Luke/Acts Is Fiction, NOT HISTORY!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Luke/Acts Is Fiction, NOT HISTORY! | Paula Fredriksen PhD
Many Christian apologist insist on Luke/Acts being a traveling companion of Paul. It seems absolutely necessary for their apologetics to carry any strength, so today we ask Dr. Paula Fredriksen if Luke/Acts was a companion of Paul and when did he write?
MythVision made a special trip to Boston USA to interview Paula Fredriksen. I recorded 12 sessions with Dr. Fredriksen discussing her work in New Testament studies. Thanks to those who helped fund this trip via GoFundMe I was able to make history. Their names are at the outro of every video with Paula.
Paula Fredriksen, the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University, since 2009 has been Distinguished Visiting Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she also holds two honorary doctorates in theology and religious studies. She has published widely on the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity, and on pagan-Jewish-Christian relations in the Roman Empire. Author of Augustine on Romans (1982) and From Jesus to Christ (1988; 2000), her Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, won a 1999 National Jewish Book Award. More recently, she has explored the development of Christian anti-Judaism, and Augustine’s singular response to it, in Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (2010); and has investigated the shifting conceptions of God and of humanity in Sin: The Early History of an Idea (2012). Her latest study, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (2017), places Paul’s Jewish messianic message to gentiles within the wider world of ancient Mediterranean culture.
=================================
Sign up here for the course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity
👉 mythvisionpodc...
Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here
www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" Webinar here: www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here:
www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus call himself God webinar: www.mythvision...
==================================
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or a one time donation through my links below.
🔥 GoFundMe link for MythVision to go to Paula Fredriksen 🔥gofund.me/d5b0...
🔥 GoFundMe link for MythVision to go to Israel 🔥 gofund.me/23b4...
GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodc...
MythVision Patreon 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal. 👉 www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Recommeded books 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Email MythVision 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 / derekpodcast
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
MythVision Discord: / discord
#Luke/Acts #Luke #MythVision
I hope you enjoy these scholarly discussions. I have several more videos with Paula Fredriksen and many other scholars on MythVision's Patreon 👉 www.patreon.com/mythvision - Join us today. I hope you all have a wonderful 2023 New Year.
Wow.
Wow, Wow. Wow.
2023 with MythVision is starting off very, very well indeed !!
Hats off the the Patrons who sent Derek for this excellent discussion !!!!
Please advise what you use for lighting? Struggling to light our family weekly zoom sessions?
State-Chattel are conditioned for awareness when it is too late, the state has no plans for the future, peak oil discoveries on the planet was known for a fact in 1956. Climate change; forget about it.
Luke and Acts are history.
@@davidlafleche1142 he says, based on nothing
"The problem with this Paul is that he hardly let's Jesus speak."
-- Carl Jung
Paul was a Madison Ave Madman…
The problem with Carl Jung is he never knew or had a relationship with Jesus the way Paul did!
Is that quote real?
@@dwevorsPaul didn't know Jesus
@@dwevorsNeither did Paul. According to the Bible he never met Jesus in person, he only "had a vision" and he even implies that other people were not taking his conversion seriously.
Thanks for this channel. The amount of quality interviews on this channel is incredible. This is a fantastic resource that has been very useful to positively introduce me to scholarship instead of my prior negative assumptions I had as a conservative evangelical.
Except much of what they share isn't academic; it's simply speculative contrarianism.... and even more strangely driven by a lot of Jewish "academic."
Just seems like he waste so much energy disproving Jesus and requires some sort of academic validation. The gospel could be more of an esoteric mystical books vs literal.
@@RomanPaganChurch It is speculative contrarianism founded on academic research.
@@ron88303 All fake conclusions are.
"That's just simple physics." Cracked me up. Thanks Derek and Dr Fredriksen for 20 minutes of very enjoyable illumination.
Likewise..although perhaps "Its just simple astronomy" would be more appropriate.
It's funny, Satan worshipers use the word illumination a lot. Interesting choice of words.
@@willyfoofoo6076 Cringe.
I love how occasionally, Dr. Paula Fredriksen gets such a mischievous look to questions. :)
Her take on the literature and history is really interesting!
Dr. Fredriksen is a joy to listen to. Thanks for having her.
I never read enough of the epistles, and cant even recall any of them read during mass when I was a Catholic, but my mother saud his favourite word was "I". She said sge was sick of hearing what "I" did. What was done to "me". The epistles, according to her were about Paul.
Catholics read from Paul every Sunday, but there's a reason you don't remember. You sat down and someone read from the Old Testament. Next, they coached everyone on the repetitive response to recite after every verse of a psalm, yada, yada. By then you 😴...(this was the Paul part)...and suddenly woke up to everyone standing and singing Alleluia before reading a gospel passage.
Also, your mom's got it about right! 🤣 It was always about him, how he was the Apostle with authority, not to trust other gospels he didn't teach, and some really boring nonsense about the physics of salvation that he pulled out of his ass.
The Epistles are letters. Using I, me, mine is somewhat expected.
. . . All epistles are read in the Catholic Sunday mass, from Paul and from the other authors. Each Sunday, another passage is read: the same passage is read again after three years. The passages are chosen in a way that they have one subject and can stand for themselves, too.
@@Achill101 ok, yes, that's a very accurate assessment! Comparing all the epistles, though, I still find that Paul goes to far greater lengths to introduce himself and include his biography. Peter, James, and John keep their letters more focused on the addressees.
@@pondboy3682 - yes, that sounds possible. I will check it out.
. . . I wonder if James, Peter, etc. knew the people personally well they wrote, too. For Paul I take it as a given he knew many people personally in the communities he had founded. And they knew him and personal example and might have been more interested in his thoughts. An exception would be his letter to the Romans - I will check that, too, if he uses less first person singular.
Your mother was a he?
“How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:22
Just by the way.
At about the 3:00 minute mark Paula describes Paul's experience on the road to Damascus and then says that Paul goes immediately back to Jerusalem. I'm curious to know what her source is for this because it's not in any translation of the bible that I'm aware of. In Acts 9 Paul is led by the hand into Damascus after he is blinded and then stayed in Damascus "for many days". This would seem to be in conflict with the idea that he returned to Jerusalem immediately.
The gate of Damascus is the spring equinox. Syria = Spring.
There are two Jerusalems, in the bible, one is the summer solstice in Cancer (this is where Jesus rides the mare and her foal (two stars in Cancer) into Jerusalem aka the summer solstice of the free woman.
The other Jerusalem, is the winter solstice in Capricorn. This is the Jerusalem of the handmaid. Hagar and Ishmel represent winter (six nights in Genesis one). Sarah and Isaac represent summer (six days in Genesis one).
"Immediately" is in context with Paul's own statement in the epistles. He said that right after his conversion he went to Arabia for a number of years before going to Jerusalem. In Acts 9 he heads there only a few days after his conversion.
@@keith6706
The conversion takes place every spring as the gods announce "let there be light." This is where the sleeping summer sun, Og/Gog, is awoken with "Why Sleepth O'Lord, Awaken.........
Have you noticed how crazy many Christians become when they speak of Og and Magog?
Og/Gog the summer sun of seven signs/months who sleeps on an iron bed of five signs/months aka winter (darkness). During this period, Magog aka the Hindu Maha Bhaga, takes over. He is identical to the Hebrew HaShem, the Greek Hades, and Latin Pluto.
As we get near to the spring equinox, the angles become concerned about the sleeping summer sun and say "Awake, O Lord! Why do You sleep? Rise up! Do not turn away from us forever. Why do You hide Your face? Why do You forget our troubles and our suffering? For our soul is brought down to the dust. Our body holds on to the earth. Psalm 44.23-25.
Winter is alway blind and lame. The sun overtakes darkness at the spring Passover.
When you say Damascus….. I presume you really mean the monastery @ Damashek, known today by its Arabic name Khirbet Qumran
Strange how they all prefer to keep the Arabic name don’t you think ?
I am one f those you refer to as "a regular person who might be watching", but I always check out everything I hear on youtube rather than just accepting without question. There area few comments near the beginning that seem to be creating more of a problem with Acts than actually exists.
1) Luke only uses the word "christian" twice, once pointing out that the word was first used in Antioch (he does not say when), and towards the end when he is quoting King Agippa. He never uses the word himself.
2) The High Priest did not "deputise" Paul. It was Paul's initiative to ask the High Priest for letters of authorisation (Acts 9).
3)Luke does not say Paul immediately returned to Jerusalam from Damascus. He does not mention the time in Arabia because it is irrelevant to his narrative. Omission is not contradiction.
4) The incident with Ste[hem occurred before Paul's conversion and he was only marginally involved. Again, it is irrelevant to his narrative and omission is not contradiction.
Excellent comment. It’s amazing to me how much effort people go to try create contradictions that can be resolved by reading the very document that are criticizing.
There are glaring discrepancies between Acts and Paul's letters about his itinerary. No apologetics can resolve that.
@@scambammer6102 glaring discrepancies lol Meanwhile over the millennia no effort made to correct or rewrite the verses to fix those “glaring” discrepancies. You haven’t heard? The Bible has been rewritten and “changed” (claims by people like you) yet no effort to resolve those glaring problems. Any average bible student Is well aware of the verses that present interpretation challenges. In fact, every study bible mentions them in the notes for those verses. Y’all are so desperate to prove something that you drastically overstate common knowledge “discrepancies” which undermines your argument.
@@wO0tw00t if they took all the dumb stuff and inconsistencies out of the Bible there wouldn't be anything left. In religion, incoherence is a feature not a bug. Your assertion that "they" would have removed any errors is laughable on its face. Don't waste money on higher education.
@@scambammer6102 thank you for exposing yourself with that comment. That was exactly what I set you up to do…that was too easy!
Love your channel . Makes it more clearer what was going in in those times . ❤
This was very interesting! Thanks for your work to make this information available. This topic is really interesting to me as an ex-Pentecostal, however it was kind of difficult to follow some of the conversation as I’m not familiar with these concepts. I feel like a need a second video explaining this video. Will be looking up Robin Walsh.
The question is, only, did Jesus get nailed on to a Roman cross and then did thousands of people get killed holding on to the belief that Jesus lives due to the power of resurrection of the dead?
In other words, does that power of Christ Jesus exist into all eternity per Revelation 11:7-15 for millions of Jews and Christians when Palestine is whole and Israel is wiped off the map?
And will you like the Muslims in Zechariah 13:8-9 do something of value for yourself and believe completely that "YAHWEH IS YOUR ELOHIM" while watching Muslims prostrate for the last time per Amos 8:14 as they are turned into footstools per Psalms 110:1, and those who rejoice over death become an abhorrence unto all flesh per Isaiah 66:24 in the sense those not under God are made into slave like looking ash forms with their noses pressed to the ground as a warning that it is your second body and soul that is judged in hell fire per Matthew 10:28 and then that is the end of you. Allah doesn't need your worship or desire it.
Allah, per the Quran, intendeth evil unto all people or humans. But thanks be to God, for He offers up salvation.
@@ReligionOfSacrifice The question is, only, is the bible, you so readily and often quote, is the true word of God. That is whichever bible you use? Whichever bible it is that has no original documents where the stories were originally passed on by oral tradition for who knows how many years before someone who could read and write could eventually write them down, that was written by unknown authors, that has had to be translated from copied translated documents by unknown translators from no longer used ancient languages. Now that you have your ‘whichever’ bible dubiously translated into English you then have to decide, or someone else, which passages are literal or metaphorical and then once this has been decided you, or someone else, will then come up with your own made up interpretations for these literal or metaphorical texts in whatever copied, with no original texts, dubiously translated bible you are using.
Now you are ready to preach the true word of God? That is the true word of God depending on whatever Abrahamic religion has been thrust upon you, Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and then according to whichever one of the thousands of denominations of said religions you happen to be.
@@terryriley8963, you seem to think yourself wise, but Yahweh was slaying an animal while saying "the seed of woman will bruise the serpent" (classical conditioning) and Abraham left a pagan religion for one of blood sacrifice for sin and was not afraid to add a son to the altar. Jesus died, was entombed, and rose again the third day.
The only question is whether any other book can ever come close to telling the end from the beginning. Know Revelation 11:7-15, because in that day all your wise pride towards me will have to be dropped and you will have to decide what you wish to do about the fact Jesus died for your sin because He loves you and it will determine your final state.
@@ReligionOfSacrifice No, I do not see myself as ‘wise’, everything I said in my reply about the bible were simple facts where I questioned the authenticity of your bible as Gods word with several actual facts showing how the bible stories were created orally by man, eventually written down by man, copied from non original sources by man, translated by man, decided what is literal and metaphorical by man and then finally interpreted by man with a God only getting involved within the stories that are told. How many bible versions are there? How many religions, with their many divided denominations, have been spawned from these stories, all with their own special manmade interpretations?
So I questioned the authenticity of your bible and all you are able to do is answer me with more quotes from that book? Very wise of you. Please, no more quotes from your book.
Abraham was a coward and a really pathetic father because if a God told me to sacrifice a child of mine just to prove my loyalty I would tell him to go to Hell. Also, what kind of God would demand a father and child go through such a horrific ordeal just so it somehow proves ‘loyalty’ which, if he was an all powerful and all knowing God should have known such a horrific ordeal was unnecessary anyway. I am definitely not wise and the only reason I answered you is because you believe that such a demand from God for a father to sacrifice his son is somehow a great and worthy ordeal is truly sickening and twisted. If you read such a story in someone else's religious book you would think it was a truly sickening and twisted story as well but because it's a story in your book you believe it's a great powerful story showing how brave and loyal Abraham was to God? That's how religion twists the mind.
@@terryriley8963, the authenticity of the Bible has already stood up because we have so many ancient copies. Do you honestly believe all the people died for belief in Jesus' resurrection from the dead having never seen Him? You are a fool indeed.
Be ready to see millions of Jews and Christians to be dead on the streets throughout all of Israel and you don't have to wonder if I question whether millions of them will rise from the dead per Revelation 11:7-15 because I KNOW JESUS HAS THAT POWER. Dead bodies testify of Him when their testimony is ended.
The elect can't be deceived because they believe in such power as Jesus has.
If the main reason for dating Acts in the 2nd century is due to the term Christian then that's nonsense - it occurs in Josephus' writings at the end of the 1st century, as well as Tacitus again towards the end of the 1st century. The fact that non-Christian writers were already using the term then strongly implies it was being used earlier within the Christian community, thus putting Acts well within the 1st century. Fredriksen seems to like ignoring the facts.
Are you citing the Testimonium Flavoniun because it’s generally recognized to be edited by Christians. There are also references to Christians in the first century with Pliny the Elder and tacitus
@Erie Poplars I’m suspicious of your dates for Pliny the Elder. He dies in 79. Kind of hard to write a book 30 years after you die.
@Erie Poplars Damn, they tried to stop me from making that mistake for 1900 years by making that elder and younger distinction and I still messed it up.
Josephus was working for Rome.
There are other reasons, such as allusions to works dated to around the 90s, making it likely it was written a while after unless the author of Luke-Acts was lucky enough to read those works when they dropped. But there is overlap between the two stances. 80s to 90s and 90s and 110s is not so different. But there are also some reasons to go as late as 150s. There's no hard line on exactly why a date must be picked.
Thank you so much Derek and Dr. Fredericksen. I've learned and grown far more in my understanding of the beliefs I used to hold, and in my dealings with those who hold them still, from learning from the scholars you've spoken with-- than in the all the years before combined.
As a liberal-minded Christian, I’m perfectly content to agree with what these scholars say while also holding to my own personal faith.
@@ethanhocking8229 I agree 100%. I have a certain kind of faith apart from virgin births, empty tombs, walking on water, etc., and I also love history. I see no tension between them.
@@kbblaze9371it's the archetypal message that appeals to the unconscious. Sadly many theists worship "the finger that points to the moon"
Scholars disagree on a variety of 'textual varients' and historical backgrounds but most importantly the conclusions that may be drawn from them and the presuppositions preceding them. Listen to Dan Wallace dialogue with Bart Ehrman and you can see there is another general point of view in these matters.
@@ethanhocking8229isn't that cognitive dissonance?
Very thankful for Mythvision Channel..I developed a passion for Biblical Scholarship because of this Channel..
Tell me, can a witness lose a case during cross examination?
Is it even credible to throw the bible away because of these minor disagreements?
@@koppite9600 the bible is a work of fiction, so is Lord of the rings, do you throw away works of fiction ,Because they are works of fiction ?
But they make nonsense of fundamentalism.
@@jamesregiste960 I now have faith that the bible is a work of fiction.
@@koppite9600 why do you meed 'faith"?
Why not use discernment?
The evidence is out there, you just have to look for it.
@@jamesregiste960 give me the evidence that it's a work of fiction. You only made a claim so I needed faith to fill up the gap.
I like how Paula Fridriksen treats acts as a comfortable enough historical document to intepret the early messianic movements and gives Paul credit in his vast biblical knowledge 👍👍👍
The problem is taking the bible seriously. It is Roman sarcasm, slur, parody. How many Johns & Marys do you need, for Pete's sake?
Sounds like my mother's side of the family; only it's Williams and Francis' that accompany Mary..
Are you sure? That isn’t even what you think it’s what you’ve heard. Don’t be surprised when you find out you don’t have one original thought in your head. Almost all people are brainwashed one way or another.
Dr. Fredriksen's reason for Paul seeing himself as persecuted is not credible. Paul's letters absolutely scream control freak. He insisted that no one but God could ever tell him anything. His solution to divisions within the church was that everyone should always do things his way. He showed a persecution complex because that's how those people are when they don't get their way.
A "very oblique reference to the historical Jesus"? Why guess a very oblique reason when we have one so very direct?
Yeah, Paul evinces some characteristics of mental illness.
But, given that we will never have enough information to ever make a firm assessment on that subject, I think it's best to always question what he means by persecuted.
We see this exact sort of behavior from the narcissistic preachers running around flagrantly violating the stipulations of their non profit status among other things.
Behavior much more in line with a high control group rather than a sober, reasonable person.
what's the one that's so direct?
But we don't have direct. That is point.
@@EllasPOSEiDON Paul's personality issues are directly evident in his letters. We need look no further to explain his persecution complex.
Debunked: If Luke and Acts aren't history, then there's no basis for the early church, neither is there any reason to believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I smell the heresy of gnosticism... This is usually because of a lack of knowledge of how Paul writes, using the dialectic method extremely well, and with hints of sarcasm at times. Lots of these details are lost on people if you're not paying attention to any of the recent historical-archaeological finds that back up the narrative of the canonical-gospel texts, including the book of the Acts. For instance, imaging tech on the shroud of turin shows a very rare "widow's mite" coin minted for only a few years in the 30s AD.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If there were nothing at all, I'd wonder, but this entire bit is tiring. The gnostic gospels are rejected by major scholars for a good reason, by the way; the main reason being that they get major geography features of Jerusalem incorrect. I'd want to see what you think about Gary Habermas's "minimal facts argument" you can watch a presentation for free here on YT.
This woman is an awesome scholar. Love her interpretation. Great discussion here. Good job Dude.
There are 400K different interpretations from 46K scholars. It’s all a guess no one really knows anything.
Great information! Awesome interview! Hey did u misspell Decieve in the title on purpose? Just wondering! Great work!!
@@wiard LOL!! Possibly 😂😂😂
While I was in the early stages of deconstructing, I suspected Luke of being a double agent, due to the contradictions between Luke, Acts and Paul’s letters. Great video Derek. ❤
What contradictions palio?
Paul's the double agent
Paul and Jesus is the same person. They’re shapeshifters
Her reference to the High Priest having no authority over the Qumran community is irrelevant to Paul going to Damascus. The Qumran community was a sect within Judaism which held contempt for the perceived impurity of the Jerusalem temple and its priests. Therefore not surprising if the Jerusalem High Priest had little or no authority over them. That is quite different from Paul visiting local Jewish synagogues in Damascus which clearly recognised the authority of the High Priest.
I cant believe anyone is taking this 'expert' seriously. She is completely ignoring basic historical facts. False assertion after false assertion.
But christianity is also a cult itself.
The fact that God Almighty never took any effort to write a single piece of literature says it all. We are followers of Men, not God.
Brilliant! Well said.... Maybe this will catch on. More people should think this... 😂😂😂😂
The 10 Words?
@justinb777
You mean the 10 Commandments? That was ACCORDING to the STORY in the Book of Exodus, which God never wrote.
@@origenjerome8031 Well if you think the whole Bible is fiction you’d obviously come to that conclusion, you said God didn’t write a single piece of literature which is false but if you say the whole Bible is fake you throw everything out the window essentially 😂
@justinb777
What literature did God write? Give me one and provide me your evidence that God wrote it. Give me one.
Funny how Paul was circumcised but then went around saying people don't need to be circumcised anymore, even though Jesus never said that anywhere in any Gospel. He was already in the clear. It's like person having fire insurance and going around saying no, you don't need fire insurance at all. Paul must have had more authority than Jesus, to be able to unilaterally cancel the circumcision rule that was around for centuries, just nah, that's unpopular, I'll drop that requirement, because only insane people would ever agree to it.
Paulianity baybee.
It's Paul all the way down.
Gotta start calling them Paulians.
@Casey Kramer
While I agree with you regarding circumcision being an integral part of the Judaic Mosaic Covenant, Paul probably knew that many Gentiles were not going to mutilate their genitals (and perform much of other rituals) to become Judaists in order to fully embrace the Jews' deity and religion.
@@sufficientmagister9061 Exactly, Romans were violent and evil but they weren't masochists.
@@RolanRoyce Explain to me when did Paul said 👉 *JEWS* 👈 didn’t need to get circumcised.
@@pepepena1937 He didn't say Jews, he said people who wanted to join his alternative to Judaism and still get into the same heaven as the Jews. Did God make Jews perform ghastly surgery just for kicks? Because if people can get into heaven without it then they did it for nothing, right?
I was deceived by decieved!
They chain goes further over the centuries if we take 20 years as one Gen. Then deceived^98
J. Atwill had shown the scriptures originated 60 to 70 AC
@@MichaTheLight and now the blind are leading you ….. 😮
Some dude in second century wrote a fanfic on a book he never read, and there are adult people today who literally believe that's a word of god.
Here we go...Paula Fredriksen is a former Catholic who converted to Judaism and was one of Mel Gibson's acerbic critics when he released his film The Passion of the Christ.[8][9][10]. Paula is not a Christian, nor does she believe in the New Testament. Now I get it! She is LOST!
The wildly dynamic community of Alexandria was similar to modern NYC. Alexandria had BUDDHISTS AND HINDUS AND YOGGIS not to mention over 5,000 years of Egyptian learning
Please explain why the 5000 year old Egyptian philosophy is now irrelevant while the Jewish & Judeo-Christian culture has coined human history.
During Paul's brief in Philippians 3, Paula Fredriksen seemed to insist Paul needed to mention the martyrdom of Stephen to authenticate Acts. Don't see it necessary since Paul made a general statement without any details of killing Christians. So why is this one Christian needing mentioned when he martyred so many?
Not a problem for me.
Anyone that has spent a lot of time studying the Ante Nicene Fathers sees how they had no problem seeing Paul preaching the same message as the other NT writers and Jesus in the gospels and Luke recording Paul in Acts. Those that don't, do what Peter warned was happening in his day in 2 Peter 3:15-17 which says and our dear brother Paul writes the same way in all of his letters and is hard to understand and many twist what he says to their own destruction, but you've been warned beloved.
As for the word χριστιανος Christian, which shares the root with Christos χριστος meaning "anointed" ...the Christians were anointed with the Spirit of Christ. So sometimes people called them that, other times disciples μαθηται other times believers... lots of aliases. Not a problem. Having gotten my MA in Ancient Philology in the Biblical Languages in Jerusalem, I never cease to be amazed having been around so many academics the overconfidence in speculative theoretical research. Sigh... here we go again.
Paula Fredriksen is a distinguished professor on this topic and is recognized atl large academic institutions around the world. She has ample publications stretching back to 1982.
These videos are a brief synopsis of her field of research. Since you're clearly so qualified and knowledgeable, you should criticize her actual research instead of blathering on about a short summary made for laypeople.
@@SwordTune sounds impressive when one uses such adjectives to describe someone. Who would or could provide a rebuttal when such adjectives are used? Have you spent much time in Graduate school? (Masters or Doctorate studies) I have two (2) masters and I have seen how the puppet show works. Who says someone is "distinguished" or is qualified? Based on what criteria? Academic institutions do not always hire based on TRUTH or even the pursuit of it, but rather what will help them get more funding.
On the 8th day, God created spellcheck.
As a Christian, I was very much open to watch this video, because I am still learning, and looking for truth, and understanding, however, listening to the both of you proves to me that even the so called brightest minds on earth cannot comprehend spiritual things.
Honestly, this is a fair statement and I'm glad someone said it.
The problem is that God is an evidentialist. He is going to damn those who don’t believe on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of certain claims. Clearly, in the Gospels, Jesus provided clear evidence of his deity to the apostles, and Christians throughout history have used evidentialist apologetics to try to convert people. If God has used evidentialism in such a way (I.e. that it’s a valid means to arrive at spiritual knowledge), it makes no sense that God would provide such scant evidence for the most important event in human history such that someone can be reasonable and reject it. He knows what would convince each one of these people and yet he does not provide them with that. If you say that belief comes from the heart, how can someone know what is the influence of the Holy Spirit and what is demonic deception or just their brain? It’s not testable. The blind faith that a non evidentialist god demands would mean that it would be impossible to try to convince someone of a different religion that yours is true. If God is not an evidentialist, then he damns people to eternities of hellfire arbitrarily
Also how do you know then that you can comprehend spiritual things? How do you know that Muslims aren’t right? Or Hindus? You’re going to resort to evidentialism and show that your epistemology is flawed and hypocritical…
When you say looking for truth, would you accept a truth if it went against something you believe in? If you’re not willing to change your mind, you’re not actually interested in truth.
@@josiahmedin2216hinduism = animalism. Buddhism thinks earth is infinite. Islam condratics so much with other abrahanic religion and have lots of inner contradiction . Now are we Ok?
"If the River Tiber overflows or the Nile doesn't, or the Earth moves and the Sun doesn't, suddenly the cries go up, 'The Christians to the Lions!'"
And the Lions are like, *_"NO!!!_* The Christians are toxic!"
You can tell that to Jesus when you see Him on Judgment Day. ,, ✝️✨
@@maxprescott9371 you can tell it to my but right now
@@maxprescott9371 he dont have to give nothing to the Monotheistic God or any pagan god in case they exist, because if they exist, they surely made the world in a way that they are useless to everything. What God will do? Send us to hell to suffer to eternity? Off course, because is the only thing a God or gods created by ancient people can think to punish people, with torture and flames, just like they did back in the day.
@@maxprescott9371 Wake up from your deep delusional. History can't prove any historicity of your fictional story because IT IS A FICTIONAL STORY. Something that never happaned in reality will be insanely difficult (sorry impossible) to prove it othervise. That is the clown game of apologetics and scholars.
@@EllasPOSEiDON Hello ,and thanks for sharing ☕️ So then I ask you, on what grounds do you believe the Bible is a fictional story ?? To make such a claim , I assume, is in light of your historicity !! Where is your conclusive evidence that it didn’t happen ??
Ask yourself,, Did World War 1 and 2 really happen ?
- Did the Roman Empire really exist ?
- Was JFK really assassinated
- Did Ancient Egypt really exist ??
ect. ect. It’s all about the evidence and the realities they represent. Peace 🖖
In Luke 1:1-4, the writer of Luke admits he wasn't an eyewitness...
And then in Matthew, Matthew writing about another Matthew.😂
The entire Christian religion we have today with all its denominations and sects, all of it has its roots in Paul's teachings. Paul claimed to be an apostle yet he never met Jesus. Any rational thinker would challenge Paul's claims.
More Please
Again Dr Fredriksen is awesome. I liked her stuff since Jesus was a Buddhist videos. I don't agree with that theory but her work is killer.. Thanks Derek your channel is awesome.
A liar can indeed work. The fools can even believe the liars.
Wow, Dr. Fredriksen is amazing! She's so articulate that the subject matter was easy to absorb. My favorite scholar so far on the channel.
There are many interpretations, understandings, and speculations on the whole subject matter of what is in the Bible. How does anyone know what is actually 100% percent correct?
Just think of the bible as 100% fiction.
@@harveywabbit9541 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️Grow up man
@@COSMIN266
or 1,000% fiction
@harveywabbit9541 So, how are you 100% percent correct by your words alone? Where is the substantial viable proof of your statement? Or is it only conjecture? (Is any religion true?)
@@harveywabbit9541 neither historians nor bible scholars say that🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️there are a lot of historical data, names, places, cities, meetings, which or proven true,but you have no way to know..how your brain gets stuck ,it is still in the trees😂
PhD:" "Luke has Paul start out in Jerusalem."
No verses cited, but I can work with that. Luke is correct.
Saul (Paul) was there when Stephen was stoned. Why does Paul not mention this when recalling his previous way of life in Galatians 1? Well... actually, he does.
"For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it." -- Galatians 1:13
Where did this persecution of the church take place? Was it not in Jerusalem?
"Look," he [Stephen] said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man [Jesus] standing at the right hand of God".
At this, they [the Sanhedrin] covered their ears, and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and stoned him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul ... And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day, a great persecution broke out against the [Christian] church in Jerusalem [due to Stephen's words], and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen, and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison." -- Acts 7:56 through 8:3
Going back to Galatians 1:15 we see the conversion event, after which, Paul specifically mentions he did not go up to Jerusalem. He instead went to Arabia. Later he returned to Damascus (having traveled from Jerusalem toward Damascus before his conversion).
Just for clarity, the location timeline is:
[Jerusalem]
Saul is in Jerusalem when Stephen is stoned.
A great persecution breaks out against the [Christian] church in Jerusalem.
Saul is there, rounding up men and women to imprison.
Christians flee from Jerusalem.
Saul asks the Chief Priest for "letters to the synagogues of Damascus" so he can go hunt down Christians there and bring them back to be imprisoned in Jerusalem.
[Damascus]
On his way to persecute the church in Damascus, Saul encounters Jesus, is blinded, then, some days later, healed, then begins to preach the gospel in the very synagogues of Damascus he was going to search for Christians.
It's not long before the local Jews there get fed up with Paul's Christian testimony and plot to kill him.
Paul's followers help him escape the city at night.
Paul then goes to Arabia, then, later, returns to Damascus.
[Jerusalem]
Three years later, Paul returns to Jerusalem to meet with Cephas (Peter) and spends some time with him.
So if you're a four year old, I could see where you would see this as a contradiction:
Acts: On that day, a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem... Saul began to destroy the church.
Galatians: I did not go up to Jerusalem.
But c'mon, we're adults. Do you not see Saul started out in Jerusalem, went to Damascus, then to Arabia for some time, then back to Damascus, and finally returned to Jerusalem. I think there are children's books that accurately depict this timeline. No reason for a PhD to get tripped up.
The holy Roman catholic church never said it was a history as we understand history today. It can rather be understood as His story. thank you.
This is not very compelling. I don't know if its her ideas that are not very well considered or if the interview is poorly done. But lots of things are eye squinting. Just one example: As part of her fiction theory she says how Paul has a persecution complex and then goes on for a long part of the interview to discuss how Paul was legitimately persecuted. You can't really have it both ways. There were a lot of things as well, but .. well, Im busy an no one really cares about youtube comments.
When you have an expert in front of you, it is much better to ask a question and be quiet.
Odd leaps of logic. Why would St Paul mention the martyrdom of Stephen *specifically* when describing the persecution of the Ekklesia? Or why would we need Luke-Acts to be written in the second century for using the word Christian when it specifically describes the *coining* of the phrase and a couple of uses later on? (Hardly the most conservative myself and even own a couple of Frederick's books but she needs to seriously back up some of her claims more)
and why wouldn't those copying the 'books ' in the later date ' bring things up to date' without changing the story .....
Honestly, this is why Jesus didn't write anything ! And imho the 'first writers' were as 'gnostic cult evangelicals ' out to make a buck on a 'new religion' ....
then someone decided to 'correct the bs going around '.
And the bottom line is that the 'spirit' is that old 'face to face' and the spoken word is 'living' , we know who we're talking to and whether they understand and 'what they need' = Love .
He has a persecution complex....sounds like the typical Christian.
Yeah meam i dont why they always hate on paul only
One could argue that Paul is the one who invented the christian persecution complex.
It's just generations of people copying the idiosyncracy of one possibly mentally unwell person.
I've personally heard Paul trotted out on many occasions in churches when they want to talk about the persecution of christians.
Says the Abdul doing the persecution
@@pepepena1937 😂😂
@@Xerame506 Are you a Muslim?
I've seen this a few times now and Dr. Fredriksen is amazing. When she goes, "That's just simple physics" after explaining how "flesh belongs in the sublunar realm" and "You gotta think interms of science 101" just lands every single time. 🤣
Don't be deceived! The word "deceived" follows the i-before-e-except-after-c rule. It's hard to take this video seriously as scholarship, when a key word on the clickbait screen is spelled incorrectly.
Yes, please correct! I honestly started the video wondering if there was some meaning to it and the misspelling was intentional.
People make similar error with "thier and their".
I-before-e-except-after-c and when your foreign neighbors Keith and Heidi seize their eight counterfeit heifer sleighs from feisty caffeinated average height weightlifters on a weird heist.
@@coreylee9342 Thank you.
@@coreylee9342 look at the word, "weird". It's the wEIrdest word in the dictionary.
I will NEVER, EVER, be decieved.
I admit to my arrogance and vanity as to this fact, but I have a way of preventing such an occurrence.
I can spell.
Sorry!
My internal pedant snuck out.
Paula is awesome. Hope we see her soon!
My hypothesis about Saul/Paul is that while on the road to Damascus, he suffered from a seizure, fell off his horse, hit his head too hard, and began repeatedly having visions and hearing things that no one with him saw or heard.
Right, and somehow the things he wrote afterwards were SOMEHOW consistent with the 3 other Gospels. Maybe he got lucky???
@LucksThePluckThatShouldntExist What are you talking about?!? None of the 4 gospels are consistent with each other in the least. Let alone there being so many discrepancies between what Paul says and what Jesus supposedly said. You should take Dan Barker's "Easter challenge".... where you read the Bible gospels side by side and compare stories instead of one book after the other. Try to make a coherent timeline and story. It isn't possible.
@@elainejohnson6955 I literally read the Bible as my hobby..
All the stories mentioned connect to each other in someway, and can form undesigned evidences in which you can use a story to solve another story in the Bible.
Not mentioning the fact of the historical mentions during the story, denisarius being specifically mentioned by Matthew, a tax collector who knows much more than money, and so much evidences point to it being valid, concrete, solid evidence for a historical document.
We can safely conclude from the gospels that:
Jesus is actually a real thing.
Jesus died.
Jesus died *on* a cross.
His followers believed in Him as He ressurected.
@LucksThePluckThatShouldntExist Give me a coherent timeline for Jesus to live within without cherry-picking the stories.
Start with Jesus's birth narratives since King Herod died in -4 BCE and Quirinus didn't become Governor of Syria and do a census until +6 CE. The Bible gives two different years that are 10 years apart for his birthdate. It is impossible for Luke and Matthew to be telling stories about the same man.
Then, tell me how Mary, Joseph ,and Jesus were in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time when they are 250 miles apart!?!
There are so many more examples.
I spelled dying once, dieing. Shoulda seen all the flack I got for it 😂
There are several beauty salons named Curl Up & Dye
As you should have...
Shame on you!
😁😁😁
« In what way does Luke/Acts » shows a papyrus of Paul’s letters. Contradict Paul’s letters, shows a papyrus of the Gospel of John.
I just can't get over the spelling mistake on the thumbnail lol
I didn't even notice till I saw your comment.
Maybe it's on purpose... an irony....it's trying to deceive you...
I don't have to respect cognitive dissonance and I don't have to be nice around ignorant people
Who wanted to read an old text today if it weren't composed like great literature.
Historians.
Those willingly to be instructed by the Bible find it to be spot on in every way and more relevant than today's headlines.
It alone tells us of each man's origin and Creator, God, and the need for every man to be saved from God's judgment and wrath that are to come due to our sins against him. It alone also tells us of the Lord Jesus Christ and how he suffered in our place for our sins that we might be forgiven. Forgiveness is freely offered to all who place their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, John 6:47).
@@sdlorah6450 religion lets dumb people pretend they are smart. that's why dumb people like it.
@@jmartin1774 God gave us one book, the Bible, which tells us of how he has been at work in history to provide a Savior for men, his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; one book is all that we need. Its 66 books given to over 40 men over a 1,500-year period tell us his story of redemption, that men can find forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ (see 1 John 4:14, 2 Timothy 3:15).
Throughout history we find numerous fulfillments of God’s foretelling of the future demonstrating that the Bible is his word and trustworthy in all things (see Isaiah 46:9-10, John 17:17b). In addition to matters of documented history, archaeological finds confirm many things recorded in scripture pertaining to people, places, and events.
No Egyptian record of exodus, no effect on Egyptian economy. No evidence of 40 trek through the wilderness. Contradictory gospels.
No records of 3 hour darkness of dead returning to life. No Jewish or Roman historian noticed Jesus. His family doubted him. His disciples denied, doubted and betrayed him. He died both on the eve and on the day of Passover. He was born nine years apart from himself. He fled to Egypt and returned to Nazareth at same time
Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Amen my ass!!!!!!!!
In what way does Luke record Paul going back to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion? Acts 9:23 "When many days had passed..." describes the time pre-Jerusalem, still around Damascus.
This channel is sooooooo important and awesome!
I before E, except after C.
You think Christians cringe but they just want you saved
Saved from what? The modern idea of hell isn’t biblical…
Yeah miss me with that bs. You are not saving the world by running around and implying that the people you meet deserve to go to hell and need saving.
We just want you saved as well, from the cult you are in.
Ultimately it’s your best guess against people who had actual skin in the game. It amazes me that people will just take somebody who went to school for 4 extra years-all of a sudden they act like they have the ability to dictate what actually happened. I’ll take the 2,000 year old eye witness accounts over “um, trust me bro” shenanigans all day long.
Luke, specifically, was not an eye witness. Read the first chapter, the first few verses. Someone who was an eye witness doesn't write:
"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
They would write :
"This is what I saw when I was there with Jesus."
They wouldn't need to "research it", they would have *seen* it. Luke is a second hand account at best, and Luke doesn't actually sign his name. We have no idea who wrote Luke, but even he admits he wasn't there.
@@VulcanLogic That changes NOTHING. When 9/11 happened. You weren’t there but you would be dammed if somebody told you it didn’t happen. That’s what we’re talking about here friend. An earth shattering event. I never said a word about Luke. I’m saying that there are those who were at ground zero, and everybody else. Those people weren’t stupid.
exactly which eye witness accounts would those be?
"The walrus is Paul."
I buried Paul.
Turn me on dead man🤣
Turn me on, dead man.
If one is able to read in greek koiné it is feasible indeed to grasp one contradiction after another in the Epistles of Paul. For instance in Galatians the same Paul or whoever the author was stated that to him the knowledge of the Lord (Kúrios) Jesus (Uios tou Zeou) was a product of an inner revelation (apocalypse en emoi) since the time Paul was in the womb of his mother.. But some versicles after so astounding confession he runs into contradictions when states that he was persecuting the church of that very same god. IMHO the story of the persecution against the Jesus' followers is a blatant later interpolation.
6:52 Some basic mistakes here. Paul never frames any comment about Jesus as a return or coming back!
Amen
Top tier content from Mythvision, as usual! Thanks Derek!!
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3).
I always see this as, "You must be born again" - become as little children.
So true. Read Acts. It has Paul besting Jesus on everything. He's Super Paul.
Christian: "the bible has no contradictions:"
Bible Scholar: **laughs**
Because most scholars won’t admit that they don’t. There is one exception I know, that is Dr Michael Heiser.
He was a really humble Christian Scholar.
On John 10:21 people knew the devil couldn't open the eyes of the blind SO from this premise came the fact that Paul was referring to Satan the devil as the god of this world on 2 Corinthians 4:4 as one who blinded the minds of non-believers "lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
@@wiard haha. Seems like it, fellow watcher. Speak not in the hearing of a fool for he will despise the wisdom of your words. Advice appreciated. GOD Bless
Is it Satan that goes the blinding of the eyes or God who put scales upon their eyes? Because an OT God says it's him and in NT Paul says it's Satan 🤔🤷
@@wiard
Good suggestion, but I'd have to Google where a synagogue is located 🤭 Would a Basilica work🤔
@@mickeydecuriousBible verse text?
@@raimiranda126
Acts 9: 18 and Psalms 119:18✌️
You're fulfilling Ecclesiastes 10 3.
"When he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to everyone that he is a fool."
I wish people would stop quoting these things as soon as they hear a contrary perspective. It's lazy.
PhD: "The reason scholars date Acts to the early second century is because of the word "Christian", which shows up in Luke which appears in clusters in early 2nd Century texts both in Pliny and in Tacitus and in Ignatius and and Luke/Acts, so if Luke/Acts is writing then, he's awfully long-lived if he was a
companion of Paul."
"Long-LIVE-d"? All my life I've pronounced it as long-lived. Good thing PhDs are around to show the rest of us the correct pronunciation (based on etymology) instead of the more common sense way that is in line with having "lived" a long while.
The word "Christian" does not appear in Luke, but we can assume you meant Acts and didn't feel like specifying the whole name of "Luke/Acts". Also, "Luke/Acts" are two books, not an author, but we can again assume you meant to say "the author of Luke/Acts". You appear to be suggesting the use of "Christian" in "The Acts of the Apostles" suggests (via "scholars") it should be dated the same as known 2nd century writings that use this term. As if no other 1st century writing used this term?
It's just too bad we don't have another book from the New Testament, from around the first century, that used the term "Christian" for date placement. Oh wait! What's this?
"However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." 1 Peter 4:16
1 Peter claims to be written by the Apostle Peter, who (traditionally) was put to death by Nero. Nero died in 68, which means Peter must have written his epistle before he (and Nero) died. Hmm that sounds a lot like 1st century. If that's true, it doesn't seem like Acts of the Apostles was written in the 2nd Century. Maybe it was written in the 1st Century, which means the author of Acts could have been a contemporary of Paul. Oh, but that would ruin your whole case. Oops. My bad.
I know what you're thinking. You don't believe 1 Peter was written by Peter the Apostle because he was just a dumb fisherman, and the language in 1 Peter is too "educated and literate" for him. What can I say? There's absolutely no way he could have paid a scribe to write down his dictated thoughts. Oh wait! Didn't they have scribes back then, who were, like, paid to write down the words of illiterate folks. That was like an occupation, kinda like today's CPAs for people who can't do their own taxes.
Now, I know what you're thinking, you don't really believe Peter ever existed. Well, you don't believe in God or Jesus either, so I guess you've got me there. Just seems weird. How can you be so wrong about something you don't even believe in when there is evidence you simply choose to ignore that is staring you in the face?
I am told that the letters were penned by more than one author.
Am I wrong?
I'm going to slide past how incredibly condescending you are. But a scribe doesn't fix the problems with 1 Peter being written by Peter. In fact the usage of the word Christian in 1 Peter makes it a late work. A scribe just writes down what someone is saying. Peter couldn't speak Greek. Peter is uneducated ( Acts says this). Peter never would have read the OT. So no he isn't a likely source for the words in the epistle.
wasn't chirsteros used by the romans during the 1st century?
@@joshmcgill4639 Christos means anointed one. One chosen by God. The usage as in iesous christos in Christianity takes on a different distinct usage. That's why no English translation translates it as Jesus the anointed one. Tacitus calls him crestus which is interesting. But I don't think followers of Jesus are referring to themselves as Christians before the late first century. You have to keep in mind Jesus dies ( purportedly) fairly early on in the first century. 70 years is a long time.
@@joshmcgill4639 but my biggest issue with the petrine epistles being authentic is from a technology standpoint. There's no way for them to exist from the mouth of Peter the follower of Jesus.
“Paul had a persecution complex.” So that’s where Christian’s get it 😂
Keep up the good work. Appreciate all you do!
I love you, thank you for that support. It really means alot to me.
So if the divinity of JESUS was defined at the council of NICEA under Constantine then how could NERO be persecuting CHRISTIANS when he reigned as Emperor prior to this?
Earliest Christians didn't have the trinity concept. Their Jesus was not co-equal with God.
@@rickmartin7596 Neither was he a BLOOD SACRIFICE until Augustine if I am not mistaken….ITS LOOKING ALOT LIKE STOIC PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS
@@soobright A lot of ideas floated around those ancient civilizations. As a personal observation, people today seem to be unaware of how much trade was happening from Greece and Lower Egypt all the way to India. It makes sense that ideas would be traded as well.
I think the title is a confusion of two things, but Luke/Acts is incorrectly called fictions. Here are the reasons why.
1. History was not a thing in the early second century. Even those we called historians were not afraid to retell a spun, tale. (e.g. Josephus borrowing the story of Moses from and Egyptian)
2. It appears almost certain that luke is assembling (or reassembling accounts)
3. If all the words are lukes, he appears to contradict himself several times. If he was simply editing the text, he would have removed the inconsistencies.
4. The later we get with the text, the more likely the stories are to get from reality, and luke acts appears to be quite late.
5. We cannot rule out the actions of later scribes further changing the text.
Given all this its misleading to call Luke fiction. Its merely sufficient to say the book was written a century after Jesus's death, and some of the traditions may have been carried orally and simply were embellished.
At what point does embellishment become fiction? Some say Paul Bunyan is an amalgamation of two real people; at what point did his stories become so embelished they became folklore/fiction?
@@questioneveryclaim1159
First off Luke Acts is not a history, we can state that at that time there was no history, so take that off the table. So contrasting fiction and history is not of any benefit. The word fiction would be an anachronistic application. Beware of anyone who applies our modern standards to the past.
Every recorded event was recorded as some act of gods, demons, angles, whatever, because thats the way people thought. Lets give an example. Three stories of Pauls hallucination, each story reflects what one teller things would happen when Jesus encounter Paul in a vision. One account the men can hear jesus, the other account they cannot, another accout they can see him, the other they cannot. The way the story works is Paul had a vision. Many people have visions, but pauls was of Jesus. Jesus is powerful and associates with light, so the vision should be brilliant.
So what is the first person told, Paul had a vision, it was of Jesus, he did not know its meaning, he went to damascus. The first person Paul tells him he had a vision, that person as a christian tells paul it must have been of Jesus, then imparts on the story the brightness. Then passes the story along. The next person picks up the story and thinks, it must have blinded Paul for three days, he then passes it to two more people, each of the next to people add that other people saw Jesus or heard Jesus. Luke at the 100 CE or so hears the stories, but not the originals, hes too young.
Today if for example a deer drives from a field in front of a car, we today would not say the deer was possessed by a demon and was driven to kill itself. But in the time of the author of luke, imbellishing a story in such a way would just been normal.
What is the true problem with Luke? The story is out of balance, the components are weighed heavily from pauline christianities and there is all but nothing ebionite in the text. Many of the stories are the same doublets of mark alongside false doublet from Q, he has three accounts of Paul's conversion, 2 different accounts of the resurrection, none found in Q, and he has 2 chapters on birth that were refuted by the ebionites, and contradicts Matthew. Notice what Luke acts is reflecting in Acts, first the story is about the apostles, and then as James is killed it moves to Rome. But Luke is not the Jewish/galillean account of Jesus, its largely Jesus from Greco/Pauline perspectice. Even Q at the time was greek literature. Jesus lived before paul and its introduction to gentiles, so lukes constant use of entirely grecan sources which smell of pauline christianity is notable bias. Luke is speaking about a church that is not the Jerusalem church, and a Jesus that is not the palestinian version.
Luke himself has difficult separating truth from bias when it comes to life in galillee at the time of Jesus.
Did the author of Luke add fictive story, or did he just edit stories. I dont know. But what I do know is that he prefered some stories over others. He prefered high christology over low christology, he prefered greece like tales over judean like tales
History aint even a thing today. Almost everything is spun to an extent, depending on who the market is. Do face masks protect against covid for example ? Now, with NT stuff, I think of how few bibles, not that they were bibles, there were. So easy to change stuff. But other stuff in the older hebrew books, not so easy cos there was more copies. Of course, they dont even stop words being changed even in modern versions. JWs do that often.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Acts 5 struck me as strange, where the couple are struck down for holding back money. But, if you forget the rest of the NT, read Mark, then Acts, it makes sense. Cos all the forgiveness stuff in in the other gospels. It struck me, these apostle dudes have heard jesus say all these things, and they never batted an eylid when the couple were struck down. That just dont tie up 👍
I'm going to try an argument for fiction.
The author of Luke/Acts is a compiler. And seemingly not a very good one. They're not particularly analytical at any rate.
They are trying to create a specific narrative, a specific argument if you will, and trying to use existing texts and ideas to make that argument.
So they pull from available sources while inserting apologetics here and there which account for new arguments against proto-christianity that have arisen since the time of Mark and Matthew.
It's a pastiche or maybe a better idea is, it's a literary collage.
The author is trying to use existing material to answer new arguments but finds them lacking and so necessarily has to make stuff up to answer those arguments.
The combining and recontextualzing of texts to make them say things that they don't say on their own is a kind of fiction.
While the term itself is anachronistic, the author certainly didn't think that they were setting out to write fiction, the results were the same. They composed a fiction. A rose is a rose etc.
If you were a member of a religion that had been waiting for the messiah for 1,000 years, give or take, and then he arrived, would you say, "Well, I guess I'm not a Jew anymore"? No way! You'd be super-Jew to the max: "See? We told you so!" So it's odd in the first place that the early Christians needed an entirely new identity--I know there's one throwaway line in Acts saying, "It was at this time that they started calling themselves Christians" with no explanation. Hyam Macoby (author of The Mythmaker) posits that it's all Paul, trying to establish his religion as something new and distinct. The name of the poor Jews sure gets dragged through the mud in the process.
It was just horrible be=ng a christian, now Atheist and love it, the shackles have been torn away. I recommend it for everyone.
This is so sad. Many people have the opposite experience
Best part of the video at the end 19:21 the “Dr” saying *”DON’T KNOW”* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Maybe Paul wrote his letters in haste and didn't bother to tell Luke what he scribbled down? So, in Galatians, an angry Paul writes about castrating his enemies but then when he meets Peter in person, he's nice to him😅. Don't we all do this? We can send an angry text to someone but when we are in the same room as the guy we are different?
Another rabbit hole I went through argues for many geographic points that are true, and Luke even names a few politicians that subsequent archeology has shown correct. In those days they didn't have Google search so the hits are very impressive.
And the miracles can be entirely made up but the actual history can be describing real events.
A careful comparison of the account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, with where he is giving his own accounts/testimonies of that event in Acts chapter 22 and Acts chapter 26, make it clear that whereas those who were with Paul on the Damascus Road saw a "light" and heard a "sound", Paul himself on the other hand not only saw a "Light", but also a "Man", and heard not only some indistinct "sound" as was the case with those men who accompanied him, but indeed clearly heard a distinct and clear "Voice".
Look it over closely and get back with me.
Thanks.
Terrific content. All of it compatible with the Carrier mythicist thesis.
I'm lean toward Dr. Carrier's position. However she said something that caught my ear and I'd be interested to hear Dr. Carrier's take on it.
10:25 "Although Paul _insists_ that he (Jesus) is an anthropos, a man, but he's ex eranos, from heaven."
Unless someone is devoted to trying to figure out who a real Jesus was and what he may have really said, or in other words, if their primary focus is on what happened *after* the crucifiction story, then there's no difference between mythicism and historicism, because both agree that the vast majority of information about Jesus is myth.
@@keith6706 the main point in dispute is whether he existed at all. the answer is we don't know.
@@keith6706 LOL 😆
What is bothering me about this whole Paul busness is that it is never mentioned how he made the arrests without mention of Roman soldiers accompanying him to enforce the arrests or how many he was able to arrest and apparently those he arrested never showed any resistance.
I think the problem within religion becomes the idea (excuse)the devil made me do mindset of people. The devil is the perfect (scapegoat)one to blame for any consequences resulting from bad choices based upon bad decisions; Mankind has been struggling with personal responsibility since the beginning of time... 🤷
And any religion which posits an omnibenevolent supreme God, as Christianity does, has to explain the continued existence of evil. The figure of the devil is the means by which followers of the Abrahamic traditions rationalize this apparent contradiction.
@@barrymoore4470
I think there's always going to be evil as long as you have good you cannot have one without the other; Chinese people say yin and yang 🤷
@@mickeydecurious This all seems reasonable, and if held to be true, must negate a tradition like Christianity, which assumes not only an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but also the ultimate triumph of Good over Evil, envisioning an eternity of Good with Evil utterly absent, if not necessarily forgotten.
@@barrymoore4470
I think that sounds like a paradise but I wonder if after a while would humanity get bored, or will we be just part of the one and none of it matters 🤔
@@mickeydecurious I have thought that, were individual souls to remain discrete entities, in the presence of but not absorbed into the Godhead, most of those human souls would grow bored in the absence of the drama that disagreement and conflict provide. Which two people have ever agreed on everything?
It's interesting that this points out issues that aren't issues. I guess if you want to find evidence of conflict you will read in conflict.
Same strategy Moon Hoaxers and Holocaust Denialists use. Read everything in the least charitable way possible.
A fascinating discussion!
Did Rabban Gamaliel say what was recorded of him in Acts chapter 5 34-39? Or was it scribal error or just included to bolster the credibility of the Nazarene Jewish sect Jesus started and James led so it would appear Jesus was the Messiah according to the Sanhedrin since the movement had lasted through the time the Book of Acts would have been written?
You're killing it with these top notch topics. Keep up the great work. You are truly changing lives.
Lol in a way you can’t see
Yes, turning people away from God, following their own way, believing you came from a monkey, which is the alternative frame of thought, sending people to hell. Yeah it's truly changing lives.
I've heard explanations of Paul's comings and goings Galatians compared to Acts that turn out very reasonable. In the book of Acts, Luke is not "the traveling companion" of Paul, but only "a traveling companion" of Paul for part of Paul's travels. Minutes 7-9 sound supportive of the book of Acts. Paul is not referring to Satan as the god of this world because Paul has no trouble naming Satan; that's like saying that John is not referring to Jesus as the lamb who was slain because he has no problem naming Jesus. Minutes 10:30-10:45, she nails it regarding who Jesus is! It's a very good question - when did Paul "see" the Lord? Was it when he saw the bright light, or did he see a sharper picture of Jesus in some other vision that he had later in his life?
You'll be history someday .the truth of the Gospels will live on ..
you are funey
The choice is yours. You can either have FAITH, or you can choose to be Stupid. If you prefer being Stupid, okay, that's your choice...
The more you think you know, the more you don't know.
see if you can spot the logical contradiction in that sentence.
He said, confidently implying that he knows more than the person who studied the subject carefully.
Lukes account and Pauls account of Pauls life are compatible but different. We dont know when Luke wrote the various sections of Acts, rewriting wasnt that easy. Perhaps he wrote what he knew at the time he wrote it. He wasnt with Paul continuously.
Saw the title. Was waiting for something concrete. All speculation again.
I don't think there will ever be something concrete until some undiscovered text is found or someone decides to pay us a visit. I've been reading/watching this stuff for a long time now and speculation is all there seems to be, that's why there are so many differing viewpoints.
@@bdyt I guess that is why the title seems so strange.
@Jay G
It is okay to speculate or to construct a sufficient probability of something not being historical (when a portion of the empirical evidence is absent). Propositional logic and probability theory ought to be both utilized regarding supernatural or supposed historical events.
@@sufficientmagister9061 I agree, but the title of the video is a definitive statement.
So you’re saying you were hurt personally?
Unfortunately, the glaring spelling error in the thumbnail impacts the credibility of the video's content.
It may be intentional. To get people to comment about it. The TH-cam algorithm likes comments.
Her demeanour has a tinge of superiority to it. His interviews with her akin to a peasant asking questions to a queen. Also, it reminds me of me asking questions to my elementary school teacher at recess:"You're dumb and I'm smart, kid."
100% agree!! Glad someone else noticed this.
so what? She knows more than he does.
@@scambammer6102 No sh it, Sherlock. Thanks for your input. I can enjoy the rest of the day! /s
@@NNonefrrt then what were you whining about? are you a tad insecure?
@@scambammer6102 Fox News is a couple websites down that way👉
You'll fit in just nice. Personal opinions are frowned upon there. Enjoy!
PhD: "And that's why the gods are on Paul's back, he complains about the God of this world"
I assume you mean "And that's why the pagans are on Paul's back, he complains about the God of this world."
Any common sense thinker would assume (if you're referencing 2nd Corinthians 4:4 cited earlier by you) that he is referring to God. Also, he calls him the "God of this age" not the "God of this world". (Clearly the "God of this age" has left things veiled for you too.) 😃
I'll concede pagans were indeed uncomfortable about outsiders stirring up "new gods" or speaking against "established gods" and this is why it makes sense some of these pagans may have persecuted Paul (it wasn't just all in his head as you suggested).
i before e except after c. 😉
weird
Around about 14:10 you discuss a blinded Paul seeing god, and him writing that god revealed itself "in me". People who have been blinded can still picture things in their mind's eye. They can also still have visual hallucinations. And it all feels very much like "in me".
The biggest problem I have with Fredricksen (and likewise with Dominic Crossan) is they often treat the accounts in the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles as if they actually happened; when Paul says he went to Arabia, by golly he must have really done that. For that reason alone, it's very hard to listen to either one of them. Much of all the sources we have are, in fact, literary fictions, and have to be read that way or one can easily imagine one is doing good scholarly work when one is just engaging in various fantasies. We don't know who the historical Paul really was or whether he wrote any of what is attributed to him. He is a legendary figure.
I don't mean to judge you, but I can't help wondering how much you read Paul or the rest of the Bible if you think that. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
The problem isn't whether the Gospels are false, or true the problem is that everyone of these Christians believe it to be the unimaginable unbreakable word of God. Yes we know that all the accounts of the gospels, except for Mark were written 20-30 years after the crucifixion. We also know that Luke is a copy of Matthew Matthew is a copio Luke coming and ask me never have happened 🤷
She's literally weighing and contrasting two sources from two different authors, one who says Paul went to Arabia and one who says he didn't.
@@Erimgard13
I personally never read in the Bible about Paul going to Arabia; I'm not going to rule it out, the whole region is connected and there's no real borders 🤔
I'm glad you got into the demiurge, god of this world, etc. ideas on Paul.
Also Richard Pervo is so hilariously named.
The Bible isn’t a book for scholars it’s a book for people of faith a book of theology which is why these so-called scholars you rely on always miss the mark, blind guides of the blind speaking to and for those with itching ears deniers of the gospel faithless and without God in the world.
Sounds like coping, an actual "Truth" can be confirmed by anyone, if academy doesn't... Its not that true then...
@@xiuhcoatl4830 🤣🤣🤣
@Shawn Cook stupid questions deserve stupid answers I’ll let you wallow in that yourself.
@@lemnisgate8809 More like you can't answer anything properly, due to stupidity or cowardice.
@@xiuhcoatl4830 “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”
Titus 3:9 KJV
We can add your nonsense to that list.
A persecution complex , like being stoned, like people swearing an oath to kill you?