Thanks for posting the series! I´m a student of theology and I have to wrestle every day with the liberal garbage which is taught in every seminary! I never doubted the authenticity of the Bible, but its very hard to stand almost alone.
This totally contradicts all the books I read by Bart Ehrman. Given all the mutually contradictory information in the NT and all the other books we have discovered I must reject this video as crap.
Apart from the added parts to Josephus account of Jesus, what of other parts in the book, wouldn't it of been harder to forge the part about Jesus brother James for example, to add him into the book (for the purpose of supporting Jesus) would of mean't changing his account of Jewish history just prior to the revolt wouldn't it?
@dortyhoor Good point. James appears at exactly the right time and fits into the history prior to that. For that mattter, so does Jesus fit into the list a grievances against Pilate.
It's clear? First you say the history is obscured and then you say it is "clear"? It can't be both.
None of the Greek gods had definite histories, time-lines and so on. Greek myths are obscure, while the NT background history is highly specific and verifiable.
I'd also like to ask how your version of Christ is verifiable, since there are no extra-biblical eye-witness testimonies of Jesus to support your assertions?
To be honest with you, even if you provided such evidence, which I'm open to hear about, it wouldn't convince me that Jesus was an avatar of Yahweh, since extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
The Greek Gods had a very rich history; though it was mostly contrived, or embellished from real history.
jcr4runner: --NT background history is highly specific and verifiable-- Sorry it`s not. If I am wrong show the evidence, outside the Bible . Thank you.
@lizazoon The writings of Josephus for instance include dozens if not hundreds of corroborations of events that match NT history. Among historians if two works were independent each other and corroborate each other a great deal. The places where they corroborate are accepted as reliable.
@jcr4runner You should know as well as I do, that the writings of Josuphus have been tempered with. As our pastor said in his homily a few months ago. The bible is no science book, no history book, but a book of faith
@lizazoon There are three quotations of the passage from the fourth century with small variations -- out of these three versions a consensus version can be drawn.
My view is that Josephus wrote "He was the so-called Christ" and that the words in Greek for "so-called" got dropped due to a scribal error because the the word in Greek had a similar look to two other words on the same line. When you add the "so-called (as in Jerome's and Ambrose's version) then the rest of the passage makes sense.
How could a Q Gospel have existed if no one in the first or second century ever mentioned it? How could it have been "discovered" only in the 1800s if it is still unknown?
Liberals cling to a phantom document to explain why the Gospels have close similarities in their accounts.
Seeing the similarities int he accounts, what is more likely:
The Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses at a late date?
Or were they written early with eyewitness information?
The Gospel to the Hebrews sometimes refers to Matthew's Gospel, which the Church Fathers said was originally written in Hebrew.
But there is also a spurious Gospel to the Hebrews that was written by the Ebionite Heretics in the second century. The Ebionites were Dynamic Monarchians (Adoptionists or Unitarians) who wrote this Gospel (or probably simply added texts to the Gospel of Matthew) to support their view of Jesus.
MC doc you refer to is of 7th CE origin, referring to a 2nd CE doc. There is no reference to MC 2nd CE doc at Council of Nicea. There were many "canons" at the time, and Constantine MADE the bishops come to an agreement, and those that didn't were exiled.
You have been told what to believe by the Nicea council, where Jesus was also "officially" deified. .
The 7th CE and the 2nd CE docs are not repeatable evidence, so both are suspect.
2nd CE pope would have many copies of such an important Doc.
The copy is later, but the original manuscript was written in the second century. We know this because the MC is referred to by other writers after this time much prior to the seventh century.
The Council of Nicea did not decide anything about Jesus' deity. It was convened to deal with Arianism. Bot the Arians and the Trinitarians believed Jesus to be God. That was not even at issue. That Jesus is God is attested from the first, second, third centuries in numerous writings.
Almost all of the New Testament was written by ( J Mark) the scribe of Paul, AKA Saul, AKA to the Romans as Flavius Paulinus Josephus the (historian) the name Vespasian gave him after he betrayed the Garrison of Galilee at Jotapata. Then again when he betrayed the Jewish priests to Titus ( Temple destroyed ) he was given the name of Titus Flavius Josephus where he established the 70 Churches (Synagogues) from Crete,There he hid the persecuted Jews within the new cult he called Christianity.
We are only responcible to ourselves. To be Christ minded. The unbeleaving will think this to be foolishness. Personally any rebuttel that is at least not able to present their veiws with the same quality and credibility as this Documentary presents itself is nothing more than a meger attempt to be a rebuttel.
The verse in 1 John 5:7 is a parenthetical statement that explains what verse 8 is about.
The earliest Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. The Old Latin texts - 2nd through 4th century and later - did have the verse. It is also quoted by four 2nd century church fathers and others.
It was in the Latin, but not in the extant Greek. Since the original was Greek, some assume that it is not in the original. Even if so, verse 8 is a Trinitarian statement and verse 7 simply explains it.
Get Massive Exposure We are experts at promoting your videos on Youtube. We offer services for channel views, video ratings, video comments, and video favorites. We have took 3 years of Youtube marketing experience and studying to know what it takes to get your videos ranked very very high for your particular keyword. to move your videos up in Youtube's ranking. Visit us today and check out all our packages that we offer! tubeviews[dot org] 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE
Irony: Jesus was a liberal. Progressive change was what he was all about. Feeding the poor,healing the sick,sayng the rich were unholy,preaching peace,etc. As liberal as you can get.
No, conservatives believe in helping the poor through volunteerism and persuasion.
Liberals believe in getting others richer than them to help the poor by coercing them through big government -- by using the power that flows from the barrel of the gun.
No, Jesus is not a liberal or a communist or a socialist.
Jesus WAS liberal in context of the time he lived. He was actually the first "feminist!" He placed importantcy on women and their role in the family and community which was absolutely ludicrous for that time period.
I think you are all using these terms as you understand their meaning to apply today, which, because jesus - assuming the existence of such a historical figure - lived in the 1st centuries BCE and CE, is anachronistic. It would make more sense to understand him in the historical-political context of the Roman empire and proto-rabbinic judaism
1:28 Primarily misspellings? Scribes would accidentally copy their notes into copies of text. Scribes would mistakenly copy across two columns rather than appropriately down each separately - which leads to some interesting geneology accounts. Scribes would also miss-translate, miss-read or even purposely alter, thinking they were fixing previous errors. Multiply avg alterations per copy times number of copies per year, times all those years and that's an underestimate of total error.
The vast majority of variants are things like grammatical differences, spellings that do not even show up in English translations. All the variants that would significantly alter the meaning of the NT text can be fit on to one page. And then again most of these are inconsequential. These are included as footnotes in modern translations of the Bible.
Once again: Bart Ehrman as exhibit A. Biblical scholar who outlined the very errors I've outlined above and goes on to describe how honest scientific research into the original biblical writings is heavily confounded by these very known and documented phenomena. He even has a presentation on youtube. "There are more differences in the texts then there are words in the texts" Unless you are a published biblical scholar, you'll have to find one who refutes that claim.
If the New Testament was to be a "historical" recount of Jesus's life, then why is his teen years omitted?? The facts about what Jesus did in his teens where that he visited Tibet, studied the teachings of the Buddah and did many thing NOT in the New Testament! Why is this story NOT being told?? Because it has all been written to CONVERT not as a historical document! Nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus Personally. That is a FACT!! Ask theologan Michal Ledwith.
jesus's early years were not written in the NT because the writers focused on his birth and His ministry years. they didnt write about His childhood because it wasn't what was important to them. Jesus in Tibet? give me a break. do you have any data to back that up? of course not.
Jesus did not study the teachings of Buddah? There is not a single teaching of Christ that is anywhere near to that of Buddism. Also, you answered your own question about why there is little or no historical account of Jesus's teens. No one knew him then until he became famous when he undertook his responsibility as the son of God.
This is from the recently completed DVD version with host Eric Holmberg.
"The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ" is newly expanded to include over an hour of additional materials. The total running time is now two and a half hours.
The first five parts are on YOU TUBE now. I may post parts 6-10 later on.
Order the DVD with all ten parts plus a bonus feature by clicking on the URL link underneath "ABOUT THIS VIDEO."
Thanks for posting the series! I´m a student of theology and I have to wrestle every day with the liberal garbage which is taught in every seminary! I never doubted the authenticity of the Bible, but its very hard to stand almost alone.
Chrilsama 1 year ago
liberal scholars at 9 minutes
kunzx037 1 year ago
This totally contradicts all the books I read by Bart Ehrman. Given all the mutually contradictory information in the NT and all the other books we have discovered I must reject this video as crap.
Dchellberg 1 year ago 2
Apart from the added parts to Josephus account of Jesus, what of other parts in the book, wouldn't it of been harder to forge the part about Jesus brother James for example, to add him into the book (for the purpose of supporting Jesus) would of mean't changing his account of Jewish history just prior to the revolt wouldn't it?
Just asking.
dortyhoor 1 year ago
@dortyhoor Good point. James appears at exactly the right time and fits into the history prior to that. For that mattter, so does Jesus fit into the list a grievances against Pilate.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner Thanks, people like to ignore glaring points, glad to know someone else reads books and Im not alone.
Peace
dortyhoor 1 year ago
Iturea is Eritrea. AFRICA!!!!!!!~
supervirtuouswoman 2 years ago
Scripture is "the inerrant and inspired word of God"?
Genesis 1 doesn't even agree with Genesis 2, let alone provide an accurate description of the formation of the universe, world, humans etc.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
It is common knowledge that to mix some historical facts in with your fables, will give your fables more credibility.
The Greek named where their God lived.
On Mt. Olympus.
gjsterp 2 years ago
The difference is that if you go to Jerusalem the archaeological evidence backs up the story and even many of the people described in the story.
None of the gods who lived on Mt. Olympus were real people.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I guess you fail to realize what it means to mix "some" historical facts with the fables.
Some of the people and most of the places of the Bible were probably real.
The stories that go with these people and places are in many cases unproven, and as good as fables.
The miracles, speaking with God, receiving revelations in dreams or otherwise, etc. most certainly are fables.
The historical content does not prove the attached fables.
gjsterp 2 years ago
There were also many demigods who were supposed to have lived all throughout Greece; which is where many of their myths took place.
There were towns and temples built at sights supposedly where Hercules and Apollo lived; like Delphi.
What archaeological evidence backs up the story? I'd be very interested to know; I don't want to overlook anything.
How can you make any verifiable assertions about Jesus, when it's clear that he has been obscured by 1st century religious zealots?
86adamleon 2 years ago
It's clear? First you say the history is obscured and then you say it is "clear"? It can't be both.
None of the Greek gods had definite histories, time-lines and so on. Greek myths are obscure, while the NT background history is highly specific and verifiable.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
It's clear, as in obvious.
The history of Jesus has obviously been obscured.
You claim that the NT gives highly specific details, and is verifiable.
But how do you account for all the discrepancies?
Like;
What year was Jesus born, and under which
King?
You're answer would differ depending on which Gospel you read.
So how could you deduce which was true?
86adamleon 2 years ago
@86adamleon Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod in both Luke and Matthew. What are you talking about?
jcr4runner 1 year ago
I'd also like to ask how your version of Christ is verifiable, since there are no extra-biblical eye-witness testimonies of Jesus to support your assertions?
To be honest with you, even if you provided such evidence, which I'm open to hear about, it wouldn't convince me that Jesus was an avatar of Yahweh, since extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
The Greek Gods had a very rich history; though it was mostly contrived, or embellished from real history.
86adamleon 2 years ago
jcr4runner: --NT background history is highly specific and verifiable-- Sorry it`s not. If I am wrong show the evidence, outside the Bible . Thank you.
lizazoon 2 years ago
@lizazoon The writings of Josephus for instance include dozens if not hundreds of corroborations of events that match NT history. Among historians if two works were independent each other and corroborate each other a great deal. The places where they corroborate are accepted as reliable.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner You should know as well as I do, that the writings of Josuphus have been tempered with. As our pastor said in his homily a few months ago. The bible is no science book, no history book, but a book of faith
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon
I actually think I know more about it than you do. Watch our video: "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?"
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner :Are you aware sir/lady, that even christian authorities admit the forgery ?
Not all the writings of Josephus of course not. But if ONE is falsified, to fit the bible, how much can you trust the rest ?
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon There are three quotations of the passage from the fourth century with small variations -- out of these three versions a consensus version can be drawn.
My view is that Josephus wrote "He was the so-called Christ" and that the words in Greek for "so-called" got dropped due to a scribal error because the the word in Greek had a similar look to two other words on the same line. When you add the "so-called (as in Jerome's and Ambrose's version) then the rest of the passage makes sense.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
Has anyone read about or heard of the Book of "Q" which gives indications that all the Gospels are based on one unknown manuscript?
I challenge anyone to write a history of anyone they knew 40 to 100 years ago.
Where are you going to go?
To previously written docs.
gjsterp 2 years ago
How could a Q Gospel have existed if no one in the first or second century ever mentioned it? How could it have been "discovered" only in the 1800s if it is still unknown?
Liberals cling to a phantom document to explain why the Gospels have close similarities in their accounts.
Seeing the similarities int he accounts, what is more likely:
The Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses at a late date?
Or were they written early with eyewitness information?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Have you heard of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews?
Why isn't there a copy in extent?
Because the Church found it heresy, and had them destroyed.
The early church covered it tracks in 325 AD at Nicea.
We don't have the whole story.
We only have the ones Emperor Constantine OKed.
gjsterp 2 years ago
The Gospel to the Hebrews sometimes refers to Matthew's Gospel, which the Church Fathers said was originally written in Hebrew.
But there is also a spurious Gospel to the Hebrews that was written by the Ebionite Heretics in the second century. The Ebionites were Dynamic Monarchians (Adoptionists or Unitarians) who wrote this Gospel (or probably simply added texts to the Gospel of Matthew) to support their view of Jesus.
It exists today in fragments.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The canon was not decided by Constantine or at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
This is Da Vinci Code nonsense!
The earliest known canonical list of NT books in the Bible was 175 AD. It is called the Muratorian Canon and it matches ours today.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
MC doc you refer to is of 7th CE origin, referring to a 2nd CE doc. There is no reference to MC 2nd CE doc at Council of Nicea. There were many "canons" at the time, and Constantine MADE the bishops come to an agreement, and those that didn't were exiled.
You have been told what to believe by the Nicea council, where Jesus was also "officially" deified. .
The 7th CE and the 2nd CE docs are not repeatable evidence, so both are suspect.
2nd CE pope would have many copies of such an important Doc.
gjsterp 2 years ago
The copy is later, but the original manuscript was written in the second century. We know this because the MC is referred to by other writers after this time much prior to the seventh century.
The Council of Nicea did not decide anything about Jesus' deity. It was convened to deal with Arianism. Bot the Arians and the Trinitarians believed Jesus to be God. That was not even at issue. That Jesus is God is attested from the first, second, third centuries in numerous writings.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Almost all of the New Testament was written by ( J Mark) the scribe of Paul, AKA Saul, AKA to the Romans as Flavius Paulinus Josephus the (historian) the name Vespasian gave him after he betrayed the Garrison of Galilee at Jotapata. Then again when he betrayed the Jewish priests to Titus ( Temple destroyed ) he was given the name of Titus Flavius Josephus where he established the 70 Churches (Synagogues) from Crete,There he hid the persecuted Jews within the new cult he called Christianity.
leebarnard86 2 years ago
That's really ignorant. No one except you thinks Paul and Josephus were the same person.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
We are only responcible to ourselves. To be Christ minded. The unbeleaving will think this to be foolishness. Personally any rebuttel that is at least not able to present their veiws with the same quality and credibility as this Documentary presents itself is nothing more than a meger attempt to be a rebuttel.
IleanonYT 2 years ago
Wasn't the Trinity first introduced in the King James version? if so that is not a small misspelling.
OccamsRzzr 2 years ago
The verse in 1 John 5:7 is a parenthetical statement that explains what verse 8 is about.
The earliest Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. The Old Latin texts - 2nd through 4th century and later - did have the verse. It is also quoted by four 2nd century church fathers and others.
It was in the Latin, but not in the extant Greek. Since the original was Greek, some assume that it is not in the original. Even if so, verse 8 is a Trinitarian statement and verse 7 simply explains it.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
There are arguments showing that verse 8 is dependent on verse 7 grammatically, so this clause was likely in the original.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You are a tool.
ushomefree 2 years ago
Why not write an intelligent rebuttal?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Flaming Liberal" HAHAHA! Nice.
megadethmonk 2 years ago
There is not a place in the Bible where it say that Jesus is liberal the way you say. Caut in a lie, read the Bible.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
Get Massive Exposure We are experts at promoting your videos on Youtube. We offer services for channel views, video ratings, video comments, and video favorites. We have took 3 years of Youtube marketing experience and studying to know what it takes to get your videos ranked very very high for your particular keyword. to move your videos up in Youtube's ranking. Visit us today and check out all our packages that we offer! tubeviews[dot org] 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE
Thanks Alot
Gracelyndfsa 2 years ago
Irony: Jesus was a liberal. Progressive change was what he was all about. Feeding the poor,healing the sick,sayng the rich were unholy,preaching peace,etc. As liberal as you can get.
1steve726 3 years ago
No, conservatives believe in helping the poor through volunteerism and persuasion.
Liberals believe in getting others richer than them to help the poor by coercing them through big government -- by using the power that flows from the barrel of the gun.
No, Jesus is not a liberal or a communist or a socialist.
Nice try, comrade!
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Jesus WAS liberal in context of the time he lived. He was actually the first "feminist!" He placed importantcy on women and their role in the family and community which was absolutely ludicrous for that time period.
HumbleProclaimer 2 years ago
Nothing like modern feminism, but you are correct in that Christianity elevated the status of women in the church and society.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I think you are all using these terms as you understand their meaning to apply today, which, because jesus - assuming the existence of such a historical figure - lived in the 1st centuries BCE and CE, is anachronistic. It would make more sense to understand him in the historical-political context of the Roman empire and proto-rabbinic judaism
peace and cheers
Al
madalpeters 2 years ago
1:28 Primarily misspellings? Scribes would accidentally copy their notes into copies of text. Scribes would mistakenly copy across two columns rather than appropriately down each separately - which leads to some interesting geneology accounts. Scribes would also miss-translate, miss-read or even purposely alter, thinking they were fixing previous errors. Multiply avg alterations per copy times number of copies per year, times all those years and that's an underestimate of total error.
analubalitious 3 years ago
The vast majority of variants are things like grammatical differences, spellings that do not even show up in English translations. All the variants that would significantly alter the meaning of the NT text can be fit on to one page. And then again most of these are inconsequential. These are included as footnotes in modern translations of the Bible.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Once again: Bart Ehrman as exhibit A. Biblical scholar who outlined the very errors I've outlined above and goes on to describe how honest scientific research into the original biblical writings is heavily confounded by these very known and documented phenomena. He even has a presentation on youtube. "There are more differences in the texts then there are words in the texts" Unless you are a published biblical scholar, you'll have to find one who refutes that claim.
analubalitious 3 years ago
There is nothing that Bart Ehrman presents about variants in texts that hasn't been known since Irenaeus time 1820 years ago.
Texts get corrupted. The question is whether we have enough textual evidence among the 35,000 handwritten biblical texts to solve the variants.
I would argue that we do.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
If the New Testament was to be a "historical" recount of Jesus's life, then why is his teen years omitted?? The facts about what Jesus did in his teens where that he visited Tibet, studied the teachings of the Buddah and did many thing NOT in the New Testament! Why is this story NOT being told?? Because it has all been written to CONVERT not as a historical document! Nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus Personally. That is a FACT!! Ask theologan Michal Ledwith.
sc0tchlvr 3 years ago
jesus's early years were not written in the NT because the writers focused on his birth and His ministry years. they didnt write about His childhood because it wasn't what was important to them. Jesus in Tibet? give me a break. do you have any data to back that up? of course not.
sjd198302 3 years ago
Jesus did not study the teachings of Buddah? There is not a single teaching of Christ that is anywhere near to that of Buddism. Also, you answered your own question about why there is little or no historical account of Jesus's teens. No one knew him then until he became famous when he undertook his responsibility as the son of God.
LiveNKicking 3 years ago
writing about Alexander the Great were started over 100 years after his death...does that mean Alexander the Great and his achievements were false?
ysar60 3 years ago
This is from the recently completed DVD version with host Eric Holmberg.
"The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ" is newly expanded to include over an hour of additional materials. The total running time is now two and a half hours.
The first five parts are on YOU TUBE now. I may post parts 6-10 later on.
Order the DVD with all ten parts plus a bonus feature by clicking on the URL link underneath "ABOUT THIS VIDEO."
jcr4runner 4 years ago