@@itsdave.j Care to answer two simple multiple choice questions that logically follows in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote? 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities): Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
No he's far too credulous. He seems to take everything in the new testament at face value. He sounds indistinguishable from a minister of religionism to me.
@@john.premose Sounds pretty different to me. He's emphasizing how the Biblical account doesn't give you the right order and doesn't give you both sides and you have to reconstruct it.
Wonderful interview. Dr. Goodacre is so well spoken and clear. You need more and more speakers who have the ability to speak to a general audience in easy to understand terms. Plus the accent doesn't hurt:)
Yes.. Quite interesting. I enjoy listening to Dr Goodacre. Ok.. So.. I did write out a comment about 3 weeks back or so for this video.. But for some reason I did not post it. I did attempt to read the book of Thessalonians a few weeks back. Couldn't get beyond the first page/chapter.. Felt too haunted by my Christian past.. And Paul can be difficult to read. So.. I went back to it yesterday and got through the whole book. Paul is weird. I can grasp some of it.. Am understanding some of it.. Well.. Got my head around most of it.. As some of the Mythvision videos I've seen recently.. Have helped enormously.. And Also.. Ken Humphreys videos (Had to mention Mr Humphreys.. He is terrrfic). As well as taking my own understanding of the text and making sense of it in my own way.. And and the same time.. Taking influence from other Mythvision videos.. And at the same time feeling quite Irritated by Paul.. Yet attempting to understand it. Dr Goodacre..I always enjoy listening to.. Thanks so much. I'm actually attempting the book of Galatians again at the moment this evening.
The purpose of Luke's works was to mount a defence for Paul as he faced trial, according to David Pawson. He called it a "trial bundle". Which is why he did not chronicle Peter's activities to the full extent.
With the utmost respect to Dr. Mark Goodacre, his take completely ignores the excellent and groundbreaking scholarship and tireless efforts of Professor Markus Vinzent and Dr. Mark Bilby. These efforts simply *have* to be accounted for in *any* assessment of the canonical NT Canon.
Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus Florinus I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.-Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1. Irenaeus who was a Greek
I agree the Pastoral Epistles are boring and uninteresting to me largely because they're forgeries, so they give no insight into Paul. They're really just church missives.
Please answer two simple multiple choice questions (reading the appendix is optional): 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? In other words who would find it a crime just for looking like, and believed to be human that's punishable by death? Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans B) Jews C) Romans & Jews D) Satan (see appendix below) 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if was made known to them (without a doubt) that killing Jesus would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? In other words who would be against eternal life for humans in that they would not follow through in killing Jesus because it would give said humans a chance at immortality? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans B) Jews C) Romans & Jews D) Satan (see appendix below) Appendix: Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Also keep in mind: Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Paul sees OT scripture as allegories (Gal. 4:24) in that it contains hidden spiritual meanings. Mark 4:33 hints that the entire Gospel is a parable, and close study of it shows that it's most likely (web search: "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash by Robert M Price" for examples). To Paul (1 Cor. 15:49-53) a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom (the original ending in Mark has no physical resurrection appearance). Dirty/impoverished clothing (Mark 14:51-52/Zec. 3:3), and clean/gleaming clothing (Mark16:5/Zec. 3:5) were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world (also notice the symbolic parallels (of Mark 14:51-52, Gen. 39:12 & Gen. 3:7). Also keep in mind that these verses in Philippians, and 1 Corinthians may have been left from deletion because of the anti-Jewish, and, or anti-Roman sentiments it may provoke (keep in mind nonpseudographical Paul does not reflect these thoughts).
No real argument has ever been made for turning the gospels into mirror-reading of the theologies of certain allegedly warring factions of Christianity as opposed to details of a real Jesus' life
The High Priest's headdress had a crown made of a plant known for it's hallucinogenic properties at which a golden plate covered the forehead. On said golden plate was inscribed sacred characters for the name of God. Josephus: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, BOOK 3, CHAPTER 7 (172-178), CONCERNING THE GARMENTS ...OF THE HIGH PRIEST "6. The high priest's mitre was the same that we described before, and was wrought like that of all the other priests; above which there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another; out of which arose a cup of gold, which resembled the herb which we call Saccharus: *but those Greeks that are skilful in botany call it Hyoscyamus. ...Now the fruit is preserved by this coat of the calyx, which fruit is like the seed of the herb Sideritis: it sends out a flower that may seem to resemble that of poppy. Of this was a crown made, as far as from the hinder part of the head to each of the temples; but this Ephielis, for so this calyx may be called, did not cover the forehead, but it was covered with a golden plate, which had inscribed upon it the name of God in sacred characters. And such were the ornaments of the high priest."* *Hyoscyamus Niger* " ...was historically used..., *as well as for its psychoactive properties in "magic brews". These psychoactive properties include visual hallucinations and a sensation of flight. ...The plant, recorded as Herba Apollinaris, was used to yield oracles by the priestesses of Apollo.* " en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscyamus_niger
@@eastanglianlife5461 Care to answer two simple multiple choice questions in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote that logically follows? 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities): Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
Derek, It’s time for you to publish under Mythvision productions; “The Historical Bible” ,..”Written with the books of the Bible placed in true chronological order and notated by the the greatest modern scholars and historians from the wealth of your many guests, what a wonderful collaboration to create a chronologically historically well researched and notated untangled Old and New Testament. It would be quite a project, but it would throw the gauntlet at the feet of the Christian churches, as some members begin walking in to church Bible studies with the Lambert’s “Chronologically Correct Bible” 😆!
This reminds me of my comparative religions lectures💥 but this one's more interesting, easy listening..believe me, learning old n new testament was no fun at all...✌
@History buff let me suggest, do a channel, on origins of language, the connection of modern languages to ancient sanskrit, i found many interesting facts along the way, ..i wish to know more on it🙏✌👈
Listen, I get that the academic pursuit, especially at the upper echelons of achievement, is going to attract, on average, a decent number of people who aren't as socially gifted. It's fine. But it's an authentic joy to encounter someone like Dr. Goodacre @podacre who is not only credentialed and defending multiple interesting, original theses, but is so pleasant, likeable, and enthusiastic in his presentation. Of all your guests, his demeanor stands out as one of my favorites. It would be great to see Mark featured more often in this neck of the woods, meaning this network of related podcasts.
Kindly ignore my comment.. This is for personal purposes. 3:57- 1 Thessalonians 5:34- 1Corinthians 6:03- mark (he's influenced by Paul?) 8:28- later In 2nd century & not by Paul? 11:29- peter disappears in Luke after the conflict is mentioned. 12:47- romans 16, friends of Paul mentioned
You're a smart guy Derek. Do you have a college degree and if you do in what? If you don't that doesn't detract from your drive, inquisitive nature and intellect.
@@MythVisionPodcast Bruce Gore is a Religious Professor at Whitworth for the last 30yrs and a trial lawyer I think he would make a GREAT addition to your interview collection. he youtubes all of his lectures and extracurricular seminars; pretty extensive volume ru-vid.com Hope to see a collab' soon! Keep it up brother!
So, when Trump referred to "One Corinthians" and all the media mocked him, he was actually being all British and cultured and sophisticated, and the media were ignorant. Right, got it.
The Book of Acts has been a disaster to the world since it was first created by the author of Luke. The amount of damage this book has caused can’t be measured! I wish christians could do some very basic research and just wake up to facts that it is injected and bloated with lies, misrepresentations and misguiding stories. My anger with this book has turned into pity for those that can’t see (or choose not).
@@nandinibandhini Road to Damascus in Acts 9, 22 and 26. Quite the story. Funny that Paul never mentions such a ….”notable” event (I’m not going to bother to dive into the 1 Corinthians dialogue - been covered plenty on this channel). The book just sows so much confusion (from a god who does not confuse 🙄) it’s just ridiculous and sad. Would be nice to have documents/accounts that weren’t manipulated, just isn’t the case.
@@leighmelnychuk8859 Applause! Haha true. It always baffles me that Paul admitted he was a liar but no christian memorize those verses. Lol! Here a few of my favorites: 1 Phil. 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in PRETENSE or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea and will rejoice. or 2 Cor. 12: 16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being CRAFTY, I caught you with GUILE. Hahaha OMG! I´ve yet have to hear a preacher reciting these verses.
@@nandinibandhini he wasn’t preaching He was in prison for preaching and went to his death for preaching that Christ was messiah. How many would die for their faith today. I doubt you would since you have so many questions about your own faith. Context: paul was glad gospel or good news went out even from a wrong motive. Nothing here. No smoke No fire 🔥
@@notyourbusiness2687 Very good question. Since that comment I'v listened to him a lot and my positions may have developed. I am currently agreeing with a lot of what he says - esp on Q
His defence of Jesus' historicity is ridiculous. He is doing this mostly thru Omission. I think that Jesus C. is a literary Pauline Creation. Possible by St. Paul himself the true founder of Christianity. Not Jesus at all.!
@@damouno with all do respect do you think paul and twelve disciples and the fathers who learned from the disciples and the people who wrote after the disciples are all fiction people and they were talking about an un- existed man I think you are bias , and by the way you are talking 2000 years ago jesus was a peasant it is a miracle we know anything about him , the fact we know about him proves he was existed and saying he was not just going all they way out the league , but if you are saying the stories about him not real well maybe yes of course , but i think many speeches were his cause the subjects were talked with the jews we have similar of those in that time in jewish history . Again he existed doesnt mean the stories about him correct.
@@JamesBond-fz7du were the early Christian characters just a fiction? No, not all of them. Paul, Peter, James & John were real people.The portrayal of them in NT documents is fictionalised. I dont believe that Peter was either illiterate or a fisherman, Mark invented that idea to suit his theology. Pilate was real but Mark's version of him clashes mightily with that of more sober writers like Philo & Josephus. I think characters like Judas are a fiction. Two give aways are symbolic names and no mention of them by earlier writers. Examples are Joseph of Arimaithea and Lazarus. The answer to your Q: are they just fiction is Yes & No.
@@JamesBond-fz7du "the fact we know about him proves he was existed..." You really need to rethink that sentence & I'm not talking about the grammar, I assume English is your second language. We know about Osiris but he didn't exist, we know about Romulous & he didn't exist. You get the point.
Random question for a future discussion with Dr. Goodacre: was Revelations written before Matthew? What was the last book of the New Testament to be written?
Hey Derrick, to start, great video! You should have Dr heiser on to talk about the ancient near eastern context of “gentiles” god “fearers” in the Old Testament
Effin Goodacre is just the best and you don't have to feel guilty about being agreeable with the guy cuz he's got a sound logic that's plain ole easy on the ears.
I was out walking by myself yesterday evening, thinking about things, and it suddenly occured to me. The first letter of Peter. How come Peter never mentions Jesus in a personal kind of way, i.e as someone whom he had known for three years. He doesn't do this. The Gospels tell us that Peter was chosen by God, that Peter walked, admittedly briefly, on water with Jesus. That he had been with Jesus when Moses and Elijah appeared. That he had watched Jesus feeding 5000 men women and children. That he had denied him before the cock crowed. That he had seen Jesus after the resurrection. Finally that he was the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church ... You get none of that from Peter's letter. It is as if the writer had never actually met or known Jesus. Why is this?
The conclusion is quite obvious at least to me. There was never a historical Jesus Cristos. Peter and his ilk are basically a form of Judaeo Christianity (Proto version). Paul co- opted this movement and channeled it into a Pro Roman direction. A peace loving Messiah (luv thy neighbor, turn the othet cheek, go extra mile for Roman soldiers, pay your TAXES Ahs very importante). Bwahahh
Admitting the cornerstone of the canonical Gospels is Mark is a big admission. Doesn't it force Christians into an unpleasant corner? For example... There is not a single healing or exorcism performed in Jerusalem nor any big city per Mark the earliest Gospel. Nobody in Mark sees the miracle of a raised Jesus in Jerusalem either, because in Mark he has “gone on before them” to the boondocks out in Galilee to be seen. That is the earliest Gospel story. Jesus was a small town miracle worker from Galilee. The feeding of the five thousand takes place in an unnamed wilderness in Mark. The transfiguration? On a mountaintop seen by three disciples whom Jesus tells to keep quiet about it till later. The walking on water and stilling a storm? Seen by a few disciples in a boat. The empty tomb? Seen by women too frightened to tell anybody about it. A Greek word is doubled for added emphasis in Mark, the women at the empty tomb told “nothing to anyone.” Besides, the male disciples had all fled per Mark. None of them were even at Jesus’ crucifixion per Mark 15:40-41, just some female disciples gazing on “from afar. “ So no miracles of Jesus in any big city per Mark. Just miracles in smaller towns like Bethsaida, Chorazin, Capernaum-the “Evangelical triangle” in Galilee, the boondocks. And even fewer miracles in Jesus’ small hometown, Nazareth (Mark 6:5 "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith." It sounds like everything after "except" was added later, and the original passage simply admitted, "He could not do any miracles there.") Worst of all, Jesus cursed all three of those towns in the Evangelical triangle, all of them, for not receiving whatever he was preaching, or perhaps they rejected his apocalyptic rants. Jesus said those towns would wind up in more hot sulphur than Sodom come judgment day, which he also said wasn’t far off. The disciples asked if they should call down fire on those towns. Jesus said no. They will get theirs soon enough per his apocalyptic predictions. So Mark is the keystone Gospel and presents us with nothing but a small town prophet who gets crucified in the big city then supposedly shows up again back in his small town setting in Galilee. Not very convincing. Later Gospel writers stole the Markan format, reproduced his miracle tales (though why steal Mark’s tales when Matthew claimed Jesus’ miracles were multitudinous, so why reproduce Mark’s tales, since there should have been a wide variety to choose from, nope, later Gospels mainly rework Mark’s miracles for the body of each of their later Gospels. When later Gospels add some new miracles, they almost always tack them on before or near the end of the Markan body of miracles). Thus we can see the Jesus stories grow over time. But Mark told the story of a small town prophet, his miracles centered in a few small towns, never in big cities, towns that were not convinced, and we will never know why they were unconvinced, except for the evangelists telling us how such town deserved fire from heaven for not jumping on board the Jesus wagon, so don’t dare ask any more questions about that, keep your focus on the cult and its potential growth. Would love to speak with the people from those small towns, not rely solely on some cult member’s explanation of fabulous and numerous miracles being ignored. As for ignoring things, Jesus did a bit of shunning himself, never performing miracles in any big city bordering the lake of Galilee though several were in walking distance, and he passed through not only Jerusalem but the big city of Caesaria, though no miracle is mentioned taking place there. Mark, the earliest Gospel, starts right off with magical things seen and heard only by Jesus. His baptism is described in such a way that “Jesus sees” the heavens open, and a voice addresses Jesus, telling him, “YOU” are my beloved son (a line from O.T. coronation-hymns of kingly adoption). Later Gospels change the baptism vision story, by mentioning that others saw the sky open and heard a voice address not just Jesus but the crowd telling them, “THIS” is my beloved son, rather than “YOU” are my beloved son. (Mark does feature a "This is my son" voice-from-heaven-scene, but only in his transfiguration story, later in his Gospel, and it is only heard by three disciples who are told to keep quiet about it till later.) Only in Gospels after Mark does John the Baptist recognize Jesus as the one for whom he has been waiting. Mark does not contain any hint that the Baptist recognizes Jesus as anyone special, as the one who comes after him. The Baptist is expecting someone, but there is no the recognition by the Baptist that Jesus is the one, none in Mark. Instead, Mark has the Baptist in prison later on in his story send someone to ask Jesus if he might be the one, but only after Jesus has gained a following of his own. Therefore one easily sees how later Gospels puff up Mark and the baptismal vision by having the crowd also see it and hear it, and have the Baptist recognize Jesus and declare to others that Jesus was the expected one from the moment the Baptist first encounters Jesus per the fourth Gospel. Later Gospels even add pre-baptismal birth narratives wiping out all doubt that Jesus might not be the chosen one. But such nativity narratives are also where later Gospels like Matthew and Luke differ the most, since unlike their body of shared Markan miracles, they could not follow Mark who (with Paul) never mentions Jesus being born of a virgin, nor being singled out from birth, nor do Mark or Paul mention the name of Jesus’ father. For Mark, Jesus was singled out at baptism (not birth), when Jesus came up out of the water and saw and heard something no one else did, i.e., the sky tear open and heard the voice addressing him directly and he received the spirit, and at the end of Mark, we see a bookend-like ending in which Jesus “gives up the spirit” that he received at his baptism, and the temple curtain "tears" open, using the same Greek word as when the sky was "torn" open at his baptism. Jesus in Mark is secretly divinely inspired/moved, from baptism till death. There was no grand assurance at his birth. There was no mass resurrection at his death and no terrified guards seeing an angel come down from heaven at his empty tomb, as Matthew would later claim, employing the same words as Mark before and after these fabulous legendary Matthean additions to his Jesus story. There were only some frightened women fleeing an empty tomb telling nothing to anyone, and a promised future sighting of Jesus who went before his disciples to Galilee to be seen there. Returning to the Markan baptism scene, the spirit immediately propels Jesus into the wilderness where Jesus is tempted by Satan and angels attended him. Just as in the case of Mark’s baptism story in which “Jesus sees” the sky open and Jesus is address by the voice and hence the only one who hears it, nobody but Jesus sees the alleged Satan and angels in the wilderness. So in Mark Jesus alone sees and hears these remarkable events. But later Gospels like Luke-Acts add individual appearances of angels conversing with humans, reciting muscial stanzas, even a host of angels making an announcement to shepherds. But in Mark, nobody sees an angel. No need to since the entire Gospel is one big excuse for why nobody recognized Jesus as the messiah until later, and why his parables, like his identity, were never meant to be clearly understood. Mark, the earliest Gospel, is loaded with excuses as to why Jesus kept his messiahship secret and why it took so long for most people, even the Baptist and the disciples, to recognize Jesus was the promised one. And those excuses became holy writ and the basis of later Gospels that kept inflating the story with more hot air until Jesus floated away into the upper stratosphere like the Emperor Augustus before him and other popular figures in second Temple Judaism.
It's interesting to see the casual mistakes Dr Goodacre makes in this. Saying that Paul referred to Jesus's teaching on divorce as if it wasn't one of Paul's own "visions". Claiming that "James the brother of Jesus" was somehow part of early Christianity.
James was referred to as 'Brother of the Lord' which seems to be a TITLE. This is not a reference to a Jesus figure, no matter how Christian Apologists try to Spin this. Hehe
Those "English" names are translations/derivatives of originaly Hebrew names. Just like the rest of the words in NT were translated, the names were aswell.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 ,So supposing Yeshua did exists,will Yeshua even know or feel insulted when all the Christians are praying to Jesus instead of praying to Yeshua???
@@johkupohkuxd1697 ,You don't find Jews using those names even now. The Jews have unique Jewish names used only by them. You can tell a person is a Jew by just looking at his name.
Jesus taught the gospel of the old testament which was concealed from the devil and his followers. He then revealed this to the 12 apostles and confirmed it by the giving of the holy spirit, who reminded them of all that Jesus taught. Paul was taught by Jesus by revelations. They all teach the gospel but delivered in different ways.
