Proof Paul Didn't Write 1, 2 Timothy And Titus! | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2023
- @bartdehrman
ehrmanblog.org/tag/pastoral-e...
www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing...
Bart D. Ehrman, the New York Times bestselling author of Jesus, Interrupted and God’s Problem reveals which books in the Bible’s New Testament were not passed down by Jesus’s disciples, but were instead forged by other hands-and why this centuries-hidden scandal is far more significant than many scholars are willing to admit.
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on The Genius of the Gospel Of Matthew - What Scholars Say About the First Gospel!
historyvalley--ehrman.thrivec...
👉Sign up and join Dr. Jodi Magness on an enthralling archaeological journey through Jesus' world!
historyvalley--ehrman.thrivec...
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on the scribal corruption of scripture!
historyvalley--ehrman.thrivec...
👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
👉Sign up for Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course on Paul The Apostle!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
👉Sign up for Dr. Kipp Davis's course on the Real Israelite Religions!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on the Gospel of Mark!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
👉Sign up for Dr. Dennis MacDonald's course on the Gospels and Greek Poetry!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
👉Sign up for Dr. M. David Litwa's course on Mystery Cults!
historyvalley--pursuit4knowle...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @history-valley
Twitter: @Jacob56723278
📧Email: jacobberman553@gmail.com
┃🔴www.patreon.com/HistoryValley...
✅PayPal Link www.paypal.com/paypalme/Jacob...
✅Centurions For Paul Facebook Group / 957292477950756
✅History Valley Facebook group / 639724514390191
🌐Historical Jesus, higher criticism and Second Temple Judaism / 1038530526485151
Watching these types of videos has convinced me that if you want to appear smart and scholarly you have to have a bookcase behind you full of books that look scholarly.
I agree. I've got a bookcase behind me right now.
@salt1956 I've got one behind my desk too. Soooo many books I've never actually read. I'm sure they say something important
Helps if you read them and these gentlemen seemed to have done their homework.
I don't read paper books anymore. Still, it's cool to have one behind.
Shoot!! I have been doing it wrong all my life!!
I am reading Ehrmans book ‘Forgery and Counterforgery’ with special attention to his arguments against the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy.
His arguments from what he believes is ‘true Pauline characteristics’ do not persuade. On my view, which is influenced by Alan Garrow’s work on the Didache and his arguments for Pauls use of the core of this document - the apostolic decree - in many early letters, including 1 Corinthians. I have no problem with imagining Paul quoting from the apostolic decree, which was written in part to support his mission. Thus ‘the worker is worthy of his food’ in 1 Timothy 5.18 might reference Didache 13 as ‘scripture’ - especially since he quotes from the end of the apocalypse of Didache 16 and its presumably authoritative reworking of Isaiah 64.1-4 LXX. Paul does this in 1 Corinthians 2.9, and attributes to the apostolic decree the authoritative status as ‘scripture’.
With a view of how Paul presents the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1 and 16 as someone whom the others should subject themselves to and regard highly, it seems very likely to me that Paul envisions Stephanas and his household as overseers/presbyters/deacons of the still very young community in Corinth. The community in Ephesus was probably larger, older and had more more mature members to choose from, since false teachers were a problem there already before 1 Corintians - perhaps even before Paul founded the Corinthian church.
For evidence, I refer to the ‘wild beasts’ and the polemical charge against these persons in 1 Corinthians 15:32-34
I am thus comparing 1 Timothy’s views on local pseudo-teachers in Ephesus, roughly at the same time of 1 Corinthians. Those ‘teachers’ are corrupted converts who have gone astray, appealing to their alleged ‘knowledge’ of interpretation of the Jewish Law (of which Paul himself is painfully aware). They apparently forbid marriage (or anull engagements - a misunderstanding adressed also in 1 Corinthians) and certain foods in community in Ephesus. Paul would never recommend such prohibitions against what God has pronounced good and for the benefit of man, and with respect to childbearing, even as a prophetic sign pointing to Christ who crushed the serpent under his heel, and his sufferings when he was stung by death. The sufferings are purposed for sanctification in Pauline soteriology. They are to be embraced as signs of salvation for followers of Christ.
Gen 3.16-17 in Brenton’s translation of the LXX:
“And I will put enmity between thee (‘the serpent’) and the woman and between thy seed and HER SEED, HE shall watch AGAINST THY HEAD, and thou shalt watch against HIS HEEL. And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt BRING FORTH CHILDREN ....”
Ephesus was the city of the world-famous temple of their goddess of midwifery: Artemis. Much recent research has been done on this as the local cultural embeddedness of Paul’s recommendation through his delegate Timothy, in support of marriage and child-bearing…
Now, 1 Corinthians is unique in that it is a response-letter to a young community. Paul is responding to a speciffic line of questioning in written form from the Corinthian community, as well some reported issues from ‘Chloes people’.
Paul did not write theological treaties for general readers. He always responded to speciffic needs of his communities. The only exception is Romans, which was a community that he did not establish - not even by proxy. Therefore, he had no self-evident claim to authority over the Roman community. That makes Romans unique.
What makes 1 Timothy and the two other letters to delegates unique is that the recipients are at a very different stage with respect to maturity and responsibility. The only mature community that Paul wrote to is Philippians - and there they already had overseers and deacons. Romans 16.1 mentions a female deacon, Phoebe, from one of the Pauline churches. 1 Timothy has instructions for the qualification of female deacons as well as male. Deacons and overseers were apparently a reality in many well established churches in the 50s. It also had scriptural backing from the prophet Isaiah, no less! We see tjos from 1 Clement, written to the Corinthian community that Paul established.
The Philippians did not need instruction from Paul. They needed encouragement to remain steadfast in the face of local persecution, not least because they were aware that Paul was currently imprisoned and might not survive to seenthem again.
Corinth did not yet have overseers and deacons, and their problems reflect their spiritual immaturity and lack of respect for local authority figures that modeled godly living for them (he urges the Corinthians to not disrespect Timothy when he comes to them, but to pay attention to his teaching because he is Paul’s trusted delegate).
1 Corinthians 8-10 concerns the question of food offered to idols. What we read here represents Paul’s elaboration on his prior instructions on this topic.
Paul clearly states multiple times that for believers who do have the knowledge that idols have no real existence, all food is to be consumed with thanksgiving to God. If however, someone in the community is does not posess this knowledge (that there is lo God but one and no Lord but one) that eating food offered to idols in front of them may be interpreted by them as an allowance of sinful behaviour. Therefore, Paul would rather not eat meat at all in such cases. But, he insists that nobody has the authority to make prohibitions concerning what he can and cannot eat. This is consistent with the teaching in 1 Timothy. The only difference is that Paul elaborates his teaching with the Corinthians, because of their request for clarification. That would presumably be unnecessary with his close associate and delegate, Timothy, who would be able to make such elaboration himself, if the same problem should arise in Ephesus.
Such arguments from Bart shows a superficial reading of the texts and inattentiveness to how Paul modifies and elaborates his prior general teaching throughout 1 Corinthians 5-15. The letter is written in response to a series of issues presented in their letter to Paul and the problems that were reported to him.
The Corinthians cannot be expected to be as mature in their walk with Christ as Pauls trusted delegate, Timothy, and ofcourse they need teachings and elaborations and first and foremost sound examples of true leaders. That is the reason Paul has just sent Timothy to them, expecting him to represent Paul as a very capable stand-in.
1. Timothy and Titus both claim to be written by Paul in 3rd person, but bart doesn't attribute them to him. Yet he just said Matthew doesn't claim to be written by Matthew or in 3rd person. Which is it?
2. Bart also assume authorship 2000 years ago is the same as authorship today.
Did Matthew put pen to paper? Probably not. But did Matthew recount or dictate his account to a scribe? Entirely possible. Does that make the gospel of Matthew written by Matthew? An argument of semantics is happening. Since Bart denounces the validity of God and the messiah then his first course of action is to defend his position of opposition so of course, everything you get from erhman is to affirm doubt, because he himself doubts.
Wot?
None of the gospels were actually written by the apostles they were assigned to.
The key is in the names - the gospel ACCORDING to x.
They were written down later by literate Greek speakers.
@@allangibson8494 prove that. You can't
@@davidclark6694 Ask anyone who went through a seminary.
It’s biblical studies 101. None of them state the supposed author is the one who actually wrote them down.
@allangibson8494 I don't care what they teach in secular Seminary. You're argument is a fallacy.
love these discussions. It seems all the early biblical writings were fan tributes to Paul and Mark. over and over until there was a crowd. say 11,12, maybe even 13 super fans 😅
Bart Ehrman sowing seeds of doubt about the New Testament. He's not a Christian so why would he care about the New Testament except to try and drag other people down with him.
Ehrman was raised an evangelical Christian. And went to an evangelical college for his first degree. It was his continued and detailed examination of the Bible and other writings of early Christians that eventually caused him to reject his childhood indoctrination.
He first realized that there is no honest way to claim the Bible is literal. Later he came to understand that the Bible is no more special than the Quran, Vedas, or any other religious documents. Just words written by men in an attempt to understand our world, but clearly with only the knowledge of Bronze and Iron Age times.
Lots of Christian historians agree with many of the views of Ehrman.
But of course evangelicals and other extremists will disagree with almost everything he says.😂
I cleaned the loft out at home yesterday and i found the original copy of the bible , which was nice .
Authorship in the ancient world was very different than authorship today. We need to pay a bit more attention to the multiple authors named in the letters, eg Colossians 1:1-2. It’s very unlikely that Paul ever wrote anything apart from his community of synergoi (co-workers).
If the gospel never hints at being written by Matthew, what made people think that it was enough to put “according to Matthew” on it?
It's a psychogical thing. Hearing a narrative by a named person makes it sound more legit than simply being anonymous. Anonymous stories can be made up, but when it's claimed to come from someone it makes it more believable.
Its like how pastors preach in a certain way or how many apologists talk in an authoritative manner; To people who are easily convinced or have poor reasoning skills, it makes them sound more convincing.
It is noted in fragments of Papias, an early church father born and died 60 AD - 130 AD which would have been contemporary with the apostles and Matthew could have still been alive when Papias wrote that. It is not known how old Matthew lived but some say he lived a long life and some say he was murdered in Ethiopia. The apostle John would have known Polycarp and Papias so they could have obtained knowledge we don’t have today as to the authorship of the Gospels. Of course it can’t be proven and that’s what skeptics will hinge their skepticism on but it could very well be the truth. Something to think about.
I'm with @chopinismybestfriend. Many of the traditions that came down, even to the present day were given by the "church fathers" and their disciples. The fact that we don't have a clear written account of these things is because information then was often just a chain of oral tradition. To say now, "we can't confirm that" is a mute point. We may never be able to confirm it. So, we either have to take some things on "faith", believing that those closer to the time are in a better position to confirm what we can't ever know, or we become textual critics and spend our lives arguing the point.
If we don't know who wrote Hebrews why has it been included in the new testament?
Paul often dictated his letters. So yeah he didn't physically write them...technically.
Thank you Jacob, James and Bart for a wonderful discussion. Dating these scriptures is indeed a difficult task
I have read 4 of his books, and i always surprised by how much his writings mirror his spoken explanations
But aswell read the Bible, Torah which is the name of the Bible, and the Jews tanark and the Jews have many more than that of literature, on the topic of religion education
Watching everything that's unfolded in the world over the past 3 years, denial, misquotes, misunderstanding... can anyone really hope to know what happened last night, let alone two thousand years ago. 🤷♀️
Yes. Pretty easy for historians. Not so much for people who believe Catholic revisions.
@@joshportie
It’s probably easier for historians to say what definitely didn’t happen.
What is this one timothy two timothy stuff? it's First Timothy and Second Timothy. People are doing this more and more. It is annoying.
Paul's correspondence with Seneca was extremely detailed with dates etc from the last decade of Paul's life. How would a forger in the 4th century have that information? I also find it crazy that at the same time that church luminaries of the 4th century were trying to work out the NT canon, it is suggested that Christians were still making forgeries in Paul's name. Seriously?
Paul's correspondence with Seneca, did that come before or after Paul's trial under Seneca's brother Gallio?
Because its a stretch to believe that Paul and Seneca were having these conversations but somehow Gallio had no idea who Paul was, and didn't give a flying hoot about theological/doctrinal differences between Christians and Jews and sent both out of his presence as if they meant literally nothing to him at all?
@@michaeldeaton Paul = Germanicus, Germanicus corresponds with Seneca ? . . . they surely did but not in this way . . . Very likely also : Gallio = Germanicus = Paul Thus Paul trials Paul ? Not uncommon for Luke cuz Luke also let Peter (Seneca) trial Ananias (Seneca) with the result Seneca (Judas) promptly drops dead .
Germanicus and Seneca did correspond but didn't salivate each oher over theology
end of discussion, it's forged
And other assistants of Paul are listed as having actually penned other of his books. Wow!!! What a revelation!!!!
Ehrman makes the point that in the letters (pauls), the meaning of what is meant by "Faith" drastically changes in the later letters claiming to be from Paul.
Therefore it is believed by the majority of critical scholars and textural scholars, that whoever wrote the later letters did not understand Paul's meaning of the word "Faith".
I haven't seen anyone on this comments section who disagrees with Ehrman address on this problem.
I confess! I wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy.🤫
No you didn't I wrote it 😂
As one with the name Timothy, I wrote 1 and 2 Timothy….and then I showed my wife and she said to stop with my satire (cuz I ain’t good at it) and blame it all on Paul. So I had to stop writing my dribble and stop writing letters for the New Testament. Now I just make comments on TH-cam…😂😂
Both of you!
Don't do it again!
I'm Timothy and so is my wife!
@@czgibson3086St Paul’s epistle to Brian is sadly lost.
20 centuries after event, someone tried to says different things, sounds very logic
Is it just me or does the guy on the far left (Jacob?) look as though all his blood has been drunk up by vampires(might explain the top button being buttoned to hide the bite marks)? or is his lighting just weird?
Yeah, he needs to hire a makeup artist or something. I'd just get my wife or girlfriend to put the makeup on for me before each episode... I'd even pay her like $25 bucks or something!
' How do you stablish probabilities ' ( 4:00... ) and by who's criteria and are they conclusive? the question still open
do you want to be dogmatic about it ?
You establish the method by trying it on a control. Take two books known to be by the same author and see if your method piles up so many "differences" that you declare different authors. Or have someone test you with books of known authorship and see if your methods suss it out.
I've never seen a new testament text critic do a basic experimental control
@@muskyoxes
look he said in one letter you have ' salvation by faith not by the works of the law' in Ephesians ' salvation by faith ' therefore it's not the same author , I think the critical bunch are somewhat anachronistic in their approach to ancient writings and they must consider the human condition - moods , anger , exasperation etc etc etc and I don't think these documents were written in the comfort of a modern scholar 's studio
There’s also a problem of flattening out Paul and others and assuming we know what they are capable of thinking.
What I'm curious to know is what was Pseudo Paul's motivation for foraging the letters under Paul's name. Was it misinterpretation of Paul's philosophy or were there nefarious motivations at work?
@@Jackal_El_Lobo34Neither, because they were written by Paul. Most likely explanation is that they were written by someone else in the presence of Paul, but skeptics would rather jump through all these hoops to try and discredit the pastoral epistles because if they can’t, they have nothing to build their career off of.
Regarding co-authorship.
Julius Caesar's Gallic War may have been dictated by Caesar to a scribe who also seems to have tidied up the grammar and the text. (Also, it is known that Book VIII was written by consul Aulus Hirtius after the assassination of Caesar.) I don't know how the vocabulary and writing style compares with, for example, Caesar's account of the Civil War. If they are different then this would indicate that some form of co-authorship has taken place possibly as a result of the input of a scribe (or scribes?)
Just a thought that scribes may have changed the intended words of Paul.
Other cultures have important works which were not written by the cited authors but were written by scribes or students through dictation, notes or memory.
We know for a fact that Paul did not write some letters by his own hand. I mean it is stated in his letters outright.
Scribes were expensive and the early apostles were not wealthy men. Caesar was one of the wealthiest men in Rome, and his scribe(s) would likely have been soldiers or Greek slaves. Neither would have been likely for anyone writing the Gospels or N. T.
@@thomassenbart have you ever heard of such a concept as a "friend'?
@@thomassenbart before trying to look like a smart person, please get acquainted with the material first. The argument is solid in itself, but Pauls' letters alone provide a counterargument to your critique. They explain fully well where he got all the resources and help from.
@thomassenbart
We know that Paul dictated a large amount of what is contained in his letters because he tells us himself.
If by "early apostles" you mean the disciples of Jesus, they were illiterate and didn't write anything. The Gospels were not written by them and were mostly fiction.
Authors of all NT texts are unknown, even if they introduce themselves by names ( Paul, John of Patmos) nothing can be said about their lives etc. which details are then provided and elaborated by much later sources. What we can discuss is the thoughts they present, events they mentioned ( if any) to search for their geographic, temporal and sectarian setting. Everything else is speculation or regurgitation of religious narratives.
I'm not a fan of Ehrman, he is half-baked sceptical yet half-baked traditional religious scholar, so his ooveral output is inconsistent
Peter (seneca) had a brother Andrew (Germanicus), Andreas, Drusus = Paul (James the Just).
their old man is Alpheus (the 1st Germanicus) aka Andrew the elder.
Germanicus (Zacharias, Zebedee) had 2 twin sons ; Drusus & Nero ( the 'herodians' )
what corresponds with James ( the lesser ) & John ( the baptizer )
When the scales (of judgemental thoughts and rights) are removed from Saul's (not Paul) eyes, he experienced an epiphany that set him on a path of 'correction' of his ways. In fact, the 'thorn in his flesh' (side) was the fact that he constantly considered all of the horrible things that he had done (wretched man) BEFORE he converted, or was 'reborn'.
His writings are very confusing as is stated in 2 Peter 3:16. A good example is the verse in Romans 7:19. What Paul is implying here is NOT that he is a 'hot mess' as folks seem to think, but instead that the 'good' that he DOES DO is not of 'himself' in that he should claim credit, but instead it is the spirit of God that is working 'through' him.
I am willing (and available) to debate these things at length.
Whenever delving in the subject of ancient forgeries, I’m always left with the question, “If church fathers believe in their religion, why make stuff up or lie about it?”
The only answer I can think of is, “Conmen are gonna con.”
I always imagine a claustrophobic scenario of the higher ups meeting and someone subtily trying to see who else doesnt believe this stuff and is in for power an money so they can bond together and decide what decision brings in the most money. Yet being cautious with their wording and actions in case the majority does sincerely believe so you don't get ousted.
Like: Yeah we have to ban condoms, if the population falls we will get less donors and the overhead costs will ruin us in the long term.
Ehm i mean: Condoms are against gods nature!
They made stuff up for their own purposes and to match the requirements of the day.
When cover-ups occur, the act reveals motivation, which simplifies attribution. "It isn't the crime; it's the cover-up." Because it reveals motivation, it is easier to convict. Shush! Don't tell the clergy or apologists.
You need to do a study to see how radically the meanings of words, even used today within the same language, changes under translation. Within the last twenty years I have had a learned translator take "The brown family drove off in the white car," translated into "The white family parked the brown car." That is within the same culture and language background, just education differences. Every scribe and translator lives in their own world. When some are already dead and others living in other countries accuracy and truth is not ever obtained. Good discussion.
So all those guys who heard from god in order to vote those into the canon. Which voting blows my mind to start with. But those guys hearing from god as to what was scripture lied either about hearing from god or that it wasn't scripture.
The critics bring this up but it’s especially frustrating in the case of Bart Ehrman because he has explicitly said that his is just a scholarly pursuit. He doesn’t even want (nor has the authority or motive) to take the pastorals out of the Bible and liturgical use. He doesn’t even want Christians to become non-believers again or refute the value of the content so it just begs a huge question. Why?
seems no one has a clue. all written well after the date, edited, deleted mis interpreted, built on clay at best
If shampoo is clay, yes. Quran is built on glass claimed to be diamond. Only the Tripitaka welcomes testing, the best canon would allow proven consensus correction. I'd put it at 75% vote.
Yup. Certainly no foundation of any value for a system of any kind. Religious or otherwise.
There is evidence that things are true or false, but nothing is ever "proven" scientifically.
That's exactly the problem right there. Most of Ehrman's theories are pretty shaky at best. Outdated, nothing original ever escaped his mouth. Reading just one single "introduction to the new testament" will show where he got all his ideas.
The problem is that people don't read anymore. That's why these scholars can tell the most shallow theories, have no clue about anything and still come across as "experts".
Fun fact - Ehrman is often introduced as "the world's leading scholar of the new testament" when in fact outside the USA and outside of the TH-cam bubble, this person is utterly unknown.
Never heard of him in all the time I studied theology here in Germany. The reason is probably that we just read the original German authors that he bases all his theories on.
Cracks me up that even though the church fathers were satisfied with the authorship of the gospels, we somehow know better almost 2000 years later!
Better techniques, greater access to information, greater ability to compare multiple manuscripts, and more skepticism of claims, especially supernatural claims. The church fathers wanted to believe their scriptures were better than they actually were.
@@Kyeudo What? Better than first hand experience? Better than the people who followed the apostles? I think we have become too arrogant in our intellectual prowess.
@@lastchance8142
_["Better than first hand experience?"]_
The only first-hand account in the whole of the Bible is Paul talking about his experience on the road to Damascus, what little of it there is in his letters. Half of the New Testament books are fraudulent works and the four canonical gospels are all anonymous works by people who were not eyewitnesses.
_["Better than the people who followed the apostles?"]_
That's just it: there wasn't anyone who followed the apostles. Anyone who wasn't Peter, James the brother of Jesus, or Paul completely disappears from anything resembling reliable history after the first chapter of Acts. Peter and Paul were both executed, leaving behind no clear successors. James, the brother of Jesus, disappears from history sometime after the epistles of Paul were written. No one claims to be the direct successors to any of these men. What actually appears to have happened is that after the deaths of Peter, James, and Paul, the church's leadership was too widely scattered to coordinate, the existing sectarian divides deepened, and legend filled in the gaps. For example, Linus, the supposed second pope, isn't mentioned by any source until over a hundred years after he supposedly lived.
_["I think we have become too arrogant in our intellectual prowess."]_
You are correct about Christians. You have an unwarranted confidence in a collection of writings written decades after the events they purport to describe.
@@lastchance8142modern scholars don't think that the new testament was written by first hand witnesses. The closest was Paul but Paul was most likely not a first hand witness. Its well known that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses. That doesn't mean they're not true however
No, early church fathers were satisfied with the _naming_ of the gospels, out of convenience. Giving each gospel a name (regardless of actual authorship) made discussion, preaching, and debate easier.
Nailed it, Luke!! After all, if the book of acts is pure fiction, Luke is responsible for the character of Paul. In a way, doesn’t Paul say, bring mark and John, I have Luke, for I have need of them… (paraphrasing). This verse sounds like he’s not referring to persons, also referencing Luke, that could be seen as Luke inserting himself into the story and not making it obvious??
Exactly! And we also need to take into consideration the fact that Luke himslef was invented by Jesus, who didn't even exist in the first place!
@@DartNoobo depends what Jesus you’re talking about. Are you talking about a one Jesus, one time Jesus that is going to come and whisk us off to never never land…ya, he doesn’t exist. But if you’re talking about the Jesus in us all and there is of a body of population awakening to Jesus one at a time then ya, it is real and it exists.
It’s easy to see, there’s no description Of anyone anywhere, not Jesus or it’s authors. This is also your description.
@@aspectsreflections9420 a Jesus in us all? Are you some sort of spiritualist?
No people asisde from christians wrote about Jesus, he is pure fiction
@@DartNoobo I am Nothing. I do not belong to any organisation or institute of belief. My beliefs have crumbled, even I have crumbled. There is nothing but imagination in this world. I agree with you (to a Point) it is all fiction, a fiction that has brainwashed. However, there is truth in fiction and that truth is inspiration , it is light and energy in us all, it is what we call presence, and presence is, yesterday, today, and forever, and that is the Jesus Christ Jesus Christ (the character of fiction) was trying to reach in all. I also see the Bible as art and not religion and no one sees that. So, in answer to your question, you want to call me, spiritual, non dual, whatever, it's just a title, and I am not a title.
Luke (Lucius) = L A seneca ( L = Lucius, A = Anneus what btw is the same as Annas and Ananias )
The letters between Paul and Seneca were determined to be forgeries .
justifiably
Why is that one person blue?
Paul explicitly mentions several female deacons. Then, a few pages later, women are to keep silent? Something doesn't add up.
Would you be so kind as to give us those verses of female Deacons?
Saying that there are female deacons and then saying women should keep quite in church are not contradictory unless Paul approved of the female deacons.
I never get tired of listening to Dr. Ehrman.
I guess you will follow him to the Lake of Fire if you both don't find the real truth. He is purposely being negative about the truth to the scriptures while at the same time pushing the lies of Christianity.
~ You never get tiers of listening to Dr. Ehrman eh? Then you need to get a life.
Really?? You find him entertaining?😳
@@garystanfield2274😄😄
@@garystanfield2274😂😂🎃🤡🎅🎅 and where’s your evidence and sources to support the existence of this supposed lake of fire? Bart Eherman is a biblical NT scholar who is one of the best scholars of the NT on the entire planet.
Where is the part with the proof ? A different usage of the term „faith“ ? That could be because of epignosis. Deeper insight after a few years. Paul grew.
I’m a Christian, not by religion but by having a real relationship with Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I’ve read the Old Testament and the New Testament several times. Every time I read the Bible I get new revelations through rhema. I’ve read Paul’s letters several times and I know for sure that first Timothy and Titus are not written by Paul. I feel second Timothy is written by Paul. And I dare say whoever wrote those two letters did not like Paul very much. When I read Paul’s letters a feel a sense of peace because it was written with humility, tenderness, and kindness. However, whoever wrote 1 Timothy and Titus was a very arrogant and prideful person who had an agenda to suppress certain group of people. It actually makes me sad that these two letters are in the Bible because it really confuses believers, Especially new believers, into thinking that God is mean and harsh and legalistic instead of thinking of Him as loving, merciful, gracious, faithful and kind. His khesed (loving-kindness) is better and greater than living. So I’m actually very happy to find this video discussing this topic and I’m thankful to the person who made it possible. 🙏
By definition Christianity is a religion and you are religious. How can you demonstrate that you have a relationship with God? Where’s the evidence for this claim?
@@MrMortal_Rait’s called having a relationship. A personal relationship. Only her actions would confirm what she’s saying. I am also a follower of Jesus. I hate the term “Christian” because it associates me with the institutional religion. Religion is not about spirituality but instead rules, traditions and regulations. Most aren’t even biblical.
@@cassandra2968 “It’s called having a personal relationship” that you cannot demonstrate whatsoever in any way shape or form. “Only her actions would confirm what she’s saying.” Uhh no. Because if that’s the case then Mormonism, Islam and Hinduism are all true based on that logic. “I hate the term “Christian” because it associates me with the institutional religion.” And yet that doesn’t change the fact that the title “Christian” is the definition of what you believe in. The title Christian, simply means follower of Christ. So yes. It applies to you. “Religion is not about spirituality” no one said it was. “Most aren’t even biblical.” On cannot define what’s “biblical” and what’s none biblical.
You my sister just stepped into a sea of piranhas.
@@MrMortal_RaNobody needs to provide evidence to you my friend. You are neither judge nor jury.
Wow! Your title this "Proof Paul Didn't Write 1, 2 Timothy And Titus! | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman". 30 seconds into the clip, Dr. Ehrman says it isn't proof. WELL DONE!
Maybe a retitle?
"Suggesting Paul Didn't Write 1, 2 Timothy And Titus! | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman"
I doubt that 2nd Peter is forged. I think most people misunderstand 2nd Peter and it’s polemic. The initial comment about following-out cleverly devised fables, in contrasted with having ‘seen’ that Jesus is the glorious Lord - vis a vis the allusion to the transfiguration story. This is probably a polemical charge by the author directed against false teaching in general. The false teaching is equated with following-out ‘the way of Balaam’. It is a metaphor for spiritual blindness. The way of Balaam is a ‘cleverly devised fable’ designed to warn - it is NOT to be followed out! The author of 2nd Peter may be warning against the very same type of heresy that Paul fought in Ephesus even before he wrote 1 Corinthians.
The heresy in Ephesus as alluded to in 1 Corinthians 15.32-34:
“if after the manner of a man with wild beasts I fought in Ephesus, what the advantage to me if the dead do not rise? let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die!
Be not led astray; evil communications corrupt good manners; awake up, as is right, and sin not; for certain have an ignorance of God; for shame to you I say [it].”
The following characteristics of the false teachers are shared between 1 Corinthians and 2nd Peter:
The teachers are called ‘Wild beasts’,
they are ignorant of truth/God,
they exert a corrupting influence on Christian mortality,
and they live consciously in sin, whereby they fail to acknowledge Jesus’ Lordship and the eschatological hope central to the apostolic kerygma.
Re: Seneca and Paul
It makes even less sense considering that the Roman elite all knew Greek.
"Salvation is not only for the Jews, but also for the gentiles." I'm curious if Jesus ever said it like this? Did Jesus have any non-Jews disciples? Did he ever address a non Jewish audience?
Jesus never even talks about the concept of salvation in the way Paul does. Spiritual salvation was built around the man, the man himself has no such teaching. No Jews ever believed in a spiritual salvation. It was always a physical first belief and mindset.
Jesus Christ was the Messiah not God:
Jesus Christ believed in one true God (the Father). John 17:3
Jesus Christ and the holy spirit don't know everything only the Father knows everything. Matthew 24:36
Jesus Christ fell on his face and prayed to the Father (Matthew 26:39)
Jesus Christ has a God (the Father), my Father and your Father my God and your God. John 20:17
Jesus Christ taught people to pray to God alone (Our Father in heaven) Matthew 6:9
Who is the head of Jesus Christ: The head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
until the royal appearing of our Lord King Jesus, 15 which the blessed and only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at its proper time. 16 He is the only one who possesses immortality; he lives in unapproachable light; no human being has seen him, or can see him. To him be eternal honour and power, Amen!
1 Timothy 6:13
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 14:1
If one can believe the Gospels, Jesus actively avoided addressing gentiles. Sepphora, just a 1/2 days walk from Nazareth was the largest city in Galilee. Based on archeology its population was about 50:50 gentiles:Jews. No mention of Jesus taking a walk to preach there. Similarly Caesarea was the largest city in Judea, mostly Roman gentiles. The Bible explicitly states that Jesus didn’t preach there, but instead among the rural Jewish “towns around Caesarea.”
It doesn’t matter who wrote it, what matters is if it aligns with other scripture, and it does.
It matters if it makes a claim and the people that read it and believe and live their lives by it think that the one and only Apostle Paul wrote it, otherwise, it was written by some smart guy(s)....but you're not going to be resurrected right? Because than you're a liar and it doesn't matter because than it's NOT inspired by God.....just inspired by some smart guy.
Of course it matters who wrote it! Especially for those who claim it is divinely inspired. Otherwise it is just propaganda.
So if I write a letter today and call it 2nd Galatians, as long as it aligns with scripture you’ll take it as inspired by God? lol.
Aligning with scripture just means you are carrying on the same story..not that any of it is true. If it's divinely inspired there should be zero lies or misrepresentation anywhere in it:
Yes, it matters who wrote it by the very accepted and adopted theology of Christianity that morphed over time. Christian theology developed its own criteria for establishing a canon test of scripture from non canon texts. Authority from an author whose authority came directly from Christ, God, like an apostle is one of those criteria. Paul claims to receive his revelation directly from Christ. This is a claim, you can’t prove it or disprove it. But this claim is accepted or rejected by faith or lack of faith, period. So if certain books were Paul, that means the Christian tradition of faith can accept the teachings written in those books as authoritative. But if they were not written by Paul or another direct author of equal divine authority from Christ himself, then the teachings in that book cannot be viewed to be on par with Christian inspired text. Christians find the works of John MacAuthor or CS Lewis as good works and helpful and as aligning with Scripture (for the most part, another topic). But no christian would say the works of CS Lewis are divinely inspired as should be preached from a pulpit on Sunday mornings.
So yes, it matters who wrote the books found in christian bibles today.
I can't with Valiant gestures while the others talk 🤣
4:29-4:34 It means what polycarp means by it because he wrote it.
Yeah, but faith is highly abstract.
I could ask 10 different people what “faith” means and likely get 10 different answers.
@@JudasMaccabeus1 i don’t disagree with that. i’m not talking about random people on the street and what their personal definition of faith is. i’m talking about an authoritarian political plan carried out by elites to combat the political plan of the opposing party. polycarp’s “faith” is predicated on the abstract, intellectual belief that Jesus was a real person who was crucified as part of God’s plan to redeem the “believers” so he could enforce a political hierarchy to control dissent. This is the exact same goal of the pastorals.
@@danielgibson8799 Understood
@@danielgibson8799 all the Christians thought Jesus was a real person crucified and all the Christian writings affirm this lol, thats not special to the Pastorals
The poor horse's been dead forever.......but evangelicals continue beating on it......
The poor horse's been dead forever.......but the tiny sect of Bart Ehrman's witnesses continue beating on it...... 😝
@@V_GeorgeThere is no such thing as a “sect of Bart Ehrman witnesses.” It exists only in your imagination.
That’s the difference
I think we can prove that Bart has witnesses, so you've got it backwards.
4:37 - hmm, couldn't "keeping the faith" mean the same thing as Paul's "faith" though? As in holding your nerve until god fulfils his end of the bargain, even though it's taking a lot longer than expected? I'm not sure why this use of "faith" has to be about defining orthodoxy, rather than just, well, keeping hold of your faith that god's going to pay off for you, as promised by the apocalypticists.
Because man needs to reinforce his bias
13:36-13:40 Co-written by ignatius and polycarp.
A.k.a. Proteus Peregrinus according to Lucian of Samosata
I would lean toward Pauline authorship for 1st Timothy but not 2nd Timothy and Titus.
1st Timothy to me is written by a boring generic moral scold. 2nd Timothy sounds like old man Paul, tired and fed up
I wish this fascinating scholarship was about something that was actually true rather than something most here do not believe in anyway.
One thing I've noticed about Bart Ehrman across all of his interviews is he always gets caught up on the phrase "No one believes..." because he knows... 😅
Some of what you say is speculation, James did spy out the freedom they have in Christ. Acts 15 James promoted the idea that gentiles are not to be circumcised, this unique to Paul, Paul himself said that when He went Jerusalem not even Titus was compel to be circumcised that was apostles. So pure speculation
This video makes me vacillate so heavily on whether to buy the Counterforgery book. On the one hand, it's long past time for the arguments of forgery to actually be spelled out and not hidden behind a vague hand wave of "consensus agrees with me, and since forgery is possible it always happened". On the other hand, the book sounds so likely to just be a stack of petty points that hope the sheer weight can win.
Could any author write two books that wouldn't be determined to be different authors using these methods? Apply the theory to a control group. The same author can use different words, different styles, and be contradictory
Minority consensus vs majority consensus. Possible versus probable. Different meanings of faith with Paul and pastorals.
Circumcision of the heart is a better selling point than circumcision of the penis. The New Testament....abrogates the Torah. No Kosher for Gentle Christians. No syngouges.
Whatcha you gonna do when the graves start bursting open? What you gonna do when you are one day late for hopin?
I hear it helps to shoot zombies in the head.
Zombies in Matthew 27:53, “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” Yet no one other than the author of Matthew was troubled enough by those zombies to even write about it. So I’m no more troubled by a repeat of that than the citizens of Jerusalem were. Almost all didn’t even seem to notice.
Jacob, James and Bart all have these wonderfully Biblical names.
"TIM-AYYY!!!"
Paul must have been in prison and/or dead already by circa 55CE according to the brilliant scholar S. G. F. Brandon. I concur with Brandon. There had to be a time when James and his group had dominance to explain the decrepit state of the Pauline corpus. Paul was beloved by the Roman Catholic Church and by the Marcionites. Paul's writings were preserved by the religious groups that dominated later. The ONLY time Paul's writings could have been so mangled was during the period of the domination of James' group. James was dead by 62CE and his followers were mostly wiped out by the end of the war in 70CE. There had to be a time prior to their annihilation when Paul was restricted from stopping them in their campaign against him and his writings. Paul's imprisonment by 55CE and his death under Nero are strongly indicated by this undeniable evidence that has zero alternative explanation. The onus is upon any scholar who claims Paul was much longer lived to explain the decrepit state of Paul's writings. How did it happen if Paul was still in charge of his churches until a ripe old age?
Conjecture doesn't really weigh much. It's basically testimony of early Christians vs opinions of later scholars doing critical analysis. There is never going to be proof.
Yeah, God is so wise that he couldn’t provide proof of his own perfect religion and the necessity of the salvation through it lol.
If something isn’t apparent unless taught by men and doctrines then we can be certain God isn’t involved.
@@ancientflames Proof isn't a particularly good thing. The point is to give enough evidence to inspire pursuit. Life is always presented biblically as test of human will. God forcing people to accept His reality and or goodness such that they have little say in their own conclusions would defeat the value of freedom.
Every person who has a Phd today was not given the task that Paul undertook.The time
which we are born into marks our attitude towards Jesus , Dr. Ehrman needs to give
back his education at MOODY'S and Wheaton if not , his Phd ? Dr. Ehrman's words
are not gospel.
👍👍
You know when folk use the word "possible" you know that all that is spoken is conjecture. In other words they do not know one way or another. So why bother?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
2Tim 3V16
"They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."
Eph 4V18
Always learning, but never find the truth.
"You know when folk use the word "possible" you know that all that is spoken is conjecture"
This is just blatantly false and a gross oversimplification. Possibility is a spectrum of probability, and it isn't conjecture to say, for instance, its more likely than not that you won't win the Powerball when you play it. That its possible you could win, but its more likely you won't win, is a statement of fact, including a possibility statement, and a probability statement. While we don't know with certainty who will win the Powerball until the numbers are drawn after all the tickets that are going to be purchased are purchased, its not conjecture to state that the probability of any individual player will win the Powerball on X date with Y numbers is exceedingly low. Its a statement of hard cold numerical fact.
And the reason we bother is because, very simply, when one outcome has a 99.9999% probability and the other has a .0001% probability, then its important for us to assess information or data in light of those probabilities.
If you disagree I highly encourage you to go to Vegas, put everything you own on one roll on the roulette wheel, on the premise that since you can't know for 100% certainty you'll lose, its pointless to worry about losing and only focus on what happens if you win, and let us know how that works out for you.
That's why bother. Because probability and possibility are quantifiable identities in many cases, that provide us elucidating information from which to base our tentative conclusions upon.
@@michaeldeaton Sounds plausible.
I agree. Paul did not write 1,2 Timothy and Titus. Frodo the Hobbit did.
Yeah, exactly, follow God, don't follow the profits, don't follow mankind, the emphasis is placed on God, the process involved is, Acknowledge, the profits for what they stand by, the teachers are not God, God is divine creater, our heavenly father, God the creator
Lol. Such specious arguments. Is this what passes for "scholarship" nowadays?
Could Paul. Dictate them
There are those who think that Paul died in spain.
With 1 Tim, even the text of the letter, itself exposes its fake composition in many points. There are the logical anomalies against Paul's earlier Egalitarian practice clearly stated in his authentic letters to Corinth and Rome.
Another anomaly that stands out is the acrobatics you have to do to try to match it with his movements recorded in Acts (itself largely a fake composition, btw). You can't. So, after the ending of Acts, you have to assume Paul was released from his Roman house arrest and able to travel freely again for only about two or three years before he was arrested and executed by Nero in 67 AD. It has to be assumed he made another trip to Ephesus with Timothy and left him there to take care of things.
Now, here's the rub. Timothy had been a trusted representative of Paul since at least his correspondence with Corinth in the early 50's. "I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor 4:17). This is indisputable, yes? Therefore WHY DOES 1 TIM TREAT HIM AS A ROOKIE ON HIS FIRST SOLO ASSIGNMENT needing his hand held and all that instruction on good church procedure? Likewise Titus. "I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not walk in the same footsteps by the same Spirit?" (2 Cor 12:18).
The three Pastorals are written by the same hand using the same style - but which is markedly different to Paul's. For instance, there are chiasma - very cleverly composed logical structures around exactly the same phrase, "faithful the saying" occurring five times throughout these three letters.
So, not written by Paul ... Nor written during Timothy's lifetime (died 97 AD) otherwise Timothy would call foul. This fact pushes them into the second century. None of them are quoted by the early Patristic fathers like Ignatius (writing around 104-110?) and Clement (95-98?), even though they quote Paul's genuine letters a little bit. It's especially surprising that Ignatius'and Polycarp's letters don't quote them since they are facing exactly the same problems with the infiltration of false teachers of exactly the same sort of doctrine and practice being corrected in the Pastorals! These early Patristic writing contain some hints of phrases found in the Pastorals, but it seems more likely that the writer of the Pastorals took inspiration from these lines in Ignatius'' letters to include in the his own compositions.
These are only my own deductions, which i would think Bart may also have included in his book plus a lot more technical detail and other historical points. However, I'm convinced that all three are countering the type of two tiered Gnostic mystery religion which divided the church into three classes of people, as the type of heresy being rebuffed - especially of Basilidēs with his "endless genealogy" of 365 Archons.
But I hope that what I've mentioned has convinced a skeptic of the reality of its forgery and its importance of disassociating Paul from those letters.
So the reason 1 Timothy is fake is because it doesn't fit the timeline of a fake book
@@muskyoxes something like that! 🤣
But seriously there was a new first century Jewish religion that a real guy, Paul, adapted to include Gentiles with a more mystical Christ. He DID found some communities that believed his stuff and they did write to him with problems. There are seven authentic letters (some are redactions of several correspondences) which he wrote in reply to them which were preserved and passed on through the centuries.
But other writers after Paul elaborated the story of a human rabbi who was crucified and whose body disappeared, to mythologize and deify that man to give Paul's religion more punch. Centuries of other human thinkers and political machinations created an oppressive institution called "The Church" which produced various versions of religion from those faked additions and ancient mythology around the nation of Israel and the bad interpretations of theologians who have put that Book on an untouchable pedesta with unfounded claims of complete divine inspiration and, hence, infallibility.
Christianity is a damaging closed circuit cult, whichever version people call their own ... apart from some "liberal" philanthropists who actually do some good to others.
The Universe gave Bart the overactive dad joke gene. 😅
Pretty much the entirety of the pastorals can be found in ignatius and polycarp. Probably came from them.
Polycarp barely wrote anything that survived. What are you on about?
@@muskyoxes The vocabulary and content of the pastorals is identical to the vocabulary and content of ignatius and polycarp. It’s a minority position, but it’s lead some scholars to conclude polycarp wrote the pastorals. The doctrine-denying heretic rejecting marriage (1 timothy 4:3) is the firstborn of satan (polycarp philippians 7:1) who is marcion. marcion also rejected the crucifixion of Jesus, which ignatius and polycarp speak out against based on their understanding of atonement (1 timothy 2:5-6).
Slight update: marcion himself didn’t necessarily believe Jesus didn’t die, but plenty of christian gnostics in rome did believe Jesus never was a person who died and marcion certainly didn’t believe in atonement theory.
Why did Paul think only Jews can be saved in the first place?
The people who had accepted Jesus I am assuming were once Jews right?
And if they were believing in Jesus were they not already believing in Jesus exactly how Paul believed in Jesus?
The problem with this is in Acts we don't see this unity in belief.
Paul comes along 4 to 7 years later right?
So were the disciples guided by the Holy Spirit or was only Paul guided by Jesus?
Paul is talking about how he was persecuting Christians but yet we don't see any of the disciples who were amongst Jews going through what Paul goes through when he steps on the scene.
We don't even see Peter getting treated how Paul gets treated.
Someone is always trying to beat him up. What was Paul teaching that caused him to be the one constantly having Jews accusing Paul of telling Jews to forsake Moses and for them not to circumcise their children. Because it's obvious that Peter was not running and getting beat up for teaching what Paul was teaching.
He didn't think that. Jews and Hebrews are not synonymous...
@authenticrevelation3811 Okay so what did Paul believe since you disagree with Bart?
@@juannifer32 have you ever read Acts 15 or Romans 11? It's obvious that he believed in a conversion, but where Bart gets it all wrong is that the conversion was never to become a Jew, but rather it was to become a Hebrew. Hence the book of Hebrews, not the book of Jews. Bart doesn't understand the difference between Jews and Hebrews, and there is a huge difference there.
@authenticrevelation3811 But salvation was never only for the Jews in the first place which is why I was asking why did Paul think this? It's not supposed to be about what Paul thinks anyway it's what God says. Because circumcision wasn't a Jewish covenant to begin with. So why did Paul feel the need to do away with it? Was this something from God? Or what Paul thought was best?
@@juannifer32 Once again, Paul never thought that to begin with. That is a gross misconception of what he wrote. You need to read his letters more carefully, rather than Biblical commentaries that tell you what to believe.
I missed the “proof” part.
I always miss the proof of a supernatural skydaddy, always and I was a devoted southern baptist years ago. Bahahahaha.
@@A-non-theist "I was a devoted southern baptist years ago" that gives you credibility?
@@lolsing2205 No evidence of anything supernatural does. Unless you have undisputable evidence to prove it does.
That's all the credibility I need.
@@lolsing2205 Enlighten me please.
@@lolsing2205 It does help to shut preachers up that's try to convert me back. Why would I want to believe in a immoral baby killer that commanded genocide having babies slaughtered and let christian men save the young virgins for themselves? Need more immoral mythical bs the christian god did according to the bible?
It would interest me to know how you or anyone could prove Paul wrote any of the letters, were you or anyone else there and witnessed it? all of them could be questioned, even still, the evidence of what their teaching that will reveal itself in TIME, it's the only real way to know if Paul was really Paul based on what Jesus taught and even that would have to be questioned by whomever it concerns and how the ancient letters were translated, the point being the FRUIT, it's only by their fruit you can know them, the ultimate test would be based on His commandments and is what their teaching helping a person keep them or disobey them, that's what it's really all about, keeping His commandments, if jumping around on one foot and slapping yourself in the face at the same time was what it took to help you keep His commandments, then by all means do that, Jesus was a little more extreme but right on, if your eye will cause you to commit adultery or rape then pluck it out, if your hand will cause you to steal, murder, blah blah, CUT it OFF, Jesus was talking about God's commandments, not Moses or the commandments of man or men when it comes to obeying His commandments, by the way Dr., Jesus is the God that gave Moses His commandments, actually most of the old testament is about Him, your just doing what so many others do thinking that God was the Father God Jesus reveals to us when He came, your using the word " god " as a name or thinking of it as a name and it's not a name, it's actually what the bible calls the great mystery that's been hidden since the beginning, ( that's the scriptures ) the Yahweh God is not the Father God, it's His SON, to us there is but one God, we call Him our Heavenly Father, there is but one Lord, we call Him Jesus, you should know what Yahweh means, LORD, we say Jesus is Lord not even realizing saying that back in their time could have got us stoned, Paul said we know in part, that's because the sentences written were incomplete to the translators, the lack of certain words is why, not even the prophets of old understood Yahweh was Jesus the SON and not the Father God because there was no NAME given to Him YET, only titles as to how to refer to Him, Shakespeare even questioned what I AM I AM meant, that's without the added word of the translators, to Shakespeare it meant TO BE TO BE, to him that was the question, lol, TO BE or NOT TO BE, even he couldn't translate what was told Moses because he lacked understanding the usage of the word and it's tense, present tense and future tense application, the origins of the promise of Him to come came from Moses, that's what Moses told them when they asked him, who sent you?, Moses didn't say, tell them I AM " that " I AM, tell them I AM=reference to oneself=present tense, I AM=TO BE=TO APPEAR=future tense, he simply said tell them I will come to them or tell them I AM COMING, sadly lost in translation as well as many others, it's no wonder they rejected Him when He came, they had all the signs, God is NOT a name, it's what He is not who He is, Jesus was God before He came, only in spirit form, He's just mistaken for the Father God but if you will understand the differences of the God's in POWER and KNOWLEDGE based on what Jesus said, the Father knows everything, when a bird falls from the sky, even the number of hairs on your head, you will easily see the Yahweh God doesn't have this power or knowledge but only what the Father reveals to Him, just what Jesus said, the Father God don't ask no questions and He doesn't repent, if you've studied that much, however the Yahweh God does repent and ask's too many questions, there's no PROOF any author is the original author of any scripture written, but by their fruit we can know them, the greatest of all commandments, LOVE the Lord thy God with all thy strength, mind, heart, body, ( not in order but you get the point ) you can't serve God a glass of tea or anything else, WHO'S He talking about if not yourself? His commandments are FOR YOU, why do we need someone to teach us how to love ourselves and our neighbor as ourselves, that should be obvious, everyone will be judged based on what they teach others, Paul too, Peter too, everyone, God has written His Law on man's heart, there will be no excuse on that day, you will only find people whom's hearts have been deceived and many whom's sins and iniquities will be forgiven and many whom's not, the end result is not the same as the beginning in the mind of some authors of the letters, not even Paul when it came to going against God's law, it wasn't in Jesus mind either when he spoke to the rich man on eternal life, Jesus didn't tell him he wouldn't go to heaven, the rich man just lacked what he saw Jesus and His apostles and followers had, peace, love, joy, why? because of his love of his things and money kept him from having it, the belief in God is not the atheist problem, it's His judgement they oppose, the same with many that accepted Jesus in the beginning until they heard something from someone other than Jesus or a apostle of His that what their doing will cause them to go to hell, it's really a battle over good and evil and what we call sin and what we do not, there are many that their good is overcome by another that see's that person's good as evil and go on to become atheist, what other choice do they have? then others that just can't deny Him and live in fear of the unknown just hoping God will forgive them if their sinning, most don't understand sins that will separate a man ( in conscience ) from God and sins that won't or shouldn't, just as everything else is by measure, not ALL sins are worthy of eternal punishment, that's scripture by the way but this belief there is no God is truly evil as I explained before, it's just what the thief, murderer, rapist, adulterer blah blah wants to believe, there's no one that see's him, he's only worried if the police are around, do us all a favor and stop promoting this belief
Rom_1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1Co_1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Co_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
Gal_1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Eph_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Php_1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Col_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
1Th_1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th_1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
Tit_1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Phm_1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
Phm_1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
LMBO, the evidence is overwhelming that 2nd Petr was not written by Peter.
What a joke!
Paul writing the pastorals is quite ridiculous to think. It's funny certain scholars with ridiculous ideas are still 'fine scholars' according to Bart, but then some other 'ridiculous' ideas are not.
Pseudo-academic egotistical circle jerking. Bible studies in a nutshell.
Could Paul be authorizing an underling to write for him because his eyesight is failing?they
That's what I think he starts Paul and x and y to z. Probably x and y are doing the actual writing and Paul is dictating with feedback from x and y. In one letter at the end he says: see with what big letters I write you. So those Paul wrote himself...
What ultimately matters is not who wrote the Scriptures (important as that may be) but whether the church ultimately recognized those writings as genuine expressions of their faith.
Tangentially related, Enoch is one of the most represented texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing just how important it was the Jews in the area
no who wrote them is what matters
@@scambammer6102 So, can you tell me who wrote the Gospels ACCORDING TO Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? Most biblical scholars would say we do not know.
Also, who was the EDITOR of Genesis? (First creation story (Gen. 1:1 - 2:4a) is in 5th century BCE Hebrew, and second creation story (Gen. 2:4b - 3:24) is in 9th century BCE Hebrew -- it's obvious that an editor put them together.) Most biblical scholars would say we do not know.
... who that editor was or who wrote those 5th and 9th century BCE accounts. It was the faith community (Jewish/Christian) who recognized these writings were expressive of their beliefs.
@@fredphilippi8388 right. the fact we don't know is important. I don't care what any church thinks. I only care about facts.
You seem to think the cults evolved independent from their sacred texts, they didn't. cults and texts evolved together.
SO, it's Pauly Karp.
Hi. I agree with the teachings of Paul. The old law covenant is carnal. Noones sins can be forgiven via obedience to laws of moses but faith and trust in the saviour and walking after his steps closely. Those born of holy spirit identifed by fruits of the holy spirit, which are those of love. Love of neighbour and god of heaven/,space/ ouravos. Humans are either inspired by a spirit of truth a holy spirit or a deceptive spirit can inhabit and possess humans. The sons of god are humans who are fathered by angelic beings who are assigned or conceived by by these. Dna of the rebel angels is in tares who will be taken. The wheat are conceived begotten by holy-spirit the feminine is breath of father. The son is the creator of all angelic beings as he is master worker. Master , lord/kirios does not apply to the son alone but to any angelic being in a posotion of power who inhabits a human that is famous or powerful.
Doesn't seem to fix grammar,
So? As Karl Barth replied when asked whether he thought the snake in the Genesis story really d
talked, ‘I’m not so concerned with whether the serpent talked as with what the serpent said.’
Literally retarded logic lol. You get your brain in knots when you try and make myth and allegory into historical fact.
Seneca and Paul? 😎😉
7:50-7:55 It was written by polycarp after the pastorals and philippians.
The bible has survived thousands of years. Passages and verses from it are read by millions of people all over the world every day. Paul’s writings are known to billions of people and have contributed shaping human history.
Do you have the same credentials Dr Ehrman?
He's got better credentials. Popularity and age mean nothing. Bart has evidence to work from, while the Bible can be trivially disproven on a great number of points.
@@Kyeudo i mean he doesnot these are just speculations and theories theres nothing he can really prove just give his opinion and argument even in this video the point being " paul not writing those books" umm hello? the apostles had SCRIBES and its more likely that paul authored those books under a scribe which explains the different writing styles.
@@lolsing2205it’s not just different writing styles. It’s different vocabulary, sometimes using words that were not in common use during Paul’s lifetime and that he never used in the letters that are accepted as his own. Then there are also the meanings of those words which are often different from what Paul’s other letters state.
Surely if Paul had simply dictated the pastoral epistles he would have had the scribe correct those issues before the letter was sent. And it’s not just Erhman, German biblical scholars first documented these problems in the 1800s. So there’s a long history of consensus biblical scholarship on the likelihood that these letters were written by later Christians who simply used Paul’s name to give greater weight to their opinions. Erhman isn’t making any new claims, just pointing out the current consensus of biblical scholars who are not constrained by an oath to a particular dogma.
Even good zoologists have debunked Noah's flood. 😂
@@lolsing2205 The bible has been proven to not be creditable. Fact
After undertaking in depth literary study of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians and through my reading L.T. Johnson, as well as the research of Alan Garrow on Didache, I have become convinced that Paul either authored or authorized the letter we call 1 Timothy around 50 AD, shortly after he co-authored 1 Corinthians with Sosthenes, and not long after ‘The Apostolic Dreree’ was circulated to the Pauline assemblies. See Acts 15.
In 1 Timothy 5:18b, I am persuaded that Paul quotes verbatim from what we know as Didache 13.2 - a section of the text which I believe was present in the Apostolic Decree, which was authorized by the ‘pillars’ (Peter, James and John) in AD 48. I have compared the Greek text of Didache 13.2 word for word with 1 Timothy 5:18b in Codex Sinaiticus (4th century witness to the text of 1 Timothy) and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd century). Codex Sinaiticus attests the variant reading ‘and the worker is worthy of his food’, and it is almost an exact word for word match for what have in Didache 13.2. In addition, the immediate literary context of the statement ‘the worker is worthy of his food’ in the two documents overlap beautifully, which, for me, is far more compelling evidence of literary sourcing (‘the writing says’ quoting first the OT and then from the apostolic decree) than an appeal to a saying found on the lips of Jesus in Luke 10:7, although Paul says in 1 Corinthians that Jesus did command something to that effect.
I believe that The Apostolic Decree is incorporated into the Q-like source ‘Didache’, which is also known under the title ‘The teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles’.
That the Apostolic Decree, paraphrased from and adapted for Luke’s literary agenda in Acts 15, constitutes a significant portion of the document we know as Didache is argued by Alan Garrow. He has shown that that gMatthew depends on Didache, and has argued that certain heated topics in Galatians and 1 Corinthians may well have their origin in the circulation of that decree, with it’s teaching on food offered to idols and on making efforts to keep the full ‘yoke of the Lord’.
In 1 Timothy 5:18b, the author does not appear to me to be quoting from gLuke 10.7, which is what almost everyone mistakenly (I think) believe, but from what has come down to us verbatim in the apostolic decree ( Didache 13.2). People who insists that Paul quotes the relatively late gLuke may (I think) unconciously seek after a reason to reject 1 Timothy on more subjective grounds (in my estimation), rather than on the actual strength of the literary evidence.
Paul may also quote from the apocalypse in Didache 16 as ‘scripture’ in 1 Corinthians 2.9 … again, check Alan Garrow’s research on Didache. He thinks that most of it predates gMatthew and labels it as an ‘extant instance of Q’ (not the hypothetical Q, mind you, but an extant source for the gospels of Luke and Matthew).
I think 1 Timothy is most likely very early, and contemporary with 1 Corinthians. There are numerous litarary thematic connections between 1 Corinthians and Didache, and between 1 Timothy and Didache, and between 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.
I have recently become convinced of the authenticity of 1 Timothy not in spire of, but because of the literary evidence, after having gullibly accepted the common scholarly assertion of forgery/inauthenticity ‘on the authority of mainstream experts’ - for too many years.
Ps. In 1 Corinthians 16, it seems evident to me that Paul is preparing for the appointment of Stephanas - his personally baptized ‘firstfruit of Achaia’ -
see 1 Cor 16.15-18 and 1 Cor 1.16 - as an elder (presbyteros) and overseer (episkopos) in Corinth.
In 1 Clement (to the Corinthians), 42.3-43.1, the author quotes a variant of Isaiah 60.17 LXX to remind the Corinthian church of the scriptural mandate for why the apostles appointed bishops and deacons in the churches they founded. The (main) author of 1 Clement appears to have partaken with the Corinthians in their church-life in Corinth in the past (see 1 Clement prologue and compare with 1:2). He also appears to be intimately familiar with the letter of 1 Corinthians, encouraging the Corinthians to compare what he now writes with their copy of the letter from Paul (1 Corinthians - see 1 Clement 47.1-47.6), and he evidently knows what events followed after that letter. At the time 1 Corinthians was written, the church in Corinth was a very young church and apparently younger than the one that was currently growing due to Paul’s renewed mission work in Ephesus. Paul reminds the Corinthians of what they already know: that he had previously ‘fought wild beasts’ in Ephesus, which most likely is a circumlocution for vigorously opposing false teachers, whose influence corrupt morals - see 1 Cor 15.32-34. The scriptural background for this particular circumlocution for the false teachers and their corruption influence on morals could easily have been derived from Isaiah 56.8-57.4 LXX - do check the apostolic bible polygot.
In 1 Corinthians 16:15-18, Paul admonishes his readers to subject themselves to the authority of Stephanas and to the authority of the two other explicitly named men from Corinth (Fortunatus and Achaicus), who are evidently approved of and granted authority as local church-leaders by Paul.
I wish people who trust Ehrman on ‘The Pastorals’ would at least read L.T. Johnsons commentary on the two letters to Paul’s delegate,Timothy, before rejecting the letters to Paul’s delegates as ‘forgeries’. Read 1 Corinthians 16.15-18 more carefully than Ehrman appears to have done, and study the thematic and situational parallels between 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy in depth:
At a prominent place in Paul’s letter the Corinthians, Paul admonishes his converts with his final words of exhortation: they are urged to subject themselves to Paul’s ‘firstfruit of Achaia’, Stephanas, as well as to Fortunatus and Achaicus, and Paul requests that they acknowledge men who like these them are working hard for the gospel, like Paul himself. I suspect that a formal ‘laying on of hands’ for the ordination of overseers and deacons could easily be what Paul has in mind with his remark in 1 Corinthians 11:34: “…and the rest, whenever I may come, I shall arrange/ordain.” It is evident that Paul is adressing questions about church order in this section of his response letter to the Corinthians.
It's circular to say that 1 Timothy is early because it didn't quote Luke because Luke is late.
What happened to Didache if it was so early seen as scripture? Scripture, i presume, means accepted by the community, not merely liked by an author. Something locked in at the level of reverence of the old testament in year 50 should have been all the rage in the 2nd and 3rd centuries
@@muskyoxes Thank you for responding. I do not think my argument is circular. 1 Tim 5.18b is literarily closer to Didache 13.2 than to Luke 10.7 in wording and context. Codex Sinaiticus appears to be the earliest manuscript evidence for 1 Timothy 5:18, and therefore the reading that agrees with Didache 13.2 and not gLuke 10.7, should not be dismissed. Now on the status of Didache: Didache was highly influential and well known by the church fathers and it’s content appears to have influenced many early NT compositions and likely also 1 Clement. This influence is unsurprising: Garrow has me convinced that Didache has, in large parts, bona fide apostolic credentials, dating to AD 48. That is why gMatthew’s author and Luke used Didache as a source for Jesus’ teaching, and that is the same reason why Paul quoted from it as an authoritative written source for Christian teaching on various topics.
Now, the alleged quote from Luke 10.7 found in 1 Timothy 5.18b is considered by mainstream scholars to be a ‘smoking gun of lateness’.
I object to this, that the author does not quote Luke, but a much earlier document, that the same author (Paul) also quotes from in 1 Corinthians 2:9 and this same document may also reflect shared knowledge between Paul and the Corinthians underneath the discussion in 1 Corinthians 9.1-14. The argument is that if Paul can quote authoritatively from the apocalypse of Didache 16 in 1 Corinthians 2:9 (see the research of Alan Garrow on Didache and the apostolic decree) using the formula ‘according as it is written (γέγραπται)’ then Paul can surely also quote authoritatively from Didache 13.2 along with Moses’ words from Deut 25.4 about the oxen threshing (Paul uses the same scriptural reference in 1 Corinthians 9.9-14, ending with reference to a teaching of Jesus with the same point as Paul derives from Moses)
with the formula ‘the writing (γραφή) says’.
I believe that those parts Didache that Paul quotes from in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy does predate both of these letters, though not by more than a few years. There are numerous parallels betwern Didache, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. These three very early writings have a lot in common with respect doctrine. Much of the emphasis on sound teaching found in 1 Timothy, which is believed to be a sign of lateness, closely resembles the ancient teaching of ‘The Two Ways’ found in Didache 1-6.
I think the apostolic decree (which is significant parts of Didache, including chapters 1-6) was authored in AD 49, and was authorized by the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem Church - Jesus inner circle of followers: Peter, James and John. I see evidence that 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy (which are very much alike) both depend on and allude to the content of Apostolic Decree/Didache. 1 Timothy more so than 1 Corinthians. The gospel of Matthew, which I think is decades later than these three writings, also depends on Didache, as shown by Alan Garrow.
@@christianmichael8609 We have tons of examples of Paul quoting the old testament loosely, so 1 Corinthians 2:9 should be seen as Isaiah 64:4 unless there's a strong case against. I can't help but read "it is written" and "scripture" as meaning "a book that we all have cherished together for a long time", not "there's a new book i got ahold of, it has good stuff."
How does something so aggressively canonized so early go away? Why isn't Didache in Irenaeus's bible? Or Tertullian's? The church fathers love to praise the gospels, up to the point of having traditions about who wrote them and where and why. No love for Didache?
And i don't get the point about context. The Luke 10:7 context is right in line with 1 Timothy 5:18, about receiving a living from people who accept your ministry
@@muskyoxes Thanks again for engaging. This will be broken into three parts. First, a response to your challenge to my claim that Paul quoted Didache 16 in 1 Cor 2.9, and not simply paraphrased Isaiah 64:4’. I do not think Paul quoting loosely is at all common when he uses the formula ‘It is written’. Usually he is very close to the septuagint. That is not obviously the case with Isaiah 64:4.
Here is Isaiah 64.1-5 LXX, translated from the Apostolic Bible Polygot (the LXX used by Paul in almost all instances, sometimes with variants):
"If you should open the heaven, [2trembling 3will take hold 4from 5you 1mountains], and they shall melt away; 2as beeswax from fire shall melt away. And [2shall incinerate 1fire] the adversaries, and [3for distinction 2will be 1your name] among the adversaries. From in front of you nations shall be disturbed. 3Whenever you should do the honorable things trembling shall take hold of mountains. 4From the eon we heard not, nor our eyes beheld a God besides you, and your works which you shall do to the ones waiting for mercy. 5For he shall meet with the ones doing justice, and your ways shall be remembered. Behold, you have been provoked to anger, and we sinned; on account of this we were wandered"
I suspect that this could be one of the Isaiah LXX texts that inspired the apocalypse in Didache 16 (which could have been asceibed to Jesus - see later) , which may also have drawn inspiration from Isaiah 29 LXX.
Here is 1 Cor 2:6-10 (YLT)
[Note that this text has an apocalyptic scheme: the proud people of this world will come to nothing, and the Christ-minded, mature believers, will inherit glory, prepared by God]
"And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;
but, according as it hath been written,
(9) "What eye did not see, and ear did not hear, and upon the heart of man came not up, what God did prepare for those loving Him "
but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit"
Now, the text quoted by Paul is also quoted/paraphrased in 1 Clement 34.7-35.2 - to the Corinthians:
“1Clem 34:7
Yea, and let us ourselves then, being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him as from one mouth earnestly that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For he(* Jesus?) saith,
“Eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man what great things He [God - see the next verse] hath prepared for them that patiently await Him.”
How blessed and marvelous are the gifts of God, dearly beloved!! Life in immortality, splendor in , truth in boldness, faith in confidence, temperance in sanctification! And all these things fall under our apprehension.”
*‘He’ could be a reference to teaching/revelation from Jesus, since Paul seems ascribe the content of the apocalypse in Didache 16 to “a word of the Lord”. He does so in 1 Thessalonians. See a bit later for the speciffic evidence of that.
To give the idea immediate credibility, here is a saying of Jesus from gThomas:
Thomas 17[.1]: 1 ‘Jesus said, “I will give you what eye has not seen, and what ear has not heard, and what hand has not touched, nor has it ascended to the heart of man.”
Here is Isaiah 64:4 again for comparison
"From the eon we heard not, nor our eyes beheld a God besides you, and your works which you shall do to the ones waiting for mercy"
Now, here is a cut-n-paste argument (based on Alan Garrow) for considering it credible that Paul would treat Didache as a 'wriitings' that was recognized across the early Christian church:
Didache 16 mentions that he goal is being 'perfect' (mature) at the end, when the Lord comes:
Didache 16 1-9 (Garrow's reconstruction of v 8-9 at the ending)
(1) Watch over your life. Let your lamps not go out and let your loins not be ungirde but be ready,
for you do not know the hour at which our Lord is coming.
(2) You shall assemble frequently, seeking what your souls need,
for the whole time of your faith will be of no profit to you unless
you are perfected at the final hour.
For in the last days false prophets and corrupters will be multiplied,
and the sheep will turn into wolves, and love will turn into hate;
for when lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another.
And then will appear the world-deceiver as a son of God, and he will do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands,
and he shall do godless things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning of the age.
Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial,
and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish;
but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the curse itself.
(6)And then shall appear the signs of the truth;
first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven;
next the sign of the trumpet call;
and third, the resurrection (anastasis) of the dead;
(8) Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clods of heaven...
Reconstructed ending:
[and all the holy ones with him, on his royal throne, to judge the world-deceiver and to reward each according to his deeds.
(9) Then the evil will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous will enter into life eternal
inheriting those things
which eye has not seen and ear not heard and which has not arisen in the heart of man.
Those things which God has prepared for those who love him.]
in 1 Thessalonians 4.15, Paul describes Didache 16's eschatological scheme as “a word of the Lord.”
I. The day of the Lord will come suddenly (5.1-2).
II. The day will be preceded by persecution and testing (3.4-5).
III. The Lord’s coming will be announced by trumpets (4.16).
IV. Jesus/the Lord will come from heaven (1.10; 2.19; 3.13; 5.23).
V. The Lord will be accompanied by his holy ones (3.13).6
VI. The dead will rise (note: anisthmi, and not Paul's preferred 'egeirein' which occurs a staggering nineteen (19) times in 1 Cor. 15) (4.16).
VII. The Lord will judge, reward and punish according to an exacting
moral standard (3.13; 4.1-6; 5.23; cf. 1.10; 2.12; 5.9-10).
It is credible, therefore, that Paul would have thought it appropriate to use “καθὼς γέγραπται” when quoting from the Didache. The second striking feature of the Didache is that there are good reasons to suspect that its eschatological discourse originally concluded:
16.9 τότε ἀπελεύσονται οἱ μὲν πονηροὶ εἰς αἰώνιον κόλασιν, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι πορεύσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰῶνιον,
κληρονομοῦντες ἐκεῖνα, ἃ ὀφθαμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη,
ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.
16.9 Then the evil shall go to eternal (age-during) punishment but the righteous shall enter into life eternal (age-during)
inheriting those things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which has not arisen in the heart of man.
Those things which God has prepared for those who love him.
Given Paul’s knowledge of Did. 16, as evidenced in 1 Thessalonians, and given the high status he attributes to this tradition (a word of the Lord), it is credible that the Scripture he quotes in 1 Corinthians 2.9 is Didache 16.9.
A detailed rationale for the reconstruction of the lost ending of the Didache is provided in Alan J P Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache (LNTS 254, Continuum, 2004) 44-64.
(my response will be continued in part 2 and part 3)
@@muskyoxes (Part 2/3 of my response): Didache is an instruction manual with a brief apocalypse at the end, and it has no particularly high Christology. The teachings of Jesus found in ‘the way of life’ were integrated beautifully into the compelling narratives of gLuke and gMatthew. Why would such a document be attractive to include in the canon? Didache could also be viewed as somewhat problematic if it indeed caused the Galatian crisis, as argued by Garrow. It is also noteworthy that the written instructions to the church we see mentioned in 3.John 9 were also not preserved or canonized, although he was probably one of the authors behind the apostolic Decree/Didache. The written instructions to the church mentioned in 3.John 9 (see 3. John verses 4-11) may actually have found their way into the Didache by insertion, as argued by Garrow.
Didache probably influenced both Thessalonian letters (I am not in doubt that 2 Thessalonians is authentic), Galatians and 1 Corinthians. Perhaps also 2 Corinthians 2.17-3.1.
Garrow has argued along these lines in some detail. He also thinks it influenced the Apocalypse of John (Book of Revelation).
specific
Christianity is the, what's called the new testament part of the Bible, the jews say it's not of theirs, Christians are a brake away religion, following Jesus, Yeshua, who was a jew, but this is not religion, in that in the following of Jesus yeshua, you are following a man, and then some Christians are saying that Jesus yeshua, is God, this is called idotitry, the Jews are not following a man, they follow God, it clearly states that, to follow God and no other, besides or before god, to follow god only, it's one of the ten commandments, don't have any idols and don't worship any other God's, follow the one god, the heavenly father, God
what does it matter who exactly wrote the gospels ? It is obvious that the Romans were the ones who “Invented “ Christianity!! All of the New Testament was written by the Romans or “agents” of the Romans!!!!
then why did they persecute christians? they would even call Diocletian the antichrist so like
I heard that Paul died in 66 and was replaced by a look alike.
"Forged" - great book.
Bart went back in time, which is why he is a bible expert /s
Unfortunately he only went back to the 1940s to steal all his ideas from the German theologians of the time.
As to Paul’s 2uses of faith: pretty much every serious Christian I have met uses the term “faith” in these two senses. I can’t name a Christian friend that doesn’t do that.
Maybe because they've been indoctrinated by these Bible books that use "faith" in these two different ways? DUH! How could you not see that obvious explanation that really proves nothing in terms of verifying they're both from Paul? The falsehood pre-exist and influenced the vocabulary of the modern Christians who you've met who use them in that way. DUH!
Paul was raptured in c.70AD.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Yahuah 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 Nisseh
Dude in the center is creeping me out
Interviewer is terrible. Bart is good as usual. But god the stumbling monotone is just awful from the interviewer.
Can you guys see that a lot of the words from the Bible scriptures were put together by the Roman Empire and their priests? After studying so many Biblical scriptures, one have to conclude priests, and Roman officials hands are all over the Bible and, some of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, but if Jesus called them the Antichrists (Matthew 24-24)and ( Mark 13:22) and that the Antichrists were there even then during his time, one can see it clearly if those words are what Jesus said. But only God Almighty knows for sure. Peace
No. That is not visible.
- Give them your cloak
- Let them slap you
- love them enemy
yes, it is most likely a propaganda to stop rebellion.
The only Bible author who claimed to have seen Jesus is Paul who asserted that he met him in a vision and described Jesus as being only a bright light. Paul actually stated that his sources were non-human, "...the gospel I preached is not of human origin." (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul further asserted that Jesus selected him alone to speak for him (Acts 9:15): "Paul is my chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings as well as to the people of Israel." In Romans 1:16 Paul reveals that no other gospels existed at the time, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ."
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah expired without fulfilling so he made one up decades later and set the story decades in the past matching Jewish expectations of the messiah to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 444 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. It was the 69th Week and the 70th Week was soon to come. The prophesied messiah was expected and the anticipation set off a messiah craze.
"Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven biblical years of 360 days (the Julian calendar was created centuries later), so 7 times 69 equals 483 total biblical years beginning with Artaxerxes' decree in 444 BC. Those 483 biblical years equal 173,880 days, or 476 Julian years. Therefore the Messiah would come and be "cut off" in AD 33. One prophetic week equaling seven Biblical years is something “Daniel” invented in about 165 BC, effectively an admission that Jeremiah 25:11-12 failed.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
In the Galatians "road to Damascus" conversion vision tale written in 48 AD he claimed to have gone to the Arabian desert to study the Old Testament for 17 years to align with the Daniel 9:25 prophecy.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.
and then he argued with himself about letting gentiles in
How strange that all of Paul's work in starting churches just led to a bunch of churches being started. One might think he would give this "revolt" thing a try instead
The only problem with what you wrote is the consensus is that Daniel was the last book of the Old Testament written in about 165BC…
Jesus mythicism is a conspiracy theory.
That's a silly theory.
😂 If someone invites Ehrman I already know he has no clue, doesn't read any books on the matter, and isn't interested in giving solid information to his audience.
But Erhman is polular nowadays, he brings views and therefore revenue. Plus you can use him to prove your own biases. I can call this beneficial in certain sense
Can you point us to some examples of your own scholarship that contradicts Bart Ehrman? Most people will choose a comforting delusion over uncomfortable realty and you seem to be one of them. Please don't take this comment personally but it was you who started attacking someone who has dedicated his life to cutting through the BS to try and find some kernel of truth for those of us prepared to hear.
Textual critics like Ehrman provide information worth considering. You don't have to agree with his theological opinions. Use critics for what info they can provide and then treat their opinion as you would treat your car mechanic's or doctor's opinion. They provide info and options, not necessarily truth.
This is hog wash. Paul definitely wrote all three.
I appreciate Bart's detailed discussion of authorship. But I wonder, as does Richard Bauchkham (The Gospels for All Christians), why the original recipients would not have known who wrote the Gospels? Of course they would have. Isn't that good reason to give pretty strong credence to the names ascribed to the Gospels by the next generation of Christians? Papias, for example?
Everyone seems to get hung up on the fact that the authors did not identify themselves. But really, no author identified himself. (If not Mattheew, then who?) You really have to ask why. Why were the authors self-effacing? Even Luke in Luke-Acts when he uses the first person "we", as he does repeatedly did not identify himself. Why? It seems that it was intentional.
Isn't it reasonable to at least guess that it was because they wanted Jesus to have the center stage and not they themselves? We 2000 years later think that the authors name would authenticate his writing. (Paul's name does not authenticate his writing in Bart's eyes.) But they did not. Jesus authenticates the writing. The truth authenticates the writing.
And that is why the various forgeries coming later were not recognized by the church as authentic. They did not have the authentication of truth.