It was an effort to gain more converts. Also much of this disinfo in put out there by high level openly admitted Freemason Luciferian such as Manly P Hall, Albert Pike, So they are a little biased seeing how they hate the God of the bible and revere Lucifer.
Jesus. Its easily disputed. See the video Sacred Name debunked. Also watch the film Zeitgeist Refuted. Zeitgeist debunked and Zeitgeist rewritten. Check out a critical look at Astrotheology. Also Pagan Gods who copying who.Senior Greek History Lecturer Comments on the Pagan Copy Cat. I could go on and on. The funniest part is that many scholars who aren't Christians openly state these long debunked theories as being total bull. All of them started Post Christ. As far as the simularities^
LOL the Talmud was anti Jesus Christ from the start as his message was so true and pure that it brought many new converts over to Christ. Nay saying Paul is old hat. And come on everyone who ever researchs sources can find that Jesus does not mean Zeus. LOL!!! Ha Ha. Don't mix up the coopting of the Catholic Church and their fallic worship/ Obelisks at the vatican as Horus worship. Its the co mixing of Christianity and pagan belief that rome did to get more converts. Horus is not related to ^
Jews mislead all non jews, it is in Talmud. NT of church & Jewish Paul's group of Antioch is false, "Jesus" isn't gay nor sungod. Christianity until 14 centery worshiped sex organs & sex love scenes, as Hellenics at that time & Hindus cults, see ISLAND DELOS on google, there is some in old churches of England & in 18 french old churches in little villages, make study. "Jesus=Jesaus=Jesa-us as Horus, Zeus, Deus, Venus, Bacchus, Titus, Augustus...His name is falsified Jesa = Yesa, He is Prophet
You people need to understand that this is pure bollocks. Morton-Smith didn't make this up. The letter was in a library for twenty years and photographed, before being lost. The fact that people think it says that Jesus was a gayer is yet more bollocks. It says he spent the night with a youth he loved. It may suggest it, but gay didn't mean anything back then. There were no gay men, just men who did gay acts. Jesus liked smoking boy-pole, so what?
@jacksawild How is my ability to articulate or indite in English even relevent to this discussion? You obviously understood enough to riposte, your just being petty probably to deter the discussion from the serious points being made. There was no such thing as homosexuality in antiquity? Evidently there was since the Spartans had obligatory homosexuality for instance and the New Testament condemns it, so that itself substantiates the point that homosexuality was around.
@ChristianRootsMan The Spartans had wives. The homosexuality was a tactic, as used by the Egyptian sacred band of thebes. the idea is if you are fighting with people you love you fight better. This doesn't mean they were homosexual, or bisexual they were simply sexual. Ancient sources don't talk of gay men, they only talk of gay acts. You are viewing history through modern eyes.
@ChristianRootsMan It is interesting stuff. Would you be shocked to learn that pederasty (a form of paedophilia) was viewed as conducive to a young man's education? Especially in some Greek city states. Spartan boys (those that survived) would be picked by a soldier and that young teenage boy would perform the duties of a wife while he learned the arts of war from his tutor. Viewed from this angle, this gospel isn't so shocking.
@jacksawild I'm assuming this area of antiquity is one of your favourite areas? Since you seem very knowledgable about it. Yes inevitably I would be shocked by that, seems very strange that they actually believed that. Just one thing though, do you believe that the Gospels are intending to be shocking? I don't believe that that was the intent behind them, at least I don't believe it to be the central thrust, to be shocking.
@ChristianRootsMan My interest in antiquity comes from the study of my ex-faith. I have a lot of respect for Christ and the words attributed to him. I have no respect for those who hijacked the faith a century after the fact. No, the gospels were not intended to be shocking. If we find them shocking then that is, as I mentioned, our modern eyes perceiving the situation very different to ancient eyes. We have re-interpreted the words many times to make us comfortable.
@jacksawild How was the faith Hi jacked a century later may I ask? Also Leviticus 20:13 in Youngs Literal version says this 'And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death'. God didn't change it.
@ChristianRootsMan You're right about Young's, it usually is quite good but I should have checked. "V’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam." translates as "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."
@jacksawild I go by the spirit not the letter, I don't mean to be disparaging but it seems a little meticulous, the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. So it doesn't matter to me really if it does have the additional 'woman's bed'. You're not rocking my faith, I understand that there are different translations some more veracious in biblical criticism criterion. I like the King James and NIV even though they're not considered the most accurate but that doesn't matter, it enriches my faith.
"Notice the phrase "mishkvei ishah." This literally means "a woman's bed." Why don't we see this phrase in English translations? Compare it to a similar phrase in Gen. 49:4 "mishkvei avicha" which is correctly translated as "thy father's bed."" I don't seek to rock your faith, only to encourage you to explore it further. Opening discourse with a modern orthodox rabbi can bring greater understanding.
@jacksawild To be honest I used to spend a lot of time reading through theological debates on such issues but in the end I found it too scholarly and abstract, it does nothing for you spiritually. If you want to study the Bible from a academic point of view then that is fine but for a living faith theology can sometimes impede seeing the real message as it gets obfuscared behind fastidious analysis of certain verses in there original context and so on and so forth.
@ChristianRootsMan Read Young's literal translation of the bible and compare it to the version you read. There aren't major differences, but the language used is manipulative in some of the "New" versions. Take Leviticus 20 : 13. This is the passage which says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman (paraphrase). The actual words says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man in a woman's bed (paraphrase). My question is: when did God change it?
Clementine scholars, those without a religious axe to grind, believe Clementine wrote the letter. Christian scholars don't. If your basing your lives on faith anyway, who gives a shit what crazy crap you believe.
It's already been labeled a forgery and debunked by close scholarly examination. Morton Smith could never produce the original but only a photo of it which was examined as a forgery
I'm against all Gnostic Gospels, they have no histrocity compared to the Symoptics and John. Liberal Scholars (as Strobel comments) jump on this, wanting to be controversial and liberal, as that is seen as virtuous in our society. They just want to evoke controversy within Christianity by perpurtrating these Gospels as equals to the canonicals. Which just simply isn't true. Mainstream Liberal theological scholarship is laughable at the moment, take the Jesus seminar and there presuppositions.
@ChristianRootsMan John was nearly excluded from Pauline canon due to it being too Gnostic. You know nothing, clearly. You haven't even grasped English, how can your opinion be worth anything to anyone?
@jacksawild Yes but it wasn't said to be Gnostic, people contended that it had Gnostic elements or at least verging on that way. I don't even know if I would concede that much, Johns is in no proximity to The Gospel of Thomas for instance, the Gospel of Thomas is just a list of isolated sayings without context I don't see how that can be comparable at all too the other Canonical Gospels. I don't even see how your point is pertinent to my last posts? (Continued)
@jacksawild The Pauline canon, what canon of new testament literature is that? Inferring a non existant canon has already invalidated your reply. The Pauline canon is all of Pauls works, may I ask what has that got to do with excluding the Gospel of John?
So Stroble's case against Morton Smith is that he wrote books about his finding. Therefor it is questionable and he must have been lying....this coming from a person who writes books and makes money from his own claims? I think we have just been given a stark glimpse into Stroble's motivation. I wonder if he even realizes that he is refuting his own claims with that type of reasoning. Something tells me Stroble knows exactly what he is doing and questions Smith because of his own behavior
@sanssleep **Edit** Mainstream Liberal theological scholarship is laughable at the moment, take the Jesus seminar for instance and their presuppositions and conclusions**. That is one example of liberal scholarship another is this instance with the findings of the Gnostics at Nag Hammadi they jumped on them as historical. They don't have any truth or sturdy theological basis, just liberal surmising.
@ChristianRootsMan I agree, however wouldn't just peg liberal theology as laughable...expand it out to all theology and you and I will share common ground. The fact that you are quick to refute the Nag Hammadi as invalid is a bit questionable. Are you being led to your conclusion based on your own gut feeling or pre-existing theology? Isn't that approach a bit like early church fathers condemning Galileo for claiming the world was round when new information became available?
@ChristianRootsMan I also find myself grinning at your denunciation of the folks at Westar. Can you help me by explaining why they are so wrong and you are the holder of the truth?
Why are Christians so afraid of apocryphal cannon? They have just as much credence as anything in the Bible when you consider all gospels were writen by scribes 50-400 years after Jesus' death. Before the Bible was written mark, luke, thomas, enoch, jubilies, john, judas etc.. had about the same credibility, wasnt untill the council of nicea and carthange a half centry later in 397 that our bible was assembled. This guy seems bias to a bible made to consolidate the byzantine empire, scholar not.
@1macaibeau Apocrypha cannon? Don't you mean the Gnostic writings. Since Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both accept the Apocrypha. Why are we afraid? we are not afraid we just want the purified Chrisitan message we don't want it being distorted by the Gnostic writers. All the Gnostic writings were written after the New Testament works, except maybe the Gospel of Thomas but even that is disputed. Also its evident that Gnositc Thomas uses the canonical gospels freely, so its after them.
@1macaibeau No those texts didn't have the same credability at all. Thats why we have early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr fighting against these heretics. The first EXISITNG list of the canon as we have it today was a letter by Athansius in 367. But it was evident that Christians were consolidating the Canon way before that since we have ancient canons which from c. 200 which resemble ours with the exception of like one text such as Clement 1 but still never any Gnostic writings!
Smith took the portrayal of Jesus in Secret Mark no more seriously than Jesus' portrayal in most gospels.
What Smith believed was that Secret Mark was an early 2nd century revision to the original Gospel of Mark.; that edited version of Mark, in Smith's view, later was redacted to create the Gospel of Mark that now resides in the canon.
If you have to pretend to make your case, what do you have?
Hmmm still the question is why he brought him from the dead in the first place ? Lazar was not a student of Jesus's students neither was he a messenger of Jesus's claimed messengers ? and whats the point of mentioning that that guy was wearing light closes made from light coton ?? with the previous history of Jesus with his students.. mmm how can you assure us that they were only studying ?
The secret Gospel of mark has nothing to do with sexuality, Jesus spent the night with the boy for a purpose which most of us cant understand ,yet anyway. of something i can assure you, the time they spent together consisted of nothing but jesus revieling devine knowledge .
Lol, it is comical how some of the pretended scholars will come to such foolishness just to get away from the obvious truths of the New Testament. And these same pretenders like to use "current era" instead of "AD", because they dislike Christianity. Some are still actually trying to date the gospels late in hopes of increasing the time between Jesus and the writers so they can say legend developed.....etc....
it was brought to Clements knowledge because the secret gospel of mark was being mis worded saying that the secret disciple that Jesus raised from the dead was naked except for a cloth wrapped around his body. This is when and why it was brought to Clements attention because emphasis was being put on the "Naked Man" when this was acutally mis worded. Why do you not mention any of that?
The Gospel of Thomas is most likely the oldest Gospel. It also totally agrees with the 4 gospels in the bible for anyone with eyes to see. It has never been proven false, it was actually quoted from in the oldest known sermon in the Christian church. This guy dont know much.
I have heard of this and always meant to read it, but first I read the book of Jasher, and I liked it too, then I read the Lost Books of Eden and decided to stick to the Bible until I had a better understanding and stronger faith before spending time on books that may not help me, thanks for this video.
There is no reference to granulated salt. The Clement letter reads: *For true things have been mixed with invented [things] and [the true things have] been forged so that as indeed the saying goes also the salt loses its savour.* The text says that the true things which the Carpocratians speaks of - not the salt - are mixed with inventions. It never says that the salt is mixed with anything and so the clue is no clue at all.
Accusing Smith of being mischievous, changes nothing. One needs to show that the letter is forged. You refer to the photos Elijah, but they show no clear signs of forgery. See *Reclaiming Clements letter to Theodoros* jesusgranskad (dot) se (slash) Theodore (dot) htm
All ten experts whom Smith consulted, and every other expert Ive heard of, attest that the text looks like e typical eighteenth century handwriting. Smith labelled every book he catalogued with his name and a number. Apart from *Smith 65* we also have photos of *Smith 22*. The letter did not disappear until after 1990 and was there for more than 30 years. Apart from Smith, at least four scholars have seen the letter, i.e. David Flusser, Shlomo Pines, Guy G. Stroumsa and Quentin Quesnell,
Smith was known to be a mischievous prankster, so it's telling to point out that no actual, physical copy of S.G.M exists, and the only evidence of their being so much as a reference to S.G.M appears in the Mar Saba letter, which itself is also a forgery, purportedly written by Clementine. There is a collection of photos. ..
...However, the photos are fakes, the handwritting doesn't match the period of alleged production, the ink used to write the letter obviously cannot be tested, and Smith even signed his own work- his name can be seen in the margin of photo no.65 ! So Smith signed the papers with his own name, took pictures of them, and then replaced them- only to have them...disappear. Hmm, doesn't sound like due academic methodology to me. ...
...Then there is Smith's reference to granulated salt. Granulated salt was not available until after 1910 when the MORTON Salt company developed the anticaking agent used in table salt, homosexualists can sprinkle a little on a big slice of humble pie.
The book is missing because the Catholic Church knew about this writing long ago, and ordered all copies destroyed, when a copy was discovered in 1958, the pope ordered that the sole remaining copy to be stolen and destroyed.
Morton Smith was a prominent scholar, he had no reason to create a hoax.
This all shows Strobel's ignorance and also how uninformed Evans is on this matter. Of course the historians have by no means determined whether the letter is genuine or not. Of course Secret Mark has historical credibility. Apart from the obvious misleading and exaggerated statements made by Strobel in his book, there are at least 16 factual errors in his chapter on Secret Mark (where he is interviewing Craig A. Evans), covering just five pages.
Strobel claims to have "investigated this particular case". He also refers to Craig Evans: "Its a fascinating investigative detective story and in my book, as I say, I sort of unfold it a bit, through Craig Evans, a scholar who is quite knowledgeable about it. And I think people be fascinated to read how it is that historians have now determined that Morton Smith was laughing under his breath as he created this picture of this gay Jesus that has absolutely no, zero, historical credibility."
This video was even more tragic than I thought it would be. Strobel is so confident, when in fact he is ignorant about the matter. If we set aside the question of authenticity (a matter we cannot settle) the interview is filled with unjust statements. For instance does he repeatedly say that the homoerotic undercurrent cannot be missed and that the Secret Mark says that Jesus is gay. Of course it does not! In fact all the elements that are put forward are also found in the Biblical gospels.
Perhaps the exculpatory evidence is on golden plates>>>
thermionic1234567 1 week ago
It was an effort to gain more converts. Also much of this disinfo in put out there by high level openly admitted Freemason Luciferian such as Manly P Hall, Albert Pike, So they are a little biased seeing how they hate the God of the bible and revere Lucifer.
Jehstfan 3 months ago
Jesus. Its easily disputed. See the video Sacred Name debunked. Also watch the film Zeitgeist Refuted. Zeitgeist debunked and Zeitgeist rewritten. Check out a critical look at Astrotheology. Also Pagan Gods who copying who.Senior Greek History Lecturer Comments on the Pagan Copy Cat. I could go on and on. The funniest part is that many scholars who aren't Christians openly state these long debunked theories as being total bull. All of them started Post Christ. As far as the simularities^
Jehstfan 3 months ago
LOL the Talmud was anti Jesus Christ from the start as his message was so true and pure that it brought many new converts over to Christ. Nay saying Paul is old hat. And come on everyone who ever researchs sources can find that Jesus does not mean Zeus. LOL!!! Ha Ha. Don't mix up the coopting of the Catholic Church and their fallic worship/ Obelisks at the vatican as Horus worship. Its the co mixing of Christianity and pagan belief that rome did to get more converts. Horus is not related to ^
Jehstfan 3 months ago
Wow, I thought the Bible said that hypocrisy is bad. Oh well, Christians don't really follow the Bible anyway.
jollyandwaylo 3 months ago
Jews mislead all non jews, it is in Talmud. NT of church & Jewish Paul's group of Antioch is false, "Jesus" isn't gay nor sungod. Christianity until 14 centery worshiped sex organs & sex love scenes, as Hellenics at that time & Hindus cults, see ISLAND DELOS on google, there is some in old churches of England & in 18 french old churches in little villages, make study. "Jesus=Jesaus=Jesa-us as Horus, Zeus, Deus, Venus, Bacchus, Titus, Augustus...His name is falsified Jesa = Yesa, He is Prophet
marwanzyafi 3 months ago
:)i thonk he couöd be gay
mgrasek100 6 months ago
You people need to understand that this is pure bollocks. Morton-Smith didn't make this up. The letter was in a library for twenty years and photographed, before being lost. The fact that people think it says that Jesus was a gayer is yet more bollocks. It says he spent the night with a youth he loved. It may suggest it, but gay didn't mean anything back then. There were no gay men, just men who did gay acts. Jesus liked smoking boy-pole, so what?
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild How is my ability to articulate or indite in English even relevent to this discussion? You obviously understood enough to riposte, your just being petty probably to deter the discussion from the serious points being made. There was no such thing as homosexuality in antiquity? Evidently there was since the Spartans had obligatory homosexuality for instance and the New Testament condemns it, so that itself substantiates the point that homosexuality was around.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan The Spartans had wives. The homosexuality was a tactic, as used by the Egyptian sacred band of thebes. the idea is if you are fighting with people you love you fight better. This doesn't mean they were homosexual, or bisexual they were simply sexual. Ancient sources don't talk of gay men, they only talk of gay acts. You are viewing history through modern eyes.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild Okay, I didn't know that, haven't read a lot about it to be honest. :)
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan It is interesting stuff. Would you be shocked to learn that pederasty (a form of paedophilia) was viewed as conducive to a young man's education? Especially in some Greek city states. Spartan boys (those that survived) would be picked by a soldier and that young teenage boy would perform the duties of a wife while he learned the arts of war from his tutor. Viewed from this angle, this gospel isn't so shocking.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild I'm assuming this area of antiquity is one of your favourite areas? Since you seem very knowledgable about it. Yes inevitably I would be shocked by that, seems very strange that they actually believed that. Just one thing though, do you believe that the Gospels are intending to be shocking? I don't believe that that was the intent behind them, at least I don't believe it to be the central thrust, to be shocking.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan My interest in antiquity comes from the study of my ex-faith. I have a lot of respect for Christ and the words attributed to him. I have no respect for those who hijacked the faith a century after the fact. No, the gospels were not intended to be shocking. If we find them shocking then that is, as I mentioned, our modern eyes perceiving the situation very different to ancient eyes. We have re-interpreted the words many times to make us comfortable.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild How was the faith Hi jacked a century later may I ask? Also Leviticus 20:13 in Youngs Literal version says this 'And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death'. God didn't change it.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan You're right about Young's, it usually is quite good but I should have checked. "V’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam." translates as "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild I go by the spirit not the letter, I don't mean to be disparaging but it seems a little meticulous, the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. So it doesn't matter to me really if it does have the additional 'woman's bed'. You're not rocking my faith, I understand that there are different translations some more veracious in biblical criticism criterion. I like the King James and NIV even though they're not considered the most accurate but that doesn't matter, it enriches my faith.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan I will quote a friend of mine who nailed it for me:
"Notice the phrase "mishkvei ishah." This literally means "a woman's bed." Why don't we see this phrase in English translations? Compare it to a similar phrase in Gen. 49:4 "mishkvei avicha" which is correctly translated as "thy father's bed."" I don't seek to rock your faith, only to encourage you to explore it further. Opening discourse with a modern orthodox rabbi can bring greater understanding.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild To be honest I used to spend a lot of time reading through theological debates on such issues but in the end I found it too scholarly and abstract, it does nothing for you spiritually. If you want to study the Bible from a academic point of view then that is fine but for a living faith theology can sometimes impede seeing the real message as it gets obfuscared behind fastidious analysis of certain verses in there original context and so on and so forth.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@jacksawild Actually now I come to think about it the Gospels are shocking. I don't know why I said otherwise.
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan Read Young's literal translation of the bible and compare it to the version you read. There aren't major differences, but the language used is manipulative in some of the "New" versions. Take Leviticus 20 : 13. This is the passage which says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman (paraphrase). The actual words says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man in a woman's bed (paraphrase). My question is: when did God change it?
jacksawild 7 months ago
Clementine scholars, those without a religious axe to grind, believe Clementine wrote the letter. Christian scholars don't. If your basing your lives on faith anyway, who gives a shit what crazy crap you believe.
jacksawild 7 months ago
Throwing the Gospel of Thomas in the same category of this dubious 'gospel' of mark is outright ridiculous
UniversalBrother108 8 months ago
It's already been labeled a forgery and debunked by close scholarly examination. Morton Smith could never produce the original but only a photo of it which was examined as a forgery
FitnessMinded 10 months ago
@FitnessMinded Nah it does not , see common connotations in Mark 14:51??
justfourthen 8 months ago
I'm against all Gnostic Gospels, they have no histrocity compared to the Symoptics and John. Liberal Scholars (as Strobel comments) jump on this, wanting to be controversial and liberal, as that is seen as virtuous in our society. They just want to evoke controversy within Christianity by perpurtrating these Gospels as equals to the canonicals. Which just simply isn't true. Mainstream Liberal theological scholarship is laughable at the moment, take the Jesus seminar and there presuppositions.
ChristianRootsMan 10 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan John was nearly excluded from Pauline canon due to it being too Gnostic. You know nothing, clearly. You haven't even grasped English, how can your opinion be worth anything to anyone?
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild Yes but it wasn't said to be Gnostic, people contended that it had Gnostic elements or at least verging on that way. I don't even know if I would concede that much, Johns is in no proximity to The Gospel of Thomas for instance, the Gospel of Thomas is just a list of isolated sayings without context I don't see how that can be comparable at all too the other Canonical Gospels. I don't even see how your point is pertinent to my last posts? (Continued)
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
@jacksawild The Pauline canon, what canon of new testament literature is that? Inferring a non existant canon has already invalidated your reply. The Pauline canon is all of Pauls works, may I ask what has that got to do with excluding the Gospel of John?
ChristianRootsMan 7 months ago
So Stroble's case against Morton Smith is that he wrote books about his finding. Therefor it is questionable and he must have been lying....this coming from a person who writes books and makes money from his own claims? I think we have just been given a stark glimpse into Stroble's motivation. I wonder if he even realizes that he is refuting his own claims with that type of reasoning. Something tells me Stroble knows exactly what he is doing and questions Smith because of his own behavior
sanssleep 1 year ago
@sanssleep **Edit** Mainstream Liberal theological scholarship is laughable at the moment, take the Jesus seminar for instance and their presuppositions and conclusions**. That is one example of liberal scholarship another is this instance with the findings of the Gnostics at Nag Hammadi they jumped on them as historical. They don't have any truth or sturdy theological basis, just liberal surmising.
ChristianRootsMan 10 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan I agree, however wouldn't just peg liberal theology as laughable...expand it out to all theology and you and I will share common ground. The fact that you are quick to refute the Nag Hammadi as invalid is a bit questionable. Are you being led to your conclusion based on your own gut feeling or pre-existing theology? Isn't that approach a bit like early church fathers condemning Galileo for claiming the world was round when new information became available?
sanssleep 10 months ago
@ChristianRootsMan I also find myself grinning at your denunciation of the folks at Westar. Can you help me by explaining why they are so wrong and you are the holder of the truth?
sanssleep 10 months ago
Why are Christians so afraid of apocryphal cannon? They have just as much credence as anything in the Bible when you consider all gospels were writen by scribes 50-400 years after Jesus' death. Before the Bible was written mark, luke, thomas, enoch, jubilies, john, judas etc.. had about the same credibility, wasnt untill the council of nicea and carthange a half centry later in 397 that our bible was assembled. This guy seems bias to a bible made to consolidate the byzantine empire, scholar not.
1macaibeau 1 year ago
@1macaibeau Apocrypha cannon? Don't you mean the Gnostic writings. Since Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both accept the Apocrypha. Why are we afraid? we are not afraid we just want the purified Chrisitan message we don't want it being distorted by the Gnostic writers. All the Gnostic writings were written after the New Testament works, except maybe the Gospel of Thomas but even that is disputed. Also its evident that Gnositc Thomas uses the canonical gospels freely, so its after them.
ChristianRootsMan 10 months ago
@1macaibeau No those texts didn't have the same credability at all. Thats why we have early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr fighting against these heretics. The first EXISITNG list of the canon as we have it today was a letter by Athansius in 367. But it was evident that Christians were consolidating the Canon way before that since we have ancient canons which from c. 200 which resemble ours with the exception of like one text such as Clement 1 but still never any Gnostic writings!
ChristianRootsMan 10 months ago
Well, The Gospel of Thomas and The book of Enoch both hold a lot of water to me.
Although I know nothing of this book of mark, I have watched a couple of this guys videos, and I gotta say.......
I get the same feeling watching this as I do when Rumsfeldt was behind the mike.
You better hope you are right dude.....hell is hot.
alaric63 1 year ago
You are pretending.
Smith took the portrayal of Jesus in Secret Mark no more seriously than Jesus' portrayal in most gospels.
What Smith believed was that Secret Mark was an early 2nd century revision to the original Gospel of Mark.; that edited version of Mark, in Smith's view, later was redacted to create the Gospel of Mark that now resides in the canon.
If you have to pretend to make your case, what do you have?
That's right: You got nothing.
NorthwardEquinox 1 year ago
Hmmm still the question is why he brought him from the dead in the first place ? Lazar was not a student of Jesus's students neither was he a messenger of Jesus's claimed messengers ? and whats the point of mentioning that that guy was wearing light closes made from light coton ?? with the previous history of Jesus with his students.. mmm how can you assure us that they were only studying ?
LuneXoO 1 year ago
The secret Gospel of mark has nothing to do with sexuality, Jesus spent the night with the boy for a purpose which most of us cant understand ,yet anyway. of something i can assure you, the time they spent together consisted of nothing but jesus revieling devine knowledge .
PatecatlMalinalli 1 year ago
Gay Jesus
solomonabhi 1 year ago
Lol, it is comical how some of the pretended scholars will come to such foolishness just to get away from the obvious truths of the New Testament. And these same pretenders like to use "current era" instead of "AD", because they dislike Christianity. Some are still actually trying to date the gospels late in hopes of increasing the time between Jesus and the writers so they can say legend developed.....etc....
DrStevenz 1 year ago
it was brought to Clements knowledge because the secret gospel of mark was being mis worded saying that the secret disciple that Jesus raised from the dead was naked except for a cloth wrapped around his body. This is when and why it was brought to Clements attention because emphasis was being put on the "Naked Man" when this was acutally mis worded. Why do you not mention any of that?
MsCread 2 years ago
No, this guy does not know much.
"One Thousand and One Untruths: How Reliable Is the Account of Secret Mark by Lee Strobel and Craig Evans?"
url: jesusgranskad (dot) se (slash) strobel2 (dot) htm
RogerViklund 2 years ago
The Gospel of Thomas is most likely the oldest Gospel. It also totally agrees with the 4 gospels in the bible for anyone with eyes to see. It has never been proven false, it was actually quoted from in the oldest known sermon in the Christian church. This guy dont know much.
TIGER
THETIGERMAN2012 2 years ago
The secret Gospel is real, and says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT CHRIST BEING GAY!!!!
TIGER
THETIGERMAN2012 2 years ago
I have heard of this and always meant to read it, but first I read the book of Jasher, and I liked it too, then I read the Lost Books of Eden and decided to stick to the Bible until I had a better understanding and stronger faith before spending time on books that may not help me, thanks for this video.
shitzulovey 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
Comment removed
Josarnia 2 years ago
There is no reference to granulated salt. The Clement letter reads: *For true things have been mixed with invented [things] and [the true things have] been forged so that as indeed the saying goes also the salt loses its savour.* The text says that the true things which the Carpocratians speaks of - not the salt - are mixed with inventions. It never says that the salt is mixed with anything and so the clue is no clue at all.
RogerViklund 2 years ago
Accusing Smith of being mischievous, changes nothing. One needs to show that the letter is forged. You refer to the photos Elijah, but they show no clear signs of forgery. See *Reclaiming Clements letter to Theodoros* jesusgranskad (dot) se (slash) Theodore (dot) htm
RogerViklund 2 years ago
All ten experts whom Smith consulted, and every other expert Ive heard of, attest that the text looks like e typical eighteenth century handwriting. Smith labelled every book he catalogued with his name and a number. Apart from *Smith 65* we also have photos of *Smith 22*. The letter did not disappear until after 1990 and was there for more than 30 years. Apart from Smith, at least four scholars have seen the letter, i.e. David Flusser, Shlomo Pines, Guy G. Stroumsa and Quentin Quesnell,
RogerViklund 2 years ago
Comment removed
RogerViklund 2 years ago
Smith was known to be a mischievous prankster, so it's telling to point out that no actual, physical copy of S.G.M exists, and the only evidence of their being so much as a reference to S.G.M appears in the Mar Saba letter, which itself is also a forgery, purportedly written by Clementine. There is a collection of photos. ..
ElijahBenYehudah 2 years ago
...However, the photos are fakes, the handwritting doesn't match the period of alleged production, the ink used to write the letter obviously cannot be tested, and Smith even signed his own work- his name can be seen in the margin of photo no.65 ! So Smith signed the papers with his own name, took pictures of them, and then replaced them- only to have them...disappear. Hmm, doesn't sound like due academic methodology to me. ...
ElijahBenYehudah 2 years ago
...Then there is Smith's reference to granulated salt. Granulated salt was not available until after 1910 when the MORTON Salt company developed the anticaking agent used in table salt, homosexualists can sprinkle a little on a big slice of humble pie.
ElijahBenYehudah 2 years ago
The book is missing because the Catholic Church knew about this writing long ago, and ordered all copies destroyed, when a copy was discovered in 1958, the pope ordered that the sole remaining copy to be stolen and destroyed.
Morton Smith was a prominent scholar, he had no reason to create a hoax.
monkeypeopleofearth 2 years ago
This all shows Strobel's ignorance and also how uninformed Evans is on this matter. Of course the historians have by no means determined whether the letter is genuine or not. Of course Secret Mark has historical credibility. Apart from the obvious misleading and exaggerated statements made by Strobel in his book, there are at least 16 factual errors in his chapter on Secret Mark (where he is interviewing Craig A. Evans), covering just five pages.
RogerViklund 2 years ago 2
Strobel claims to have "investigated this particular case". He also refers to Craig Evans: "Its a fascinating investigative detective story and in my book, as I say, I sort of unfold it a bit, through Craig Evans, a scholar who is quite knowledgeable about it. And I think people be fascinated to read how it is that historians have now determined that Morton Smith was laughing under his breath as he created this picture of this gay Jesus that has absolutely no, zero, historical credibility."
RogerViklund 2 years ago
This video was even more tragic than I thought it would be. Strobel is so confident, when in fact he is ignorant about the matter. If we set aside the question of authenticity (a matter we cannot settle) the interview is filled with unjust statements. For instance does he repeatedly say that the homoerotic undercurrent cannot be missed and that the Secret Mark says that Jesus is gay. Of course it does not! In fact all the elements that are put forward are also found in the Biblical gospels.
RogerViklund 2 years ago
Lee you are a Blessing, brother.
Please say Hi. I'm very proud of you. When I came to Christ I started with Your "Case for Christ C.d. Hugo (your brother in Christ)
hugosal3 3 years ago