@@crimson90 Tovia biblical jewish historian whp believes the god of Israel is the one true god of this universe who created us all amd Carrier believes the opposite. So it would be a great debate to hear someone challenge Tovia on hos beliefs amd see if he can back it up against a scholar like Carrier
20:00 or so - is this presentation just taking Acts as a historical fact? Because it sounds like it. If so, shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer?
Todays Xtianity and the NT theology of Paul is hellenistic. The apostles wanted Gentiles to keep the law (Galatians 2 12 to 14). Acts 15 (Acts of Paul) is an invention and attempt to harmonise Paul with the apostles.
Correct, and not just Acts (of course) but the Gospels are eager to portray Jesus as tolerant of the Gentiles like Paul. But the whole "kingdom of God" ideology shared by Jesus and James was about overthrowing Gentile (Roman) rule of Judea. Sure, if some Gentiles wanted to assist and contribute money (the collection for the Poor) to this goal, then fine. But unlike Paul, Jesus and James probably did not have the least bit of interest in saving the Gentiles from the "wrath to come". And, as it turns out, the only "wrath to come" was on Judea and the Jewish people because of these end times agitators like Jesus and James (Daniel 12:1-4).
Not sure which comments you’re referring to? Most of the top level comments I see are honest good faith (no pun intended) disagreements with the interviewee, not trolling (though yes admittedly trolls are everywhere on the internet and it’s to be expected they show up a lot on channels and videos covering controversial topics like religion)
@@frefri4628 I think they are blocked by the time most people see it. It’s a common trend on social platforms to focus on the negative. Nothing wrong with scholarly debate.
In my opinion, the gospel of John is a pious fiction. His author must’ve known synoptic gospels and was 😟 highly unsatisfied with them. Moreover, without his gospel Christianity haven’t been possible in the form form we know it.
Josephus was born in Jerusalem and was originally from Judea. He wrote in Greek because that was the language highly educated people wrote in at the time. The Apostle Paul wrote in Greek too…..wasn’t he also Jewish? He certainly thought so . (See Philippians 3:5 ) 🤔 Paul also mentioned James the brother of Jesus in his writings.
The Jewish historian Josephus records the stoning of James the Just by Ananus ben Ananus, a High Priest. The phrase, "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" is now considered a later addition done by a Christian hungry to identify him with the New Testament's James the Elder. Interesting, there is a piece of lore that there was a prophecy that said the Jerusalem wall he was thrown from before being stoned would fall 7 years later, 70 AD
As Chilton said, the gentiles already existed as guests, associating with the Jewish communities. Especially in the diaspora. The only obligations for the God-fearers were those laid out in the Covenant of Noah (Genesis 9:4: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood") But, of course, the more they abstained from accepting food dedicated to idols, and renounced other parts of their non-Jewish culture, they were more likely to be viewed as more than just second-class fellows. It was mainly up to the local leaders as to how much they wanted the god-fearers to be Judaized. The point is that circumcision wasn't something gentiles had to be to participate. In fact, some Jews did epispasm, or circumcision in reverse, to hide the fact that they were circumcised, since nude exercise and public bathing was the norm among gentiles That the original apostles, who knew Jesus personally as he lived and in resurrected form, would accept Paul as a apostle either argues that the term wasn't as special as it is today (so special that God stopped bestowing the apostolic gifts shortly after the writing of the New Testament) or Acts is not telling the whole truth. Really? Revelation overrides and squeezes out those who knew Jesus personally as in His living and resurrected form? The Twelve becomes less and less important. And in fact the number of relevant apostles are reduced to less than a handful. The others, once spoken of barely return and mostly in the form of names. To Paul what IS important is found in 1 Corinthians 12
Not true at all. Pharisees and apostles wanted Gentiles to keep the law (Galatians 2 12 to 14) and Acts 15 1 to 5 . Isaiah 56 mentions Gentiles keeping the Sabbath and even sacrificing animals.
@@leom6343 It's okay to talk from the Bible. What is not is to only talk from the Bible. It used to be against the rules to fact check. That rule no longer applies. Web search God-fearers. And they existed mainly in gentile lands the Jewish diaspora settled in (that is, it was the Jews who had to adjust, not so much the other way around). Please note, too, that Chilton supports that there were Judaisms, plural. There were more than just Pharisees (who were not the later Rabbinic Jews). Before 70 AD, their Jewish religion was splintered into many different views...just like the early (Judaism-derived)Christians
@@leom6343 Gamaliel I was a master of the Jewish Oral Law and a teacher who was twice mentioned in the New Testament. His interpretations were the most popular in the Sanhedrin and Jewish scholars and greatly influenced the later Talmud writers. Jesus had similar views, like how you cannot break the Sabbath if you are doing good. The Pharisees who were against him belonged to an unpopular school of Jewish Oral Law. It didn't help that Jesus belonged to the Northern Prophets - Israeli - Traditions were deeds were more important than words, the Southern Prophets - Judean - Traditions It can most plausibly be argued that Paul was a failure as a Pharisee (he probably didn't have a scholarly mind) and turned for employment to their arch-rivals, the Sadducees who ran the Temple and who tried to stave off what happened in 70 AD by trying to eliminate the rebels to Roman rule. No Temple, no Sadducees
@@tomdouge6618 Josephus and many others mentioned Gentiles who got circumcised and kept the law. Even Philo. That's also found in the Talmud. Jesus also not once said that Gentiles don't have to keep the law. And from the authentic paulian letters we know that Peter and the others wanted Gentiles to keep the law too. (Galatians 2 12 to 14) Jesus never made a distinction between Gentiles and Jews when it comes to keep the law.
Yes, I noticed that also. A main point of Mark's Gospel is that the Temple and the Jerusalem church were destroyed because they denied Paul and Paul's Jesus Christ and chose instead the teaching of their own Jesus Barabbas (Rev 2:26-27). Mark's Jesus is mostly a parable for Paul ("the sower who went out to sow") as Gustav Volkmar pointed out in 1857. And "scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests" in Mark's Gospel are mostly a parable for the Jerusalem church of James and the family of Jesus who "stand without" -- that is, outside of Paul's Gentile community of faith in Paul's Jesus and Paul's Gospel.
A much needed scholarly exposition that does not oppose Christian beliefs. Yes, all the evidence points to the synoptic Gospels being early records of the life of Jesus. They cannot have been written after AD 66 because Acts is written after Luke and fails to mention the Jewish wars or the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke's Gospel is addressed to the high priest, Theophilus ben Ananus (AD 37-41). This is often overlooked by the sceptics.
Most parables are meant to illustrate a teaching to make it easier for people to understand, and not to make it impossible for people to understand. And yet Mark's Jesus says his parables are intended not to be understood by his own Jewish family and by his own Jewish church so that they will not be forgiven and so that they will be destroyed by the Romans. Mark is writing after the fall of Jerusalem to explain to his Gentile churches the destruction of the Temple and the Jerusalem church in 70AD. Mark's own Gentile church would have understood the parables because Mark would have explained the parables in his Sunday school class. Mark 3:31-32 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee....Mark 4:11-13 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? Isaiah 6:9-12 He said, Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart of this people calloused (hardened); make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. Then I said, For how long, O Lord? And he answered: Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken. This is obviously not something the historical Jesus said. It is an anti-Jerusalem church (Ebionite) polemic by Mark's Pauline church at Rome after 70AD. The Jerusalem church (the Way) had denied Paul and Paul's Jesus on Paul's last Passover to Jerusalem. The Zealot chief priests of the Way and the Judas Sicariots (Sicarii) conspired to betray Paul and tried to kill him for teaching against the Law. They were wicked husbandmen and a den of thieves (insurgents like Jesus Barabbas and Judas the Sicarios) who could not watch even one hour for their Lord to return from his far journey, and for the fullness of Paul's Gentile harvest to come in. Therefore the Lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen.
@@Carelock Seven letters of Paul are believed to be authentic, with a few interpolations. But I get your point. Mark is definitely after the fall of Jerusalem, as are the other Gospels. There could have been an older version of Revelation that was before the fall.
@@gsr4535 Christians today are a WHOPPING 33% of the GLOBAL population. No other religion today or in history comes anywhere close in size. Just ponder all the kingdoms, empires, currencies, constitutions, constitutions, congresses and so on that have come into being and then disappeared forever over the last 2,000 years or so. Let that all sink in. Go look online at the ruins of once great cities. Breathe it all in deeply. But Christians? Christians today run more Law Schools and Medical Schools than any government on earth. All over the world. That is very much by design.
@@jttj742 Yup. We today use the word 'jews" anachronistically when pondering ancient ("biblical") history. 2nd Temple 'jews" then were not Talmudic "jews" of today. We now even know (Gad Barnea's research) that the YAO Cult members outnumbered "Torah observing news" and had nothing to do with OT Scripture. We just use words far too casually (and anachronistically). Paul's "jews" were converts or for converting. Guess what? Today, nearly all "jews" who have ever lived long ago converted to Christianity or Islam. There are more Sikh's on earth today than there are remaining "jews."
@@scottmcloughlin4371 Disgusting shocking ignorance. I thought that the folks on here were sharper than low-brow Tele-vangelists. The Oral Tradition written down is in Tanakh already. It's even in the Anti-Jewish Greco-Roman NT.
A bunch off diferent Judaisms and Christianities. ¿Wich one is the good one to follow God’s eternal law? It seems everyone just picked and chose whatever it would came to their minds, a make believe new doctrinal statements.
You still end up with the Canaanite pantheon of gods, a tribal war god, women as property, etc. Of course modern Judaism tries to deal with that, but the staunchest conservative orthodox types stick with all their ancient badness.
The levites sacrificed their 1st born sons. Redeemed is the word used for both animals and humans. Same thing ,,, sacrifice. The priestly class aka the levites. How else can it be interpreted? Point being human sacrifice is something they did.
@@jujujudio lets say at one point they did that, they didn't do it in the first century and earlier. Human sacrifices were seen as forbidden. Especially thinking about God himself being the sacrifice
If the Messiah was to come through the line of David, ie through Joseph...yet Jesus was born of a Virgin(immaculate conception) how is Jesus therefore the Messiah? as clearly Joseph didn't have relations with Mary.
Matthew 3:9, "God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham." My problem is how Jesus can be called a messiah or christ as both mean anointed. And in a specific ritual that would recognize Him as the legitimate king
