Jesus' First Followers According to Q 

John was originally a professional historian specializing on (real) Mormon history. You know, the Fawn Brodie stuff. Later he got recruited to join the CoC, then became a pastor. That's why he sounds like a university lecturer. He used to be one.

I use these at night for the exact same purpose. Interesting enough to alleviate anxiety but soothing enough to help you fall asleep!

You're not the only one who.uses them to fall asleep to. But I make sure to wind back to pick up from.the same spot to take it all in. Don't mean any disrespect by it, just helps send me off into another world of imagination!

@@DeanMorrison same exact including the constant rewinding!

The mind never sleeps...the "hypnogogic state"...between wakefulness and sleep is an excellent 👌 time to soak in knowledge like a sponge directly into your subconscious mind. In my case I listen to video after video on RU-vid continuously in my "liked video" play list while sleeping at night, listening to videos for literally hours on end...all night long.

I love the human sacrifice part.

I know, I just got really excited!

I'm not even a religious person but I watch this guy videos every day. He is such a great speaker. Love his content.

The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles (John 21:23-24) and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. Not generations after the facts. Rome hijacked the religion. Broke up the text and scrambled it so as to be a testimony that does not quite altogether agree, ascribed false authorship and a Gnosticism cover story - canonizing books that they themselves caused to be confounded in the first place. And Epistles are counterfeits, especially those attributed to Paul.

Your goodness is blessing all of us. Thanks Daisy May.

Allah has chosen u sister like he did to me

Thank you so much for supporting the channel with this generous donation

Sounds like you didn’t read the NT at all. If you want to understand the story of Jesus, you have to go to Dionysus first.

Where does Dionysus feature in the NT?

Hint: _Nobody has Q._ Nobody knows "Q's perspective". Q is wholly a figment of the collective imagination of "NT scholars". (I quote because they have nothing like the standards of real scholars.). The original motivation for Q, an imaginary "independence" of Matthew and Luke authorship, is completely false: we know with certainty that 'Luke' had Matthew in hand. The methods used for constructing Q are intellectually bankrupt, denying authorial agency. Actual authors make choices according to their goals and resources which include, at times, simplifying, at others, elaborating, sometimes omitting what they don't like, others making up whatever they think they need. (Absent authorial agency, who is supposed to have written Q? Where did that person copy it from?) There is no defensible difference betweeen Q and Matthew itself. All work on Q, over many decades, has been a waste of time, effort, and careers, and will be looked back on as a huge embarrassment to the field. The field will, in the end, learn nothing from the experience.

cu plăcere! And thank you for this donation that helps us keep producing more content like this!

Excursion on the Kingdom of God (- what I concluded after watching Pageau and Rohlin) Protestantism be like: God gave us a choice. The Kingdom of God in this world is only a tiny seed within our mind. God only has our hands. He manifests in our consciousness and the beliefs in our minds, guiding our will: thus we have to bring on the changes with our own work. We are Atlas, bearing the world on our shoulders. If we stumble or let it slip, the fate of the world will be going to shit in the blink of an eye. We must always be diligent and watchful. This is why transgressions against the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven. We are on a mission. God is giving us faith and strength to do his will: he wants this world to mirror Heaven, and tasks us with it. Catholicism be like: We are sinners. Keeping the faith for a better world is all we can do. Building Heaven on Earth is by definition not only unreachable, but even a folly (- Tower of Babel). Yes, we shall let our light shine and build cities on the hill to exemplify the ideal of Heaven, but the world itself will always be a valley of death (Jammertal). We look up to the Saints and point to them, who acted exemplary and modeled God’s qualities for us, but we know that they are the exceptions. It’s ok to fail, because that allows God to forgive us and play his part and always lead us back on the path. The promise for the Heavenly Kingdom necessarily lies in the beyond, always has and always will, until He comes in Glory to finish the salvation of all creation. Orthodox Christianity, as Pageau explores it and explains it, be like: God’s Kingdom is manifesting itself in human history. We are little cogs and wheels in God’s big plan. He works in us and through us to the best of our abilities and destinies, but it is he himself that acts and brings his plan to fruition. The History of the World per definition is on track, even when God works in mysterious ways. The path might be stony and overgrown and at times obscured or hard to travel, but God is guiding us along: we might stumble and slip and fall, but God doesn’t. The saving of humanity and the world is well underway. We might not understand it, but we can still trust that it happens, and we all have our roles to play, before God himself finishes the great work. It’s a stark difference: - failing is not an option, we are the chosen ones - vs failing is guaranteed, but all it does, is showing the greater glory of God - vs there is no failure: God works in mysterious ways, our part is to figure it out and play our small roles. It’s like a faith version of the discussions around Steven Pinker’s “Better Angels” and Hans Rosling’s TED talks: Maybe humanity actually is on track towards a better future? Maybe literacy is up, violence is down, mortality rate in children is down, poverty is down, not just as an incidental point in the swings of the pendulum of history or an artefakt of data collection, but indeed as a result of our common striving for a better future - UN Millennium goals and all? Mysticism and a trust in fate has an increasing attraction for me, especially if the usual other options are demoralizing fatalism / escapism and tiresome self-blaming activism. Of course as the pendulum of my mood swings, my world view can swing with it on an hourly basis. In the golden words of a recent meme: - When you think that everyone hates you: eat. - When you hate everyone: sleep. - When you hate yourself: shower.

The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles (John 21:23-24) and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. Not generations after the facts. Rome hijacked the religion. Broke up the text and scrambled it so as to be a testimony that does not quite altogether agree, ascribed false authorship and a Gnosticism cover story - canonizing books that they themselves caused to be confounded in the first place. And Epistles are counterfeits, especially those attributed to Paul.

The growing consensus is that he probably used both languages. However, whenever he was preaching his mainly apocalyptic theology, he would have done it in Aramaic because that would have been the target audience's language. Plus the Greeks and Romans would not have liked what he had to say on that matter.

Hmm? If he spoke Greek then he was rhyming

Google ""Was the New Testament Really Written In Greek? By Lataster free pdf" for free 400 page book showing much evidence, much from the current greek variations, showing that Aramaic origin.

I’m gunna guess that his Jewish peers didn’t speak Greek. He was preaching to the people in his communities, not his Roman oppressors.

@@daisymaygames The consensus from archaeology is that the majority of 1st century Galilean Jews would have spoken some Greek. This is because archaeology has shown that practically every major population center in Galilee was already heavily hellenized by the time of Herod the Great. Not just the cities; even fishing towns like Capernaum were already very Greek. Herod Antipas' capital city of Sepphoris (which Nazareth was a suburb of) was super-Greek. If the historical Jesus had tried to find any work as a tekton, he would have had to do so in Sepphoris, so he would have had to speak some Greek. Probably very bad Greek, but enough to negotiate pay or receive work instructions.

What? Paul was a Roman citizen, Greek speaker and educated Jew. James was an illiterate Fisherman.

There should be an automatically generated transcript. However, John does not read everything he says, there is no script.

@@centre-place I see there is one now, so it was a temporary thing.

Sorry about that! Are you able to watch the recorded video now?

@@centre-place : Yes, the recorded plays fine!!!

Xenophon and Aristophanes also wrote about Socrates. Xenophon was one of his students. Aristophanes wrote a theater play about Socrates and it is entirely possible that Socrates himself saw it. We know of authors that knew Socrates and wrote about him, like Aeschines of Sphettus, but their works are almost completely lost.

Mythvision is a good channel too.

@@Scorned405 I generally prefer History Valley, b/c I've found Derrick's super-high energy approach to be distracting at times.

The Gospel of Jesus( Injeel) was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles (John 21:23-24) and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. Not generations after the facts. Rome hijacked the religion. Broke up the text and scrambled it so as to be a testimony that does not quite altogether agree, ascribed false authorship and a Gnosticism cover story - canonizing books that they themselves caused to be confounded in the first place. And Epistles are counterfeits, especially those attributed to Paul.

They never made direct reference to the authors! Not till the mid or late second century

@mikeclapper4236 ah, argument from silence. i would tend to argue from name distribution and undesigned coincidences. As a Christian, i tend to trust the early church fathers, in that if they say its written by the four, it is. i mean how many times must God prove the bible right before we take it on faith

At least once more Miss Swan.

The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles (John 21:23-24) and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. Not generations after the facts. Rome hijacked the religion. Broke up the text and scrambled it so as to be a testimony that does not quite altogether agree, ascribed false authorship and a Gnosticism cover story - canonizing books that they themselves caused to be confounded in the first place. And Epistles are counterfeits, especially those attributed to Paul.

People talk bad about the Zodiac until they realize it’s the longest running study on human behavior we’ve got, predating Judaism and Zoroastrianism

@supernovakip sadly the reason why the concept of the zodiac is/ was and always will be relevant is told only in the oral tradition.. though to be fair I have seen it mentioned twice in print most notably in the Book "the holy science " by swami Sri yucketswar Giri.... everything moves, nothing is at rest including our sun which makes a 25, 920 year orbit (mistakenly called precession of the equinox) in a binary with Sirius. The zodiac is merely a representation of that orbit through space

Mainly the gospel of John, Q is following a Deuteronomistic model.

@@Darisiabgal7573 the gospel of luke, john, and massive parts of acts remind me of it. i wont lie jesus himself feels like a gallean character, i cannot deny that but his divine powers and accounts to me strike me as shockingly similiar to the bacchae

you should definitely look into the proofs of the resurrection then, also Jesus was MOST DEFINITLEY real. there are hostile witnesses to this... Jesus IS God, the proof is there if you want to find it

@@GhostScout42 even john doesnt agree there is proof. i kindly hold my right to disagree

@@seekingsomethingshamanic You need to separate two identities, those Jesus Christ imagery inspired by Paul and the Ephesians community of Timothy ( this includes Mark and Luke) and the Yeshu of Nazareth imagery found in Q and the epistle of James. Paul’s imagery as you say one man’s imagination and it gets fleshed out in Mark and redacted, supplemented in Matthew and Luke. But see here’s the bugaboo, while Luke is much later than Matthew, his Q passages are more primitive indicating that Luke actually has a written version of Q in front of him. Man versus mystical image of a Man both are real but in different ways.

Same reason Sherlock Holmes didn't write up his own cases.

In terms of secondary reasons, there is alot mondern day people don't understand or consider. Reading and writing on an advanced enough level to write meaningful and long compositions, like a biography, is rare. "Paper" and "ink" is expensive, you wouldn't be making one copy either, people would want many once it got popular. Hiring a competent scribe to write is also expensive. Preserving things orally, and by memory, was the norm, what was practiced, and what was considered most reliable. Certain people would memorize whole books or discourses. The Kingdom of God seemed like an imminent and soon to be reality to happen in the lifetime of the audience. If anyone suspected it would take over 2,000 years writing probably would have occured sooner. We don't know if they *did* write things down, even if only sayings. Even if they did, why would it have been preserved? It would have been copied, then when the gospels became the most circulated, authoratative, and informative documents that contaned much of what was in the earlier writing, the earlier writing, if indeed real, may have uncirculated out of existence, no longer copied as frequently.

That cannot explain the material that is the same in Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark.

@@Sphere723 they made their own stuff up to pander to their audience. this is all common knowledge stuff. or do you hint to Q ??. if you're a theist, you need to find more intellectual courage and get information from sources other than you are currently. sincerely, all the best with it

@@haydenwalton2766 The identical texts that Luke and Matthew share (but isn't found in Mark) either come from a "Q" source that they both had access to, or they copied each other in some way. I think "Q" is the cleanest explanation.

@@Sphere723 why not 'luke' just copied from 'mathew' ? and 'mark' was first, so if this Q was actually written / around, why didn't mark see it ? my understanding is that Q (if real) predated 'mark' ?

@@haydenwalton2766 If Luke copied from Matthew, the editing details are strange. The "Q" material is mostly just sayings, and Luke has chosen to sprinkle them throughout the basic narrative of Mark. Matthew has these same sayings, but in very different places in the narrative. If the author of Luke has a copy of Matthew, it's odd that he re-arranges things in this way. There's no clear reason to go through the effort of moving these sayings around into different places in the narrative. If you assume there's a pre-existing "Q" source, i.e. a book of Jesus's sayings much like the known Gospel of Thomas, then it's very simple to imagine that both Luke and Matthew are working from a copy of Mark and a copy of "Q", and Luke and Matthew are just combing combining the two texts in different ways and sprinkling in unique material of their own. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's the simplest.

And how do you know this?

@@abaker4692 Because I can read...26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

@@EdwardNathanSchwarz U follow some mythologists lunatics and a theory of R.Eisenmann but how would U @your fancy experts explain for e.g. Acts 23:2, where Paul is hit by his supposed to be a "Master", High Priest Annias! Don't be a moron-it is a sin (Mark 7:22)! U will end up like this ...Jewish High Priest...assassinated!

This guy ain't an atheist

@@Necroman98 wow, that’s even worse, a Christian who doesn’t believe the Bible, how is that possible?

I've never ever heard any scholar propose John the Baptist wrote the Gospel of John. John the Baptist was killed by Herod not long after Jesus became popular. In fact, it seems like Jesus became more popular because John had been imprisoned and killed. Jesus may have taken over the movement from John. John is a common name. John the Baptist, John the Apostle, and John the Revelator are three different people. The Book of John does NOT claim to be written by anyone named John.

@@langreeves6419 He wrote it knowing it would get him killed for the sin of false witness, but he knew that not opposing the false witness of tyrants was a greater sin. The Holy Spirit within each of us is the voice of the teacher of righteousness incarnate, inspiring us to the greatest sacrifices of our lives

@@theomnisthour6400 ?