Once I got to Virgin Birth, that was the end of my research. Anything after that is moot.
Tee hee.
Seriously, though this is very interesting because my knowledge in this department is woefully inadequate. It's always good to pick up new ammunition for the inevitable showdown with a theist who thinks that 'well the old testament is brutal, but the new testament is perfect and jesus is like a squeezy toy, all sweet and nice...'
@TeesByTruthSurge Hebrews were peoples (not only the Israelites) of the Levant. Hebrews finally ceased to exist with the Assyrian and subsequent Babylonian conquest of the region when its inhabitants were resettled elsewhere and the area itself was settled with foreigners by the Babylonians.
Jews came into existence when returners from the "Babylonian Exile" mingled with the new inhabitants of Canaan. They then spoke Aramean and worshiped a single god. In Hellenistic times they mingled further.
@egrog225 yeah, I mean, I consider Acts only beneficial in the sense of seeing what THAT author believed at that time (roughly early 2nd century). It would be hypocritical to dismiss Acts as fiction but use some of it when it suits my cause. I pretty much dismiss all of Acts. It is just fiction about fictional characters (mostly). Jesus and the 12.
The end of this video is great! "Here is a list of scholars - who do not support the Jesus Myth theory - who accept that these verses are not genuine!" =p
yep. See, more and more, scholars are beginning to see that what they once took for granted is now being called into question and even being shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false/forgeries/etc.
But mainstream Christian scholarship will most likely never admit that there are ANY forgeries/insertions except for the ones like John 8:1-12 that are completely cut and dried. Scholars with NO vested interest are the only ones able to see this stuff for what it is.
The earlier Christians tampered with a lot of gospels, I am quite sure. In fact, there is apparently an escalation of Antisemitism between Matthew and John's gospels. Insightful video.
Can we even begin to understand the temptation of altering your copy of a letter before sending it on down the river? Imagine it. You are in your hut with no electricity, TV, cameras, police, and nothing but quill and parchment. You can alter the letter any way you want and pass it on. The receiver would never know anything was amiss. 1000 years later when multiple copies land in one scholar's lap... the edits become readily apparent.
what do you mean? That vs 16 is a prophecy? Or was intended that way? I don't think anyone would interpret it that way. I don't. Wratch HAS COME upon them to the utmost. Past tense.
Well I mean like how Christinans want to put luke and to some extent Mark *though that doesn't nescarily have to be after the descruction of the temple* and the verses mentioning the destruction and stuff being a prophecy. Heh so if you tell them he mentions it so couldn't have been before 70CE they just say it was a prophecy so was wondering if that would work thanks :>
I know what you mean. LIke Daniel. It was all prophecy fulfillment! And yet, many scholars now realize it wasn't written during the 6th century BCE but during the 2nd. It was not prophecies for 300 years later but a looking back in vagueness to make them appear to be prophecies.
Well actually what karen armstrong and some others think is that, Daniel wasn't actually meant to be a prophecy of Daniel or such, sort of like the gospels were originally quiet possibly just meant to be a fictional telling of the Jesus story giving it life.
For Daniel it's likly that it was a story written around the time of the macabee's where they took parralel's of their time, and then put them into the babylon captivity, as a means to give hope to their generation, not meant to be a
Prophecy made during Daniel, a few have pointed out many of the simularities between the stories and the macabee's. Like how the macabee's had them worshipping "false" gods and so on.
That's the whole pt. Whoever wrote Daniel LIVED during the 2nd century BCE, NOT during the 6th century during the Babylonian captivity. They knew quite well the Macabeean timeframe in which they lived but their recollections of 400 years earlier were a bit foggy and that is the fingerprint that tells us it wasn't a 6th century writing. More fiction.
Slightly off topic but do you have any good books on the subject of bible cannon and such you recomend? I've been reading the Karen armstrong books *bible a biography, and a history of god* and bart ernham books, "Jesus interrupted and misqouting jesus*
I totally disagree. Daniel was written as another piece of us-vs-them fiction that inverted history. It certainly was written to make the Jews look like winners but at the expense of truth. In reality, the Jews were dominated by Nebuchadrezzar and so they decide later to write a tale where ole Nebby gets his and the Jews' god beats up the bad ole Babylonians. It's another piece of vilification propaganda. Yahweh good - Baal bad.
iow, it's always vilifying the OTHER nation instead of praising your own. The entire Bible is a vilification of SOME group (just read the gospels. How many passages are in there completely vilifying the Pharisees?)
Yeah, it is as if he's talking about the direct topic of Jews rejecting Jesus but has nothing to say about the gospel details! Nothing at all. As if.... it never happened. :)
Holy shit you go in depth. This is GREAT!
Thanks for your research.
Once I got to Virgin Birth, that was the end of my research. Anything after that is moot.
Tee hee.
Seriously, though this is very interesting because my knowledge in this department is woefully inadequate. It's always good to pick up new ammunition for the inevitable showdown with a theist who thinks that 'well the old testament is brutal, but the new testament is perfect and jesus is like a squeezy toy, all sweet and nice...'
2eelShmeal 6 months ago
@2eelShmeal thank ya. yeah, I do go into some depth in these JM vids. Just seemed like the thing to do. hehehe
TruthSurge 6 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge the bible is not a history book. monotheism did not evolve until the 6th century BCE. historical isralites were not monotheists.
in judaism itself the terms "jew" and "hebrew" have the same meaning, but that is a deliberate inaccuracy (the reasons for which are obvious).
Meskiagkasher 7 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Hebrews were peoples (not only the Israelites) of the Levant. Hebrews finally ceased to exist with the Assyrian and subsequent Babylonian conquest of the region when its inhabitants were resettled elsewhere and the area itself was settled with foreigners by the Babylonians.
Jews came into existence when returners from the "Babylonian Exile" mingled with the new inhabitants of Canaan. They then spoke Aramean and worshiped a single god. In Hellenistic times they mingled further.
Meskiagkasher 7 months ago
Jesus was a Jew, not a Hebrew. And no, that's not the same.
Meskiagkasher 7 months ago
TS: On Paul's death: I am hesitant to turn to Acts for any historical data, including Paul's imprisonment and seemingly impending death.
egrog225 1 year ago
@egrog225 yeah, I mean, I consider Acts only beneficial in the sense of seeing what THAT author believed at that time (roughly early 2nd century). It would be hypocritical to dismiss Acts as fiction but use some of it when it suits my cause. I pretty much dismiss all of Acts. It is just fiction about fictional characters (mostly). Jesus and the 12.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
The end of this video is great! "Here is a list of scholars - who do not support the Jesus Myth theory - who accept that these verses are not genuine!" =p
LeksServices 2 years ago
yep. See, more and more, scholars are beginning to see that what they once took for granted is now being called into question and even being shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false/forgeries/etc.
But mainstream Christian scholarship will most likely never admit that there are ANY forgeries/insertions except for the ones like John 8:1-12 that are completely cut and dried. Scholars with NO vested interest are the only ones able to see this stuff for what it is.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
The earlier Christians tampered with a lot of gospels, I am quite sure. In fact, there is apparently an escalation of Antisemitism between Matthew and John's gospels. Insightful video.
AuntieDiluvian 2 years ago
Can we even begin to understand the temptation of altering your copy of a letter before sending it on down the river? Imagine it. You are in your hut with no electricity, TV, cameras, police, and nothing but quill and parchment. You can alter the letter any way you want and pass it on. The receiver would never know anything was amiss. 1000 years later when multiple copies land in one scholar's lap... the edits become readily apparent.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I don't think so from the wording, but is there any chance even a small one that it could be a prophecy? The part about the possible temple?
wolfwing1 2 years ago
what do you mean? That vs 16 is a prophecy? Or was intended that way? I don't think anyone would interpret it that way. I don't. Wratch HAS COME upon them to the utmost. Past tense.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Well I mean like how Christinans want to put luke and to some extent Mark *though that doesn't nescarily have to be after the descruction of the temple* and the verses mentioning the destruction and stuff being a prophecy. Heh so if you tell them he mentions it so couldn't have been before 70CE they just say it was a prophecy so was wondering if that would work thanks :>
wolfwing1 2 years ago
I know what you mean. LIke Daniel. It was all prophecy fulfillment! And yet, many scholars now realize it wasn't written during the 6th century BCE but during the 2nd. It was not prophecies for 300 years later but a looking back in vagueness to make them appear to be prophecies.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Well actually what karen armstrong and some others think is that, Daniel wasn't actually meant to be a prophecy of Daniel or such, sort of like the gospels were originally quiet possibly just meant to be a fictional telling of the Jesus story giving it life.
For Daniel it's likly that it was a story written around the time of the macabee's where they took parralel's of their time, and then put them into the babylon captivity, as a means to give hope to their generation, not meant to be a
wolfwing1 2 years ago
Prophecy made during Daniel, a few have pointed out many of the simularities between the stories and the macabee's. Like how the macabee's had them worshipping "false" gods and so on.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
That's the whole pt. Whoever wrote Daniel LIVED during the 2nd century BCE, NOT during the 6th century during the Babylonian captivity. They knew quite well the Macabeean timeframe in which they lived but their recollections of 400 years earlier were a bit foggy and that is the fingerprint that tells us it wasn't a 6th century writing. More fiction.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Slightly off topic but do you have any good books on the subject of bible cannon and such you recomend? I've been reading the Karen armstrong books *bible a biography, and a history of god* and bart ernham books, "Jesus interrupted and misqouting jesus*
wolfwing1 2 years ago
I totally disagree. Daniel was written as another piece of us-vs-them fiction that inverted history. It certainly was written to make the Jews look like winners but at the expense of truth. In reality, the Jews were dominated by Nebuchadrezzar and so they decide later to write a tale where ole Nebby gets his and the Jews' god beats up the bad ole Babylonians. It's another piece of vilification propaganda. Yahweh good - Baal bad.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
iow, it's always vilifying the OTHER nation instead of praising your own. The entire Bible is a vilification of SOME group (just read the gospels. How many passages are in there completely vilifying the Pharisees?)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I must say that I'm thoroughly enjoying this series of videos. Thank you very much.
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
thanks. I am getting busier now with voice over so I may have to lay off for a while to do some paying stuff. for a change. heheh
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Truthsurge
This is actually the first of this series that I've watched. I'm impressed.
I'll get right on viewing the rest.
ggab7768 2 years ago
thanks. There are some very interesting things in them. :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Awesome! The audio works :D
backtothefront88 2 years ago
finally.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Paul's silence in Romans 11 is thorny for historicists, imo.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Yeah, it is as if he's talking about the direct topic of Jews rejecting Jesus but has nothing to say about the gospel details! Nothing at all. As if.... it never happened. :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago