Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about.The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ. The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
Jesus’s rebuke of Peter was to do with Peter attempting to convince Jesus that he shouldn’t go to Jerusalem. It was nothing to do with Peter saying Jesus is the Messiah. How can a scholar make a claim like that when it’s so clearly not the case? Am I missing something?
yeah I looked that up...., Jesus never rebuked Peter by saying 'get thee behind me Satan'. Not in Mark And when he did say that to Peter it was after He explained to them the awful things that were to happen to Him and Peter said 'no way Jose'. That won't happen to you. It was just a slip up in my opinion. The crux of it all is that Mark, the original Gospel was sparse compared to the other Gospels. And it ended at 16:8..., which I thought strange in the old days when I was a 'professing Christian'.
As an old man belonging to a family with a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, I stopped worrying about religion very early; however my grandfather (Jew) when he read the gospel of Mark told me. Rob, this is a symbol. The story of this man (Jesus) is symbolic of Israel at that time. I always found it a beautiful interpretation and even today at fifty-four I remember it fondly. Thank you for your videos, we enjoy them a lot here in Chile, me and my family. A big hug.
I grew up Christian (but do have some Jewish blood) and I always found it disturbing the amount of blood, hate, evil, murder, genocide, rape, pedophilia and enslavement of our fellow humans, including children was in there. I also find it disturbing to understand what Jacob - Isaac - Ab - Ra - Ham really means.
I have always had great respect for Jewish culture and people. I have an excellent Jewish friend, and we always have great talks about religion and the world. Listening to Rabi Tobia Singer was the first time I had a clear picture of how antisemitic the New Testament is. Paul was creating a new religion using the old testament just to give his "announcement" some kind of validation, but contradicting the main beliefs and ideas of the old testament.
The truth is very very disturbing. You would be surprised to know how many children are being raped everyday present time. The Bible does not paint things rosy red, but lay it out as it is and was and has always been.
Problem is that Jesus wasn’t Jewish, he spoke Aramaic Sumerian language, he came to free the Jews from his people because they where being tortured by the Assyrians (Sumerians) and he didn’t want that from his people, so he stepped in and made his presence.
Here is my viewpoint on Mark, as I read it and studied it, which woke my eyes up to how it's the first take on the Jesus Story. See, the thing about Mark that struck me, is that it is the Jesus Myth in such simplicity. Remember, it was the earliest gospel, which everyone agrees on (including religious scholars). So, basically, Mark was written first, and then Matthew & Luke used it and improved upon it. They filled in the places that Mark did not write, nor that were even an issue back then. So, if you read it alone, so much of what the "Christian Narrative" is, isn't in Mark. It's absent, so that showed me how the next gospels were just myth-making and improving on the prior formula.
I agree. Mark may be a take on even earlier unknown Jewish Judean resistance folk-tales; in Mark Jesus is a Jewish man-messiah, and later Gospel authors "correct" him by making him less Jewish and more Greek. Lately I've had the thought that Mark might actually instead be reactionary to more Greek takes that were already there, and it kind of sounds like this is what Tabor might be on about.
Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about.The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
@Amadeos-Salvadore Even to a critic, Jesus is the Lamb of God I wrote it that way because of Bible Scholar Critics! Bible Scholar Revealing the Hidden Contradiction in the Bible! Why Jesus died on two different days, at two different times, according to the Scriptures? “Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called ‘the Day of Preparation’ (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true - but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation ‘for the Sabbath’ (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before the Sabbath; it is called the day of ‘preparation’ because one had to prepare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon. “…in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified…. “…I will point out a significant feature of John’s Gospel - the last of our Gospels to be written, probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus is ‘the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.’ This is declared by John the Baptist at the very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John - our latest Gospel - change the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon), when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. “In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between his account and the others.”
That's weird. Jesus doesnt say "get behind me satan" in response to Peter's confession, but to the later comment about death not being a thing to happen to Jesus.
Mark 8:31-33 does not say Jesus rebuked Peter for calling him the Christ but for saying he should not suffer, die and rise from the dead 3 days later. How could Tabor be so wrong?
I went to a Catholic school in the UK and we were specifically taught the Gospel of Mark, because it is understood to be the earliest-written of the four gospels (and therefore considered in many ways to be the "most accurate"), so I have no idea what Tabor means when he says it is the "forgotten" gospel. But that is far from the worst of his transgressions in this interview. Below I list some of the main points: 1: Complaining of the final verse that the witnesses of the bare tomb “said nothing to anyone,” he asks how there could be a Gospel if they said nothing to anyone. But *in the very prior verse*, the witnesses are told (by the young man who “is not an angel,” although I fail to see why that matters), “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” So, regardless of whether the witnesses spoke to the disciples, it is explicit in the text that Jesus went on to meet the disciples later in Galilee! THAT’S how there’s a Gospel! It really isn’t that complicated. 2: “Why are you teaching in riddles and parables to the crowds?” Tabor asserts that Jesus said, “I don’t want them to understand or be converted.” This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what Jesus actually says. The verses in question are Mark 4:10-12 (but the entirety of chapter 4 gives a broader context) - in it, Jesus explains that “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” These three lines are delivered as a quotation within a quotation - specifically, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10. It must be taken, then, that the FULL context of his answer must also incorporate Isaiah Chapter 6. When this full context is considered it seems rather more that Jesus is stating that the meaning of the parables will be clear to those who are ready to understand, who are willing to repent and who wish to receive forgiveness. It is NOT that he “doesn’t want people to understand or be converted,” it’s that the WILLINGNESS to understand and be converted is incumbent upon the listener. 3: “Why are you calling me ‘good’? There is none good but God.” - Tabor says, “if you can’t even call Jesus GOOD then you’re certainly not going to call him GOD.” But I think this is a shallow reading of the text. According to the references on BibleGateway, the word “Good” here is translated from the Greek word agathos, which literally means “doer of great things.” “Good” is one way of interpreting this (along with brave, noble, moral, gentle and more). However, another - equally valid - interpretation might be that, rather than saying, “Good Rabbi,” the man says something along the lines of “Oh, Great One,” or even, “Mighty Teacher.” In which case it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reply, “Why do you call me Great (or Mighty)? There is none Great (or Mighty) but God.” This is, as I say, an equally valid interpretation, but the sense of the reply has now shifted considerably. This is one of the primary problems of translation: capturing the essence of what is being said in the appropriate format. Even a subtle alteration of the translation can have a profound impact on the meaning (which is precisely why many scholars prefer to derive meaning from the original Hebrew or Greek texts rather than relying on English translations, as Tabor seems to have done). 4: “Peter finally gets who Jesus is… ‘You’re the Christ.’ And Jesus says, ‘Get behind me, Satan.’” No. No, no, no, no, NO! This is NOT what happens AT ALL. HERE is what happens: Jesus asks, “Who do you say I am?” to which Peter answers, “You are the Messiah.” (verse 29) And then, verse 30, *“Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.”* THEN, in verse 31, Jesus explains that he will be betrayed, suffer and die before rising again. In verse 32, Peter rebukes him (he doesn’t want his friend and master to suffer and die). Then in verse 33, Jesus rebukes Peter right back, saying “Get behind me, Satan!” Jesus is chastising Peter because Peter is being selfish, thinking about the loss of Jesus rather than seeing the bigger picture - God’s plan. THAT is why he says “Get behind me, Satan” - because Peter’s admonishment is born of selfishness. So Tabor is either completely misunderstanding or misreading the Gospel here, or else he is deliberately misrepresenting it (for what reason I can only guess). He says that he teaches his students (!!!) that “Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession inspired by Satan.” Oh my actual God. I weep for his students, for they are being misinformed, if not outright lied to. This is all within the first 8 minutes of the interview, and I have little appetite for watching any more of it. It staggers me that Tabor is purportedly a Biblical scholar and yet seems woefully ill-informed and lacking in any kind of knowledge or understanding of the text he is criticising. I am no scholar, I am not a Bible apologist, I’m no Evangelical or literalist - hell, I’m barely even what you could call a Catholic any more. I am still a (non-practising) Christian, though, and the fact that this Gospel - the one I grew up learning - is being so thoroughly misrepresented is infuriating to me. Sorry for the long reply, but… GAAAH! xx
I responded slightly as you did but I think I can perceive his strategy. Mark really is very strange (and in some ways disturbing) when you separate it from the other synoptics and it's probably not a bad idea to exaggerate this to make your students think things out for themselves. How fortunate we are that The Early Church did not discard this gospel! Presumably there were congregations who remained loyal to it and refused to accept the rewrites.
@@alanpennie8013 Mark is unusual among the gospels, for sure - no birth myth, an abrupt ending - but really its focus is on Jesus' ministry and message, not on his life per se. We don't need to know who he was before his baptism - it is an irrelevancy to his message. Jesus tends to downplay his heritage and provenance because it is his message that is important. Perhaps this is what makes it the most interesting of the gospels (to me, at least), and perhaps also the most important - who you are is less important than *what you do*. I also find fascinating the gospels that didn't make it into the final Bible - the Nag Hammadi texts are astonishing, and they appear to have been accepted by early Christians for a time. Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John selected and the others rejected? Perhaps because they each give a more cohesive narrative than the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene and others, or perhaps because they were the least contradictory with each other? Regardless, the Gnostic texts are an important piece of the early Christian puzzle - they have done more to make me think about and flesh out my faith than anything else for at least 20 years of my life! I understand what you mean about exaggerating Mark's strangeness to make students think more deeply about it, but it seems to me that Tabor goes beyond mere exaggeration and crosses the line into outright nonsense. The facts of the Gospel of Mark are NOT the facts of James Tabor, and the two sets of facts are totally incompatible with one another. He is not *teaching* the Gospel - he's *mangling* it. xx
@@TSSuppository Deconstructed to a fault. Mark presents Jesus' humanity in a nascent religion that will dogmatize Jesus as wholly human, wholly God. Holy Conflation!
If there was a historical Jesus these gospel stories can't be about him. Jesus was a jew. Jews don't believe in heaven or hell the devil demons or zombies. Yet in the gospels he talks to the devil, casts out demons, and bodies rise out of their graves when he dies. This is a pagan story that doesn't warrant any. serious consideration.
1) The problem is not (at least for me) the information about the resurrection, but the information about the witnesses. We are told that they were terrified and didn't tell anything. The question is, who wrote that, and 1) how he knew they went to the tomb. 2) how he knew what they saw. 3) how he knew how what they felt 4) how he knew they didn't tell anything 2) I agree 3) Agathos. The word is theorized to come from Proto-Hellenic *əgatʰós, from Proto-Indo-European *m̥ǵh₂dʰh₁ós (“made great; whose deeds are great”), from *méǵh₂s (“great”) + *dʰeh₁- (“do”) + *-ós. But Agathos never meant "maker of great things" in Ancient Greek. You can't transplant some meaning burrowed in the etymology to the actual word. if they had wanted to express the idea of "great", they would have used "megas" as a prefix, never "agathos". Ancient Greek used "agathos" only for "good" and its almost-synonyms; this is the actual list of possible meanings: good, brave, noble, moral, gentle, fortunate, lucky, useful. 4) I agree
The church of Constantine likes that high Christology like the gospel of John. In Mark's gospel the context of the writer where the temple ruins are still smoking from the roman flames and the existential confusion and despair of that great clash of civilizations have left the survivors clutching for meaning to their suffering and the imminent return of Jesus...In Mark the only words from Jesus on the cross are “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
It's perhaps higher christology, but Jesus is not God in John and constantly repeats that he only has authority, correct thinking, and miraculous power because of God, who he openly says he'd be powerless and doctrineless without. The most you can squeeze out of John is that Jesus literally pre-existed but even then that is entirely debatable and not particularly evident.
@@youngknowledgeseeker interesting. Yes the higher I would say is how Jesus was in control in John and long-winded theologically. The garden scene John adds where they all fall down when they come to arrest him and his discussion with Pilate et cetera. Where in Mark its mystery and silence and “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
The discussion was interesting, but his assertion that Peter's profession of faith in Jesus being the Christ being inspired by satan is a huge stretch.
@4:42, when Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah he doesn't immediately call him Satan. He just warns him not to tell anyone. It's only after another speech of Jesus about being delivered, killed and resurrected that Peter rebukes him and only then does Jesus call him Satan. The two replies from Jesus refer to different things. Tabor is reaching here.
I can see how Dr Tabor could thread that needle though. He may have said that a little short to make people go wait and look into it more. I had a couple teachers like that. Tell you what sounds like the wrong thing ... *popcorn*
I don't think so. You have to understand what you are reading. In verse 30, what did Jesus do when Peter declared he is the Messiah? Jesus didn't say: yes, you're right. No, Jesus commanded them to "shut up!" Next, in verse 33, the second time Peter said something to Jesus, what happened? Can you see it? It's like Jesus was tired of Peter and his comments. But you have to come to Mark without Christian Lenses, and just read what Mark is saying, no assumptions.
@@georgeflowers3730 I'm not a Christian so I'm not coming at Mark with Christian lenses. I'm just reading the text. The two reactions of Jesus are clearly separate.
Just registered for the course, looking forward to it! Thank you Derek & Mythvision for bringing such wonderful & thought-provoking scholars to non-academics like me. I have a feeling I will gain a much deeper insight now as a life-long student than I ever did in actual college courses, including one on the New Testament I barely remember. Looking forward to reading Mark as a free-standing work with the guidance & insights of Dr. Tabor. For decades I mostly ignored religious & biblical studies, enjoying life on this planet as a non-religious secular humanist who is more interested in the sciences for their explanatory power & the awe I find in nature. However, needing something to do besides doom-scrolling through the mal-administration of POTUS45 & the pandemic, I started down an atheist podcaster rabbithole & oddly enough that led me to religous studies! I decided I needed a far deeper understanding of the ancient societies, histories, texts, and traditions that came forth to our day (and the ones that didn't, too). Xianties hold such a powerful sway over the supposedly constutionally secular USA - often in the misguided and mistaken fundamentalist ideologies & orthodoxies. The introduction to the course alone up-ends what I heard as a kid in Sunday School & from many Xians.
This ‘expose’ is on par with evangelical con artists , priests and anyone who ' makes a living from religion ' .....read the translations from Bible Hub on line with the help and guide of the Holy Spirit - it's not about "beliefs" it's about being righteous to all - choose Love and understanding ......don't follow this or anyone 's 'interpretation' = 'dogma'
I appreciate the opportunity to study Mark with Dr Tabor; however, I have a problem with his explanation of the scene he describes with Peter. According to the versions I have read, Jesus does not tell Peter "Get behind me, Satan" until after he describes the suffering he must endure and Peter's rebuke. When Peter suggests he is the Christ, Jesus tells him to not tell anyone. This distinction may seem trivial or like I am splitting hairs. But I think it is important that Peter understands Jesus to be the Messiah, but that he doesn't understand what the Messiah is by having to suffer. This a far different interpretation that should illustrate a different conclusion. Difficult for me to hop in on this ride without understanding that gap.
I once decided to read the four gospels through the lens of reading fanfiction, or in other words "What headcanon was this story written to promote?" Yeah, I know, but while I'm not a trained biblical scholar, I have read a lot of fanfiction, so... stick with what you know you can handle? 🤣🤣🤣 It was a long time ago, but I remember concluding that Mark's gospel was written to combat the question of "If Jesus did all these miracles, then why wasn't he better known during his lifetime?" So we have Jesus warning people not to tell anyone he'd healed them or cast out their demons, and rejecting any attempts by his disciples to deify him. His power and divinity were real, he just didn't want to reveal himself while alive, because... reasons. Why did I feel the need to say this to people who know way more about the Bible than me? Um... well, it's at least a comment for the algorithm? 😉
You know, that’s the best argument for Mark’s peculiarities I have ever heard. Not a scholar myself but I have consumed tons of content on the Bible and Imo sometimes scholars overthink it. It’s possible that a simple down-to-earth explanation likes yours is closer to the mark 😉 than fancier stuff.
Apparently Jesus performed so many miracles that if they had all been written down, the whole world couldn't contain the books Which is why nobody wrote them down because they were like, fuck it there's too many. Lol
@@Paul-cr7qm Sounds like tht god made the rookie mistake of blowing his wad of miracles so long ago and all at once. The book of Austin, 3:19 says “Good Wizard in his unmatched wisdom revealed his Holy Text in an age of mass communication so no one has to get His Word second-orthirdhand.”
I think the other argument for the weirdness of Mark is that because its the earliest, some things are harder to make up, it's closer to living memory, there are people still communicating with the early followers to an extent, so there are only so many things added and redacted. Of course Mark is still not a proper biography for so many reasons, but it is in keeping with the traditions of biographies of exalted figures of that era including all the pap about how many cool miracles they do.
I see MARK as a mystery story, kind of like Clint Eastwood's HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER where a mysterious Stranger emerges from the wilderness; upsets the established order; is seemingly lost then departs under mysterious circumstances, in triumph! Only at the end do the terrified people understand what was in their midst!
Clint is god! “Ok, you did two things wrong. First, you asked a question, and second, you asked another question.” (Million Dollar Baby). The Bible says to not question anything.
@@MovieMakingMan My comparison was deliberate! The Stranger in Eastwood's movie was an Avenging Spirit; when The Jesus Movement was within the Jewish Community , "Jesus" was very much at home within the Jewish Angelic tradition, where ancient Jews believed angels walked among them disguised as humans but ADONAI (Blessed Be The Name) never incarnates; a belief at odds with Greco Roman traditions where even humans could be declared "gods" by emperor decree!
Too funny, this is exactly how I've referred to it for years. The reconstruction of the Marcion Gospel gives even more of that vibe right from the start.
This is very interesting. I admire Dr. Tabor, but the comment connecting the Peter's confession of Jesus Christ with Jesus's statement to Peter "Get thee behind me..." seems confusing and even disingenuous. He seems to ignore Mark 8:31 which adds the context for Jesus's rebuke of Peter. Can anyone help me understand it?
I believe you. Having direct access to a top-notch scholar such as James Tabor is a privilege. As for me, I'll keep reviewing his books on my channel. 👍
@Derek Lambert You state that you are a skeptic, are you capable, of looking, at a body of information, and carefully searching it, for what it contains, without taking with you, your bias, when you undertake such a search??
Mark was the book that opened my mind and eyes to my deconversion. Thank you, Professor Tabor and Derek, for the work you do and for this course. I know this will be great. I have always had the same kind of ideas about Mark, and I'm happy to see that I was on the right track about Mark. Even the idea that some parts can be taken as jokes!
Same here. I emptied my head of all other Jesus stuff and read Mark on its own, as if for first time. It struck me that it was basically about a bunch of guys going around on a boat demanding money for preaching 👍
@@TheScotsalan Also, the thing about Mark that struck me, is that it is the Jesus Myth in such simplicity. Remember, it was the earliest gospel, which everyone agrees on (including religious scholars). So, basically, Mark was written first, and then Matthew & Luke used it and improved upon it. They filled in the places that Mark did not write, nor that were even an issue back then. So, if you read it alone, so much of what the "Christian Narrative" is, isn't in Mark. It's absent, so that showed me how the next gospels were just myth-making and improving on the prior formula.
@@PoeLemic Indeed. The order written is why I went from Mark to Acts. And in Acts 5, where the apostles see the married couple stuck dead for holding back money, it makes total sense if one only reads Mark. Read the other Gospels, and Acts 5 is just daft.
It might work. Derek, I know an online education expert now working for a major state university you could con$ult with, maybe even hire, to set up the testing, etc, and ensure that the school meets accreditation standards.
I have examined Mark 8:22-23. It seems to me that Peter rebukes Jesus privately because he doesn't want Jesus to say these terrible things about himself and what will happen. This is why Jesus says"get thee behind me Satan" to Peter, publicly, because Jesus is apparently being tempted to resist going through with all these terrible things that he has been prophesying. I do not agree with Dr Tabor's take on these verses.
Great observation. I would also add that Peter rejects this statement from Jesus about being killed because he did not receive that TRUTH from the FATHER, by super-natural "Revelation", like he did when He declared that Jesus is THE CHRIST. The difference is, Jesus spoke to Peter by pyhsical "mouth" that he was going to be killed, which is "natural" communication, where as when God revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, this was "spiritual" communication, which is INNER REALITY, as opposed to hearing someone speak Truth in the natural realm, which is NOT REAL yet to our spirit man.
@@7Truth7Wins7 I am not a Christian anymore, but I think these phrases have been carefully crafted to appear to be spoken by Peter and Jesus for the purpose of promoting the 'gospel'. But, I hate it when people use deceptive translations to dismiss what has been written, thus attempting to support an atheist viewpoint.
When Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18), that is Jesus saying that He is God... because He never actually denied that He is good. Jesus said those words to the man because He knew that the man did not realise he was talking to God, in the flesh. Jesus' words "Why do you call me good?" was a rhetorical question addressed to the man. Mark is in no way telling of a different Jesus than the other Gospel writers. You critics are nowhere near as smart as you like to imagine or pretend.
Henry, you still believe in Hebrew fiction despite being shown several times that it is fiction. I wouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence.
Henry Schmit. I think that's right. Mark gives us a Jesus who makes the disciples figure things out for themselves from the clues given. You make people do part of the work themselves they'll have more personal investment in the story. At least that's my takeaway from this video. (Of course I could be completely wrong because it ain't easy to understand someone 2000 years away).
Exactly Henry, you got it absolutely right !! And the "so-called" Dr. Tabor LIED and said that Jesus said, "Don't call me good", at 11:43 of the video, which is a blatant LIE, adding and subtracting to the Word of God.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 "..being shown several times that it is fiction.... I wouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence." That's just bluffing. The only thing I was "shown several times" were weak inferior arguments, which are easily dealt with by the available counter arguments. So I will keep questioning other people's intelligence... at least until they put forward something a little stronger... devoid of special pleading, question begging, confirmation bias, misleading interpretations, etc.
@@7Truth7Wins7 Exactly. You have to keep your eye on those critics, so they don't get one past you. Best way is to read the scriptures for ourselves, rather than rely on the opinion of scholars.
Mark is forgotten? No it isn't. Acts is the continuation of Mark. Mark was not a disciple of Christ, which is why Acts is so detailed. Mark was there. In Acts the gospel gets a more expansive treatment.
Amazing stuff Derek! I am working now on a video review for my channel on the difference between the 4 canonical gospels. I love Dr. Tabor and rely on his works along with other scholars. Best wishes!
The moral of the story is that Jesus Christ (or the mythos of Jesus Christ) gave birth to Christianity the religion and not Christianism the philosophy. We'll he didn't give birth to it, Paul and Rome did, but He wasn't around to challenge it, so...
Mark is the greatest gospel, the gospel in the raw. It's that first Batman appearance in Detective Comics in 1939 where he's called the Bat-Man, rolls with a Colt .45, shoots criminals and throws them to their deaths into vats of acid. No origin story, no Robin, no Alfred, no Batcave, gadgets, etc, he just comes out of nowhere WHIPPING THAT SH!T OUT. The Proto-story is always the greatest story. The women running scared at the end of Mark is pure, uncut sublime religious fear. Jesus coming back in later gospels eating fish, Thomas sticking fingers in his spear-hole... all phony bric-a-brac fanfiction.
11:35 the christian apologists job "they muddy the water to make it seem deep" As Dom Crossan notes the fundamentalist actually takes away the meaning of the text and makes it only a comic book of magic and empty calories. It is critical scholarship that squeezes the most meaning and nutrition from the text. The fundamentalist is looking for the sugar kool aid drink high not the meat of the text.
Great intro to the course. As an atheist secular humanist cultural Xian I am finally digging into Biblical scholarship. So important to examine these texts in multiple scholarly contexts & reclaim from fundamentalists & white Xian supremacists. Its my heritage too! Will def sign up.
btw I took a New Testament course in college, we studied Bultmann etc - but I really didn't get it til I found Mythvision & started listening + ordering books & studying. Ty
@@JC-vq2cs Only recently have I decided to go for an academic career as a historian of religion and it's definitely a game changer. There is so much work to do not only academically but also in passing down this knowledge to the public.
The one thing that most scholars don't realize is that Jesus christ is real and the text that they read is based on real evidence that happened, and even Jesus christ himself talked about scholars but yet some scholars don't see the truth, they know information but don't know the truth. What is the point of information if you don't have Jesus christ?
@@jesuschristislord9013 There’s a lot of Harry Potter fan fiction out there but sadly so far not many fans have accepted their scholarships to Hogwarts won for them by Harry Potter’s ultimate victory over Voldemort. What’s the point of Jesus if he’s no longer giving us information? Because Good Wizard believes in all of us and tells us in his Holy Text : “ We have victory in Harry Potter, who defeated Voldemort and opened the gates of the magic world for all.” (Proseletarians 4:20) If we accept Harry Potter’s sacrifice and resurrection as payment of our tuition, Good Wizard will give us his word magic via his magic Word, don’t let anti-magic religious propenda prevent you from accepting this offer of free education in the magic world to come. Good Wizard doesn’t do the whole send ppl to hell thing bcuz he figures ppl in our world will see this great deal and naturally want to go to the magic world to leave this one and it’s problems behind.
@@debblouin haha! Exactly what the JWs said about all other so-called christians. Now that I am no longer religious, I find it highly amusing to see Christians declaring who is and isn't a real Christian--and of course they each have the corrct answer which cancels out the others. haha
Love what you’re doing on this channel, Derek! I survived the Satanic Panic as a child in a Pentecostal household, and never accepted that I needed a “savior” in the first place, so I was persona non grata. It’s good that some are able to see that books are the work of men, and as such, they direct us to worship the ideas and work of *men.* Men have no spiritual authority over women, they’ve only claimed it by force. Women are the source of human life! Please stop hating that *fact,* those who continue to do so! ☮️❤️🐾
There is no such thing as ‘spiritual authority’ otherwise I agree completely. No one has authority over anyone, noone is inherently more or less worthy to live. Nature is amoral. Nature is cruel. Noone asked to be born into this world and only the individual may decide if their life is worth living. Noone has the right to prescribe to anyone how they should live their life. Lets not forsake god yet cling on to his vices.
@@lorencalfe6446 @Loren Calfe A tremendous amount of authority is and has been *claimed,* rather illegitimately by male violence. Those who say Nature is cruel are coming from an emotional place, as that is an irrational statement, not one of fact. They have been poisoned by the irrational belief in male supremacy, and those beliefs have consequences for everyone, *particularly* women. Misogyny is men saying, “Waaaah! Nature isn’t fair to me!” It’s filled the Earth with their violence, and the world’s oceans with their profitable (to them) garbage. I *refuse* to worship man or his god(s).
@@tumblebugspace if you studied nature you would realize it is cruel. Patriarchal instinct and tribalism are products of nature. Nature is unthinking, cruel, amoral and regressive. For most of history humans have been primitive, cannibalistic, patriarchal, instinct driven ape men. Naturalistic fallacy is the way of unthinking beasts, nature has no authority in matters of ethics and morality. To deify nature is to embrace the vices of god.
It is in human nature to be tribalistic, cannibalistic, patriarchal, polygynous, etc. Of course you may paradoxically believe those things to be good as you have forsaken gods but continue to embrace the vices of gods. Nothing in the universe is worth worshipping. Thre is no such thing as a sentient cause. Stars are not sentient and we are all stardust, to believe any human convention or person to be authoritative is the folly of humanity. Noone asked to be born into this world. Treat others as they would like to be treated not how you think they should be treated. Nature is cruel, if cruelty is defined as inequity, suffering, attrition, deprivation, and pain. Noone is inherently more worthy to live. Noone gets to decide another person’s worth.
Why did the chicken cross the road joke is funny because the answer "to get to the other side" can mean the chicken was suicidal and wanted to get to the afterlife (the other side).
Several rather glaring inaccuracies here. By far the most egregious is stating that Jesus says to Peter 'Get thee behind me Satan' when Peter says that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah). That's completely wrong. Jesus says that to Peter when Peter argues with Jesus about him having to die and rise again after three days (Mark 8:27-33). I won't be attending Dr Tabor's course.
"Go your way, tell the disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there you shall see him" But they didn't tell the disciples (according to verse 8) or anybody else ! If they didn't tell anybody, how does the author know ? Duh !
Tabor grossly misrepresents the exchange between Jesus and Peter. Jesus's 'Satan' comment is a response to St. Peter reprimanding Jesus for what he says must happen to the Son of Man, not about Peter affirming Jesus is the Messiah at all, as is plain to even a casual reader of Mark 8:27-33.
Satan only operates in "darkness", he has NO "revelation" from GOD, because God IS LIGHT. Therefore, Dr. Tabor Phd. ".... will keep on going from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves." (2nd Timothy 3:13)
Also, Tabor's assertion that the Son of Man of Daniel is the people of God is itself quite debatable. Even the rabbinic commentators that he so admires, like Rashi, affirm that the Son of Man in that passage is the king Messiah, and it's not clear at all that the author of Daniel intended it to be understood merely as God's people.
That whole Daniel scene is essentially based on older Canaanite Baal cycle myth and in some works, even suggested in daniel, many think it’s Michael the archangel, israel, Enoch, or Moses……point being, the cloud rider gaining or ascending to kingship over the older deity is Canaanite Baal cycle and has survived and evolved thru time
@@sergeantstime5529 Yes, it's apparently related to the notion of heavenly counterparts in ancient near eastern belief, and in that sense, it would refer to an individual. As you say, there are historical critical scholars who see it as referring to an individual (Like John Collins, Peter Schafer), namely the angel Michael, rather than to a collective of people.
" Professor Tabor needs to reread the text."..No he doesn't, he is a LIAR and LIARS do what they do "deliberately". He is a mouthpiece of SATAN to deceive the masses about the Truth of OUR SAVIOR JESUS THE CHRIST so that they will not be saved. "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.": (Luke 8:11,12)
Steadfast and remain with your Christian Faith... Satan/Devil is trying hard to destroy the Integrity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness of the Word of God (Biblical TRUTH)... Amen...
Mark's view is not that Peter's confession is inspired by Satan. Read Mark 8:27-33 and you'll see that Peter is rebuked for his insistence that Jesus must not suffer or die. The view inspired by Satan is Jesus without the cross. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ is prior to this and nobody would interpret the text the way he is suggesting. It's just nonsense.
Luckily we can call him both. He asked the why do you call me good Question, to tell the man that if he stands by what he says he is calling him God, which the man did not reject.
@@yochelu8595 Jesus also prayed to himself. Luckily. Jesus also cried out for help to himself. Luckily. We can make Jesus into anything we want. Luckily. ✅✅✅
Man I'm 5 minutes in and I've heard two obvious misreads already. I urge anyone who reads this to read the texts yourself, because it's very obvious that this guy is quite wrong. 1. The young man, who is said to wear white clothes, did not say that Jesus was 'taken away' or 'taken up'. Rather, the verb ηγερθη means 'to waken' or 'to raise'. 2. Then he talks about the confession of Peter, where he claims that Jesus said to Peter "Get behind me, satan." in response to Peter answering Jesus with "You are the Christ". This is blatantly false and very obvious so as well. Jesus responds to Peter with a warning not to tell anyone about the answer of Peter. That's it. That's the response of Jesus to Peter calling him Christ. Now later on, Jesus talks about how he will be rejected by many people and names a few groups. After that is when Peter takes Jesus aside and rebuked Jesus and THEN Jesus says 'Go away, Satan.'. So it's the protests of Peter that Jesus responds to when he tells Satan to go away. But the response to "You are the Christ" is simply "Don't tell anyone". To be reading these things as anything different is just, I don't know. It's quite the misread. It's quite hard to take the rest of the video seriously after such a massive and obvious misread.
The two witnesses are the two olive trees and two lampstands. A lampstand represents the true Congregation of Christ (Rev 1), and an olive tree also represents God's people (Rom 11). The link between the two is that as the Congregation walks in obedience they bear fruit (olives) which provides the oil which keeps their lamp lit. I believe that the two witnesses are therefore two obedient groups,one that will walk in the spirit and power of Moses and one that will walk in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ. The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
This man is wrong about Mark, Peter's confession was not rebuked by Jesus. Mark 8:29-33 reads like this:... And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” jesus only rebuked Peter from trying to stop the passion from being fulfilled, the text assumes jesus agreed that he is the Christ, he just wanted his identity hidden for a while as is the theme in the other Gospels. Matthew 12:15-21, 16:13-20
@@Vina_Ravyn Exactly. Meaning, Jesus could not have been the Messiah of the OT. Peter, as a jew, knew what Tanach taught, and was of course familiar with the consensus around what the Messiah's suppose to do. His role, mission and plan. And this includes Isaiah's readings of chapters of 7 and 53. So why was Peter even opposed to the idea of Jesus suffering? Surely he had to have known these things should/were happen to the Messiah? I think this whole narrative gives us a clear indication that within the orthodoxy of Judaism there's always been a universal view of the concept of Messiah and the interpretation of the texts thereof.
@@chadrocks4497it's not that clear cut. Jews were divided both on how many messiahs there were, what happened, and what his origins were. This comes up a handful of times. Peter seems to have understood the messiah as Jews today would. John and even Caiphus had a two messiah theory. What's called Yosef/David or Aaron(priest) and David(king). Mark focuses on his role as the Isaiah 53 servant.
Tabor has some bizarre theories, but he's not a terrible scholar overall. He's far better than many of the folks Derek regularly has on. But, if he doesn't show you how even some of the better unbelieving scholars often get things wildly wrong, I don't know what will. The idea that Mark is saying that Peter's confession is inspired by Satan is eisegesis at its worst.
Yes absolutely more than a stretch. Disproven simply by reading the text at face value. Jesus says he needs to die etc. Then Peter says no you don’t need to die and that’s when Jesus says get behind me satan because the disciples don’t understand that Jesus needed to suffer and die and be raised again
Thank you very much for pointing me to the Book of Mark. I did just what you said I avoided the Book of Mark these 35 years because the other gospels. Now going get right to it😊😊😊
Just as the Professor said, i too love to, metaphorically and literally, dig into the past to the beginnings or origins of something. A couple of years ago i was a digger on archaeological sites up in the north of Scotland, on Neolithic sites like The Ness of Brodgar Neolithic Temple. I’ll be doing it some more this year but i’m very into learning the academic aspects of ancient and pre-historical eras. I particularly am fascinated with Theology and as an atheist treat it as a unique insight into pre-Roman & Roman society, particularly the Hebrews and early christians. So i’ll be looking to sign up for this course. I’m looking forward to it.
@@koppite9600 Probably not. I’m thinking it was probably a trumped up charge in order to arrest him. If that even happened at all. Who’s to say? There are no official records or truly independent sources to corroborate the story.
@@Armyjay how can an enemy trump up charges that you healed a man? I accuse you of doing good? My claim is that, stories like these are 'subconsciously' true and therefore we can trust them. Read how Peter defended himself before the Sanhedrin for healing a cripple, it's not a myth and it has no way of being a myth, unless these disciples had modern cia, mossad intelligence to dupe their audience. We dont need official records because we are examining the subconscious of the story to see if they are false, for me it passes.
@@koppite9600 It was considered by the Temple Priests to be blasphemous and by the Romans an act of sedition because only the Emperor (a living “God” in their cult) should be able to perform “miracles” such as healing…. however they normally would ignore such trivial things but as with Jesus himself they wanted to arrest Peter and they used the above mentioned pretext for that purpose.
The Gospels are Roman humor. "Who would write a gospel like that?" The problem is State-Chattel are conditioned to justice for all & voting in a democracy & a constitution designed to undermine it, in a country of too big to fail, inherited wealth & endless wars. It is said, "If men were angels, government would not be necessary" But I say, If men were not State-Chattel, then governments would not be tolerated. A still tongue makes a happy life, "My chattel knows what I tell them", "My sheep hear My voice", it makes a point to "render to Caesar" How many Johns & Marys do you need in a few pages to understand it is Larry, his brother Daryl, and his other brother Daryl.
Two questions: (1) Is it possible that the early Church fathers saw at least some of the problems with "Mark" and that's why it's second in order in the NT even though the shortest Gospel would seem logically to go first? (2) And why did they include it AT ALL in the canon when Matthew and Luke have essentially the same skeleton but "better" beginnings and endings and therefore "better" (to them) theology?
The Gospels that were included in the canon were selected because they supported one another. Many writings were NOT included in the Gospels because they didn't fit with the Church Father's preferred theology. For example, in one of the Gnostic Gospels, there is a story which strongly suggests that Jesus had a sexual encounter with an adolescent male.
@@efandmk3382 , it doesn't seem that Mark really supports the other Gospels, though, that's what Dr. Tabor is laying out. My suspicion is that some influential group of early Christians had had only Mark for decades, then when the canon was settled on the choice was either include Mark or alienate that group. So in it went. That's just a guess.
You are wrong about Mark chapter 8:29-33. Peter was not rebuked for his confession that Jesus was the "messiah", he was rebuked because he tried to talk Jesus out of doing what would eventually get him crucified. The text is clear on that point.
EXACTLY !! Also, the reason Peter did NOT receive the Truth from Jesus that He was going to be killed is that, the "Truth" did not come as a super-natural "Revelation" from the Father, as it did when Peter declared that Jesus is the Christ. That is the difference. TRUTH can only be "Revealed" by GOD to a person, through "spiritual communication" or Revelation. "Flesh and Blood has NOT revealed this to you Peter, but my Father who is in Heaven". When "men" declare something that is TRUE, from natural mouth to natural ear, it is not REALITY to our spirit, like God directly speaking to us BY HIS SPIRIT.
The most embarrassing part of the gospel is the one where Jesus tells people to take up the cross when he hasn't been crucified yet. The cross at that time was a symbol of insurrection against Rome and Jesus was in opposition to insurrection against Rome saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Obviously a mistake or maybe left there as a clue to the reality of the Roman-Parthian War, which was what it is all really about.
You don't know what it means when Jesus says "Give unto Caesar." You read things at the visible surface of things. It's all Caesar. Every tax payment. Every fine. Every kick up to the mob boss. Jesus speaks of a paradigm, a world you will never know. The coin is the hook in the cheek to your world.
You don't know what it means when Jesus says "Give unto Caesar." You read things at the visible surface of things. It's all Caesar. Every tax payment. Every fine. Every kick up to the mob boss. Jesus speaks of a paradigm, a world you will never know. The coin is the hook in the cheek to your world.
@@johnpettigrew83 I been saying "It's all about the shekels" for decades but the comment is more about the embarrassing mistake Jesus is said to have made by telling people to take up the cross before the cross is even considered as a Christian trademark ™.....
Jesus promised that some of his disciples would “not taste death at all” until they had first seen “the Son of man coming in his kingdom,” or “the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mt 16:28; Mr 9:1) This promise was fulfilled “six days later” when Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus into “a lofty mountain” (Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2; Lu 9:28) where, while praying, Jesus was transfigured before them. The apostle Peter viewed the transfiguration as a marvelous confirmation of the prophetic word, and by having been an eyewitness of Christ’s magnificence, he was able to acquaint his readers “with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Pe 1:16, 19) The apostle had experienced the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that some of his followers would “not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mr 9:1) The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.
Tabor has an interesting perspective. But I think that the Peter is Satan thing doesn't have much weight in the text. Satan is just a way of saying what is being said there: stumbling block. No need for wild associations. It's a dramatic way of saying: you are wrong. Peter is too much entangled with human concerns, there, and not with the godly perspective. It's a big deal in the context. But the term Satan is no big deal here. Jesus is a bit rude, like I am, you bottom-feeders! Stop marinading in that crap. I understand that many people on this channel have been Christians. I have rejected these ramblings since I was a child because I'm intellectually honest: I have no idea what you all are mumbling about and neither do you all. That is even in the text. I must be blessed. Or I'm pleasantly objective. The devil is a stumbling block and Peter means rock. These ideas are stitched together here is my strong impression. Jesus is going to battle the status quo. Peter is like: chill dude. Jesus tells him to f off. I think that sums it up.
Only looked at the ESV version of Mark but I don't read that Jesus rebuked anyone for calling him good, as Dr Tabor claims at around 11m in. Jesus asks the question 'why do you call me good'. Maybe someone can enlighten me. At first listening and reading Dr Tabor seems to be twisting the story, just like matthew and luke. To me this is serious stuff, if true. BTW I am not a christian believer anymore. Thanks for the upload though.
@@PoeLemic Looked at many translations. They all say the words *why* do you call me good. Please provide original Greek and your translation to substantiate this claim.
It's not when Cephas says you are the christ, but rather after he denies the foretelling of his death, that the christ calls him satan. It's because Cephas wants his will and not God's will.
Professor Tabor is knowledgeable. He is also fantastically engaging, and very pleasant to hear/watch. Of all the courses offered recently, this one is insta-buy!
Mark really is problematic for Christians. It was the book of Mark that put the final nail in the coffin for Christianity as I saw it. Mark reads like a Greek play, a clue to its origins. I regard Mark as the only gospel or Jesus story because all the others are embellished to the point of being obviously so. And the gospel of John was an early church fabrication to try and correct errors and establish a new theology and timeline around the Jesus character. Prof. Tabor makes some very good points here. Excellent video Derek.
@dion5804 Yeah, I haven't read them in a while, so in no expert. But Matthew especially seems to say the way into the Kingdom of God is to care for the suffering. Or to try to ease suffering. The parable of the goats and the weeds really seems to cast doubt on the whole saved by faith alone, or at all thing. I'm starting to get the idea as a whole the Bible contains three separate religions.
I can understand the inconsistency of the gospels, but I was told that Jesus saying “why are you calling me good? there is none good but God” was meant to be a demonstration of how good “supposedly” god is compared to man. However, the problem with the gospel is you can interpret it any way you want.
Maybe I’m confused but the get behind me Satan comment was after Jesus says he would have to die and Peter didn’t believe it then Jesus said get behind me Satan. What am I missing? I looked up mark and get behind me Satan isn’t in context with Peter confessing Jesus is messiah but in relation to Peter not believing he just die??? Help.. what am I reading wrong?
Hello Marilyn, You are a REAL woman of God because you searched the scriptures to see whether or not James D. Tabor PhD, who has the "anti-christ" spirit, was telling the truth or not. Just as you pointed out, "Dr. Tabor" has taken the Holy Scriptures out of context, which is what Jesus says is Satan's job to do. As you so perfectly stated, when Jesus said "Get behind me Satan", this was in context to when Jesus told Peter by mouth, that He was about to go Jerusalem and be rejected and be killed,...NOT when Peter said, "You are the Christ". I would like to share something with you about the difference between these 2 portions of scriptures. When Peter said to Jesus "You are Christ", it was because the Father spoke to Peter super-naturally, by "spiritual" communication, which is what is what we call "Revelation". This is why Peter received the message. In the other portion of scripture, Jesus tells Peter by his own physical "mouth", that He is going to be killed, which is "natural" communication, and this is why Peter rejected the Word. Remember what Jesus said when He taught the Parable of the "Sower Sows the Word" ? When we hear God's Word from another human being in the natural realm, it comes to us in SEED FORM, NOT "Revelation" form, which happens AFTER the seed falls into Good ground and grows to full maturity ""And these are the ones by the wayside where the word of God is sown. When they hear the Word of God, Satan comes immediately and TAKES AWAY THE WORD that was sown in their hearts." (Mark 4:15) This is the reason why Peter "rejected" the Word of God at the mouth of Jesus, and why Jesus recognized that it was SATAN stealing the Word out of his heart. Blessings be to you Marilyn, for God has given you great spiritual discernment and "eyes to see". I hope that you will continue to "expose" the lies of the devil on TH-cam. Take Care.
You are so right! The spirit behind what these two are saying is not right! Get behind me Satan was Satan's attempt to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross, his highest purpose in his earthly life.
Great observation. But the "so-called" Dr. Tabor Phd. claimed at 11:43 of the video, that Jesus said, quote, "Don't call me God", which is a lie from HELL !!
Bro, that's just wild man, makes me afaird of taking/watching his course, fear of becoming an atheist or something:) LOL! It seems very interesting though, and reading each book of the Bible, as a complete separate stand alone book is something I've never done exactly. I think most every day Christian hasn't done either, in-fact treating the Bible like that would probably make Christianity fall.
in the Christian communities they practice the exchange of writings, and to the Gospel, that is, the preaching of basic things, the subsequent deepening is added. you can see this in most of the Pauline epistles which assume that the readers were already evangelized. in addition, take into account that there was a time when there was no Christian writing. the life of the Church represented the New Testament. The Gospels should not be separated from their presence IN THE CHURCH, because that's what the academics do, then they wonder why they seem out of context?! because they are.
Jesus didn't say "Get the behind me, Satan" to Peter in response to Peter declaring that he was the Messiah. There, Jesus merely instructs the disciples to keep it under their hats He says it in response to Peter's rebuking him for predicting his own arrest, torture and execution. Pretty important distinction, I'd say--especially when Jesus refers to HIMSELF as the Son of Man.: "Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. Jesus Predicts His Death 31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Say what you like about the Gospels and Epistles at least they are good for capitalism, generating a seemingly endless convoy of critical books and videos. 😊
It could be argued they helped invent capitalism. Being that they endorse and have been a justification for slavery. The development from mercantilism to capitalism is intrinsically tied to the slave trade. You can't have one without the other. Power is the motive, god is the justification, capitalism is the end result. Well, fascism is the end result. But capitalism is the intermediary mode.
What's good for capitalism is the passive aggressive mule-workers that buy into Jesus, & after life redemption. That's what good for who controlled the means of production... books? Haha!
I love listening to Dr. Tabor talk. But Jesus told his deciples not to tell anyone he was the Messiah. He rebuked Peter for saying he would not die in Jerusalem. That what the words on the page state. That is a hell of an error for someone looking to sell a corse
Your guest seems to be guilty of doing the very same thing in this talk as those he criticizes. He says people run to Matthew, Luke and John to find answers to the difficulties found in "embarrassing" Mark and that the other Gospels were written to "overwrite" Mark. But it sounds like he's saying Mark, by not explaining everything, is running away from Matthew, Luke and John, as a sort of stick in the eye of believers in the divinity of Jesus, even as anti-Christian. In spite of the fact that Mark was written before the others. It is an argument from silence, as I see it. Can't anyone see Mark's wonder at Jesus and his being in absolute awe of him? In my opinion you have to really put the blinders on and turn off all literary imagination not to see how Mark is proclaiming the divinity of Jesus.
Mark proclaims what Mark believes to be important. Miracle birth…not important. Post resurrection appearances and dialogue …not important. Mark doesn’t know or doesn’t include some remarkable details. The faithful may claim it doesn’t matter and it seems Mark would agree. So much for keep Christ in Christmas, one less thing to argue about.
Yes. And one other thing about that, not "based on" as in, coming from and consistent with, but "overwritten" as tabor says, in order to alter the parts that were embarrassing and heretical. And Paul's writings , I think, are earlier, not only also heretical, but astonishingly seeming unaware of any narrative of Jesus' life.
Matthew and Luke plagiarized a total of 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew contains 94% of Mark's material; Luke contains 88% of Mark's material. Mark contains a total of 11,025 words, and only 132 are unique to him. Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark. John was written later and 92% of the material was unique.
@@TWitherspoon Yup ! And the fact stands that almost none of the material they present can be verified as being true! Given the thirty years that passed between the events and the writing of the gospels, all kinds of stories about Jesus could have been invented. So, it's no surprise that they contradict each other. . . some of them so outlandishly that they were left out of the canon.
Unfortunately, most will NOT read the Bible for THEMSELVES.... "For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them." (John 5:43)
I won't say that I believe that the bible is inspired even less the Word of God but Read Marc 8 for real (or is it an unknown squizzed version of this chapter that most don't know about)... Because the reason why Jesus said "get behind me, Satan" is quiet obvious (I've put those verses below for you to look it up right after) is because Peter (who likes Jesus) was actually asking Jesus to forget about this part of the mission... HE WAS ATTACHED TO THE MAN JESUS (which is understandable) it's like saying don't do what you came here to do... So of course the answer makes sense... Who doesn't want Jesus to accomplish what he has to do (here go through) the OPPONENT.... What version of those scriptures is the man on the video talking about? The one we know is ... Well read for yourself: 29“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.” 30And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him. 31Then He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke this message quite frankly, and Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.33But Jesus, turning and looking at His disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” I'm not even going to try to debunk everything that man said to assess his statements... Because maybe the premisses is missing (which version of Mark is he talking about?)... if we are talking about the same, that means that he missunderstood thoses scriptures.
I look at Mark from a literary perspective. Mark is telling the story of the resurrected Christ through the story of Jesus of Nazareth. So, in a nutshell, when the gospel ends at Chapter 16:8, with the women running away from the empty tomb in sheer fright, the reader is forced to re-read the gospel and "see" that the resurrected Christ is doing all of these miracles and healings and exorcisms in the church of Mark, but is presented as a narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Sounds like Dr Tabor is teaching what I got from my reading. I won't say what it is to spoil it but I am really digging where Dr Tabor is leading ... *popcorn*
To me, the reason for Christ's rebuking Peter seems plainly obvious in both Mark 8 and Matthew 16. In both books, Christ proclaims to His disciples that He must suffer and die, Peter takes issue with this. Whether it is the "rebuke" in Mark or His more comforting words in Matthew makes no difference. He puts the lowest label He can on not recognizing the miracle that is Christ's sacrifice and our forgiveness. Then He tells Peter that he is not orientated toward God. Is there something that doesn't make sense here?
So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28 NASB2020 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except God alone?” Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were thinking that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you thinking about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-He *said to the paralyzed man, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet, and go home.” Mark 2:7-11 NASB2020 This is getting ridiculous. I don't care if you have a different interpretation than someone else but the fact that you have to ignore verses and take things out of context is amazing evidence that you have no clue what is being taught in Mark. Do you have no integrity? I'm not trying to say that christianity is true, but how can you educate anyone about a text with such a distorted view. This is worse than a preacher twisting the meaning to inspire the congregation. You are doing the exact same thing. Taking verses out of context or ignoring verses to try to inspire your audience and totally misrepresenting the text. Shameful
... Actually, although it does happen within a couple of verses "Who do you think I am." Jesus does not say get thee behind me Satan for that answer. “You are the [a]Christ.” 30 And He [b]warned them to tell no one about Him. 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on [c]God’s purposes, but on man’s.” Jesus tells them to no one. Then Jesus begins to teach them he/Jesus must suffer. Only then Peter takes Jesus aside and tries to change his mind. Jesus then publicly disavow his line of thought. Not going through would be self preservation, dying on the cross is the reason he came. As a believing christian, I like Mark because we get behind the scene glimpses. like “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him unto Me.” Jesus is reacting like any parent. You love your children to death (literally) but their are days! ... so no Jesus did not say to Peter " Get thee behind me Satan" for confessing him, but he does tell his disciple not to announce it ... yet
And He continued questioning them: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” And He warned them to tell no one about Him. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but on man’s.” Mark 8:29-33 NASB2020 Sounds like a great course. What do you just skip 2 verses every now and then to create a new narrative. When you take verses out of context or ignore them you can make the story whatever you want. Peter did not get rebuked for calling him the messiah. Give me a break.
This mostly comes across as promo for their course but it's also full of very shoddy scholarship and terrible exegesis. There are too many to spend my time on but since it was in the teaser I'll address just one. In order to come to the conclusion that Peter's confession of Jesus was influenced by satan you have to skip three verses and switch contexts. Jesus wasn't responding to Peter's confession (he had already done that) he was responding to Peter's rebuke (8:32) and attempt to change Jesus plan. In general if Mark's Gospel was embarrassing or somehow incrocnguent with orthodoxy why on earth would it be in the Cannon at all? Don't waste your money on anything these guys are selling.
What I don't understand is how Mark obtained the information to compose the 'Gospel According to Mark'; he wasn't one of the original 12 Apostles. Mark was a student of Peter. So when we read the Gospel of Mark, are we not reading what Mark was told by Peter? And we think Peter was martyred circa 65ad in Rome. So Mark had go on memory if his gospel was written after 70ad, and he was probably already in Alexandria and away from others who would have known Peter. Another point: Peter wasn't at the crucifixion. Only John. Remember, Peter forsook Jesus three times before the cock crowed on the day of crucifixion and he left Jesus in fear and/or shame. So Mark ended the gospel at the crucifixion and in dramatic fashion, "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsake Me?" which may have been an embellishment. Nonetheless, it was the best he could do on memory and with second-hand information.
So in other words this is a telephone game from generations ago🤔💭 They've done memory experiments and found that not two people remember the same event the same way, and a lot of facts are forgotten over time 🤷 Taking that into account who knows of any of them gospels are true other than gossip 🤔💭 might be why Jesus told you to keep your faith and beliefs in your closet, meaning keep your beliefs to yourself 🤷 do maybe Jesus didn't say and it's all a LIE started from Rome to take over more Countries 🤔💭 Like Q is today a psyop MKULTRA experiment by the Philippine Government 😳
There are miracle men all over the world who can do everything Jesus did to the last word. There are yogis in India who can conjure fire from thin air. The problem is christians don't want to see things beyond Jesus. Any other miracle man would be called a hoax and humiliated instead of learning the science behind it.
There are plenty stories in the Bible of sorcerers able to perform many miracles. None of them brought people back to life though. Do the miracle men of today bring people back to life? And many Christians might dismiss miracles, but what does this take away from the Bible?
Perhaps the story of Jesus in Mark is to illustrate that God alone is good, God alone has all of the power, including the power of performing the miracles and the power of life and death. Jesus never had any power, it was God alone working through Jesus. May God guide us. Peace
How is it not special pleading to justify cognitive dissonance emerging when significant differences among Gospel Narratives are revealed? Mark’s Gospel is right according to Mark and John is right according to John. Significant Disagreements may require the faithful to splice together one true story, but clearly, we just have Different stories, sorry. The Gospels aren’t above criticism, at the end of the day-it’s just ancient literature. Authors got away with anything.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 If they splice together 4 gospels for their narrative, they have essentially written an entirely new Gospel. But to throw out the baby with the bathwater isn't the solution either. Their polytheistic bias invasively overwrites the truth. I think God sends information through certain people, but it always gets distorted by the desires of others. God is the only One capable of being a god. Others disagree. Peace.
@@jefftaylor19 Hi Jeff. How does one determine that an individual is relating something from an eternal and self aware consciousness that exists independently from the human mind? People write books … this is self evident. What’s the evidence of a supernatural source…how does that work?
Consider this: Mark is so short because Peter was crucified. Mark then went to visit John. John added, or suggested the additional verses based upon his witness of Christ.
Mark was apparently written for a community or groups traumatized by the war with Rome. Also as MacDonald shares, it is heavily influenced by the story of Hector. Before High Christology developed, the stripped down bluntness of Mark makes perfect sense.
This guy is wrong I just looked it up where Peter confesses that he is the Christ and Jesus Christ is simply says to "tell no man" I think that he's mixing up the Mount of transfiguration when he tells Peter get thee behind me Satan the problem that I have with this guy's that he's not reading the Bible right in front of us
Christian Greeks could more easily evolve their religion by creating new stories than by revising the earliest story, which had already been established in the Jewish phase of christianity. Besides the earliest NT story was associated with the hated Marcionite sect.
Low quality content.in the Christian communities they practice the exchange of writings, and to the Gospel, that is, the preaching of basic things, the subsequent deepening is added. you can see this in most of the Pauline epistles which assume that the readers were already evangelized. in addition, take into account that there was a time when there was no Christian writing. the life of the Church represented the New Testament. The Gospels should not be separated from their presence IN THE CHURCH, because that's what the academics do, then they wonder why they seem out of context?! because they are.
I've always had a problem with the NT where it is clear that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark and all borrowed from the OT in order to create their stories rather than reporting events that actually happened. Mark also comes across as a rough draft and sound similar to the story of Zeus and Hercules where Hercules eventually learns who his Father is and his mission. If Jesus happens to be the Son of God and had a mission here on earth, I am skeptical of the Bible's version due to the appearance of reverse engineering Jesus from the OT, where the verses are usually about Israel but they substitute Jesus. Even the famous Isaiah 53 sound more like Israel than the character of Jesus created.
Interestingly enough, from the chapter of Mark that Tabor is talking about, where Jesus is predicting his own death, it seems it comes from the Book of wisdom, which provides one of the best propechies for jesus, a book that is in the apocryphal outside of catholicism and orthodoxy.
The whole idea of prophecy being fulfilled WOULD look like reverse engineering. There's no way around that. Isaiah 53 isn't and can't be about Israel. The very idea that it was didn't even appear until the 1100s a.d. Isaiah 53 isn't fulfilled though. It's about the suffering servant, yes, but it's main issue is Israel realizing and comong to believe in him. Thats future.
_"...it is clear that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark..."_ Correct. Matthew and Luke plagiarized a total of 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew contains 94% of Mark's material; Luke contains 88% of Mark's material. Mark contains a total of 11,025 words, and only 132 are unique to him. Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark. John was written later and 92% of the material was unique.
@@TWitherspoon Originally when I read Luke, I thought he had also borrowed from Matthew but later found out that scholars simply believe they shared another unknown source.
Tabor missed a few early church references, in this interview & others as well. For example, Papias writes about John the Elder: "And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately...as much as he remembered." Clement of Alexandria also reports that "Mark...followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been said." Memory recall from following Mark for "a long time" would have likely been very accurate. In addition to Peter learning of a published edition of Mark's Gospel, who later "approved it and authorized it to be read" (See Jerome), John the Elder (likely John the Apostle) would have been in a position to also authenticate the accuracy of Peter's reporting.
I am sure that James will not mention the subject of the imitation of the Old Testament and of the letters of Paul in Mark. Too bad, it's the most interesting subject and it allows to classify this text in the NOVELS section.
This is a course you don't wanna miss! Sign up for Creating Jesus: Why The Gospel of Mark was Forgotten! www.mythvisionpodcast.com/firstgospel
Beloved Son; quote .... old sister's answer in 'Silence Of The Hams'
S dead and forsaken on the cross .On the third day he rises from the dead
mythvision --- you've sadly been hoodwinked.
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
Jesus’s rebuke of Peter was to do with Peter attempting to convince Jesus that he shouldn’t go to Jerusalem. It was nothing to do with Peter saying Jesus is the Messiah.
How can a scholar make a claim like that when it’s so clearly not the case?
Am I missing something?
Prayers!🤷
💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏
Agreed
Yes, you are missing the wood for the trees. Actually _read_ the part!
yeah I looked that up...., Jesus never rebuked Peter by saying 'get thee behind me Satan'. Not in Mark And when he did say that to Peter it was after He explained to them the awful things that were to happen to Him and Peter said 'no way Jose'. That won't happen to you. It was just a slip up in my opinion. The crux of it all is that Mark, the original Gospel was sparse compared to the other Gospels. And it ended at 16:8..., which I thought strange in the old days when I was a 'professing Christian'.
Mark: The Gospel without Christmas or Easter.
Well said. It was my favorite Gospel while I remained a Christian for decades. Mark is spiritual without the religiosity that came later.
As an old man belonging to a family with a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, I stopped worrying about religion very early; however my grandfather (Jew) when he read the gospel of Mark told me. Rob, this is a symbol. The story of this man (Jesus) is symbolic of Israel at that time.
I always found it a beautiful interpretation and even today at fifty-four I remember it fondly.
Thank you for your videos, we enjoy them a lot here in Chile, me and my family.
A big hug.
I grew up Christian (but do have some Jewish blood) and I always found it disturbing the amount of blood, hate, evil, murder, genocide, rape, pedophilia and enslavement of our fellow humans, including children was in there.
I also find it disturbing to understand what Jacob - Isaac - Ab - Ra - Ham really means.
Off topic, but I visited Chile a few years ago. I loved it! The people and the culture are incredible.
Great country!
I have always had great respect for Jewish culture and people. I have an excellent Jewish friend, and we always have great talks about religion and the world. Listening to Rabi Tobia Singer was the first time I had a clear picture of how antisemitic the New Testament is.
Paul was creating a new religion using the old testament just to give his "announcement" some kind of validation, but contradicting the main beliefs and ideas of the old testament.
The truth is very very disturbing. You would be surprised to know how many children are being raped everyday present time. The Bible does not paint things rosy red, but lay it out as it is and was and has always been.
Problem is that Jesus wasn’t Jewish, he spoke Aramaic Sumerian language, he came to free the Jews from his people because they where being tortured by the Assyrians (Sumerians) and he didn’t want that from his people, so he stepped in and made his presence.
Here is my viewpoint on Mark, as I read it and studied it, which woke my eyes up to how it's the first take on the Jesus Story. See, the thing about Mark that struck me, is that it is the Jesus Myth in such simplicity. Remember, it was the earliest gospel, which everyone agrees on (including religious scholars). So, basically, Mark was written first, and then Matthew & Luke used it and improved upon it. They filled in the places that Mark did not write, nor that were even an issue back then. So, if you read it alone, so much of what the "Christian Narrative" is, isn't in Mark. It's absent, so that showed me how the next gospels were just myth-making and improving on the prior formula.
I agree. Mark may be a take on even earlier unknown Jewish Judean resistance folk-tales; in Mark Jesus is a Jewish man-messiah, and later Gospel authors "correct" him by making him less Jewish and more Greek. Lately I've had the thought that Mark might actually instead be reactionary to more Greek takes that were already there, and it kind of sounds like this is what Tabor might be on about.
Your argument would never hold up in court
@@user-es3vx9te9v What court would take the case? I believe you are trying to be snarkey.
Fail.
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
@Amadeos-Salvadore
Even to a critic, Jesus is the Lamb of God
I wrote it that way because of Bible Scholar Critics! Bible Scholar Revealing the Hidden Contradiction in the Bible! Why Jesus died on two different days, at two different times, according to the Scriptures?
“Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called ‘the Day of Preparation’ (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true - but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation ‘for the Sabbath’ (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before the Sabbath; it is called the day of ‘preparation’ because one had to prepare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.
“…in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified….
“…I will point out a significant feature of John’s Gospel - the last of our Gospels to be written, probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus is ‘the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.’ This is declared by John the Baptist at the very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John - our latest Gospel - change the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon), when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.
“In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between his account and the others.”
That's weird. Jesus doesnt say "get behind me satan" in response to Peter's confession, but to the later comment about death not being a thing to happen to Jesus.
Mark 8:31-33 does not say Jesus rebuked Peter for calling him the Christ but for saying he should not suffer, die and rise from the dead 3 days later. How could Tabor be so wrong?
Tabor is making up B.S. in order to sell his nonsense.
Right on. The Bible tells me so.
@@jimsager3297
Tabor is not reading what it says.
It might be in an original Greek, but the current translations do not tell the story like it is in the earliest texts.
He wants to sell his programs
I went to a Catholic school in the UK and we were specifically taught the Gospel of Mark, because it is understood to be the earliest-written of the four gospels (and therefore considered in many ways to be the "most accurate"), so I have no idea what Tabor means when he says it is the "forgotten" gospel. But that is far from the worst of his transgressions in this interview. Below I list some of the main points:
1: Complaining of the final verse that the witnesses of the bare tomb “said nothing to anyone,” he asks how there could be a Gospel if they said nothing to anyone. But *in the very prior verse*, the witnesses are told (by the young man who “is not an angel,” although I fail to see why that matters), “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” So, regardless of whether the witnesses spoke to the disciples, it is explicit in the text that Jesus went on to meet the disciples later in Galilee! THAT’S how there’s a Gospel! It really isn’t that complicated.
2: “Why are you teaching in riddles and parables to the crowds?” Tabor asserts that Jesus said, “I don’t want them to understand or be converted.” This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what Jesus actually says. The verses in question are Mark 4:10-12 (but the entirety of chapter 4 gives a broader context) - in it, Jesus explains that “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
These three lines are delivered as a quotation within a quotation - specifically, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10. It must be taken, then, that the FULL context of his answer must also incorporate Isaiah Chapter 6. When this full context is considered it seems rather more that Jesus is stating that the meaning of the parables will be clear to those who are ready to understand, who are willing to repent and who wish to receive forgiveness.
It is NOT that he “doesn’t want people to understand or be converted,” it’s that the WILLINGNESS to understand and be converted is incumbent upon the listener.
3: “Why are you calling me ‘good’? There is none good but God.” - Tabor says, “if you can’t even call Jesus GOOD then you’re certainly not going to call him GOD.”
But I think this is a shallow reading of the text. According to the references on BibleGateway, the word “Good” here is translated from the Greek word agathos, which literally means “doer of great things.” “Good” is one way of interpreting this (along with brave, noble, moral, gentle and more). However, another - equally valid - interpretation might be that, rather than saying, “Good Rabbi,” the man says something along the lines of “Oh, Great One,” or even, “Mighty Teacher.” In which case it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reply, “Why do you call me Great (or Mighty)? There is none Great (or Mighty) but God.”
This is, as I say, an equally valid interpretation, but the sense of the reply has now shifted considerably. This is one of the primary problems of translation: capturing the essence of what is being said in the appropriate format. Even a subtle alteration of the translation can have a profound impact on the meaning (which is precisely why many scholars prefer to derive meaning from the original Hebrew or Greek texts rather than relying on English translations, as Tabor seems to have done).
4: “Peter finally gets who Jesus is… ‘You’re the Christ.’ And Jesus says, ‘Get behind me, Satan.’” No. No, no, no, no, NO! This is NOT what happens AT ALL. HERE is what happens:
Jesus asks, “Who do you say I am?” to which Peter answers, “You are the Messiah.” (verse 29)
And then, verse 30, *“Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.”*
THEN, in verse 31, Jesus explains that he will be betrayed, suffer and die before rising again.
In verse 32, Peter rebukes him (he doesn’t want his friend and master to suffer and die).
Then in verse 33, Jesus rebukes Peter right back, saying “Get behind me, Satan!”
Jesus is chastising Peter because Peter is being selfish, thinking about the loss of Jesus rather than seeing the bigger picture - God’s plan. THAT is why he says “Get behind me, Satan” - because Peter’s admonishment is born of selfishness.
So Tabor is either completely misunderstanding or misreading the Gospel here, or else he is deliberately misrepresenting it (for what reason I can only guess). He says that he teaches his students (!!!) that “Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession inspired by Satan.”
Oh my actual God. I weep for his students, for they are being misinformed, if not outright lied to.
This is all within the first 8 minutes of the interview, and I have little appetite for watching any more of it. It staggers me that Tabor is purportedly a Biblical scholar and yet seems woefully ill-informed and lacking in any kind of knowledge or understanding of the text he is criticising. I am no scholar, I am not a Bible apologist, I’m no Evangelical or literalist - hell, I’m barely even what you could call a Catholic any more. I am still a (non-practising) Christian, though, and the fact that this Gospel - the one I grew up learning - is being so thoroughly misrepresented is infuriating to me.
Sorry for the long reply, but… GAAAH!
xx
I responded slightly as you did but I think I can perceive his strategy.
Mark really is very strange (and in some ways disturbing) when you separate it from the other synoptics and it's probably not a bad idea to exaggerate this to make your students think things out for themselves.
How fortunate we are that The Early Church did not discard this gospel!
Presumably there were congregations who remained loyal to it and refused to accept the rewrites.
@@alanpennie8013 Mark is unusual among the gospels, for sure - no birth myth, an abrupt ending - but really its focus is on Jesus' ministry and message, not on his life per se. We don't need to know who he was before his baptism - it is an irrelevancy to his message. Jesus tends to downplay his heritage and provenance because it is his message that is important. Perhaps this is what makes it the most interesting of the gospels (to me, at least), and perhaps also the most important - who you are is less important than *what you do*.
I also find fascinating the gospels that didn't make it into the final Bible - the Nag Hammadi texts are astonishing, and they appear to have been accepted by early Christians for a time. Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John selected and the others rejected? Perhaps because they each give a more cohesive narrative than the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene and others, or perhaps because they were the least contradictory with each other? Regardless, the Gnostic texts are an important piece of the early Christian puzzle - they have done more to make me think about and flesh out my faith than anything else for at least 20 years of my life!
I understand what you mean about exaggerating Mark's strangeness to make students think more deeply about it, but it seems to me that Tabor goes beyond mere exaggeration and crosses the line into outright nonsense. The facts of the Gospel of Mark are NOT the facts of James Tabor, and the two sets of facts are totally incompatible with one another. He is not *teaching* the Gospel - he's *mangling* it.
xx
@@TSSuppository Deconstructed to a fault. Mark presents Jesus' humanity in a nascent religion that will dogmatize Jesus as wholly human, wholly God. Holy Conflation!
If there was a historical Jesus these gospel stories can't be about him. Jesus was a jew. Jews don't believe in heaven or hell the devil demons or zombies. Yet in the gospels he talks to the devil, casts out demons, and bodies rise out of their graves when he dies. This is a pagan story that doesn't warrant any. serious consideration.
1) The problem is not (at least for me) the information about the resurrection, but the information about the witnesses. We are told that they were terrified and didn't tell anything. The question is, who wrote that, and 1) how he knew they went to the tomb. 2) how he knew what they saw. 3) how he knew how what they felt 4) how he knew they didn't tell anything
2) I agree
3) Agathos. The word is theorized to come from Proto-Hellenic *əgatʰós, from Proto-Indo-European *m̥ǵh₂dʰh₁ós (“made great; whose deeds are great”), from *méǵh₂s (“great”) + *dʰeh₁- (“do”) + *-ós.
But Agathos never meant "maker of great things" in Ancient Greek. You can't transplant some meaning burrowed in the etymology to the actual word.
if they had wanted to express the idea of "great", they would have used "megas" as a prefix, never "agathos". Ancient Greek used "agathos" only for "good" and its almost-synonyms; this is the actual list of possible meanings: good, brave, noble, moral, gentle, fortunate, lucky, useful.
4) I agree
The church of Constantine likes that high Christology like the gospel of John. In Mark's gospel the context of the writer where the temple ruins are still smoking from the roman flames and the existential confusion and despair of that great clash of civilizations have left the survivors clutching for meaning to their suffering and the imminent return of Jesus...In Mark the only words from Jesus on the cross are “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
It's perhaps higher christology, but Jesus is not God in John and constantly repeats that he only has authority, correct thinking, and miraculous power because of God, who he openly says he'd be powerless and doctrineless without. The most you can squeeze out of John is that Jesus literally pre-existed but even then that is entirely debatable and not particularly evident.
@@youngknowledgeseeker interesting. Yes the higher I would say is how Jesus was in control in John and long-winded theologically. The garden scene John adds where they all fall down when they come to arrest him and his discussion with Pilate et cetera. Where in Mark its mystery and silence and “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
@@salama510 LOL 😆 Constantine was never a trinitarian only being baptized into Arius church near his death.
Jesus the annunaki shining one ✨️
Such a joke video !
The discussion was interesting, but his assertion that Peter's profession of faith in Jesus being the Christ being inspired by satan is a huge stretch.
Then why was the gospel of Mark included in a bible?
@4:42, when Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah he doesn't immediately call him Satan. He just warns him not to tell anyone. It's only after another speech of Jesus about being delivered, killed and resurrected that Peter rebukes him and only then does Jesus call him Satan. The two replies from Jesus refer to different things. Tabor is reaching here.
I can see how Dr Tabor could thread that needle though. He may have said that a little short to make people go wait and look into it more. I had a couple teachers like that. Tell you what sounds like the wrong thing ... *popcorn*
I don't think so. You have to understand what you are reading. In verse 30, what did Jesus do when Peter declared he is the Messiah?
Jesus didn't say: yes, you're right. No, Jesus commanded them to "shut up!"
Next, in verse 33, the second time Peter said something to Jesus, what happened?
Can you see it?
It's like Jesus was tired of Peter and his comments.
But you have to come to Mark without Christian Lenses, and just read what Mark is saying, no assumptions.
@@georgeflowers3730 100%
@@Vina_Ravyn He shouldn't underestimate this crowd then. :)
@@georgeflowers3730 I'm not a Christian so I'm not coming at Mark with Christian lenses. I'm just reading the text. The two reactions of Jesus are clearly separate.
Just registered for the course, looking forward to it! Thank you Derek & Mythvision for bringing such wonderful & thought-provoking scholars to non-academics like me. I have a feeling I will gain a much deeper insight now as a life-long student than I ever did in actual college courses, including one on the New Testament I barely remember. Looking forward to reading Mark as a free-standing work with the guidance & insights of Dr. Tabor.
For decades I mostly ignored religious & biblical studies, enjoying life on this planet as a non-religious secular humanist who is more interested in the sciences for their explanatory power & the awe I find in nature. However, needing something to do besides doom-scrolling through the mal-administration of POTUS45 & the pandemic, I started down an atheist podcaster rabbithole & oddly enough that led me to religous studies! I decided I needed a far deeper understanding of the ancient societies, histories, texts, and traditions that came forth to our day (and the ones that didn't, too). Xianties hold such a powerful sway over the supposedly constutionally secular USA - often in the misguided and mistaken fundamentalist ideologies & orthodoxies. The introduction to the course alone up-ends what I heard as a kid in Sunday School & from many Xians.
This ‘expose’ is on par with evangelical con artists , priests and anyone who ' makes a living from religion ' .....read the translations from Bible Hub on line with the help and guide of the Holy Spirit - it's not about "beliefs" it's about being righteous to all - choose Love and understanding ......don't follow this or anyone 's 'interpretation' = 'dogma'
I appreciate the opportunity to study Mark with Dr Tabor; however, I have a problem with his explanation of the scene he describes with Peter. According to the versions I have read, Jesus does not tell Peter "Get behind me, Satan" until after he describes the suffering he must endure and Peter's rebuke. When Peter suggests he is the Christ, Jesus tells him to not tell anyone. This distinction may seem trivial or like I am splitting hairs. But I think it is important that Peter understands Jesus to be the Messiah, but that he doesn't understand what the Messiah is by having to suffer. This a far different interpretation that should illustrate a different conclusion. Difficult for me to hop in on this ride without understanding that gap.
Prayers!🤷
💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔
I once decided to read the four gospels through the lens of reading fanfiction, or in other words "What headcanon was this story written to promote?" Yeah, I know, but while I'm not a trained biblical scholar, I have read a lot of fanfiction, so... stick with what you know you can handle? 🤣🤣🤣
It was a long time ago, but I remember concluding that Mark's gospel was written to combat the question of "If Jesus did all these miracles, then why wasn't he better known during his lifetime?" So we have Jesus warning people not to tell anyone he'd healed them or cast out their demons, and rejecting any attempts by his disciples to deify him. His power and divinity were real, he just didn't want to reveal himself while alive, because... reasons.
Why did I feel the need to say this to people who know way more about the Bible than me? Um... well, it's at least a comment for the algorithm? 😉
You know, that’s the best argument for Mark’s peculiarities I have ever heard. Not a scholar myself but I have consumed tons of content on the Bible and Imo sometimes scholars overthink it. It’s possible that a simple down-to-earth explanation likes yours is closer to the mark 😉 than fancier stuff.
This comment deserves more upvotes.
Apparently Jesus performed so many miracles that if they had all been written down, the whole world couldn't contain the books
Which is why nobody wrote them down because they were like, fuck it there's too many. Lol
@@Paul-cr7qm Sounds like tht god made the rookie mistake of blowing his wad of miracles so long ago and all at once. The book of Austin, 3:19 says “Good Wizard in his unmatched wisdom revealed his Holy Text in an age of mass communication so no one has to get His Word second-orthirdhand.”
I think the other argument for the weirdness of Mark is that because its the earliest, some things are harder to make up, it's closer to living memory, there are people still communicating with the early followers to an extent, so there are only so many things added and redacted. Of course Mark is still not a proper biography for so many reasons, but it is in keeping with the traditions of biographies of exalted figures of that era including all the pap about how many cool miracles they do.
I see MARK as a mystery story, kind of like Clint Eastwood's HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER where a mysterious Stranger emerges from the wilderness; upsets the established order; is seemingly lost then departs under mysterious circumstances, in triumph! Only at the end do the terrified people understand what was in their midst!
Clint is god! “Ok, you did two things wrong. First, you asked a question, and second, you asked another question.” (Million Dollar Baby). The Bible says to not question anything.
@@MovieMakingMan My comparison was deliberate! The Stranger in Eastwood's movie was an Avenging Spirit; when The Jesus Movement was within the Jewish Community , "Jesus" was very much at home within the Jewish Angelic tradition, where ancient Jews believed angels walked among them disguised as humans but ADONAI (Blessed Be The Name) never incarnates; a belief at odds with Greco Roman traditions where even humans could be declared "gods" by emperor decree!
Too funny, this is exactly how I've referred to it for years. The reconstruction of the Marcion Gospel gives even more of that vibe right from the start.
This is very interesting. I admire Dr. Tabor, but the comment connecting the Peter's confession of Jesus Christ with Jesus's statement to Peter "Get thee behind me..." seems confusing and even disingenuous. He seems to ignore Mark 8:31 which adds the context for Jesus's rebuke of Peter. Can anyone help me understand it?
He lied or is going senile.
PRAYERS 🤷
💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏
This course was so fun to record!
I believe you. Having direct access to a top-notch scholar such as James Tabor is a privilege. As for me, I'll keep reviewing his books on my channel. 👍
@Gezka Fareza I've only reviewed "Paul and Jesus" from Tabor so far but I have 18 books overall @sagesinpages.
@Derek Lambert
You state that you are a skeptic, are you capable, of looking, at a body of information, and carefully searching it, for what it contains, without taking with you, your bias, when you undertake such a search??
Just got the course, and watched the lesson 1, now homework lol. Thanks Derek, and thanks to Dr. Tabor
@@allanwilliams2079 No one can do that. It literally isn't humanly possible.
Mark was the book that opened my mind and eyes to my deconversion. Thank you, Professor Tabor and Derek, for the work you do and for this course.
I know this will be great. I have always had the same kind of ideas about Mark, and I'm happy to see that I was on the right track about Mark. Even the idea that some parts can be taken as jokes!
Same here. I emptied my head of all other Jesus stuff and read Mark on its own, as if for first time. It struck me that it was basically about a bunch of guys going around on a boat demanding money for preaching 👍
@@TheScotsalan Also, the thing about Mark that struck me, is that it is the Jesus Myth in such simplicity. Remember, it was the earliest gospel, which everyone agrees on (including religious scholars). So, basically, Mark was written first, and then Matthew & Luke used it and improved upon it. They filled in the places that Mark did not write, nor that were even an issue back then. So, if you read it alone, so much of what the "Christian Narrative" is, isn't in Mark. It's absent, so that showed me how the next gospels were just myth-making and improving on the prior formula.
@@PoeLemic Indeed. The order written is why I went from Mark to Acts. And in Acts 5, where the apostles see the married couple stuck dead for holding back money, it makes total sense if one only reads Mark. Read the other Gospels, and Acts 5 is just daft.
@@TheScotsalan As luck would have it, not much in that respect has changed in 2000 years. The boats are just bigger.
what parts did u see as jokes?
Mythvision will yet become a bone fide online graduate level college. Great things will come of all this Derek. Good work, dude.
Here, here...
It might work. Derek, I know an online education expert now working for a major state university you could con$ult with, maybe even hire, to set up the testing, etc, and ensure that the school meets accreditation standards.
@@scienceexplains302 Yup. You're building something very strong here, and credible. Build that online college, for Christ's sake!!!
you just mentioned a prophecy. Derek made scholars cool!
I have examined Mark 8:22-23. It seems to me that Peter rebukes Jesus privately because he doesn't want Jesus to say these terrible things about himself and what will happen. This is why Jesus says"get thee behind me Satan" to Peter, publicly, because Jesus is apparently being tempted to resist going through with all these terrible things that he has been prophesying.
I do not agree with Dr Tabor's take on these verses.
Great observation. I would also add that Peter rejects this statement from Jesus about being killed because he did not receive that TRUTH from the FATHER, by super-natural "Revelation", like he did when He declared that Jesus is THE CHRIST. The difference is, Jesus spoke to Peter by pyhsical "mouth" that he was going to be killed, which is "natural" communication, where as when God revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, this was "spiritual" communication, which is INNER REALITY, as opposed to hearing someone speak Truth in the natural realm, which is NOT REAL yet to our spirit man.
@@7Truth7Wins7 I am not a Christian anymore, but I think these phrases have been carefully crafted to appear to be spoken by Peter and Jesus for the purpose of promoting the 'gospel'. But, I hate it when people use deceptive translations to dismiss what has been written, thus attempting to support an atheist viewpoint.
When Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18), that is Jesus saying that He is God... because He never actually denied that He is good. Jesus said those words to the man because He knew that the man did not realise he was talking to God, in the flesh. Jesus' words "Why do you call me good?" was a rhetorical question addressed to the man.
Mark is in no way telling of a different Jesus than the other Gospel writers. You critics are nowhere near as smart as you like to imagine or pretend.
Henry, you still believe in Hebrew fiction despite being shown several times that it is fiction. I wouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence.
Henry Schmit.
I think that's right.
Mark gives us a Jesus who makes the disciples figure things out for themselves from the clues given.
You make people do part of the work themselves they'll have more personal investment in the story.
At least that's my takeaway from this video.
(Of course I could be completely wrong because it ain't easy to understand someone 2000 years away).
Exactly Henry, you got it absolutely right !! And the "so-called" Dr. Tabor LIED and said that Jesus said, "Don't call me good", at 11:43 of the video, which is a blatant LIE, adding and subtracting to the Word of God.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 "..being shown several times that it is fiction.... I wouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence."
That's just bluffing. The only thing I was "shown several times" were weak inferior arguments, which are easily dealt with by the available counter arguments. So I will keep questioning other people's intelligence... at least until they put forward something a little stronger... devoid of special pleading, question begging, confirmation bias, misleading interpretations, etc.
@@7Truth7Wins7 Exactly. You have to keep your eye on those critics, so they don't get one past you. Best way is to read the scriptures for ourselves, rather than rely on the opinion of scholars.
Mark is forgotten? No it isn't. Acts is the continuation of Mark. Mark was not a disciple of Christ, which is why Acts is so detailed. Mark was there. In Acts the gospel gets a more expansive treatment.
Amazing stuff Derek! I am working now on a video review for my channel on the difference between the 4 canonical gospels. I love Dr. Tabor and rely on his works along with other scholars. Best wishes!
i cant wait to watch that video. Other than the main message of jesus and the christology what other differences do you see in the gospels?
The moral of the story is that Jesus Christ (or the mythos of Jesus Christ) gave birth to Christianity the religion and not Christianism the philosophy.
We'll he didn't give birth to it, Paul and Rome did, but He wasn't around to challenge it, so...
Mark is the greatest gospel, the gospel in the raw. It's that first Batman appearance in Detective Comics in 1939 where he's called the Bat-Man, rolls with a Colt .45, shoots criminals and throws them to their deaths into vats of acid. No origin story, no Robin, no Alfred, no Batcave, gadgets, etc, he just comes out of nowhere WHIPPING THAT SH!T OUT. The Proto-story is always the greatest story. The women running scared at the end of Mark is pure, uncut sublime religious fear. Jesus coming back in later gospels eating fish, Thomas sticking fingers in his spear-hole... all phony bric-a-brac fanfiction.
I like the Batman comparison very much; seems apt to me.
People actually pay to do this Tabor course??? WOW!!!
He is out to make money, like most of them!
It's obvious this whole thing is trying to be controversial. For just $40, you too can know the truth!
Well, it's cheaper than your pastor.
11:35 the christian apologists job "they muddy the water to make it seem deep"
As Dom Crossan notes the fundamentalist actually takes away the meaning of the text and makes it only a comic book of magic and empty calories. It is critical scholarship that squeezes the most meaning and nutrition from the text. The fundamentalist is looking for the sugar kool aid drink high not the meat of the text.
Great!
It seems almost like if we take Mark literally, this Gospel debunks Christianity!
Thank you.
The best thing about christianity is that it can be debunked by Jesus' own words
Mark view of Jesus is very similar to jesus in Quran.
@@gulsherkhaliq441 yes extremely similar
wait. Jesus DOES NOT say "get behind me Satan" when Peter calls Him the Messiah. Jesus says "don't tell anybody." how can Tabor make such a mistake?
Didn’t Jesus say, “Get behind me Satan!” when Peter attempted to dissuade him from taking the way of the cross? (Mark 8:33)
@@brunoborer7038 yes
we were talking about when and why he said it
Great intro to the course. As an atheist secular humanist cultural Xian I am finally digging into Biblical scholarship. So important to examine these texts in multiple scholarly contexts & reclaim from fundamentalists & white Xian supremacists. Its my heritage too! Will def sign up.
btw I took a New Testament course in college, we studied Bultmann etc - but I really didn't get it til I found Mythvision & started listening + ordering books & studying. Ty
@@JC-vq2cs Only recently have I decided to go for an academic career as a historian of religion and it's definitely a game changer. There is so much work to do not only academically but also in passing down this knowledge to the public.
The one thing that most scholars don't realize is that Jesus christ is real and the text that they read is based on real evidence that happened, and even Jesus christ himself talked about scholars but yet some scholars don't see the truth, they know information but don't know the truth.
What is the point of information if you don't have Jesus christ?
@@jesuschristislord9013 There’s a lot of Harry Potter fan fiction out there but sadly so far not many fans have accepted their scholarships to Hogwarts won for them by Harry Potter’s ultimate victory over Voldemort. What’s the point of Jesus if he’s no longer giving us information? Because Good Wizard believes in all of us and tells us in his Holy Text :
“ We have victory in Harry Potter, who defeated Voldemort and opened the gates of the magic world for all.” (Proseletarians 4:20)
If we accept Harry Potter’s sacrifice and resurrection as payment of our tuition, Good Wizard will give us his word magic via his magic Word, don’t let anti-magic religious propenda prevent you from accepting this offer of free education in the magic world to come. Good Wizard doesn’t do the whole send ppl to hell thing bcuz he figures ppl in our world will see this great deal and naturally want to go to the magic world to leave this one and it’s problems behind.
I have a doubt I have read the mark for the reference. But I coubt not find Jesus rebuking peter for calling him christ. Can anyone help me with that
I was raised fundamentalist Christian-JW and they definitely love that and rely on “only God is good” because they are Unitarians vs. trinitarians.
Jehova’s Witnesses is not Christian. It’s a pseudo-Christian cult.
@@debblouin haha! Exactly what the JWs said about all other so-called christians. Now that I am no longer religious, I find it highly amusing to see Christians declaring who is and isn't a real Christian--and of course they each have the corrct answer which cancels out the others. haha
If there is a course that I am not going to take, it is this one. It grossly misrepresents the gospel of Mark.
Love what you’re doing on this channel, Derek! I survived the Satanic Panic as a child in a Pentecostal household, and never accepted that I needed a “savior” in the first place, so I was persona non grata. It’s good that some are able to see that books are the work of men, and as such, they direct us to worship the ideas and work of *men.* Men have no spiritual authority over women, they’ve only claimed it by force. Women are the source of human life! Please stop hating that *fact,* those who continue to do so! ☮️❤️🐾
There is no such thing as ‘spiritual authority’ otherwise I agree completely. No one has authority over anyone, noone is inherently more or less worthy to live. Nature is amoral. Nature is cruel. Noone asked to be born into this world and only the individual may decide if their life is worth living.
Noone has the right to prescribe to anyone how they should live their life. Lets not forsake god yet cling on to his vices.
@@lorencalfe6446 @Loren Calfe A tremendous amount of authority is and has been *claimed,* rather illegitimately by male violence. Those who say Nature is cruel are coming from an emotional place, as that is an irrational statement, not one of fact. They have been poisoned by the irrational belief in male supremacy, and those beliefs have consequences for everyone, *particularly* women. Misogyny is men saying, “Waaaah! Nature isn’t fair to me!” It’s filled the Earth with their violence, and the world’s oceans with their profitable (to them) garbage. I *refuse* to worship man or his god(s).
@@tumblebugspace if you studied nature you would realize it is cruel. Patriarchal instinct and tribalism are products of nature. Nature is unthinking, cruel, amoral and regressive.
For most of history humans have been primitive, cannibalistic, patriarchal, instinct driven ape men.
Naturalistic fallacy is the way of unthinking beasts, nature has no authority in matters of ethics and morality.
To deify nature is to embrace the vices of god.
@@tumblebugspace Saying nature is cruel is not irrational; god is nature. God is irrational.
that is where the term naturalistic fallacy comes from.
It is in human nature to be tribalistic, cannibalistic, patriarchal, polygynous, etc. Of course you may paradoxically believe those things to be good as you have forsaken gods but continue to embrace the vices of gods. Nothing in the universe is worth worshipping. Thre is no such thing as a sentient cause.
Stars are not sentient and we are all stardust, to believe any human convention or person to be authoritative is the folly of humanity.
Noone asked to be born into this world. Treat others as they would like to be treated not how you think they should be treated.
Nature is cruel, if cruelty is defined as inequity, suffering, attrition, deprivation, and pain.
Noone is inherently more worthy to live. Noone gets to decide another person’s worth.
What a complete intentional misrepresentation of Mark 8:30 @5:00
Why did the chicken cross the road joke is funny because the answer "to get to the other side" can mean the chicken was suicidal and wanted to get to the afterlife (the other side).
Several rather glaring inaccuracies here. By far the most egregious is stating that Jesus says to Peter 'Get thee behind me Satan' when Peter says that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah). That's completely wrong. Jesus says that to Peter when Peter argues with Jesus about him having to die and rise again after three days (Mark 8:27-33). I won't be attending Dr Tabor's course.
Tabor is amazing in all his videos.
He should sell his notes or keep doing niche type of courses like this
"Go your way, tell the disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there you shall see him"
But they didn't tell the disciples (according to verse 8) or anybody else !
If they didn't tell anybody, how does the author know ? Duh !
@Mike JJJ
Yeah, you're right. That's what happened.
Ironic that Mark being the original Gospel is referred to as being anti gospel.
And Luke and Matthew copied nearly all of it, often word-for-word.
My confession. Hear o Israel, the Lord thy God, is One. Not 2 or 3. Get it?!?
@Amadeos-Salvadore Christianity’s greatest self inflicted wound; the trinity. Polytheist in disguise
My point is not the amount of persons that you worship, but it is more than one. You missed the point
It raises the question on why this book was canonized! There may be a clever reason behind it. My curiosity is piqued now, I need to take this course.
Tabor grossly misrepresents the exchange between Jesus and Peter. Jesus's 'Satan' comment is a response to St. Peter reprimanding Jesus for what he says must happen to the Son of Man, not about Peter affirming Jesus is the Messiah at all, as is plain to even a casual reader of Mark 8:27-33.
Satan only operates in "darkness", he has NO "revelation" from GOD, because God IS LIGHT. Therefore, Dr. Tabor Phd. ".... will keep on going from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves." (2nd Timothy 3:13)
PRAYERS 🤷
💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏
@@7Truth7Wins7
PRAYERS 🤷
🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔
Also, Tabor's assertion that the Son of Man of Daniel is the people of God is itself quite debatable. Even the rabbinic commentators that he so admires, like Rashi, affirm that the Son of Man in that passage is the king Messiah, and it's not clear at all that the author of Daniel intended it to be understood merely as God's people.
That whole Daniel scene is essentially based on older Canaanite Baal cycle myth and in some works, even suggested in daniel, many think it’s Michael the archangel, israel, Enoch, or Moses……point being, the cloud rider gaining or ascending to kingship over the older deity is Canaanite Baal cycle and has survived and evolved thru time
@@sergeantstime5529
Yes, it's apparently related to the notion of heavenly counterparts in ancient near eastern belief, and in that sense, it would refer to an individual. As you say, there are historical critical scholars who see it as referring to an individual (Like John Collins, Peter Schafer), namely the angel Michael, rather than to a collective of people.
Mark 8:30 And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him. this verse says nothing about Satan. Professor Tabor needs to reread the text.
" Professor Tabor needs to reread the text."..No he doesn't, he is a LIAR and LIARS do what they do "deliberately". He is a mouthpiece of SATAN to deceive the masses about the Truth of OUR SAVIOR JESUS THE CHRIST so that they will not be saved.
"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.": (Luke 8:11,12)
Steadfast and remain with your Christian Faith... Satan/Devil is trying hard to destroy the Integrity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness of the Word of God (Biblical TRUTH)... Amen...
Prayers!🤷
🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔
Mark's view is not that Peter's confession is inspired by Satan. Read Mark 8:27-33 and you'll see that Peter is rebuked for his insistence that Jesus must not suffer or die. The view inspired by Satan is Jesus without the cross. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ is prior to this and nobody would interpret the text the way he is suggesting. It's just nonsense.
If you can't call Jesus good you can't call him God. Perfectly said. ✅✅✅
Luckily we can call him both. He asked the why do you call me good Question, to tell the man that if he stands by what he says he is calling him God, which the man did not reject.
@@yochelu8595 Jesus also prayed to himself. Luckily. Jesus also cried out for help to himself. Luckily. We can make Jesus into anything we want. Luckily. ✅✅✅
Man I'm 5 minutes in and I've heard two obvious misreads already. I urge anyone who reads this to read the texts yourself, because it's very obvious that this guy is quite wrong.
1. The young man, who is said to wear white clothes, did not say that Jesus was 'taken away' or 'taken up'. Rather, the verb ηγερθη means 'to waken' or 'to raise'.
2. Then he talks about the confession of Peter, where he claims that Jesus said to Peter "Get behind me, satan." in response to Peter answering Jesus with "You are the Christ". This is blatantly false and very obvious so as well. Jesus responds to Peter with a warning not to tell anyone about the answer of Peter. That's it. That's the response of Jesus to Peter calling him Christ. Now later on, Jesus talks about how he will be rejected by many people and names a few groups. After that is when Peter takes Jesus aside and rebuked Jesus and THEN Jesus says 'Go away, Satan.'. So it's the protests of Peter that Jesus responds to when he tells Satan to go away. But the response to "You are the Christ" is simply "Don't tell anyone".
To be reading these things as anything different is just, I don't know. It's quite the misread. It's quite hard to take the rest of the video seriously after such a massive and obvious misread.
The two witnesses are the two olive trees and two lampstands. A lampstand represents the true Congregation of Christ (Rev 1), and an olive tree also represents God's people (Rom 11). The link between the two is that as the Congregation walks in obedience they bear fruit (olives) which provides the oil which keeps their lamp lit. I believe that the two witnesses are therefore two obedient groups,one that will walk in the spirit and power of Moses and one that will walk in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
This man is wrong about Mark, Peter's confession was not rebuked by Jesus. Mark 8:29-33 reads like this:... And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” jesus only rebuked Peter from trying to stop the passion from being fulfilled, the text assumes jesus agreed that he is the Christ, he just wanted his identity hidden for a while as is the theme in the other Gospels. Matthew 12:15-21, 16:13-20
Jesus told Peter to get behind me Satan only after Peter rebuke him from going to Jerusalem to die not cause he was the christ
Peter was expecting glory. He was expecting his coronation as the messiah they were actually expecting. Jesus wasn't that guy.
Yup. I think Tabor went off track there.
He rebuked him because Peter was expecting a physical kingdom when in reality it was a spiritual kingdom. Satan simply mean’s Adversary in Hebrew.
@@Vina_Ravyn Exactly. Meaning, Jesus could not have been the Messiah of the OT.
Peter, as a jew, knew what Tanach taught, and was of course familiar with the consensus around what the Messiah's suppose to do. His role, mission and plan. And this includes Isaiah's readings of chapters of 7 and 53. So why was Peter even opposed to the idea of Jesus suffering? Surely he had to have known these things should/were happen to the Messiah?
I think this whole narrative gives us a clear indication that within the orthodoxy of Judaism there's always been a universal view of the concept of Messiah and the interpretation of the texts thereof.
@@chadrocks4497it's not that clear cut. Jews were divided both on how many messiahs there were, what happened, and what his origins were. This comes up a handful of times. Peter seems to have understood the messiah as Jews today would. John and even Caiphus had a two messiah theory. What's called Yosef/David or Aaron(priest) and David(king). Mark focuses on his role as the Isaiah 53 servant.
Tabor has some bizarre theories, but he's not a terrible scholar overall. He's far better than many of the folks Derek regularly has on. But, if he doesn't show you how even some of the better unbelieving scholars often get things wildly wrong, I don't know what will. The idea that Mark is saying that Peter's confession is inspired by Satan is eisegesis at its worst.
Yes absolutely more than a stretch. Disproven simply by reading the text at face value. Jesus says he needs to die etc. Then Peter says no you don’t need to die and that’s when Jesus says get behind me satan because the disciples don’t understand that Jesus needed to suffer and die and be raised again
@@macrofuture Thank you! My goodness, some of this stuff is just so not as complicated as people make it!!
Prayers!! 🤷
🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔
Prayers!🤷🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏
Thank you very much for pointing me to the Book of Mark. I did just what you said I avoided the Book of Mark these 35 years because the other gospels. Now going get right to it😊😊😊
Just as the Professor said, i too love to, metaphorically and literally, dig into the past to the beginnings or origins of something. A couple of years ago i was a digger on archaeological sites up in the north of Scotland, on Neolithic sites like The Ness of Brodgar Neolithic Temple. I’ll be doing it some more this year but i’m very into learning the academic aspects of ancient and pre-historical eras. I particularly am fascinated with Theology and as an atheist treat it as a unique insight into pre-Roman & Roman society, particularly the Hebrews and early christians. So i’ll be looking to sign up for this course. I’m looking forward to it.
I have a question, what do you do with the arrests of the disciples? Peter is arrested for healing a cripple, is that part of the myth? Did it happen?
@@koppite9600 Probably not. I’m thinking it was probably a trumped up charge in order to arrest him. If that even happened at all. Who’s to say? There are no official records or truly independent sources to corroborate the story.
@@Armyjay how can an enemy trump up charges that you healed a man? I accuse you of doing good?
My claim is that, stories like these are 'subconsciously' true and therefore we can trust them. Read how Peter defended himself before the Sanhedrin for healing a cripple, it's not a myth and it has no way of being a myth, unless these disciples had modern cia, mossad intelligence to dupe their audience.
We dont need official records because we are examining the subconscious of the story to see if they are false, for me it passes.
@@koppite9600 It was considered by the Temple Priests to be blasphemous and by the Romans an act of sedition because only the Emperor (a living “God” in their cult) should be able to perform “miracles” such as healing…. however they normally would ignore such trivial things but as with Jesus himself they wanted to arrest Peter and they used the above mentioned pretext for that purpose.
@@Armyjay Peter accepted the charges.
Do you then agree Peter healed that man or where is the myth? Or why would he accept false charges?
The Gospels are Roman humor. "Who would write a gospel like that?"
The problem is State-Chattel are conditioned to justice for all & voting in a democracy & a constitution designed to undermine it, in a country of too big to fail, inherited wealth & endless wars.
It is said, "If men were angels, government would not be necessary" But I say, If men were not State-Chattel, then governments would not be tolerated.
A still tongue makes a happy life, "My chattel knows what I tell them", "My sheep hear My voice", it makes a point to "render to Caesar"
How many Johns & Marys do you need in a few pages to understand it is Larry, his brother Daryl, and his other brother Daryl.
Two questions: (1) Is it possible that the early Church fathers saw at least some of the problems with "Mark" and that's why it's second in order in the NT even though the shortest Gospel would seem logically to go first? (2) And why did they include it AT ALL in the canon when Matthew and Luke have essentially the same skeleton but "better" beginnings and endings and therefore "better" (to them) theology?
Christians never read.
Besides it seems like satan has to tell the truth about his lies.
I'm not a scholar, but as an author, Matthew has the best intro for a church keen to show it has ancient authority.
The Gospels that were included in the canon were selected because they supported one another. Many writings were NOT included in the Gospels because they didn't fit with the Church Father's preferred theology. For example, in one of the Gnostic Gospels, there is a story which strongly suggests that Jesus had a sexual encounter with an adolescent male.
@@efandmk3382 which gnostic gospel suggests that???? I would like to reference it...
@@efandmk3382 , it doesn't seem that Mark really supports the other Gospels, though, that's what Dr. Tabor is laying out. My suspicion is that some influential group of early Christians had had only Mark for decades, then when the canon was settled on the choice was either include Mark or alienate that group. So in it went. That's just a guess.
You are wrong about Mark chapter 8:29-33. Peter was not rebuked for his confession that Jesus was the "messiah", he was rebuked because he tried to talk Jesus out of doing what would eventually get him crucified. The text is clear on that point.
EXACTLY !! Also, the reason Peter did NOT receive the Truth from Jesus that He was going to be killed is that, the "Truth" did not come as a super-natural "Revelation" from the Father, as it did when Peter declared that Jesus is the Christ. That is the difference. TRUTH can only be "Revealed" by GOD to a person, through "spiritual communication" or Revelation. "Flesh and Blood has NOT revealed this to you Peter, but my Father who is in Heaven". When "men" declare something that is TRUE, from natural mouth to natural ear, it is not REALITY to our spirit, like God directly speaking to us BY HIS SPIRIT.
The most embarrassing part of the gospel is the one where Jesus tells people to take up the cross when he hasn't been crucified yet. The cross at that time was a symbol of insurrection against Rome and Jesus was in opposition to insurrection against Rome saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Obviously a mistake or maybe left there as a clue to the reality of the Roman-Parthian War, which was what it is all really about.
You don't know what it means when Jesus says "Give unto Caesar." You read things at the visible surface of things.
It's all Caesar. Every tax payment. Every fine. Every kick up to the mob boss.
Jesus speaks of a paradigm, a world you will never know. The coin is the hook in the cheek to your world.
You don't know what it means when Jesus says "Give unto Caesar." You read things at the visible surface of things.
It's all Caesar. Every tax payment. Every fine. Every kick up to the mob boss.
Jesus speaks of a paradigm, a world you will never know. The coin is the hook in the cheek to your world.
@@johnpettigrew83 I been saying "It's all about the shekels" for decades but the comment is more about the embarrassing mistake Jesus is said to have made by telling people to take up the cross before the cross is even considered as a Christian trademark ™.....
Jesus promised that some of his disciples would “not taste death at all” until they had first seen “the Son of man coming in his kingdom,” or “the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mt 16:28; Mr 9:1) This promise was fulfilled “six days later” when Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus into “a lofty mountain” (Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2; Lu 9:28) where, while praying, Jesus was transfigured before them.
The apostle Peter viewed the transfiguration as a marvelous confirmation of the prophetic word, and by having been an eyewitness of Christ’s magnificence, he was able to acquaint his readers “with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Pe 1:16, 19) The apostle had experienced the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that some of his followers would “not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mr 9:1) The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.
Tabor has an interesting perspective. But I think that the Peter is Satan thing doesn't have much weight in the text. Satan is just a way of saying what is being said there: stumbling block. No need for wild associations. It's a dramatic way of saying: you are wrong. Peter is too much entangled with human concerns, there, and not with the godly perspective. It's a big deal in the context. But the term Satan is no big deal here. Jesus is a bit rude, like I am, you bottom-feeders! Stop marinading in that crap. I understand that many people on this channel have been Christians. I have rejected these ramblings since I was a child because I'm intellectually honest: I have no idea what you all are mumbling about and neither do you all. That is even in the text. I must be blessed. Or I'm pleasantly objective. The devil is a stumbling block and Peter means rock. These ideas are stitched together here is my strong impression. Jesus is going to battle the status quo. Peter is like: chill dude. Jesus tells him to f off. I think that sums it up.
Mark is by far my favorite! Looking forward to learning more from Dr. Tabor.
Only looked at the ESV version of Mark but I don't read that Jesus rebuked anyone for calling him good, as Dr Tabor claims at around 11m in. Jesus asks the question 'why do you call me good'. Maybe someone can enlighten me. At first listening and reading Dr Tabor seems to be twisting the story, just like matthew and luke.
To me this is serious stuff, if true. BTW I am not a christian believer anymore.
Thanks for the upload though.
It might be in an original Greek, but the current translations do not tell the story like it is in the earliest texts.
@@PoeLemic Looked at many translations. They all say the words *why* do you call me good. Please provide original Greek and your translation to substantiate this claim.
Prayers!!🤷
💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏💔🙏
It's not when Cephas says you are the christ, but rather after he denies the foretelling of his death, that the christ calls him satan. It's because Cephas wants his will and not God's will.
Professor Tabor is knowledgeable. He is also fantastically engaging, and very pleasant to hear/watch. Of all the courses offered recently, this one is insta-buy!
Mark really is problematic for Christians. It was the book of Mark that put the final nail in the coffin for Christianity as I saw it. Mark reads like a Greek play, a clue to its origins. I regard Mark as the only gospel or Jesus story because all the others are embellished to the point of being obviously so. And the gospel of John was an early church fabrication to try and correct errors and establish a new theology and timeline around the Jesus character.
Prof. Tabor makes some very good points here.
Excellent video Derek.
For me, all the synoptics are very much problematic.
@dion5804 Yeah, I haven't read them in a while, so in no expert. But Matthew especially seems to say the way into the Kingdom of God is to care for the suffering. Or to try to ease suffering. The parable of the goats and the weeds really seems to cast doubt on the whole saved by faith alone, or at all thing. I'm starting to get the idea as a whole the Bible contains three separate religions.
I can understand the inconsistency of the gospels, but I was told that Jesus saying “why are you calling me good? there is none good but God” was meant to be a demonstration of how good “supposedly” god is compared to man. However, the problem with the gospel is you can interpret it any way you want.
Maybe I’m confused but the get behind me Satan comment was after Jesus says he would have to die and Peter didn’t believe it then Jesus said get behind me Satan. What am I missing? I looked up mark and get behind me Satan isn’t in context with Peter confessing Jesus is messiah but in relation to Peter not believing he just die??? Help.. what am I reading wrong?
I think the idea is that if Peter was inspired by Satan at least once can we trust anything else Peter says?
A disturbing thought.
Hello Marilyn, You are a REAL woman of God because you searched the scriptures to see whether or not James D. Tabor PhD, who has the "anti-christ" spirit, was telling the truth or not. Just as you pointed out, "Dr. Tabor" has taken the Holy Scriptures out of context, which is what Jesus says is Satan's job to do.
As you so perfectly stated, when Jesus said "Get behind me Satan", this was in context to when Jesus told Peter by mouth, that He was about to go Jerusalem and be rejected and be killed,...NOT when Peter said, "You are the Christ".
I would like to share something with you about the difference between these 2 portions of scriptures.
When Peter said to Jesus "You are Christ", it was because the Father spoke to Peter super-naturally, by "spiritual" communication, which is what is what we call "Revelation". This is why Peter received the message.
In the other portion of scripture, Jesus tells Peter by his own physical "mouth", that He is going to be killed, which is "natural" communication, and this is why Peter rejected the Word.
Remember what Jesus said when He taught the Parable of the "Sower Sows the Word" ? When we hear God's Word from another human being in the natural realm, it comes to us in SEED FORM, NOT "Revelation" form, which happens AFTER the seed falls into Good ground and grows to full maturity
""And these are the ones by the wayside where the word of God is sown. When they hear the Word of God, Satan comes immediately and TAKES AWAY THE WORD that was sown in their hearts." (Mark 4:15)
This is the reason why Peter "rejected" the Word of God at the mouth of Jesus, and why Jesus recognized that it was SATAN stealing the Word out of his heart.
Blessings be to you Marilyn, for God has given you great spiritual discernment and "eyes to see". I hope that you will continue to "expose" the lies of the devil on TH-cam. Take Care.
You are so right! The spirit behind what these two are saying is not right! Get behind me Satan was Satan's attempt to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross, his highest purpose in his earthly life.
Jesus was being humble not to be called as good. It would be very ego of Jesus if he claim himself as good/God.
Great observation. But the "so-called" Dr. Tabor Phd. claimed at 11:43 of the video, that Jesus said, quote, "Don't call me God", which is a lie from HELL !!
Bro, that's just wild man, makes me afaird of taking/watching his course, fear of becoming an atheist or something:) LOL!
It seems very interesting though, and reading each book of the Bible, as a complete separate stand alone book is something I've never done exactly. I think most every day Christian hasn't done either, in-fact treating the Bible like that would probably make Christianity fall.
in the Christian communities they practice the exchange of writings, and to the Gospel, that is, the preaching of basic things, the subsequent deepening is added. you can see this in most of the Pauline epistles which assume that the readers were already evangelized. in addition, take into account that there was a time when there was no Christian writing. the life of the Church represented the New Testament. The Gospels should not be separated from their presence IN THE CHURCH, because that's what the academics do, then they wonder why they seem out of context?! because they are.
Jesus didn't say "Get the behind me, Satan" to Peter in response to Peter declaring that he was the Messiah. There, Jesus merely instructs the disciples to keep it under their hats He says it in response to Peter's rebuking him for predicting his own arrest, torture and execution. Pretty important distinction, I'd say--especially when Jesus refers to HIMSELF as the Son of Man.:
"Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
Jesus Predicts His Death
31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
The content on this channel lately has been amazing.
I need to rewatch everything and take notes.
sometimes i think it depends on the scholar. They need to sell detailed notes for every video
I think Tim Keller’s understanding of Mark in “Kings Cross “ more full of hope and truth. 😊
Say what you like about the Gospels and Epistles at least they are good for capitalism, generating a seemingly endless convoy of critical books and videos. 😊
It could be argued they helped invent capitalism. Being that they endorse and have been a justification for slavery. The development from mercantilism to capitalism is intrinsically tied to the slave trade. You can't have one without the other. Power is the motive, god is the justification, capitalism is the end result. Well, fascism is the end result. But capitalism is the intermediary mode.
What's good for capitalism is the passive aggressive mule-workers that buy into Jesus, & after life redemption. That's what good for who controlled the means of production... books? Haha!
@@rainbowkrampus here here
I love listening to Dr. Tabor talk. But Jesus told his deciples not to tell anyone he was the Messiah. He rebuked Peter for saying he would not die in Jerusalem. That what the words on the page state. That is a hell of an error for someone looking to sell a corse
You nailed it !! This s"so-called" Phd. is one big LIAR !!
Your guest seems to be guilty of doing the very same thing in this talk as those he criticizes. He says people run to Matthew, Luke and John to find answers to the difficulties found in "embarrassing" Mark and that the other Gospels were written to "overwrite" Mark. But it sounds like he's saying Mark, by not explaining everything, is running away from Matthew, Luke and John, as a sort of stick in the eye of believers in the divinity of Jesus, even as anti-Christian. In spite of the fact that Mark was written before the others. It is an argument from silence, as I see it. Can't anyone see Mark's wonder at Jesus and his being in absolute awe of him? In my opinion you have to really put the blinders on and turn off all literary imagination not to see how Mark is proclaiming the divinity of Jesus.
Mark proclaims what Mark believes to be important. Miracle birth…not important. Post resurrection appearances and dialogue …not important. Mark doesn’t know or doesn’t include some remarkable details. The faithful may claim it doesn’t matter and it seems Mark would agree. So much for keep Christ in Christmas, one less thing to argue about.
Every Christian needs to know that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke were based on it !
Yes. And one other thing about that, not "based on" as in, coming from and consistent with, but "overwritten" as tabor says, in order to alter the parts that were embarrassing and heretical. And Paul's writings , I think, are earlier, not only also heretical, but astonishingly seeming unaware of any narrative of Jesus' life.
Matthew and Luke plagiarized a total of 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew contains 94% of Mark's material; Luke contains 88% of Mark's material.
Mark contains a total of 11,025 words, and only 132 are unique to him.
Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark.
John was written later and 92% of the material was unique.
@@TWitherspoon Yup ! And the fact stands that almost none of the material they present can be verified as being true! Given the thirty years that passed between the events and the writing of the gospels, all kinds of stories about Jesus could have been invented. So, it's no surprise that they contradict each other. . . some of them so outlandishly that they were left out of the canon.
2023 years later, and no one knows how to interpret the bible corretly so people can follow it to the letter. That's what's truly embarrassing.
All of that could be clarified by god sitting for a five-minute interview on CNN.
Kindly read the of Mark your self to verify what he saying is truth or not
Unfortunately, most will NOT read the Bible for THEMSELVES....
"For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them." (John 5:43)
I believe Yeshua was indicating those referenced Disciples would remain on the Wheel of Re-incarnation, until the Spirit does return?
IT IS WRITTEN...."And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,..." (Hebrews 9:27)
I won't say that I believe that the bible is inspired even less the Word of God but Read Marc 8 for real (or is it an unknown squizzed version of this chapter that most don't know about)... Because the reason why Jesus said "get behind me, Satan" is quiet obvious (I've put those verses below for you to look it up right after) is because Peter (who likes Jesus) was actually asking Jesus to forget about this part of the mission... HE WAS ATTACHED TO THE MAN JESUS (which is understandable) it's like saying don't do what you came here to do... So of course the answer makes sense... Who doesn't want Jesus to accomplish what he has to do (here go through) the OPPONENT....
What version of those scriptures is the man on the video talking about? The one we know is ... Well read for yourself:
29“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.” 30And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him.
31Then
He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke this message quite frankly, and Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.33But Jesus, turning and looking at His disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
I'm not even going to try to debunk everything that man said to assess his statements... Because maybe the premisses is missing (which version of Mark is he talking about?)... if we are talking about the same, that means that he missunderstood thoses scriptures.
Beautifully said and explained brother .
I look at Mark from a literary perspective. Mark is telling the story of the resurrected Christ through the story of Jesus of Nazareth. So, in a nutshell, when the gospel ends at Chapter 16:8, with the women running away from the empty tomb in sheer fright, the reader is forced to re-read the gospel and "see" that the resurrected Christ is doing all of these miracles and healings and exorcisms in the church of Mark, but is presented as a narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Sounds like Dr Tabor is teaching what I got from my reading. I won't say what it is to spoil it but I am really digging where Dr Tabor is leading ... *popcorn*
To me, the reason for Christ's rebuking Peter seems plainly obvious in both Mark 8 and Matthew 16. In both books, Christ proclaims to His disciples that He must suffer and die, Peter takes issue with this. Whether it is the "rebuke" in Mark or His more comforting words in Matthew makes no difference. He puts the lowest label He can on not recognizing the miracle that is Christ's sacrifice and our forgiveness. Then He tells Peter that he is not orientated toward God. Is there something that doesn't make sense here?
So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:28 NASB2020
“Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except God alone?” Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were thinking that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you thinking about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-He *said to the paralyzed man, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet, and go home.”
Mark 2:7-11 NASB2020
This is getting ridiculous. I don't care if you have a different interpretation than someone else but the fact that you have to ignore verses and take things out of context is amazing evidence that you have no clue what is being taught in Mark. Do you have no integrity? I'm not trying to say that christianity is true, but how can you educate anyone about a text with such a distorted view. This is worse than a preacher twisting the meaning to inspire the congregation. You are doing the exact same thing. Taking verses out of context or ignoring verses to try to inspire your audience and totally misrepresenting the text. Shameful
... Actually, although it does happen within a couple of verses "Who do you think I am." Jesus does not say get thee behind me Satan for
that answer. “You are the [a]Christ.” 30 And He [b]warned them to tell no one about Him.
31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on [c]God’s purposes, but on man’s.”
Jesus tells them to no one. Then Jesus begins to teach them he/Jesus must suffer. Only then Peter takes Jesus aside and tries to change his mind. Jesus then publicly disavow
his line of thought. Not going through would be self preservation, dying on the cross is the reason he came. As a believing christian, I like Mark because we get behind the scene glimpses.
like “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him unto Me.” Jesus is reacting like any parent. You love
your children to death (literally) but their are days! ... so no Jesus did not say to Peter " Get thee behind me Satan" for confessing him, but he does tell his disciple not to announce it ... yet
And He continued questioning them: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” And He warned them to tell no one about Him. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but on man’s.”
Mark 8:29-33 NASB2020
Sounds like a great course. What do you just skip 2 verses every now and then to create a new narrative. When you take verses out of context or ignore them you can make the story whatever you want. Peter did not get rebuked for calling him the messiah. Give me a break.
This mostly comes across as promo for their course but it's also full of very shoddy scholarship and terrible exegesis. There are too many to spend my time on but since it was in the teaser I'll address just one.
In order to come to the conclusion that Peter's confession of Jesus was influenced by satan you have to skip three verses and switch contexts.
Jesus wasn't responding to Peter's confession (he had already done that) he was responding to Peter's rebuke (8:32) and attempt to change Jesus plan. In general if Mark's Gospel was embarrassing or somehow incrocnguent with orthodoxy why on earth would it be in the Cannon at all? Don't waste your money on anything these guys are selling.
The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.
What I don't understand is how Mark obtained the information to compose the 'Gospel According to Mark'; he wasn't one of the original 12 Apostles. Mark was a student of Peter. So when we read the Gospel of Mark, are we not reading what Mark was told by Peter? And we think Peter was martyred circa 65ad in Rome. So Mark had go on memory if his gospel was written after 70ad, and he was probably already in Alexandria and away from others who would have known Peter.
Another point:
Peter wasn't at the crucifixion. Only John. Remember, Peter forsook Jesus three times before the cock crowed on the day of crucifixion and he left Jesus in fear and/or shame. So Mark ended the gospel at the crucifixion and in dramatic fashion, "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsake Me?" which may have been an embellishment. Nonetheless, it was the best he could do on memory and with second-hand information.
So in other words this is a telephone game from generations ago🤔💭
They've done memory experiments and found that not two people remember the same event the same way, and a lot of facts are forgotten over time 🤷
Taking that into account who knows of any of them gospels are true other than gossip 🤔💭 might be why Jesus told you to keep your faith and beliefs in your closet, meaning keep your beliefs to yourself 🤷 do maybe Jesus didn't say and it's all a LIE started from Rome to take over more Countries 🤔💭
Like Q is today a psyop MKULTRA experiment by the Philippine Government 😳
There are miracle men all over the world who can do everything Jesus did to the last word. There are yogis in India who can conjure fire from thin air. The problem is christians don't want to see things beyond Jesus. Any other miracle man would be called a hoax and humiliated instead of learning the science behind it.
There are plenty stories in the Bible of sorcerers able to perform many miracles.
None of them brought people back to life though.
Do the miracle men of today bring people back to life?
And many Christians might dismiss miracles, but what does this take away from the Bible?
Perhaps the story of Jesus in Mark is to illustrate that God alone is good, God alone has all of the power, including the power of performing the miracles and the power of life and death. Jesus never had any power, it was God alone working through Jesus. May God guide us. Peace
How is it not special pleading to justify cognitive dissonance emerging when significant differences among Gospel Narratives are revealed? Mark’s Gospel is right according to Mark and John is right according to John. Significant Disagreements may require the faithful to splice together one true story, but clearly, we just have Different stories, sorry. The Gospels aren’t above criticism, at the end of the day-it’s just ancient literature.
Authors got away with anything.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 If they splice together 4 gospels for their narrative, they have essentially written an entirely new Gospel. But to throw out the baby with the bathwater isn't the solution either. Their polytheistic bias invasively overwrites the truth. I think God sends information through certain people, but it always gets distorted by the desires of others. God is the only One capable of being a god. Others disagree. Peace.
@@jefftaylor19 Hi Jeff. How does one determine that an individual is relating something from an eternal and self aware consciousness that exists independently from the human mind? People write books … this is self evident. What’s the evidence of a supernatural source…how does that work?
The reason the chicken joke is funny is because he's actually suicidal and wants to get to the "other side"
Consider this: Mark is so short because Peter was crucified. Mark then went to visit John. John added, or suggested the additional verses based upon his witness of Christ.
Mark was apparently written for a community or groups traumatized by the war with Rome. Also as MacDonald shares, it is heavily influenced by the story of Hector. Before High Christology developed, the stripped down bluntness of Mark makes perfect sense.
This guy is wrong I just looked it up where Peter confesses that he is the Christ and Jesus Christ is simply says to "tell no man" I think that he's mixing up the Mount of transfiguration when he tells Peter get thee behind me Satan the problem that I have with this guy's that he's not reading the Bible right in front of us
Christian Greeks could more easily evolve their religion by creating new stories
than by revising the earliest story, which had already been established in the Jewish phase of christianity.
Besides the earliest NT story was associated with the hated Marcionite sect.
Low quality content.in the Christian communities they practice the exchange of writings, and to the Gospel, that is, the preaching of basic things, the subsequent deepening is added. you can see this in most of the Pauline epistles which assume that the readers were already evangelized. in addition, take into account that there was a time when there was no Christian writing. the life of the Church represented the New Testament. The Gospels should not be separated from their presence IN THE CHURCH, because that's what the academics do, then they wonder why they seem out of context?! because they are.
I've always had a problem with the NT where it is clear that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark and all borrowed from the OT in order to create their stories rather than reporting events that actually happened. Mark also comes across as a rough draft and sound similar to the story of Zeus and Hercules where Hercules eventually learns who his Father is and his mission. If Jesus happens to be the Son of God and had a mission here on earth, I am skeptical of the Bible's version due to the appearance of reverse engineering Jesus from the OT, where the verses are usually about Israel but they substitute Jesus. Even the famous Isaiah 53 sound more like Israel than the character of Jesus created.
Interestingly enough, from the chapter of Mark that Tabor is talking about, where Jesus is predicting his own death, it seems it comes from the Book of wisdom, which provides one of the best propechies for jesus, a book that is in the apocryphal outside of catholicism and orthodoxy.
The whole idea of prophecy being fulfilled WOULD look like reverse engineering. There's no way around that.
Isaiah 53 isn't and can't be about Israel. The very idea that it was didn't even appear until the 1100s a.d. Isaiah 53 isn't fulfilled though. It's about the suffering servant, yes, but it's main issue is Israel realizing and comong to believe in him. Thats future.
_"...it is clear that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark..."_
Correct.
Matthew and Luke plagiarized a total of 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew contains 94% of Mark's material; Luke contains 88% of Mark's material.
Mark contains a total of 11,025 words, and only 132 are unique to him.
Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark.
John was written later and 92% of the material was unique.
@@TWitherspoon Originally when I read Luke, I thought he had also borrowed from Matthew but later found out that scholars simply believe they shared another unknown source.
Tabor missed a few early church references, in this interview & others as well.
For example, Papias writes about John the Elder: "And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately...as much as he remembered."
Clement of Alexandria also reports that "Mark...followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been said." Memory recall from following Mark for "a long time" would have likely been very accurate.
In addition to Peter learning of a published edition of Mark's Gospel, who later "approved it and authorized it to be read" (See Jerome), John the Elder (likely John the Apostle) would have been in a position to also authenticate the accuracy of Peter's reporting.
I am sure that James will not mention the subject of the imitation of the Old Testament and of the letters of Paul in Mark. Too bad, it's the most interesting subject and it allows to classify this text in the NOVELS section.
@@mil401 You can call it a "fictional biography" and not a "novel" if the term disturbs you.