
Juilius caesar paid of all the financial debt.
Of all the people of rome,rich or poor.
This became,,,he took all the sins.
Please turn on the Subtitle/Close Caption, doch!