FYI, Inanna is crucified in hell, not on earth. She has to descend through different levels to get there. Merkabah literature has people going “up” to heaven like Enoch, yet it is spoken of as a descent rather than an ascent.
Great Show. Jesus was born of a woman is such a weird argument for historicity, imho. I can't make heads or tails of it. Herakles is born of a woman. Odysseus was born of a woman. Who started this idea that "born of a woman" somehow means a mythical character is real? The idea i so prevalent, and said so often anytime someone is trying to construct a historical person out of the gospels. Does anyone understand what is going on here?
Is Paul a monotheist? Does he think god has a wife maybe it's Ashera 😂. Or is it secret gnostic code that only them in the "in crowd" can understand. And why is Paul always talking about resurrection for the followers of Christ who live on earth in the here and now, wouldn't jesus victory over death only count in this mythical middle earth type realm where people died in that place? Daft, just daft it says what what it says
18 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
That's only one piece of evidence and it is relevant. For one thing it counters the mythicist argument that JC was only mystical. BTW Herakles and Odysseus supposedly lived on earth, which is the subject at issue. AND it isn't known whether those legends are based on actual people. You defeat your own argument.
Any evidence of any cult, prefarably around the same time and place, claiming someone met the brothers, in his lifetime, of a guy born of a woman who was mythical? Hansen and co. made a superb video on Mythvision months ago meticulously demonstrating that euhemerized mythological characters were overwhelmingly not invented at the time of Jesus anymore. The prior probability that Jesus was invented by that alone is therefore extremely small.
Well if it's not a later interpolation then why make that strange statement? Likely because people accused him of making Jesus up and that he never existed, which can still be true despite what Paul claims as a defense against that accusation.
My hat is off to Jacob for the variety of people he brings on his show and the way he allows them to make their pitch, whether or not he agrees. If you know of any experts on the Epistle of Barnabas, I would love to learn more about it.
Guys, William of Okham (of occam's razor fame) would be spinning around in his grave whenever there is any discussion of "Marcion" being the first gospel, since it is the least parsimonious account that one can imagine.
There is no evidence of what was before Marcion at all, you've a funny idea of "Occam's Razor", "things fit with my pre cognition" isn't it.
18 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@DrWrapperband except there was SOMETHING before Marcion because he didn't write anything. Nobody claims that Marcion wrote a gospel, so obviously his wasn't the first.
I think all four Gospels probably knew Josephus and they are thus all dated too early. I'm not convinced Q ever existed, I think the simpler explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is that Luke had Matthew. I am still in the process of making a determination on Marcionite Priority. I'm not sure yet. There might not be enough evidence right now for me to make a determination on that, but I'm still learning so we'll see. Right now I'm still leaning toward Marcion's *not* being first, but I don't know if I think just Mark came earlier or all of the synoptics did. Still ruminating on it.
@ exactly we even have evidence of the Logos going back 300BCE, Paul references Gnostic mythicists concept that Marcion a mythicist cult uses, John that’s 96% different from Synoptics is also mythicist at its core…..anyone who Denies Mythicism is either lying or ignorant
@@History-Valley yes you said that. I am just not sure if Marcion was cutting out all of the Jewish stuff as Paul was a Jew himself. If not shitloads of the Pauline letters were made up or interpolated in the 2nd century.
@ maybe but it’s hard to say. The Gospel of Marcion is well attested but not so much the letters. Even then we still have no copies of the text of Marcion. And almost nothing from the 1st - 3rd century. The whole stuff is a mess.
Yes, and if one assumes Marcion is abridging the New Testament, then in the end it doesn't really matter too much what his texts actually looked like since it's an abridgement of the canonical texts.
Painful wasn't it. "It's not a hypertherical text" doesn't exist, no signs of it existing in the manuscript tradition and yet it rises above the theoretical to the factually lost category, no doubt thanks to carriers scholarship. They is definitely either a problem with gleasons reasoning, a very heavy bias or very possibly dishonesty. Maybe we shouldn't rule naivety also as he seems to accept every argument carrier makes, and that is truly unique that two people can have such left field views while agreeing on all of them and yet both are rationally analysing all the information 🤔
Yeah. I don't think Jesus existed but GE made very unsophisticated arguments that relied on myriad assumptions and he was pretty hypocritical in labeling Evangelion as a hypothetical source but not the Proto-Ascension of Isaiah, etc.
@@plannein I think he did, if he didn't exist making a really good argument for that is extremely difficult with what we have. Unless some text shows up somewhere. The only avenue I think is maybe valid is looking at the contextual world which the earliest written texts emerges, the discordant narrative and opinions which could indicate the jesus visions needed an interpreter, much like Greek oracles. It seems no two had the same view on aspects of jesus and that is a bit weird.
18 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@BLG80 Mythicists can only show that Jesus MIGHT not have existed. There's no way to prove the negative at this distance in time.
@@BLG80 I don't think it's that difficult with what we have at all. What we have is no contemporary mention of him. What we have is no physical description, and really nothing at all written about him that actually indicated he was a real living human being until several decades after his alleged death, at the earliest. And of course, these sources are texts by anonymous authors who, despite church tradition expressing otherwise, were most certainly not eye-witnesses. On top of that, these sources are full of contradictions and verifiable historical falsehoods. The earliest material we have mentioning Jesus is the collection of the 13 "Pauline" Epistles. Works of this genre (Epistles) at that time in that culture were quite often falsely attributed. In fact, we already know that 6 of these 13 letters are forgeries. Which is why I find it kind of funny that most scholars tend to be so adamant that the other 7 couldn't possibly be also. More people these days are entertaining the idea (or at least listening to the people that do hold) that it's a possibility Paul didn't exist at all and is just a character. We do have letters claiming to be written by him, which is more than we have for Jesus. However, beyond the Epistles and Acts, there really isn't anything that would confirm the existence of Paul that isn't dependent on those. But Paul's historicity is more or less irrelevant to the topic at hand. Because regardless of whether Paul was an actual person who wrote those letters or someone else just did it in his name, neither of them ever knew or saw an actual living Jesus. Furthermore, whoever wrote the so-called "undisputed letters " reveals himself in those texts to be a narcissist, a self-important jerk, perhaps even a bit of a charlatan, but most importantly, a liar. It's incredible that the religion even survived with this guy being such an important early figure, fictional or not. Anyway, another thing to add to this section is that these letters aren't particularly concerned with the life of Jesus, and don't tend to treat him as if he were a real person. The Pauline literature is often more focused on petty church drama and Christology than it is on Christ, but when Jesus does get brought into it he often appears either as like a concept or something intangible, as well as appearing as a spiritual entity, but not really as a dude in the flesh. And a few of the times it seems to, like when it says Jesus was born of a woman, that appears to have been added later. The cherry on top of the Pauline conversation is that the primary reason these texts are placed where they are in the timeline is because that's what it tells them in the Book of Acts, which is a work of fiction.
It was a very frustrating debate for me to watch. All Godless Engineer did throughout the debate was shift the burden of proof and pull arguments out of his ...., while Jacob was behaving as such a gentleman, calmly trying to reason with him.
Papias: Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο "Matthew indeed therefore Hebrew language the logia (words/sayings/scriptures/oracles) arranged" --> "Matthew arranged the scriptures in Hebrew language." The logia could be scriptures or sayings about Jesus rather than just sayings of Jesus, so would likely include the crucifixion and resurrection, which was central to the earliest theology written about Jesus (Pauline Epistles). Thus, any "pre-Gospel" logia of Jesus, like Q, would likely contain the crucifixion and resurrection and could contain "fulfilled prophecy."
Stephen Carlson an authority on Papias translates Logia more closely as “oracles”. These are OT prophecies of Jesus according to him. Apart from this Mathew’s Gospel is clearly a Greek composition. So what we have is Papias (wrong) understanding of the origin of the Gospels of Mark& Mathew: where he thinks/ suspects the Gospels come from. Like the rest of his writings they are highly suspect.
@@butlersracing7692Inanna descents to the underworld where she got killed and hung on a hook by the rulers of the underworld. Sumerian tablets. Around 1900BC Easy to google.
Marcion is first. Luke Matthew and Mark are later "Herbrewized" versions. John actually says the God of the Hebrews is different from the God of Jesus. ( John 8-44) Good show though.
Caps TH-cam: www.youtube.com/@CaptainDadpool
Caps Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@captaindadpool86?lang=en
FYI, Inanna is crucified in hell, not on earth. She has to descend through different levels to get there. Merkabah literature has people going “up” to heaven like Enoch, yet it is spoken of as a descent rather than an ascent.
Great Show.
Jesus was born of a woman is such a weird argument for historicity, imho. I can't make heads or tails of it. Herakles is born of a woman. Odysseus was born of a woman.
Who started this idea that "born of a woman" somehow means a mythical character is real? The idea i so prevalent, and said so often anytime someone is trying to construct a historical person out of the gospels.
Does anyone understand what is going on here?
Is Paul a monotheist? Does he think god has a wife maybe it's Ashera 😂. Or is it secret gnostic code that only them in the "in crowd" can understand. And why is Paul always talking about resurrection for the followers of Christ who live on earth in the here and now, wouldn't jesus victory over death only count in this mythical middle earth type realm where people died in that place? Daft, just daft it says what what it says
That's only one piece of evidence and it is relevant. For one thing it counters the mythicist argument that JC was only mystical. BTW Herakles and Odysseus supposedly lived on earth, which is the subject at issue. AND it isn't known whether those legends are based on actual people. You defeat your own argument.
Any evidence of any cult, prefarably around the same time and place, claiming someone met the brothers, in his lifetime, of a guy born of a woman who was mythical? Hansen and co. made a superb video on Mythvision months ago meticulously demonstrating that euhemerized mythological characters were overwhelmingly not invented at the time of Jesus anymore. The prior probability that Jesus was invented by that alone is therefore extremely small.
Well if it's not a later interpolation then why make that strange statement? Likely because people accused him of making Jesus up and that he never existed, which can still be true despite what Paul claims as a defense against that accusation.
@@mver191 why defend a position by making a weird statement which attracts attention?
My hat is off to Jacob for the variety of people he brings on his show and the way he allows them to make their pitch, whether or not he agrees.
If you know of any experts on the Epistle of Barnabas, I would love to learn more about it.
Agreed. Altough i don't agree with many of his views. But that's fine
Guys, William of Okham (of occam's razor fame) would be spinning around in his grave whenever there is any discussion of "Marcion" being the first gospel, since it is the least parsimonious account that one can imagine.
There is no evidence of what was before Marcion at all, you've a funny idea of "Occam's Razor", "things fit with my pre cognition" isn't it.
@@DrWrapperband except there was SOMETHING before Marcion because he didn't write anything. Nobody claims that Marcion wrote a gospel, so obviously his wasn't the first.
Thank you. The schwarz is strong with those ones.🤣
I think all four Gospels probably knew Josephus and they are thus all dated too early. I'm not convinced Q ever existed, I think the simpler explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is that Luke had Matthew. I am still in the process of making a determination on Marcionite Priority. I'm not sure yet. There might not be enough evidence right now for me to make a determination on that, but I'm still learning so we'll see. Right now I'm still leaning toward Marcion's *not* being first, but I don't know if I think just Mark came earlier or all of the synoptics did. Still ruminating on it.
A presentation is the literal last place to show lots of text. Glad it wasn’t loading properly 👍
Fundamental mythicists argument is that Gnosticism mythology existed before historicism….a Marcion Priority proves that point 😂
Just look at Paul.
He is more gnostic then the gospels and he writes earlier.
Marcion is a fan of Paul.
@ exactly we even have evidence of the Logos going back 300BCE, Paul references Gnostic mythicists concept that Marcion a mythicist cult uses, John that’s 96% different from Synoptics is also mythicist at its core…..anyone who Denies Mythicism is either lying or ignorant
as far as I can remember. The son of David is in Marcions version.
@@MrOliver1444 I did say I might’ve misremembered.
@@History-Valley yes you said that. I am just not sure if Marcion was cutting out all of the Jewish stuff as Paul was a Jew himself. If not shitloads of the Pauline letters were made up or interpolated in the 2nd century.
@ He certainly removed a lot of it.
@ maybe but it’s hard to say. The Gospel of Marcion is well attested but not so much the letters. Even then we still have no copies of the text of Marcion. And almost nothing from the 1st - 3rd century. The whole stuff is a mess.
Yes, and if one assumes Marcion is abridging the New Testament, then in the end it doesn't really matter too much what his texts actually looked like since it's an abridgement of the canonical texts.
The two cowboys, the rowdy engineer and now this guy picking his nose. What next?
Glrason's interruptions and poor logical argumentation was painful.
Painful wasn't it. "It's not a hypertherical text" doesn't exist, no signs of it existing in the manuscript tradition and yet it rises above the theoretical to the factually lost category, no doubt thanks to carriers scholarship. They is definitely either a problem with gleasons reasoning, a very heavy bias or very possibly dishonesty. Maybe we shouldn't rule naivety also as he seems to accept every argument carrier makes, and that is truly unique that two people can have such left field views while agreeing on all of them and yet both are rationally analysing all the information 🤔
Yeah. I don't think Jesus existed but GE made very unsophisticated arguments that relied on myriad assumptions and he was pretty hypocritical in labeling Evangelion as a hypothetical source but not the Proto-Ascension of Isaiah, etc.
@@plannein I think he did, if he didn't exist making a really good argument for that is extremely difficult with what we have. Unless some text shows up somewhere. The only avenue I think is maybe valid is looking at the contextual world which the earliest written texts emerges, the discordant narrative and opinions which could indicate the jesus visions needed an interpreter, much like Greek oracles. It seems no two had the same view on aspects of jesus and that is a bit weird.
@@BLG80 Mythicists can only show that Jesus MIGHT not have existed. There's no way to prove the negative at this distance in time.
@@BLG80 I don't think it's that difficult with what we have at all. What we have is no contemporary mention of him. What we have is no physical description, and really nothing at all written about him that actually indicated he was a real living human being until several decades after his alleged death, at the earliest. And of course, these sources are texts by anonymous authors who, despite church tradition expressing otherwise, were most certainly not eye-witnesses. On top of that, these sources are full of contradictions and verifiable historical falsehoods. The earliest material we have mentioning Jesus is the collection of the 13 "Pauline" Epistles. Works of this genre (Epistles) at that time in that culture were quite often falsely attributed. In fact, we already know that 6 of these 13 letters are forgeries. Which is why I find it kind of funny that most scholars tend to be so adamant that the other 7 couldn't possibly be also. More people these days are entertaining the idea (or at least listening to the people that do hold) that it's a possibility Paul didn't exist at all and is just a character. We do have letters claiming to be written by him, which is more than we have for Jesus. However, beyond the Epistles and Acts, there really isn't anything that would confirm the existence of Paul that isn't dependent on those. But Paul's historicity is more or less irrelevant to the topic at hand. Because regardless of whether Paul was an actual person who wrote those letters or someone else just did it in his name, neither of them ever knew or saw an actual living Jesus. Furthermore, whoever wrote the so-called "undisputed letters " reveals himself in those texts to be a narcissist, a self-important jerk, perhaps even a bit of a charlatan, but most importantly, a liar. It's incredible that the religion even survived with this guy being such an important early figure, fictional or not. Anyway, another thing to add to this section is that these letters aren't particularly concerned with the life of Jesus, and don't tend to treat him as if he were a real person. The Pauline literature is often more focused on petty church drama and Christology than it is on Christ, but when Jesus does get brought into it he often appears either as like a concept or something intangible, as well as appearing as a spiritual entity, but not really as a dude in the flesh. And a few of the times it seems to, like when it says Jesus was born of a woman, that appears to have been added later. The cherry on top of the Pauline conversation is that the primary reason these texts are placed where they are in the timeline is because that's what it tells them in the Book of Acts, which is a work of fiction.
It was a very frustrating debate for me to watch. All Godless Engineer did throughout the debate was shift the burden of proof and pull arguments out of his ...., while Jacob was behaving as such a gentleman, calmly trying to reason with him.
Papias: Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο "Matthew indeed therefore Hebrew language the logia (words/sayings/scriptures/oracles) arranged" --> "Matthew arranged the scriptures in Hebrew language." The logia could be scriptures or sayings about Jesus rather than just sayings of Jesus, so would likely include the crucifixion and resurrection, which was central to the earliest theology written about Jesus (Pauline Epistles). Thus, any "pre-Gospel" logia of Jesus, like Q, would likely contain the crucifixion and resurrection and could contain "fulfilled prophecy."
Stephen Carlson an authority on Papias translates Logia more closely as “oracles”. These are OT prophecies of Jesus according to him.
Apart from this Mathew’s Gospel is clearly a Greek composition.
So what we have is Papias (wrong) understanding of the origin of the Gospels of Mark& Mathew: where he thinks/ suspects the Gospels come from. Like the rest of his writings they are highly suspect.
because Nerones Crestus was a claudian.
Great show.
Jesus cannot be historical if Moses is mythical. Jesus is a third iteration of prophet-Jesus mythology!
According to blasphemers bible ithink i heard inanna was crucified in hell, though i fail to link to ascention of isaiah
Ascension of Isaiah is rewrite of Inanas' epic
@@ianfirth33rewrite is a bit too far, inanas did spend a lot of time in the realm of mortal men however, including in the epic.
I honestly can't take you seriously when your literacy looks like you dropped a pie on your keyboard. Where's the sauce to your source?
@@butlersracing7692Inanna descents to the underworld where she got killed and hung on a hook by the rulers of the underworld.
Sumerian tablets. Around 1900BC
Easy to google.
Marcion is first. Luke Matthew and Mark are later "Herbrewized" versions. John actually says the God of the Hebrews is different from the God of Jesus. ( John 8-44) Good show though.
God of the jews is EL the deceiver, God of jesus is Father in heavens.
@willempasterkamp862 excellent point Yes