This is all so interesting, even if you are not a practicing believer, it still feels like we are uncovering the deeper story and there is something deep here
Christianity is a misconception of the NT, it is in the NT as false teaching called out by Paul, as Gentile converts thought the law had been done away with by Jesus. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.
the more you uncover, the more shocking you realize this multi centuries long deception is. Read Andrew collins book about the fallen race of Angels and how those early myths along with the first religion of EGypt had a lot to do with the twisted and changed early Christian/Judaism religion. All scholars believe that the book of Genesis and the "torah" was not even written until the Babylon captivity. It was not written by Moses or Abraham.
Very well done James. Thank you. Personally I do see a correlation with the Passover lamb and how its blood on the doorposts caused the death to limp over their homes, but that was neither a sin offering, nor was that blood touched, it was applied with hyssop.
Saul was purportedly Jewish, even though he didn’t live in Israel, but many commentators have found the origins of the Eucharist puzzling because they believe that, due to the Jewish strictures on blood, it would have been unthinkable for an Orthodox Jew to contemplate drinking blood, even if only symbolically. Have you addressed that issue?
Either he was a Greek proselyte as the Ebionites claimed or he was a _minim_ who advocated abominations like pretend cannibalism and pretend vampirism from a pretend human blood sacrifice after being staurowed on a stauros.
Suffer the little children to come to me! Unless you become as one of these children you will in no way enter in! The Word of God surely knows how to receive the gift of God! Eternal life! Thanks for sharing your analysis!! Excellent work 🙏
Have you read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament”? Even just the few free “sample” pages show a surprising twist to the whole Jesus story
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11 Berean Study Bible ; "According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 Berean Study Bible. The use of blood for atonement is a long standing biblical principle going back to Adam and Eve
Human sacrifice was and is against God's Torah. I'm assuming you're a Christian. If you believe that Jesus/Yeshua died completely sinless, then dying by way of sacrifice would've been a sin. Also, if you study the Torah, you realize that if he was a true "blood sacrifice," his body would've been purified, washed, laid up on the altar, and slaughtered. Some, in fact most, sacrifices were eaten by the Levitical priests. This would have been impossible since eating human flesh is forbidden. I also want to add that Yeshua/Jesus was severely blemished through being beaten. All the sacrifices were to be perfect with NO bodily blemishes. He would not have been accepted.
My Bible is my only source of Faith and Practice. I will evaluate your statements, as well as Dr Tabor's, accordingly with all due respect. The blood sacrificial offering is well documented in the holy scripture. Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb offered once and for all to redeem all who come to him in true faith. History is full of heroic men and women who "sacrificed" their lives so that their loved ones could live. Jesus Christ was willing to lay down his life knowing how the shedding of his innocent blood would pay the price of redemption. Such a tremendous Truth for us to embrace and understand and to declare with good faith .
@@arbitScaleModels YES . Our Messiah is the Son of God- not God the Son. Once we are clear on this distinction then the "whole truth" falls into place. The Father is SUPREME. Praise God - Amen
thankfully, I don't place much believe in the every older new test. I think a lot of it is made up by a desert cult (just because the JEWS said that in Leviticus doesn't mean a real god said it to ancient Israelite or that it is true...) and is just allegorical or symbolic. what about the sacred Rig Vedas writings? what about Zoroastrianism or ancient Babylonian religions? Why are they not important? the Israel bible of old test was not for you and me. It was for that desert middle east TRIBE called Israelite wayyyy back then, not today. It was hijacked and "updated" by the modern Jesus movement in the first century of Rome. BUT FEAR NOT, "paulkeniston...". Mankind does show a propensity in history to sin and all of mankind around the world needed spiritual intervention of the Gods. THIS is hwy all over the world mankind pursued religions, the sky at night, and prayed to THE GODS of old. Look at ancient Egypt. Even ATlantis had a religion! Pray to those gods and your life will turn around for the better. read some of the new testament but combine it with other books spiritual writings. AMEN?
Wow!! I’m floored!! Dr. Tabor, this is great!!! Thank you for sharing!!! So many conflicts within the teachings of Jesus, so many contradictions with the Torah and prophets…Figuring all of this out and their origins is a daunting task!!! If only people could break free and not have the fear of “hell” so that they could begin honestly looking at their canon!!
Thank you Dr. Tabor for bringing the message of repentance closer to the religious . Maybe some can get the revelation of self, the horrors of self and sin, iniquity and repent some day like Job did in the dust and ashes. The churches don't use those tokens. We don't beat our breasts or tear our clothes. A tactileless intellectual greek based theology.
It depends on which church. That is the problem. When someone says they are a "Christian", you must ask which denomination. They all have different emphasis and interpretation. It is good that you "don't beat [y]our breasts or tear [y]our clothes." Otherwise, you will likely have significant medical and clothing expenses. Guilt, repentance, sin, and self-obsession are the horrors. Anguish leads to negative emotional and spiritual consequences. Humility and healthy self-esteem leads to satisfaction and wisdom. Go into the darkness of a church to pursue the past. Go into the brightness of nature to experience life.
The fact that many people are waking up to this truth you are revealing to us about Paul is just more proof the fig tree has blossomed and the end of this age is near. Jer 16:19-21 tells us the gentiles will become aware of the truth that YHWH is God alone in the day of affliction. Its our eyes that have been blinded in part. This is due to the centuries of false doctrine promoted by Paul the false apostle.
the story of Abraham and Issac certainly shows a very close flirtation with the notion of human sacrifice as appeasement of the Yahweh deity. The story accredits a perfection of faith for Abraham as being willing to go through with blood sacrificing his only son in order to be totally obedient to this deity figure. Now the apologetics for rationalizing this (because on some level EVERYONE sees this as disturbingly heinous - blood sacrificing human beings to a deity figure), is that Abraham firmly believed that the Yahweh deity would provide an alternative, and thus provide an out - but according to the account he was on the verge of plunging the knife. It's one of the most singularly disturbing narratives in the Hebrew bible. That a deity figure would test a person by seeing if they're willing to commit murder (of their own child, no less). It's the kind of thing we today would associate with the very most despicable cult leaders.
_"Tell me what you've been doing busy little bee or I shall strike down those dearest to you. You shall watch as I bathe in their blood."_ Commodus, Gladiator (2000)
I wonder if Paul crystalized concerns that had been arising for decades about Jesus' death and non immediate return? "How could tis amazing guy die like this? How does it fit into some Divine order?" They had no answer so the idea of literalizing the "Pachal lamb" whose blood saved the Israelites in Egypt began to take hold. This something they could grasp. Did Paul originate it? I don't know.
Paul was a pharisee. Taught by Gamaliel. When he "laid the foundations" he brought much of his thought patterns and reasoning paths into Christianity, how he made sense of a man he never met physically and was not taught by personally.
@@RevelBlue Don't trust Paul. He claimed to be a Pharisee but did not act like one. Luke falsely claims Paul was taught by Gamaliel. Don't trust Luke either.
When you think about it, it's really gross if it were for real as the Jews and Romans thought the Christians were receiving the eucharist - actual human flesh and actual human blood. And it's a violation of the few commandments that James ordered Paul take to his churches in Acts 15, and reminded Paul of in Acts 21.
The cup of life was for the waters of life….not the blood of a tortured carnal flesh suit…drinking blood out of such a vessel may be more of a curse! The scribes are trying to put people under the old laws and the Talmud….and those laws state you are not to eat the flesh of any animal tortured or strangled…Jesus was allegedly severely tortured, and crucifixion is akin to being suffocated because of the pressures involved on the chest cavity…and the Vatican perform ‘rites’ to make the wafer the actual flesh etc…symbolically what sorcery are people symbolically consenting to. I have a very saddening and growing suspicion that the Vatican are walking their flock into a trap and to slaughter! There’s also scripture about horse leeches and the blood lickers and not eating/drinking the blood….this I doubt had anything to do with eating regularly prepared meat, and everything to do with people staying young by drinking the blood of infants….or for more occulted hormonal benefits! If drinking blood brought a curse…what are folk doing every Sunday? There’s something deeply deeply troubling about what they’ve wrapped around Jesus’s good teachings….and it’s been suggested that the bible as we know it (not the words of Jesus) is actually the doctrine of Babylon that was translated by Alexander from the Septuagint. You also have to remember that it is the Vatican and the Church of England that control the worldwide Roman legal civil system of law….that has tricked us over generations to take another’s name (kanah - the surname or the person) and serve a cleverly disguised Caesar and to step onto the Vatican’s ship that sails the commercial sees/seas! It’s difficult to have such discussions with believers because they’re under a spell…they can’t separate Jesus from the scribes clever trickery and crafty works! I sincerely hope my suspicions are wrong…I truly do. I’ll stop rambling lol! I don’t mean any offence to anyone reading this, with a heart filled with love, I’m just trying to warn that all is not what it seems. Take care 🙂💕
I believe now,,, everything before Constantine’s Creed, is truth. And the path is narrow and few find it. Yahusha in the name of Yahuah. 🙏 ‘’You breathe his name every day’’
It seems as if in ancient history, people were superstitious about a lot of different things that they weren't able to comprehend. And they had many different types of culturally specific religious beliefs, ritual practices, temples, festivals, etc. and a huge part of the world is still addicted to the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.
You make a good case. The opposition makes a good case too. I suppose it all comes down to which God one prefers: A violent, vindictive God who demands death and blood, or a merciful, gracious God who seeks those who choose to follow that God with an attitude of humility.
I've heard it said that people place their belief in what appeals to them... rather than what is the truth. And also, we become just like that in which we believe... which lends consequence and gravity to the choice you illuminated.
Thank you for showing and explaining what the Bible really means about true sacrifice: a broken spirit and a broken and contrite heart, repentance and turning from sin, a personal relationship with God, not slaughtering animals and shedding blood, which always deeply disturbed me. I don’t understand why Paul turned it into a human sacrifice Gospel with all the blood washing g our sins - I could never except that and it never sounded like Jesus’ Gospel. Thank you for you wisdom and share, always in deep gratitude 🙏 🪷
Hello Dr.Tabor I really enjoy watching your videos as I have recently started a passion for religious studies. I dont know if you will see this but I have a question you say that Mark's gospel was influenced by Paul but why do you also say that Mark's gospel does not claim Jesus was divine. Thank you so much!
I tend to think that Paul, in his philosophy, was trying to justify himself for the persecutions he had committed against the early believers. I'm convinced it was through contact with those people, in the course of those persecutions, that led to his eventual conversion, and created within himself a guilt that could only be assuaged by creating a new vision that essentially let him off the hook for the crimes he had committed.
The first thing Paul got from Jesus was stern correction. Why did Paul rebel against instruction like that spoken by Stephen. There were Jews who were on the way of life the old-fashioned way--through the written word. Jesus brought us a new and living way. It begins with washing of water. To be clear, one must receive more than faith in that first baptism. In Jesus are also the gifts of faith for righteousness, faith for holiness and to become a "son of God" which requires another birth. Only when Christ is fully formed in you, can you be born in the image of Christ. This is that angel of your presence that passes on first, before your body follows. This is about the life in your blood that needs to be quickened like wine. You can look at the way of life by the court design of Moses, the changes in Abraham or the gospels which are titled with words that DEFINE the portion taught. Love grows, faith grows, hope grows, wisdom grows. We will never equal God, but we can become more like Jesus. Baptism in water washes away past sins. The blood of Jesus was shed two thousand years ago for sins you won't commit until next year. You must believe, receive, confess. Paul had studied the written word to obtain whatever faith he had. The first thing he received from Jesus was a stern rebuke, Why was he rebelling against direction given. Jesus offers you faith that is multi-portioned. You receive the spirit of Jesus. You follow him. He will offer you righteousness and holiness. Students will follow a teacher. Inevitably, they will follow to heaven or hell. Our teacher is he that he loves you so completely that the forgiveness of your future sin is in his nail-scarred hand. It's discouraging to see students who look for reasons not to believe. Rebellion is as witchcraft. What about students who were first drawn to the Proton by cords of love. Who misdirects them to a place where they want to cut those cords "asunder" as if they were "bonds" rather than love. I love a teacher who can say, I don't understand this" instead of giving reasons why it cant bd true. The gospels are lessons taught to four classes of students in the last year of Jesus' ministry. Mark is by definition the first portiont/preparation of the heart. Mat-theou/Matthew asks us the receive the spirit of the father/ righteousness/the alpha and omega with us/possibly מאתו. Luke is the third year students/the latter portion/לוק. Luke is about holiness.) The closest disciples like John pictured in the bosom or leaning on his chest were in the graduating class. (John, "the beginning of the response of Jah/ יענה/In the beginning was the Word." There is no Q. The variations in the gospels are very important. How terrible that students are so indoctrinated from childhood that their faith is already on shiftings sand.
It's an analogy to the Passover Lamb, right? The death of the innocent that removes sin and protects from judgement. It's not much of a leap. When Peter and James met the resurrected Jesus, did they not think that it was significant? What meaning did they attribute to the event?
just a little technical question, not sure if it's my browser or setting about regions, but i can't reach the blog posts, it all responds after a try to connect with "the ip of the server can't be found" ..somebody can give advice?
Most Catholic churches when i was a kid still had lots of plaster icons and a large model of the cross hanging from the ceiling with jesus in a stylised pose . Now then, think on this : what if very, very realistic models could be made of scenes from the film The Passion Of The Christ ( youve seen the technical skill now available), of a really appalling blood soaked and agonising Jesus on a cross or being severely scourged covered in blood. Maybe a mechanical model that moves screams and wails in agony ? You can bet your life that parishioners wouldn't put up with it ! Children would be terrified to go to church to look at this hyper real moving talking manaquin ! But why not ? Why not symbolically wipe fake blood from its writhing head and smear your forehead with it ? You see, part of the sanitising of christian imagery in churches is part of the subtle indoctrination process. Its a way of sugaring the pill. And what of the wider psychological ramifications of submersing young minds in this scapegoating and blood sacrifice imagery ? I noticed at school that the poorer kids got the sharp end of the teachers tongue and picked on more as easy targets. We were the undesrving sinners that recieved to he cane regularly. We where the ones scapegoated and punnished because , well.....someone had to be...
What a comforting rationalization of child sacrifice to pay the price for human sin that was permitted and enabled with full divine forethought. Why not create a universe where atonement had already been achieved without child sacrifice ?
The requirement of a broken heart and a contrite spirit is brought up in your discussion. Laban, a character out of Genesis, could represent the opposite of this. His name is Lamed, Beit, and Nun sofit. Lamed and Beit could be Leb, or Heart, with the Nun sofit as Son of, or continues in. The heart continues, i.e. not broken. I have not found this in any writings but if there is some support please share this. Shalom. Thank you Dr. Tabor.
If we know that the priestly source had the motivation to include the doctrine of animal sacrifice, who or what group do you think wrote the “I never asked you to make sacrifices” concept? Was it a contemporary group to the priestly source or from oral tradition? Has this been researched yet?
Is blood the ultimate test of the listener? In the gospel of John chapter 6 Jesus clarifies what his blood symbolizes. Notice it doesn’t symbolize literal blood. It symbolizes his words. You would think that his disciples would remember this gruesome teaching at the last supper when he tells them that his blood is the covenant he’s making with them. Will they think that his literal blood cleanses them? Or will they think that the words he gave them, and cost him his life, cleanses them? What is your thought on this?
How in the world did you get that from anything I said? John chapter 6 tells us that Jesus’s blood symbolizes his words. Basically, Jesus is saying that if we follow his words, they will teach us how to live a life without sinning. His words were consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures require repentance and making amends when we sin. The Hebrew scriptures never required blood sacrifices for sins that were committed intentionally. Therefore, the literal blood that Jesus shed on the cross does not atone for our sins. At least, not according to Jesus. If we fail to follow his words, then, his death on the cross, his sacrifice, his blood was shed for nothing. We honor his death, and prove we love him, because we follow his teachings. I don’t follow Jesus because of any miracles he performed. I follow him because I agree with what he teaches.
@@David_Brinkerhoff93 I think you would have to know the reason for the prohibition beyond that the life is in the blood. Indeed Jesus is introducing an idea here, with an action, that is anathema to most of his audience . The idea being the absolute union of God, in the form of Jesus and man; that union being brought about by the union of our spirits John 6:63. A union so total that our existence is in Christ and He is in us. This is totally different to the symbolism of the Old Covenant where the people were separated from God by the curtain between them and the most Holy place. Union is the truth of our being, our lives are united, hence the eating and drinking. I imagine the prohibition on animal blood is to make a point about where life comes from and it is not from animal life including ourselves. It is only the life of God in us that saves us, and that life is manifested by us living in and out of the character of God of Christ and the Holy Spirit. We testify to that faith when we take communion.
If I recall right, Dr. Tabor, Christian scholar E. W. Bullinger opposed the notion that Christians were "washed in the blood" of Jesus. He interpreted the Book of Revelation differently. He noted that some people could get that concept from Revelation 1:5 etc., but he pointed out that the Greek "EN" could mean "by virtue of" instead of "physically within." The passage in the Book of Isaiah can also be interpreted as "sins" being put for "sinners." The sinners would be washed white.
Revelation 3: 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent.
A few questions: Was there a "last supper?" Did Jeshua pronounce a new covenant? Did he, moreover, link his own death to Passover? It's interesting to ponder the Pauline influence yet discerning what happened at the end of Jeshua's life remains important. I don't see repentance and faith in the salvific blood of Messiah as contradictory or competing claims per se.
It's SUCH a HIDEOUS thought!!! I worked so hard to believe this horrible idea and finally, after 40 years, gave up and have been much better for the forgetting.
thank you. is it possible to find a version of Marc that is not influenced by Paul? I heard there is one in the Vatican that is the original version of Marc.
To what extent is Paul committed to converting Gentiles to a new religion? To what extent in that commitment he is absorbing the ideas and rituals of the Gentiles, such as the Mithra followers?
I don't think Paul made the atonement up. He got it from the OT. The high priest on the Day of Atonement takes upon himself the sins of the people. Instead of the high priest being sacrificed, he transfers the sins onto the animal sacrifice. The people are supposed to repent in preparation for this day. The atonement covers unintentional sins. It doesn't cover murderers. They were executed.
Didn't Prof. Elaine Pagels write a book how how the Revelation was initially a Jewish, rather than a Christian work? I think your idea of the Revelation being a Jewish book is great.
There's little evidence in support of the idea that Isaiah 53 is about a corporate group. The plain reading is that it pertains to an individual. The servants mentioned in Isaiah 42:1-7, Isaiah 44:26, and Isaiah 49:6 also sound more like individuals than a group.
@@marinirob Yir'eh zera' ('he will see [a] seed') doesn't necessarily mean having literal children at all. Zera' is used throughout Isaiah to refer to communities of people: Isaiah 1:4, 57:3, 65:23, etc. And yes, God gave him long (eternal) life after his mission on earth, as is the case with Christ. Note the mention of his being given long life (Isaiah 53:10) follows descriptions that, on the plain reading, imply his death (Isaiah 53:8-9). See also Isaiah 49:6 that explicitly distinguishes the servant from the remnant of Israel.
Blood and Wine are also offered to Goddess Kali during the Tantric worship. So, worship of Jesus with blood and wine is in a way a left-hand tantric ceremony. Blood, the colour red is connected with Shakti (she always wears red colour clothes.), the consort of Lord Shiva. Ascended masters taught the blood offering as the Violet Flame Meditation.
(Continued). As a teacher, parent, government (or God) it is a constant struggle to varying degrees To keep people near the straight and narrow. Would anyone want to make that an eternal struggle? Not even our gracious God wants that. We’ve all met people whose heart is naturally mostly good, and we wish everyone could have such a good heart. Then we can stay at level one of the progression towards sacrifices, free of the need for a law with its penalties over us-- Not because the rules themselves had become irrelevant or changed, but because everyone is already naturally keeping them. This was the hope and promise that God revealed to Israel for all people, and what Paul meant. With this context, which we’ve all experienced, it is the natural and obvious interpretation of Paul’s words that if you walk according to the spirit of the law then you are free from the written law with its penalties. If you think Paul meant that the law was changed or done away with, then you are putting Paul in opposition to his fellow apostles, Jesus himself and the all the words of God until Paul-- There is no precedent and no scripture to support the idea of doing away with the law. Indeed, where did that idea come from? Just another man hundreds of years after Paul?
what I want to know, is where the bleep did this UNNECESSARY violent blood need for sacrifice of sins come from, when IT WAS IN OLD TEST days? because that, THAT, is what led into this NEW BELIEF that God decided that that practice was no good, AND ONLY NOW..now did he have to send his actual "son" to die and bleed for mankind's sin? if it was necessary, why did God and Jesus wait so long to introduce the Israelites the fact that God was going to let HIS son die for their sins and wouldn't accept anymore the sacrifice of bulls and goats??? why wait so long? AND WHO MADE the rule that this "sin" had to require blood? If god is a very powerful god, why does he need blood to forgive us our sin?
You can (and probably have already) find some good arguments (some better than others) ranging from there being two+ gods in the OT to (at least one) being Satan himself. See the Gnostic material. It’s apparent in the OT that the ancient Hebrews kept going back to sacrificing to Baal (rival storm god) and God let them sacrifice animals as long as they stayed away from sacrifice of human children like some segments did (Ammonites). Absolutely horrible behavior all around in the OT Also see Tabors video in the Lost in Translation series that points out the famous “den of robbers/thieves” is a mistranslation and was more like “den of cutthroats” (slitting animal throats) which precipitated the turning over of tables etc. was not about money or corruption Saul would have been steeped in all the sacrifice business so it’s no surprise he used that terminology and thus successfully contaminated Jesus’ message What do you think?
Very interesting. I follow the logic behind Tabor’s ideas here, even if I question his motivation. However this is an alternative narrative and interpretation which he has constructed, which does not mean that it is actually true. The weakness of his narrative and arguments is seen in his liberal use of multiple assumptions to ‘fill in the gaps’ (a characteristic also of Bart Ehrman’s ideas), in order to present his ‘alternative story’. The weakness of these presumptions means that Tabor’s ‘story’ is highly speculative, instead of factual. It is interesting, but I wouldn’t place too much trust in the speculations of academics like Tabor and Ehrman, particularly since they offer no better spirituality to their listeners. All that they would leave their listeners who trust their narratives, is an emptiness where there was once hope.
@@rylands4289 Yes it is "scholarship", I agree. As such, it represents the diverse and multiple opinions of academics who have attempted to write their own gospels, adding to the ancient list of non canonical gospels - the difference between these modern non canonical versions like Tabor's and Ehrman's from the other ancient attempts to rewrite the gospels, is not as great as you may think. While their methodology may be different, their results of denials are the same. Also the absence of theology is not a strength but a weakness, particularly bearing in mind the backslidden state of these men who were once faithful believers. While you say you attend Sunday Bible study and that is the extent of your studies, others study every day of the week and have a great interest in both archaeology and history behind the New Testament. I find Tabor very interesting, but flawed because of his filling in the gaps with presumptions and opinions which reflect his own bias.
Question, if Jesus is paying his blood as a "ransom for many", who receives the payment? His blood is paying for us, but who is receiving that payment? It can't be us for we are what his blood is covering and paying for. So who gets the payment?
It was a fulfillment of the covenant demands, which when the covenant was broken, there were curses; but when it was fulfilled, there were blessings and the promises were able to be obtained. This time and time again Israel broke, bringing curses upon themselves; so God fulfilled it Himself, showing Himself as the only One truly righteous; and He established a new covenant where He gives us a new heart and gives us a new Spirit from Him, where He dwells in us because God does not dwell in temples made with hands. He had already planned a place to dwell long ago (us)
@@johnjohnson798 I think this description of what Jesus' blood is accomplishing focuses on the result and not on the transaction. A ransom was a price that was payed to buy a slave back. So being bought back by Jesus means that he is now our Lord and master and we no longer are under death/sin as our master. Take Isaiah 35:10, there you also find the idea of being ransomned or redeemed from exile. And when that was done, there was no real price being payed. The illustration focuses on what is accomplished, namely that the people are set free by God's mighty power. When the people returned from exile, there was no price payed for that, so it is not transactional. But still it is like that, since the people were under a foreign God's rule and now they are again coming under the Lordship of their God when returning home. In that sense one may describe it like a ransom. Jesus did a similar thing for us, but there was no transaction involved as if God would have to negotiate a price for us. He simply did it. Best regards, Thomas
Jesus was the first lamb that replaced Isaac when Abraham almost fell into temptation and Jesus was also the last lamb to end the blood sacrifices. Because killing any living thing is considered killing life. In the God commandment telling us, " you shall not kill". True believers save by grace through the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) as our seal or Redeemer. Immanuel that guide us from within
Why was Paul “persecuting” the church initially tho? Obviously it wasn’t observance to Torah. I’m guessing is he would have seen/ known about the lords supper and baptism bc what else distinguished the so called christians? Although Paul claims he received information from the lord. What was prior to Paul?
Blood and water are essential for life, so being the superstitious primates that we are. Blood and water inevitably was and will always be a part of religious mythology.
I have a few questions. I’ve been listening to as much of videos as I can. Also lots of other scholars and most are dating the writing of the gospels late in the first century some early second century. I am not arguing this in any way I’m just asking what are the reasons for these dates?? I am very interested to find this out. If anyone can respond and give an answer I would be truly grateful.
Literary historicity is (very basic) usually done through comparison to other works, and comparisons to other works of the author. If a document used the word "totally tubular", it would most likely be dated in the 1960's or 1970's. And if the word was never used by me any any of my other works, questions would arise as to its authenticity on who actually wrote it. It can only work from the oldest copy they can find and translations. It can error if the oldest copies aren't available (not known to exist, but maybe they did) or they were copied into the vernacular of the scribe translating or copying the document. It is interesting, but it isn't a perfect science/history. Just a well educated theory of the work they have.
Let me understand this. So anything that’s in the Gospels and is similar to Paul comes from Paul. With this logic we can conclude Paul created Jesus. The 12 Apostles, the birth of Jesus from the lineage of David, the brother of the Lord, the Crucifixion, the burial and resurrection of Jesus etc. do all come from paul because according to the logic in the video these things are found in both the Gospels and Paul. I’m not sure if the argument is really convincing?
Paul being the earliest account and writer of these specific ideas. Jesus existence, death, resurrection, are throughout all the gospels. It’s about seeing particular themes, or teachings because it doesn’t seem they all believe the same things. So Paul seems to have founded some fundamental ideas that become popularized in the early church
@@Thomas-bq4edYes, as everyone knows, the first one to write about an idea is the one who founded it. Never mind what could have been communicated orally. Everyone wrote to each other in letters only, it was very efficient, as easy as texting.
@@mintmax do you know why Paul’s letters are recorded? How we even know he was writing early on in the church? How about Acts? Mark? It’s because they are being circulated in the early church, hence “popularized,” no one is arguing writing came before oral tradition, but straw man away if it makes you feel involved
@@Redhawkeye The entire book of Romans is filled with lies. Read the book - I didn't count them. Paul defied the Teachings of God and Jesus from start to finish. see: Onediscipletoanother as it is filled with proof that not only Paul lied, but so did Judaism and Rome - in giving us Paul and three faked gospels.
@@Redhawkeye Careful study of Matthew - especially the oldest Aramaic and Hebrew. 1. Jesus could not take anyone elses sins upon himself - or pay for them. Each person is independently responsible for their own actions. Jesus' teachings in Matthew match both Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 18 and the unaltered Covenant of Elohim, as published in The Moses Scroll and The Valediction of Moses. No bloodshed is required to be forgiven - God requires repentance, confession, restitution as required, to then live uprightly by the Covenant Standards, and that we "Do no evil". A central truth of Jesus is that we "Live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (which includes the Sinai Covenant), and that we be yoked to him in doing the will of the Father., not that "Jesus did it all for me" lies of the Evangelicals. Jesus did not teach spiritual welfare, that we have a blank check because he paid the bill due.
I gave up on James when he repeatedly denied the teachings of Jesus in Matthew to believe Paul. NO WHERE in Matthew does Jesus claim to be a sacrifice for sins of others. Jesus taught according to the Covenant Standards as originally given. If he doesn't recognize this - it isn't because Jesus said so. it's because he wants to believe Paul and think Paul is misunderstood. Yet we have some pretty telling quotes from Paul that defy Jesus and God. "*"(2 Corinthians 3: 6-17: (6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: (8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? (9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. (10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. (11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. (12) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (13) And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (15) But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (16) Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (ASV Is there anything in the passage above that has accord to Elohim, the Prophets, or Jesus?
It's a metaphor D.A. .......( and I don't mean District Attorney ). As almost ALL of scripture is written in metaphor, allegory, signs and symbols ...... aka......"spiritual language". "washed in blood" signifies being "cleansed by death" His "death" signified dying to His "flesh" His "flesh" signified His "carnal mind" .....or the "veil" in the "temple" that was "rent" when He died . The "temple" signified the human body.......and the "Holy of Holies" signified the HIGHER MIND or Consciousness of God....Who is "SPIRIT" ( John 4:24 ) "spirit" is a metaphor for the "MIND" . The words "serpent" , the "devil" and "Satan" are all metaphors for the "CARNAL MIND" of man. "That old serpent called the devil and Satan that DECEIVES the whole world." ( Revelation 12:9 )
See Isaiah 9.14-15, where Israel (summer) is described as having the head of the noble/royal lion (Leo) and tail of the liar (Scorpio). Leo is the sign of Jupiter/Fire. We find Leo in our Thursday/Thorsday aka Jupiter day. The Palm Frond (Virgo) we find Venus and our Friday. The Reed (Libra) is where we find our Saturnday ruled by Venus. The four signs are Leo = Jupiter/Fire Virgo = Vesta/Earth Libra = Juno/Air Scorpio = Neptune/Water
@@harveywabbit9541 .....Isaiah 9:14-15 has nothing to do with "astrology" . And you are confusing the ancient "Mazzaroth" with the modern corrupted version called the "zodiac" .
@@harveywabbit9541 ......."Israel" = "one who struggles with God" (Hebrew meaning). Ultimately this is ALL people who seek to know "God", no matter what "religion" they adhere to . But the TRUE God revealed Himself to one particular people, even though they did not know Him. And they still do not know Him to this day . But "spiritual Israel" is the TRUE "church", that this world knows absolutely nothing about . The true "church" is invisible to the world and hidden in God......but soon to be "revealed". This is what the book of Revelation is about......the revealing of the true "church" and the TRUE and "LIVING God" to this world for the very first time in human history . The false Roman Church and religion called "Christianity" created over 1500 years ago is called "antichrist" in scripture. ( 1 John 2 :18-22 ) Literal and prophetic "Israel" today is many sovereign nations in the world . ( Amos 9:9 ) And the United States of America ( Ephraim ) is the leader among them . ( Genesis chapter 48 ) The little nation/state in the Middle East created in 1948 by political powers for political purposes is "Judah".....NOT prophetic "Israel". All Jews are Israelites, but all Israelites are not Jews .
@@TheWhyIsThatSo Struggling with god can cause a volcanic eruption aka ejaculation. Remember how Ra, the Egyptian Sun, created Tefnut (moisture) and Shu (air)? The Isra/Ysra, in Israel has always meant the phallus. This is the phallus (rock that begat thee) in Deuteronomy 32.18. It is also the upright pillar that Jacob anointed with wine (passion) and oil (semen). This same pillar (phallus) became the Christian Peter. The "foundation stone" of the Catholic church is Peter the Phallus. The Hermes stones, found throughout ancient Palestine is how the Palestinians obtained their name. Pala (phallus) and stan (land). Don't forget the sinew (genitals) that lay on the thigh. As they relax the shrinking begins. Don't you just love the myths found throughout the sacred scriptures?
I like to think you are right, but the proprietary sacrifice is a fairly big deal, wouldn't Jame and Peter have contended with Pajul over it even moret than over other matters?
Jesus revelation to John: Rev 7;14 “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Whatever claim we may make about our beliefs it will be up to Jesus to judge.
If the gospels were written after most of the rest of the NT, and we see disagreements scattered in most of the letters, could it be that the gospels were written in response to some of Paul, Peter, and James disagreements? Maybe to sort of straighten out those arguments? Throw in that 1-3 John guy...was he referring to Paul who left because he never really was a part of "us"? I see lots of spiritual harassment, hate, and abuse in those guys.
The ransom = we must each die to SELF (old carnal man, 1st Adam) so we can live (new spiritual man, last Adam). No one can do it for us. The gospels are allegory.
Again, great scholarly work here. What you, Dr. Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars demonstrate to me is that, 1) "Man" has spiritual revelations. 2) Men want to help others. 3) Men experience spirituality through the uniqueness of their personal interpretation. 4) Man's supposed intelligence over-complicates the revelation to the point where, often eventually, Man kills other men over differences in the individual revelations (Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shite, etc.). Actual Biblical history "should" prove to every soul that we are witnessing the opinions of individuals whose inspiration applies to that individual. If only the people of the world would understand that if someone is telling you - you will burn in Hell for not believing exactly as "I believe," and simply follow the rule that Jesus, and others, taught: Believe in Love, and forgiving others. Not judging others and practicing unconditional love is the key to happiness. If you don't believe that, I will not judge you. It's your business, not mine. All I know is that I love you, no matter who you are and what you did. I forgive you. This is for my salvation and sanity. This is all I really have control of.
1. AND it came to pass as he sat at supper with his disciples one of them said unto him: Master, how sayest thou that thou wilt give thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink, for it is a hard saying unto many? 2. And Jesus answered and said: The words which I spake unto you are Spirit and they are Life. To the ignorant and the carnally minded they savour of bloodshed and death, but blessed are they who understand.
I was taught that being "washed in the blood" making the sinner white as snow actually refers to Leprosy that turns the affected being fully white diagnosed the ending of the disease for that person.
IT was the "cup of redemption" - not a magic cup of grape juice. How did God redeem Israel and the multiude of nations from Egypt? To serve Him? The Covenant Standards of Sinai - Decrees, Blesseds, Curseds - to do no evil and grow in doing good - and by all means to live a just and reasonable life with God and fellow mankind. It's that simple. Jesus came to restore what Judaism stole from us when it altered the words of God.
God said he would send SAVIORS (plural) Obadiah 1:21. And James tells us James 5:20 that anyone who converts a lost sinner is a savior. Thats the point of going to the nations and preaching the good news of redemption by REPENTANCE as John the Baptist taught as well as all the prophets. Isaiah 49-54 is xplains that the annointed are ALL the elect chosen by God. Confirming Revelation 21:7. To WHOMEVER overcomes he will INHERIT ALL THINGS. I will be his Elohim And he will be MY SON. The son of God has always been plural in scripture Ex 4:22, Hosea 11:1 just like the virgin daughter of Zion is not one person.
Dr Tabor you miss out the new covenant that all this is part of, all before is symbolic of the way that the Father, Son and Spirit baptise and justify believers.
One, I would think, would have to look at the anointing with blood of the horns of the alter in the old testament as ordered by God through Moses, as well as God referencing blood as being life in the old testament. The use of blood is mentioned several times in the old testament. It is clear in the old testament that if one wishes to slit the throat of a lamb one must do something with the blood or for that matter any animal. If Paul knew of the process of sacrifice at the temple blood would be a clear understanding of any problem. It is also clear in the Old Testament that there is sin sacrifice or animals being destroyed to free oneself of sin. I ask this question of Dr Tabor was there blood animal sacrifice for sin inside or at the gate of the 2nd temple during Jesus life?
"And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." - Rev. 7:14
I don't know how I missed this when it came out, but for me, it's your most important video to date. Christianity definitely reflects Paul's pagan influence. Both Jesus and John the Baptizer taught salvation through repentance, not animal (or human) sacrifice. As you pointed out: "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." -Mark 1:4 "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them." -Psalms 49:7 Indeed, the term "The Lord's Supper" was so associated with pagan Mithraism, it was an embarrassment for the early church fathers. And the early Roman center for Mithraism was in wealthy Tarsus, Paul's native city. The name of the rite was changed to the Eucharist, or later, to communion. Interesting fact, when it came time for communion, George Washington got up and went home.
Personally, I think you are right that this comes from Paul who was Roman, and who's father was in the Roman Army, So even if he was a Jew, he had to pretend to worship Mithrah, as it was the army's religion. And it is said that Mithrah said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the shall not know salvation." So maybe that's where he got the idea to claim Jesus said it.
The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin…it’s in the Bible, actually in many places implied. …” though your sins be as scarlet (blood) they shall be as white as snow. Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”…Isaiah.
Best indictment on 'atonement' - appeasing angry God. Big whopper word 'atonement' - to appease angry God by offering human blood sacrifice - which is abomination to God in OT.A great job he took on himself, knowing he will be back to life on third day after he died.
It's obviously Mithraic. Mithra sacrificed a bull and it's blood dripped down onto the earth: "The white bull was metamorphosed into the moon; the cloak of Mithra was transformed into the vault of the sky, with the shining planets and fixed stars; from the tail of the bull and from his blood sprang the first ears of grain and the grape". Then comes the model for the Last Supper: "After the sacrifice, Mithra and the sun god banqueted together, ate meat and bread, and drank wine. Then Mithra mounted the chariot of the sun god and drove with him across the ocean, through the air to the end of the world". Jesus just did the communal meal before the sacrifice instead of after.
I think a lot of the confusion is because he was crucified around Passover. He went into Jerusalem to demonstrate against that practice and that’s probably the main reason he was crucified. But instead, he was just doing what he was told to do and intentionally fulfilling Daniel 9. That’s why he kept it a secret telling them not to tell anyone until around 30CE. It would be more appropriate to say he was also fulfilling Yom Kipper, becoming that first goat slaughtered. The second goat was supposed to be led away, handed to a caretaker and taken into the wilderness where he would be set free. The goat naturally would choose to stay with his new master instead of returning. That’s a good description of the suffering servant in Isa 53 despised and rejected. Something Jesus didn’t really suffer except on that weekend. You point out that this life of suffering is the message in Mark and the way of salvation but it’s more than just that. That sacrifice was prophetic in scope. Salvation was on the ones to whom the arm of god was revealed. The messengers throughout Israel’s history and who would believe their report? They all suffered but their obedience itself was confirming the covenant. So even if Jesus himself said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, it wasn’t a sacrifice like the Passover. It was saying become like me and do likewise or you’re not worthy. It’s too bad the rabbis didn’t understand and instead of following the command, they would immediately lead the scapegoat over a cliff, thinking they could prevent sin from returning. Ironically, Jesus is the national designated scapegoat blamed for everything along with Christianity, and anyone who is Christian is led out of the city too and banned from the communities. That’s the reason that temple was destroyed because they broke the covenant they had in not following that instruction. The prophets all agree god never wanted sacrifices and Passover got way out of control. Isa 53 is about all those prophets and when he returns, he will suffer again just like it’s written but this time over a lifetime of testing. It didn’t please god to watch Jesus suffer but it will please him to bring him back and cause it again so that we get it right for once. Paul came in on the wing of an abomination and began this blood sacrifice idea that’s caused untold devastation, ruining god’s reputation. That prophecy isn’t finished quite yet.
Sounds like alchemy which is in everything. First black, then the white elixir then the red elixir . Then you go around changing people's names to "Peter" (a stone).
This is all so interesting, even if you are not a practicing believer, it still feels like we are uncovering the deeper story and there is something deep here
Christianity is a misconception of the NT, it is in the NT as false teaching called out by Paul, as Gentile converts thought the law had been done away with by Jesus.
I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.
the more you uncover, the more shocking you realize this multi centuries long deception is. Read Andrew collins book about the fallen race of Angels and how those early myths along with the first religion of EGypt had a lot to do with the twisted and changed early Christian/Judaism religion. All scholars believe that the book of Genesis and the "torah" was not even written until the Babylon captivity. It was not written by Moses or Abraham.
Very well done James. Thank you. Personally I do see a correlation with the Passover lamb and how its blood on the doorposts caused the death to limp over their homes, but that was neither a sin offering, nor was that blood touched, it was applied with hyssop.
Loving this series too! Thanks, Dr. Tabor.
Saul was purportedly Jewish, even though he didn’t live in Israel, but many commentators have found the origins of the Eucharist puzzling because they believe that, due to the Jewish strictures on blood, it would have been unthinkable for an Orthodox Jew to contemplate drinking blood, even if only symbolically. Have you addressed that issue?
Thank you for calling him by his name.
Either he was a Greek proselyte as the Ebionites claimed or he was a _minim_ who advocated abominations like pretend cannibalism and pretend vampirism from a pretend human blood sacrifice after being staurowed on a stauros.
"shl" in Hebrew also could represent sheol. Just another clue I guess.
It's not puzzling at all, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the dying and rising god was a common feature of mystery religions
@@iCupTV247 many "pagan" religions!
Nice topic! Thanks for all your insights!
Suffer the little children to come to me! Unless you become as one of these children you will in no way enter in! The Word of God surely knows how to receive the gift of God! Eternal life! Thanks for sharing your analysis!! Excellent work 🙏
Don't you mean the bloody children?🤣
Have you read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament”? Even just the few free “sample” pages show a surprising twist to the whole Jesus story
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11 Berean Study Bible ; "According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 Berean Study Bible. The use of blood for atonement is a long standing biblical principle going back to Adam and Eve
Human sacrifice was and is against God's Torah. I'm assuming you're a Christian. If you believe that Jesus/Yeshua died completely sinless, then dying by way of sacrifice would've been a sin. Also, if you study the Torah, you realize that if he was a true "blood sacrifice," his body would've been purified, washed, laid up on the altar, and slaughtered. Some, in fact most, sacrifices were eaten by the Levitical priests. This would have been impossible since eating human flesh is forbidden. I also want to add that Yeshua/Jesus was severely blemished through being beaten. All the sacrifices were to be perfect with NO bodily blemishes. He would not have been accepted.
@@littleredpixie3116 Barabbas was the scapegoat that took the sins of the ppl
My Bible is my only source of Faith and Practice. I will evaluate your statements, as well as Dr Tabor's, accordingly with all due respect. The blood sacrificial offering is well documented in the holy scripture. Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb offered once and for all to redeem all who come to him in true faith. History is full of heroic men and women who "sacrificed" their lives so that their loved ones could live. Jesus Christ was willing to lay down his life knowing how the shedding of his innocent blood would pay the price of redemption. Such a tremendous Truth for us to embrace and understand and to declare with good faith .
@@arbitScaleModels YES . Our Messiah is the Son of God- not God the Son. Once we are clear on this distinction then the "whole truth" falls into place. The Father is SUPREME. Praise God - Amen
thankfully, I don't place much believe in the every older new test. I think a lot of it is made up by a desert cult (just because the JEWS said that in Leviticus doesn't mean a real god said it to ancient Israelite or that it is true...) and is just allegorical or symbolic. what about the sacred Rig Vedas writings? what about Zoroastrianism or ancient Babylonian religions? Why are they not important? the Israel bible of old test was not for you and me. It was for that desert middle east TRIBE called Israelite wayyyy back then, not today. It was hijacked and "updated" by the modern Jesus movement in the first century of Rome. BUT FEAR NOT, "paulkeniston...". Mankind does show a propensity in history to sin and all of mankind around the world needed spiritual intervention of the Gods. THIS is hwy all over the world mankind pursued religions, the sky at night, and prayed to THE GODS of old. Look at ancient Egypt. Even ATlantis had a religion! Pray to those gods and your life will turn around for the better. read some of the new testament but combine it with other books spiritual writings. AMEN?
Thanks, Dr. Tabor always feel like I’m going to class when I watch your videos.
Dr. Tabor
Wow!! I’m floored!! Dr. Tabor, this is great!!! Thank you for sharing!!! So many conflicts within the teachings of Jesus, so many contradictions with the Torah and prophets…Figuring all of this out and their origins is a daunting task!!! If only people could break free and not have the fear of “hell” so that they could begin honestly looking at their canon!!
Thank you Dr. Tabor for bringing the message of repentance closer to the religious . Maybe some can get the revelation of self, the horrors of self and sin, iniquity and repent some day like Job did in the dust and ashes. The churches don't use those tokens. We don't beat our breasts or tear our clothes. A tactileless intellectual greek based theology.
It depends on which church. That is the problem. When someone says they are a "Christian", you must ask which denomination. They all have different emphasis and interpretation.
It is good that you "don't beat [y]our breasts or tear [y]our clothes." Otherwise, you will likely have significant medical and clothing expenses.
Guilt, repentance, sin, and self-obsession are the horrors. Anguish leads to negative emotional and spiritual consequences. Humility and healthy self-esteem leads to satisfaction and wisdom. Go into the darkness of a church to pursue the past. Go into the brightness of nature to experience life.
If they say "here he's in the desert don't believe them and dont go out to see". Paul was a/the false apostle mentioned in Revelation.
The fact that many people are waking up to this truth you are revealing to us about Paul is just more proof the fig tree has blossomed and the end of this age is near. Jer 16:19-21 tells us the gentiles will become aware of the truth that YHWH is God alone in the day of affliction. Its our eyes that have been blinded in part. This is due to the centuries of false doctrine promoted by Paul the false apostle.
It's really sick when you think about it...
Nothing is sick about one's salvation, my friend.
Yep. Pure magic blood cult of Babylon. No human sacrifice for sins ever happened as noted thru out the Psalms and Hebrews 5:7.
@@DetVensaved from what
the story of Abraham and Issac certainly shows a very close flirtation with the notion of human sacrifice as appeasement of the Yahweh deity.
The story accredits a perfection of faith for Abraham as being willing to go through with blood sacrificing his only son in order to be totally obedient to this deity figure. Now the apologetics for rationalizing this (because on some level EVERYONE sees this as disturbingly heinous - blood sacrificing human beings to a deity figure), is that Abraham firmly believed that the Yahweh deity would provide an alternative, and thus provide an out - but according to the account he was on the verge of plunging the knife.
It's one of the most singularly disturbing narratives in the Hebrew bible. That a deity figure would test a person by seeing if they're willing to commit murder (of their own child, no less).
It's the kind of thing we today would associate with the very most despicable cult leaders.
Well, it’s definitely disturbing.
These things just raise more questions than they answer. We we never know the answers until we die, even then maybe not.
yeah i agree
bullcrap.
THANK YOU FOR THIS FABULOUS VIDEO
_"Tell me what you've been doing busy little bee or I shall strike down those dearest to you. You shall watch as I bathe in their blood."_
Commodus, Gladiator (2000)
I wonder if Paul crystalized concerns that had been arising for decades about Jesus' death and non immediate return? "How could tis amazing guy die like this? How does it fit into some Divine order?" They had no answer so the idea of literalizing the "Pachal lamb" whose blood saved the Israelites in Egypt began to take hold. This something they could grasp. Did Paul originate it? I don't know.
Paul was a pharisee. Taught by Gamaliel. When he "laid the foundations" he brought much of his thought patterns and reasoning paths into Christianity, how he made sense of a man he never met physically and was not taught by personally.
@@RevelBlue Don't trust Paul. He claimed to be a Pharisee but did not act like one. Luke falsely claims Paul was taught by Gamaliel. Don't trust Luke either.
@@grepora
Exactly
That old hymn you mentioned is one of my favorites even without any lyrics just the music itself alone.
When you think about it, it's really gross if it were for real as the Jews and Romans thought the Christians were receiving the eucharist - actual human flesh and actual human blood. And it's a violation of the few commandments that James ordered Paul take to his churches in Acts 15, and reminded Paul of in Acts 21.
The cup of life was for the waters of life….not the blood of a tortured carnal flesh suit…drinking blood out of such a vessel may be more of a curse! The scribes are trying to put people under the old laws and the Talmud….and those laws state you are not to eat the flesh of any animal tortured or strangled…Jesus was allegedly severely tortured, and crucifixion is akin to being suffocated because of the pressures involved on the chest cavity…and the Vatican perform ‘rites’ to make the wafer the actual flesh etc…symbolically what sorcery are people symbolically consenting to.
I have a very saddening and growing suspicion that the Vatican are walking their flock into a trap and to slaughter! There’s also scripture about horse leeches and the blood lickers and not eating/drinking the blood….this I doubt had anything to do with eating regularly prepared meat, and everything to do with people staying young by drinking the blood of infants….or for more occulted hormonal benefits! If drinking blood brought a curse…what are folk doing every Sunday?
There’s something deeply deeply troubling about what they’ve wrapped around Jesus’s good teachings….and it’s been suggested that the bible as we know it (not the words of Jesus) is actually the doctrine of Babylon that was translated by Alexander from the Septuagint. You also have to remember that it is the Vatican and the Church of England that control the worldwide Roman legal civil system of law….that has tricked us over generations to take another’s name (kanah - the surname or the person) and serve a cleverly disguised Caesar and to step onto the Vatican’s ship that sails the commercial sees/seas!
It’s difficult to have such discussions with believers because they’re under a spell…they can’t separate Jesus from the scribes clever trickery and crafty works! I sincerely hope my suspicions are wrong…I truly do. I’ll stop rambling lol! I don’t mean any offence to anyone reading this, with a heart filled with love, I’m just trying to warn that all is not what it seems. Take care 🙂💕
I believe now,,, everything before Constantine’s Creed, is truth.
And the path is narrow and few find it.
Yahusha in the name of Yahuah. 🙏
‘’You breathe his name every day’’
Agree!! What part of country do you reside? I’m in NW Arkansas
It seems as if in ancient history, people were superstitious about a lot of different things that they weren't able to comprehend. And they had many different types of culturally specific religious beliefs, ritual practices, temples, festivals, etc. and a huge part of the world is still addicted to the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.
Strange I was thinking about the blood. Very well explained. I been confused about this topic for years. Thank you Dr. Tabor.
You make a good case. The opposition makes a good case too. I suppose it all comes down to which God one prefers: A violent, vindictive God who demands death and blood, or a merciful, gracious God who seeks those who choose to follow that God with an attitude of humility.
I've heard it said that people place their belief in what appeals to them... rather than what is the truth. And also, we become just like that in which we believe... which lends consequence and gravity to the choice you illuminated.
yeah, but if you don't accept Jesus ure going to hell ..it's a dumb religion
Thank you for showing and explaining what the Bible really means about true sacrifice: a broken spirit and a broken and contrite heart, repentance and turning from sin, a personal relationship with God, not slaughtering animals and shedding blood, which always deeply disturbed me. I don’t understand why Paul turned it into a human sacrifice Gospel with all the blood washing g our sins - I could never except that and it never sounded like Jesus’ Gospel. Thank you for you wisdom and share, always in deep gratitude 🙏 🪷
But, it's part and parcel of the New Testament message...you can't have it both ways!
Absolutely brilliant analysis
Hello Dr.Tabor I really enjoy watching your videos as I have recently started a passion for religious studies. I dont know if you will see this but I have a question you say that Mark's gospel was influenced by Paul but why do you also say that Mark's gospel does not claim Jesus was divine. Thank you so much!
When Paul wrote, "I have laid the foundation," he about said it all.
Yes, I’d forgotten that he said that. It confirms my strong suspicions that he was an agent of Rome. Hijacking what had already been founded.
Yes, I’d forgotten that he said that. It confirms my strong suspicion that Paul was an agent of Rome. Hijacking what had already been founded.
Praying to HaShem that this video will deliver many "christians" from their idolatry and turn to the Only True G-d.
Amen amen
YAHUHA! His name a few thousand times in the Scriptures… which HE loves to hear!!
Blood is the centrepiece of forgiveness.
Thanks James
I tend to think that Paul, in his philosophy, was trying to justify himself for the persecutions he had committed against the early believers. I'm convinced it was through contact with those people, in the course of those persecutions, that led to his eventual conversion, and created within himself a guilt that could only be assuaged by creating a new vision that essentially let him off the hook for the crimes he had committed.
The first thing Paul got from Jesus was stern correction. Why did Paul rebel against instruction like that spoken by Stephen. There were Jews who were on the way of life the old-fashioned way--through the written word. Jesus brought us a new and living way. It begins with washing of water. To be clear, one must receive more than faith in that first baptism. In Jesus are also the gifts of faith for righteousness, faith for holiness and to become a "son of God" which requires another birth. Only when Christ is fully formed in you, can you be born in the image of Christ. This is that angel of your presence that passes on first, before your body follows. This is about the life in your blood that needs to be quickened like wine. You can look at the way of life by the court design of Moses, the changes in Abraham or the gospels which are titled with words that DEFINE the portion taught. Love grows, faith grows, hope grows, wisdom grows. We will never equal God, but we can become more like Jesus. Baptism in water washes away past sins. The blood of Jesus was shed two thousand years ago for sins you won't commit until next year. You must believe, receive, confess. Paul had studied the written word to obtain whatever faith he had. The first thing he received from Jesus was a stern rebuke, Why was he rebelling against direction given. Jesus offers you faith that is multi-portioned. You receive the spirit of Jesus. You follow him. He will offer you righteousness and holiness. Students will follow a teacher. Inevitably, they will follow to heaven or hell. Our teacher is he that he loves you so completely that the forgiveness of your future sin is in his nail-scarred hand. It's discouraging to see students who look for reasons not to believe. Rebellion is as witchcraft. What about students who were first drawn to the Proton by cords of love. Who misdirects them to a place where they want to cut those cords "asunder" as if they were "bonds" rather than love. I love a teacher who can say, I don't understand this" instead of giving reasons why it cant bd true.
The gospels are lessons taught to four classes of students in the last year of Jesus' ministry. Mark is by definition the first portiont/preparation of the heart. Mat-theou/Matthew asks us the receive the spirit of the father/ righteousness/the alpha and omega with us/possibly מאתו. Luke is the third year students/the latter portion/לוק. Luke is about holiness.) The closest disciples like John pictured in the bosom or leaning on his chest were in the graduating class. (John, "the beginning of the response of Jah/ יענה/In the beginning was the Word." There is no Q. The variations in the gospels are very important. How terrible that students are so indoctrinated from childhood that their faith is already on shiftings sand.
It's an analogy to the Passover Lamb, right? The death of the innocent that removes sin and protects from judgement. It's not much of a leap. When Peter and James met the resurrected Jesus, did they not think that it was significant? What meaning did they attribute to the event?
Correct, imho
The lamb of Passover had nothing to do with atonement.
@@Contemplate55 In Corinthians 5 Paul refers to Jesus as "Christ our Passover."
@@Contemplate55In Judaism, the Passover lamb was slaughtered and eaten at a feast as an act of worship to God and the means of atoning for sin.
The Passover lamb is killed for consumption not to offer its blood as a sin sacrifice.
just a little technical question, not sure if it's my browser or setting about regions, but i can't reach the blog posts, it all responds after a try to connect with "the ip of the server can't be found" ..somebody can give advice?
““If you love Me, you shall guard My commands.” John 14:15
Ive never seen the divine Word of GOD twisted so wickedly
Most Catholic churches when i was a kid still had lots of plaster icons and a large model of the cross hanging from the ceiling with jesus in a stylised pose . Now then, think on this : what if very, very realistic models could be made of scenes from the film The Passion Of The Christ ( youve seen the technical skill now available), of a really appalling blood soaked and agonising Jesus on a cross or being severely scourged covered in blood. Maybe a mechanical model that moves screams and wails in agony ? You can bet your life that parishioners wouldn't put up with it ! Children would be terrified to go to church to look at this hyper real moving talking manaquin ! But why not ? Why not symbolically wipe fake blood from its writhing head and smear your forehead with it ? You see, part of the sanitising of christian imagery in churches is part of the subtle indoctrination process. Its a way of sugaring the pill. And what of the wider psychological ramifications of submersing young minds in this scapegoating and blood sacrifice imagery ? I noticed at school that the poorer kids got the sharp end of the teachers tongue and picked on more as easy targets. We were the undesrving sinners that recieved to he cane regularly. We where the ones scapegoated and punnished because , well.....someone had to be...
It was the realization that God never required blood or sacrifice that brought me out of Christianity. The Decalogue Faith for me!
Question! Did the Dead Sea Scroll community believed in the temple sacrifices or did they developed their own way? Anybody??
Most/many were vegetarian- I can’t imagine they were sacrificing animals. Tabor addresses this somewhere but I don’t have a link now sorry
What a comforting rationalization of child sacrifice to pay the price for human sin that was permitted and enabled with full divine forethought. Why not create a universe where atonement had already been achieved without child sacrifice ?
That's not what's being said here at all
But it kinda was though, _then_ Adam and Eve decided to eat the forbidden fruit, though.....
The requirement of a broken heart and a contrite spirit is brought up in your discussion. Laban, a character out of Genesis, could represent the opposite of this. His name is Lamed, Beit, and Nun sofit. Lamed and Beit could be Leb, or Heart, with the Nun sofit as Son of, or continues in. The heart continues, i.e. not broken.
I have not found this in any writings but if there is some support please share this. Shalom. Thank you Dr. Tabor.
Fascinating, as always... Thanks so much, Dr. Tabor. 🙇🏻♂️
Lamb was slain before the foundation of the Earth. We were in Christ before the World began
Picking your nose in front of the king. Now wash.
WTF are you talking about?????😂
Where did you get that from ?
Why would you think that Paul would not suggest that we should follow the 4th commandment, and that it’s a Jewish thing?
In that story about the tax collector and the pharisee. The Pharisee went home feeling good.
If we know that the priestly source had the motivation to include the doctrine of animal sacrifice, who or what group do you think wrote the “I never asked you to make sacrifices” concept? Was it a contemporary group to the priestly source or from oral tradition? Has this been researched yet?
Is blood the ultimate test of the listener? In the gospel of John chapter 6 Jesus clarifies what his blood symbolizes. Notice it doesn’t symbolize literal blood. It symbolizes his words. You would think that his disciples would remember this gruesome teaching at the last supper when he tells them that his blood is the covenant he’s making with them. Will they think that his literal blood cleanses them? Or will they think that the words he gave them, and cost him his life, cleanses them? What is your thought on this?
Yes Jesus words were life and life takes away death.
Are you saying it's symbolically okay to break commandments? The prohibition on the drinking of blood goes back to Noah.
How in the world did you get that from anything I said? John chapter 6 tells us that Jesus’s blood symbolizes his words. Basically, Jesus is saying that if we follow his words, they will teach us how to live a life without sinning. His words were consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures require repentance and making amends when we sin. The Hebrew scriptures never required blood sacrifices for sins that were committed intentionally. Therefore, the literal blood that Jesus shed on the cross does not atone for our sins. At least, not according to Jesus. If we fail to follow his words, then, his death on the cross, his sacrifice, his blood was shed for nothing. We honor his death, and prove we love him, because we follow his teachings. I don’t follow Jesus because of any miracles he performed. I follow him because I agree with what he teaches.
@@David_Brinkerhoff93 I think you would have to know the reason for the prohibition beyond that the life is in the blood.
Indeed Jesus is introducing an idea here, with an action, that is anathema to most of his audience . The idea being the absolute union of God, in the form of Jesus and man; that union being brought about by the union of our spirits John 6:63. A union so total that our existence is in Christ and He is in us. This is totally different to the symbolism of the Old Covenant where the people were separated from God by the curtain between them and the most Holy place. Union is the truth of our being, our lives are united, hence the eating and drinking. I imagine the prohibition on animal blood is to make a point about where life comes from and it is not from animal life including ourselves. It is only the life of God in us that saves us, and that life is manifested by us living in and out of the character of God of Christ and the Holy Spirit. We testify to that faith when we take communion.
He got it right here...............Phip 4:22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household.
If I recall right, Dr. Tabor, Christian scholar E. W. Bullinger opposed the notion that Christians were "washed in the blood" of Jesus. He interpreted the Book of Revelation differently. He noted that some people could get that concept from Revelation 1:5 etc., but he pointed out that the Greek "EN" could mean "by virtue of" instead of "physically within." The passage in the Book of Isaiah can also be interpreted as "sins" being put for "sinners." The sinners would be washed white.
Revelation 3: 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent.
I always wanted to know this
A few questions: Was there a "last supper?" Did Jeshua pronounce a new covenant? Did he, moreover, link his own death to Passover? It's interesting to ponder the Pauline influence yet discerning what happened at the end of Jeshua's life remains important. I don't see repentance and faith in the salvific blood of Messiah as contradictory or competing claims per se.
Blood which is life takes away sin/death, its not rocket science. Life is the antidote for death.
Anything in common with the - historically posterior - taurobolium? Some common ancestor?
It's SUCH a HIDEOUS thought!!! I worked so hard to believe this horrible idea and finally, after 40 years, gave up and have been much better for the forgetting.
thank you. is it possible to find a version of Marc that is not influenced by Paul? I heard there is one in the Vatican that is the original version of Marc.
To what extent is Paul committed to converting Gentiles to a new religion? To what extent in that commitment he is absorbing the ideas and rituals of the Gentiles, such as the Mithra followers?
I don't think Paul made the atonement up. He got it from the OT. The high priest on the Day of Atonement takes upon himself the sins of the people. Instead of the high priest being sacrificed, he transfers the sins onto the animal sacrifice. The people are supposed to repent in preparation for this day. The atonement covers unintentional sins. It doesn't cover murderers. They were executed.
Didn't Prof. Elaine Pagels write a book how how the Revelation was initially a Jewish, rather than a Christian work? I think your idea of the Revelation being a Jewish book is great.
There's little evidence in support of the idea that Isaiah 53 is about a corporate group. The plain reading is that it pertains to an individual. The servants mentioned in Isaiah 42:1-7, Isaiah 44:26, and Isaiah 49:6 also sound more like individuals than a group.
Yeah the remnant of Israel. It also says in verse 10 that will have children and live a long life.
@@marinirob
Yir'eh zera' ('he will see [a] seed') doesn't necessarily mean having literal children at all. Zera' is used throughout Isaiah to refer to communities of people: Isaiah 1:4, 57:3, 65:23, etc. And yes, God gave him long (eternal) life after his mission on earth, as is the case with Christ. Note the mention of his being given long life (Isaiah 53:10) follows descriptions that, on the plain reading, imply his death (Isaiah 53:8-9).
See also Isaiah 49:6 that explicitly distinguishes the servant from the remnant of Israel.
Blood and Wine are also offered to Goddess Kali during the Tantric worship.
So, worship of Jesus with blood and wine is in a way a left-hand tantric ceremony.
Blood, the colour red is connected with Shakti (she always wears red colour clothes.), the consort of Lord Shiva. Ascended masters taught the blood offering as the Violet Flame Meditation.
(Continued). As a teacher, parent, government (or God) it is a constant struggle to varying degrees To keep people near the straight and narrow. Would anyone want to make that an eternal struggle? Not even our gracious God wants that. We’ve all met people whose heart is naturally mostly good, and we wish everyone could have such a good heart.
Then we can stay at level one of the progression towards sacrifices, free of the need for a law with its penalties over us-- Not because the rules themselves had become irrelevant or changed, but because everyone is already naturally keeping them. This was the hope and promise that God revealed to Israel for all people, and what Paul meant.
With this context, which we’ve all experienced, it is the natural and obvious interpretation of Paul’s words that if you walk according to the spirit of the law then you are free from the written law with its penalties.
If you think Paul meant that the law was changed or done away with, then you are putting Paul in opposition to his fellow apostles, Jesus himself and the all the words of God until Paul-- There is no precedent and no scripture to support the idea of doing away with the law.
Indeed, where did that idea come from? Just another man hundreds of years after Paul?
This is great!!
what I want to know, is where the bleep did this UNNECESSARY violent blood need for sacrifice of sins come from, when IT WAS IN OLD TEST days? because that, THAT, is what led into this NEW BELIEF that God decided that that practice was no good, AND ONLY NOW..now did he have to send his actual "son" to die and bleed for mankind's sin? if it was necessary, why did God and Jesus wait so long to introduce the Israelites the fact that God was going to let HIS son die for their sins and wouldn't accept anymore the sacrifice of bulls and goats??? why wait so long? AND WHO MADE the rule that this "sin" had to require blood? If god is a very powerful god, why does he need blood to forgive us our sin?
Its funny how nobody has the courage to respond, read or answer my challenge?
You can (and probably have already) find some good arguments (some better than others) ranging from there being two+ gods in the OT to (at least one) being Satan himself. See the Gnostic material. It’s apparent in the OT that the ancient Hebrews kept going back to sacrificing to Baal (rival storm god) and God let them sacrifice animals as long as they stayed away from sacrifice of human children like some segments did (Ammonites). Absolutely horrible behavior all around in the OT
Also see Tabors video in the Lost in Translation series that points out the famous “den of robbers/thieves” is a mistranslation and was more like “den of cutthroats” (slitting animal throats) which precipitated the turning over of tables etc. was not about money or corruption
Saul would have been steeped in all the sacrifice business so it’s no surprise he used that terminology and thus successfully contaminated Jesus’ message
What do you think?
Very interesting. I follow the logic behind Tabor’s ideas here, even if I question his motivation. However this is an alternative narrative and interpretation which he has constructed, which does not mean that it is actually true. The weakness of his narrative and arguments is seen in his liberal use of multiple assumptions to ‘fill in the gaps’ (a characteristic also of Bart Ehrman’s ideas), in order to present his ‘alternative story’. The weakness of these presumptions means that Tabor’s ‘story’ is highly speculative, instead of factual. It is interesting, but I wouldn’t place too much trust in the speculations of academics like Tabor and Ehrman, particularly since they offer no better spirituality to their listeners. All that they would leave their listeners who trust their narratives, is an emptiness where there was once hope.
They offer scholarship and not theology, this isnt something you teach on a sunday bible study
@@rylands4289 Yes it is "scholarship", I agree. As such, it represents the diverse and multiple opinions of academics who have attempted to write their own gospels, adding to the ancient list of non canonical gospels - the difference between these modern non canonical versions like Tabor's and Ehrman's from the other ancient attempts to rewrite the gospels, is not as great as you may think. While their methodology may be different, their results of denials are the same.
Also the absence of theology is not a strength but a weakness, particularly bearing in mind the backslidden state of these men who were once faithful believers.
While you say you attend Sunday Bible study and that is the extent of your studies, others study every day of the week and have a great interest in both archaeology and history behind the New Testament. I find Tabor very interesting, but flawed because of his filling in the gaps with presumptions and opinions which reflect his own bias.
Question, if Jesus is paying his blood as a "ransom for many", who receives the payment? His blood is paying for us, but who is receiving that payment? It can't be us for we are what his blood is covering and paying for. So who gets the payment?
YHWH
@@dr-johngy-brongen So he sacrificed himself to pay a ransom to another part of himself?
@@johnjohnson798 yeah, doesn’t make sense
It was a fulfillment of the covenant demands, which when the covenant was broken, there were curses; but when it was fulfilled, there were blessings and the promises were able to be obtained. This time and time again Israel broke, bringing curses upon themselves; so God fulfilled it Himself, showing Himself as the only One truly righteous; and He established a new covenant where He gives us a new heart and gives us a new Spirit from Him, where He dwells in us because God does not dwell in temples made with hands. He had already planned a place to dwell long ago (us)
@@johnjohnson798 I think this description of what Jesus' blood is accomplishing focuses on the result and not on the transaction.
A ransom was a price that was payed to buy a slave back. So being bought back by Jesus means that he is now our Lord and master and we no longer are under death/sin as our master.
Take Isaiah 35:10, there you also find the idea of being ransomned or redeemed from exile. And when that was done, there was no real price being payed. The illustration focuses on what is accomplished, namely that the people are set free by God's mighty power. When the people returned from exile, there was no price payed for that, so it is not transactional. But still it is like that, since the people were under a foreign God's rule and now they are again coming under the Lordship of their God when returning home. In that sense one may describe it like a ransom.
Jesus did a similar thing for us, but there was no transaction involved as if God would have to negotiate a price for us. He simply did it.
Best regards, Thomas
Did he get the idea from the Cult of Attis and Artemis at Ephesus?
Mithras?
Yep, the idea surly does not come from Judaism.
The followers of Mithra used to sacrifice bulls in such away that the blood would fall down on them.
Yep, it surly does not come from Judaism.
The followers of Mithra would sacrifice bulls in such a way that the blood would fall down onto them.
Possibly. But the popularity of Mithras with Roman soldiers is a bit of a disconnect, and may not be quite contemporary.
Jesus was the first lamb that replaced Isaac when Abraham almost fell into temptation and Jesus was also the last lamb to end the blood sacrifices. Because killing any living thing is considered killing life. In the God commandment telling us, " you shall not kill". True believers save by grace through the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) as our seal or Redeemer. Immanuel that guide us from within
G-d has never been impressed with blood sacrifices. Hosea 6:6
Why was Paul “persecuting” the church initially tho? Obviously it wasn’t observance to Torah. I’m guessing is he would have seen/ known about the lords supper and baptism bc what else distinguished the so called christians? Although Paul claims he received information from the lord. What was prior to Paul?
Blood and water are essential for life, so being the superstitious primates that we are. Blood and water inevitably was and will always be a part of religious mythology.
Alot of things are essential for life , like the energy (from the sun ) or the air we breathe - so those 2 are just a random pick
@@gabrieledupres Blood is the subject matter of the video Einstein.
Wine is also essential
Psalm 49:7
I have a few questions. I’ve been listening to as much of videos as I can. Also lots of other scholars and most are dating the writing of the gospels late in the first century some early second century. I am not arguing this in any way I’m just asking what are the reasons for these dates?? I am very interested to find this out. If anyone can respond and give an answer I would be truly grateful.
I forgot to add.
Sometimes what was written was added (or deleted or goofed) by later scribes.
Literary historicity is (very basic) usually done through comparison to other works, and comparisons to other works of the author.
If a document used the word "totally tubular", it would most likely be dated in the 1960's or 1970's. And if the word was never used by me any any of my other works, questions would arise as to its authenticity on who actually wrote it.
It can only work from the oldest copy they can find and translations. It can error if the oldest copies aren't available (not known to exist, but maybe they did) or they were copied into the vernacular of the scribe translating or copying the document.
It is interesting, but it isn't a perfect science/history. Just a well educated theory of the work they have.
Let me understand this. So anything that’s in the Gospels and is similar to Paul comes from Paul. With this logic we can conclude Paul created Jesus. The 12 Apostles, the birth of Jesus from the lineage of David, the brother of the Lord, the Crucifixion, the burial and resurrection of Jesus etc. do all come from paul because according to the logic in the video these things are found in both the Gospels and Paul. I’m not sure if the argument is really convincing?
Paul being the earliest account and writer of these specific ideas. Jesus existence, death, resurrection, are throughout all the gospels. It’s about seeing particular themes, or teachings because it doesn’t seem they all believe the same things. So Paul seems to have founded some fundamental ideas that become popularized in the early church
@@Thomas-bq4edYes, as everyone knows, the first one to write about an idea is the one who founded it. Never mind what could have been communicated orally. Everyone wrote to each other in letters only, it was very efficient, as easy as texting.
@@mintmax do you know why Paul’s letters are recorded? How we even know he was writing early on in the church? How about Acts? Mark? It’s because they are being circulated in the early church, hence “popularized,” no one is arguing writing came before oral tradition, but straw man away if it makes you feel involved
Great job James. It was simply Saul all along.
"...It was All Saul, All Along..."
Paul got his gospel just like Joseph Smith Jr. did - by revelation. Both taught lies against God and Jesus.
"Romans proves Paul lied"
What specific lies?
@@Redhawkeye The entire book of Romans is filled with lies. Read the book - I didn't count them. Paul defied the Teachings of God and Jesus from start to finish. see: Onediscipletoanother as it is filled with proof that not only Paul lied, but so did Judaism and Rome - in giving us Paul and three faked gospels.
Could you just list a couple that come to mind?
@@Redhawkeye Careful study of Matthew - especially the oldest Aramaic and Hebrew. 1. Jesus could not take anyone elses sins upon himself - or pay for them. Each person is independently responsible for their own actions. Jesus' teachings in Matthew match both Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 18 and the unaltered Covenant of Elohim, as published in The Moses Scroll and The Valediction of Moses. No bloodshed is required to be forgiven - God requires repentance, confession, restitution as required, to then live uprightly by the Covenant Standards, and that we "Do no evil". A central truth of Jesus is that we "Live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (which includes the Sinai Covenant), and that we be yoked to him in doing the will of the Father., not that "Jesus did it all for me" lies of the Evangelicals. Jesus did not teach spiritual welfare, that we have a blank check because he paid the bill due.
I gave up on James when he repeatedly denied the teachings of Jesus in Matthew to believe Paul. NO WHERE in Matthew does Jesus claim to be a sacrifice for sins of others. Jesus taught according to the Covenant Standards as originally given. If he doesn't recognize this - it isn't because Jesus said so. it's because he wants to believe Paul and think Paul is misunderstood. Yet we have some pretty telling quotes from Paul that defy Jesus and God. "*"(2 Corinthians 3: 6-17: (6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: (8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? (9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. (10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. (11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. (12) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (13) And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (15) But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (16) Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (ASV
Is there anything in the passage above that has accord to Elohim, the Prophets, or Jesus?
True history of the Great Traveler , how about It !
It's a metaphor D.A. .......( and I don't mean District Attorney ).
As almost ALL of scripture is written in metaphor, allegory, signs and symbols ......
aka......"spiritual language".
"washed in blood" signifies being "cleansed by death"
His "death" signified dying to His "flesh"
His "flesh" signified His "carnal mind" .....or the "veil" in the "temple" that was "rent" when He died .
The "temple" signified the human body.......and the "Holy of Holies" signified the HIGHER MIND or Consciousness
of God....Who is "SPIRIT" ( John 4:24 )
"spirit" is a metaphor for the "MIND" .
The words "serpent" , the "devil" and "Satan" are all metaphors for the "CARNAL MIND" of man.
"That old serpent called the devil and Satan that DECEIVES the whole world."
( Revelation 12:9 )
See Isaiah 9.14-15, where Israel (summer) is described as having the head of the noble/royal lion (Leo) and tail of the liar (Scorpio). Leo is the sign of Jupiter/Fire. We find Leo in our Thursday/Thorsday aka Jupiter day. The Palm Frond (Virgo) we find Venus and our Friday. The Reed (Libra) is where we find our Saturnday ruled by Venus. The four signs are Leo = Jupiter/Fire
Virgo = Vesta/Earth
Libra = Juno/Air
Scorpio = Neptune/Water
@@harveywabbit9541 .....Isaiah 9:14-15 has nothing to do with "astrology" .
And you are confusing the ancient "Mazzaroth" with the modern corrupted version called the "zodiac" .
@@TheWhyIsThatSo
The writer is telling us that the word Israel is pure allegory
@@harveywabbit9541 ......."Israel" = "one who struggles with God" (Hebrew meaning).
Ultimately this is ALL people who seek to know "God", no matter what "religion" they adhere to .
But the TRUE God revealed Himself to one particular people, even though they did not know Him.
And they still do not know Him to this day .
But "spiritual Israel" is the TRUE "church", that this world knows absolutely nothing about .
The true "church" is invisible to the world and hidden in God......but soon to be "revealed".
This is what the book of Revelation is about......the revealing of the true "church" and the
TRUE and "LIVING God" to this world for the very first time in human history .
The false Roman Church and religion called "Christianity" created over 1500 years ago
is called "antichrist" in scripture. ( 1 John 2 :18-22 )
Literal and prophetic "Israel" today is many sovereign nations in the world . ( Amos 9:9 )
And the United States of America ( Ephraim ) is the leader among them . ( Genesis chapter 48 )
The little nation/state in the Middle East created in 1948 by political powers for political purposes
is "Judah".....NOT prophetic "Israel".
All Jews are Israelites, but all Israelites are not Jews .
@@TheWhyIsThatSo
Struggling with god can cause a volcanic eruption aka ejaculation. Remember how Ra, the Egyptian Sun, created Tefnut (moisture) and Shu (air)?
The Isra/Ysra, in Israel has always meant the phallus. This is the phallus (rock that begat thee) in Deuteronomy 32.18.
It is also the upright pillar that Jacob anointed with wine (passion) and oil (semen). This same pillar (phallus) became the Christian Peter.
The "foundation stone" of the Catholic church is Peter the Phallus.
The Hermes stones, found throughout ancient Palestine is how the Palestinians obtained their name. Pala (phallus) and stan (land).
Don't forget the sinew (genitals) that lay on the thigh. As they relax the shrinking begins.
Don't you just love the myths found throughout the sacred scriptures?
I like to think you are right, but the proprietary sacrifice is a fairly big deal, wouldn't Jame and Peter have contended with Pajul over it even moret than over other matters?
Jesus revelation to John: Rev 7;14 “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Whatever claim we may make about our beliefs it will be up to Jesus to judge.
If the gospels were written after most of the rest of the NT, and we see disagreements scattered in most of the letters, could it be that the gospels were written in response to some of Paul, Peter, and James disagreements? Maybe to sort of straighten out those arguments? Throw in that 1-3 John guy...was he referring to Paul who left because he never really was a part of "us"? I see lots of spiritual harassment, hate, and abuse in those guys.
The ransom = we must each die to SELF (old carnal man, 1st Adam) so we can live (new spiritual man, last Adam). No one can do it for us. The gospels are allegory.
Wow, i wonder why there's not any living relations of this bloodline? Also this bloodline is obviously a delicacy.
Again, great scholarly work here. What you, Dr. Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars demonstrate to me is that, 1) "Man" has spiritual revelations. 2) Men want to help others. 3) Men experience spirituality through the uniqueness of their personal interpretation. 4) Man's supposed intelligence over-complicates the revelation to the point where, often eventually, Man kills other men over differences in the individual revelations (Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shite, etc.). Actual Biblical history "should" prove to every soul that we are witnessing the opinions of individuals whose inspiration applies to that individual. If only the people of the world would understand that if someone is telling you - you will burn in Hell for not believing exactly as "I believe," and simply follow the rule that Jesus, and others, taught: Believe in Love, and forgiving others. Not judging others and practicing unconditional love is the key to happiness. If you don't believe that, I will not judge you. It's your business, not mine. All I know is that I love you, no matter who you are and what you did. I forgive you. This is for my salvation and sanity. This is all I really have control of.
Mr. Tabor, do you believe that Paul was inspired by Jesus, or do you believe he was a charlatan?
1. AND it came to pass as he sat at supper with his disciples one of them said unto him: Master, how sayest thou that thou wilt give thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink, for it is a hard saying unto many?
2. And Jesus answered and said: The words which I spake unto you are Spirit and they are Life. To the ignorant and the carnally minded they savour of bloodshed and death, but blessed are they who understand.
Where can I find that passage?
We're saved because he said we're his friends. That's it.
Okay, now I'll watch.
If Jesu's blood is pure white as snow, what is that red stuff they have in goblets on Sundays?
what?
I was taught that being "washed in the blood" making the sinner white as snow actually refers to Leprosy that turns the affected being fully white diagnosed the ending of the disease for that person.
Sorry, it should read "signifying that the person affected with leprosy is fully healed."
IT was the "cup of redemption" - not a magic cup of grape juice. How did God redeem Israel and the multiude of nations from Egypt? To serve Him? The Covenant Standards of Sinai - Decrees, Blesseds, Curseds - to do no evil and grow in doing good - and by all means to live a just and reasonable life with God and fellow mankind. It's that simple. Jesus came to restore what Judaism stole from us when it altered the words of God.
God said he would send SAVIORS (plural) Obadiah 1:21. And James tells us James 5:20 that anyone who converts a lost sinner is a savior. Thats the point of going to the nations and preaching the good news of redemption by REPENTANCE as John the Baptist taught as well as all the prophets. Isaiah 49-54 is xplains that the annointed are ALL the elect chosen by God. Confirming Revelation 21:7. To WHOMEVER overcomes he will INHERIT ALL THINGS. I will be his Elohim And he will be MY SON.
The son of God has always been plural in scripture Ex 4:22, Hosea 11:1 just like the virgin daughter of Zion is not one person.
Dr Tabor you miss out the new covenant that all this is part of, all before is symbolic of the way that the Father, Son and Spirit baptise and justify believers.
One, I would think, would have to look at the anointing with blood of the horns of the alter in the old testament as ordered by God through Moses, as well as God referencing blood as being life in the old testament. The use of blood is mentioned several times in the old testament. It is clear in the old testament that if one wishes to slit the throat of a lamb one must do something with the blood or for that matter any animal. If Paul knew of the process of sacrifice at the temple blood would be a clear understanding of any problem. It is also clear in the Old Testament that there is sin sacrifice or animals being destroyed to free oneself of sin. I ask this question of Dr Tabor was there blood animal sacrifice for sin inside or at the gate of the 2nd temple during Jesus life?
"And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." - Rev. 7:14
I don't know how I missed this when it came out, but for me, it's your most important video to date.
Christianity definitely reflects Paul's pagan influence. Both Jesus and John the Baptizer taught salvation through repentance, not animal (or human) sacrifice. As you pointed out:
"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." -Mark 1:4
"No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them."
-Psalms 49:7
Indeed, the term "The Lord's Supper" was so associated with pagan Mithraism, it was an embarrassment for the early church fathers. And the early Roman center for Mithraism was in wealthy Tarsus, Paul's native city. The name of the rite was changed to the Eucharist, or later, to communion. Interesting fact, when it came time for communion, George Washington got up and went home.
Personally, I think you are right that this comes from Paul who was Roman, and who's father was in the Roman Army, So even if he was a Jew, he had to pretend to worship Mithrah, as it was the army's religion. And it is said that Mithrah said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the shall not know salvation." So maybe that's where he got the idea to claim Jesus said it.
The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin…it’s in the Bible, actually in many places implied. …” though your sins be as scarlet (blood) they shall be as white as snow. Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”…Isaiah.
Yes that's when you ask father God to forgive you and you turn from your sin and father God forgives you and remembers it no more 🤔
Also Jesus being the sin offering in place of animal. Isaiah 53
@@user-hx9uw5zd9kthe Bible says no man shall die for another man's sin
😂
@@user-hx9uw5zd9kwhere does Isaiah 53 say anything about a sin offering?
Best indictment on 'atonement' - appeasing angry God. Big whopper word 'atonement' - to appease angry God by offering human blood sacrifice - which is abomination to God in OT.A great job he took on himself, knowing he will be back to life on third day after he died.
It's obviously Mithraic. Mithra sacrificed a bull and it's blood dripped down onto the earth: "The white bull was metamorphosed into the moon; the cloak of Mithra was transformed into the vault of the sky, with the shining planets and fixed stars; from the tail of the bull and from his blood sprang the first ears of grain and the grape". Then comes the model for the Last Supper: "After the sacrifice, Mithra and the sun god banqueted together, ate meat and bread, and drank wine. Then Mithra mounted the chariot of the sun god and drove with him across the ocean, through the air to the end of the world". Jesus just did the communal meal before the sacrifice instead of after.
I think it’s because Caiaphas the High Priest said “it’s better that one man die for the people than the entire nation be destroyed”
I think a lot of the confusion is because he was crucified around Passover. He went into Jerusalem to demonstrate against that practice and that’s probably the main reason he was crucified. But instead, he was just doing what he was told to do and intentionally fulfilling Daniel 9. That’s why he kept it a secret telling them not to tell anyone until around 30CE. It would be more appropriate to say he was also fulfilling Yom Kipper, becoming that first goat slaughtered. The second goat was supposed to be led away, handed to a caretaker and taken into the wilderness where he would be set free. The goat naturally would choose to stay with his new master instead of returning. That’s a good description of the suffering servant in Isa 53 despised and rejected. Something Jesus didn’t really suffer except on that weekend.
You point out that this life of suffering is the message in Mark and the way of salvation but it’s more than just that. That sacrifice was prophetic in scope. Salvation was on the ones to whom the arm of god was revealed. The messengers throughout Israel’s history and who would believe their report? They all suffered but their obedience itself was confirming the covenant. So even if Jesus himself said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, it wasn’t a sacrifice like the Passover. It was saying become like me and do likewise or you’re not worthy.
It’s too bad the rabbis didn’t understand and instead of following the command, they would immediately lead the scapegoat over a cliff, thinking they could prevent sin from returning. Ironically, Jesus is the national designated scapegoat blamed for everything along with Christianity, and anyone who is Christian is led out of the city too and banned from the communities. That’s the reason that temple was destroyed because they broke the covenant they had in not following that instruction. The prophets all agree god never wanted sacrifices and Passover got way out of control. Isa 53 is about all those prophets and when he returns, he will suffer again just like it’s written but this time over a lifetime of testing. It didn’t please god to watch Jesus suffer but it will please him to bring him back and cause it again so that we get it right for once.
Paul came in on the wing of an abomination and began this blood sacrifice idea that’s caused untold devastation, ruining god’s reputation. That prophecy isn’t finished quite yet.
Why was the old world obsessed with child sacrifice?
Sounds like alchemy which is in everything. First black, then the white elixir then the red elixir . Then you go around changing people's names to "Peter" (a stone).