i agree, witout the ridiculousness of the old testament, the new testament's gory 'i'm here 2 save u from a torturer' is unnecessary, there 4 any1 wit half an amount of decent sense would throw out that disgusting piece of immoral filth they call the bible and start from scratch, what's moral based on consequences, what's true, based on evidence.
I was born in the UK, most Christians I know are CofE and I think all of them would reject a historic Adam and Eve.
They are what I would call "deeds above faith" Christians.
I think it is important for Atheists to support this kind of Christianity.
We can't kill Religion! But the world would be a better place if people dropped some of the worst aspects of religion. That includes the hideous idea that faith is all important.
I don't think that Abrachamic religions could abandon this, because then there would be no gain in being a believer - just being a nice person would suffice. And god can't have that!! ;-))
Oh, trying to "de-convert" the world over night - or decade - is hardly possible at all.
As for the "broad church" - I used to share your understanding, as I come from a country where Christians were always tolerant to other believers and unbelievers. But now I'm inclined more to the positions expressed by Dawkins: the "nice" theists unwillingly provide base and cover to the bigots.
I think you understood me, but just to be sure other people got it: by "broad church" I meant Atheists. In other words Atheists should agree to disagree on the subject of how "evangelical" we want to be when faced by theists.
Side note about the tale of Genesis: The Neolithic Subpluvial (or Wet Sahara) was wrapping up about 6k years ago. The land drying up and turning to desert could be the context of being kicked out of the Garden. Just an idea I had... presumably has occurred to others.
@kerplunk288 over all forms of destruction, both physical and spiritual. That there was a need for salvation from death and destruction is obvious, as to the cause of this mortal state is unclear. In any case, Christ is not invalidated by the dubious historicity of Adam.
Whether initiated by one man in an isolated sinful act, or perpetuated through hundreds of thousands of years of human and pre-human evolution, the point remains the same - we are broken and sinful. Though the actions of our ancestors might not be the cause for physical death, one could argue it has caused a spiritual death. Physical death cements our spiritual death, as there is no possibility for redemption if we cease to exist. Therefore, Christ's death and resurrection comes to mark the
Thought provoking as usual Prof! Although I’m a bit late to the party, I would like to say I love the live video, you should have done it long ago. (States the guy still working up the courage to do his first video after almost 4 years)
You nailed it. However to go further. The apostle Paul states that if the dead rise not then our faith is in vain. I will watch the other video on the topic. Jesus himself refers to the first family. If that is not the case then Jesus is a liar. Any deeper meaning needs the foundation of the literal in order to be true. BTW some scientists are now saying that something is faster than light. If this is PROVEN TRUE then science continues to be wrong again and again.
It basically comes down to this. Whenever biblical claims have any bearing on observable reality, they can be torn down. Believers will then migrate their beliefs about the claims into the realm of the unknowable and the inaccessible. Deeper meaning is some vague notion propped up against their faith which is itself largely and most commonly something inscrutable to them. Apparently faith doesn't need to have a literal meaning, or an alternative one that has any bearing on reality.
I dont think it says very much about whether jesus was real. Even though Paul had no reason to think adam existed, it was accepted as fact all around him. Jesus on the other hand was someone closer in time. he would have known people who knew jesus. (this is assuming paul is one person who lived exactly as scripture indicates he did, a dubious prospect). I dont think his lack of knowledge on adam says anything about jesus's existence.
@ProfMTH Given their fantastic nature, and the poor track record of consistency within his and other writings within the bible, you are absolutely correct to make the conclusion that Paul's writings on Jesus are ludicrous. The fact that he is foolish enough to accept adam as fact shouldnt even appear on the radar given the other ridiculous statements. that said, you are absolutely correct about what it implies about the academic credibility of paul's works.
@1robopm "The fact that he is foolish enough to accept adam as fact shouldnt even appear on the radar given the other ridiculous statements"
Paul reinterpreted Judaism in light of what he believed about Jesus. Adam is a Jewish character. So why did Paul fit Adam into a new Jewish eschatology? Because he believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, Jewish God, and first to be resurrected. Paul believed a historical event warranted a reworking of his core beliefs.
Do any of you guys seem to get very slow loads on ProfMTH's videos? I get it on random channels. This seems to be one of them. Do they host channels on different servers and that's why some load better?
@subJOKEtive Peter never claimed to have a vision of Jesus. He said it was a resurrection. In addition, the resurrected Jesus was claimed to have been observed by more than one witness at a time. Visions aren't shared, they're unique to the individual. The entire Christian theology is based off a claimed event of resurrection and the resulting reinterpretation of Jewish eschatology.
I don't see how Paul being mistaken about Adam and Eve makes his other points invalid from a theological perspective. Stories are told because they reveal truths about humanity, and the fact that, for example, King Midas didn't really exist doesn't change the fact that money can't buy happiness.
Granted, I don't think there's any such thing as original sin or anything we need to be "saved" FROM, but that doesn't mean that Christians might not be on to something.
@subJOKEtive A messiah wins. There's no room for guilt because there is too much anger at the one claiming to be messiah for failing to win. A messiah raises an army to kick out the Romans and unify the kingdom under one banner, he is a warrior king like David. Why do you think Peter was so quick to cut off the ear of those who came to arrest Jesus?
@subJOKEtive "where the foundations of their faith are shown to be what they are: after-the-fact rationalizations"
That's exactly what they are, but not about what you think. The NT writers rationalized - after the fact -- that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and tried to fit him into Jewish eschatology. So, the question of Christianity is: what made them think he was the Jewish messiah *after* he died?
@subJOKEtive "Paul sells us a remedy for a disease that doesn't exist."
I agree. It's very interesting to me that many of the Christian respondents are saying that what Paul was talking theology and that even if he doesn't have the historical point, the theological point survives. It seems to me the theological point is intimately dependent on the historical one. Still sorting through the responses though, as time permits.
Another point to make is: Why would God allow the Bible to be written in such a way that this whole debate even comes up at all to those of us living 2000+ years later? Why doesn't Genesis just talk about evolution? Isn't God not supposed to be the author of confusion?
The deeper understanding is that it is time to give up on the failed belief system, as I did 30 years ago. It is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic to talk about the deeper meaning. No Adam, no redemption necessary.
@therealfriday13th Here in the city, it wasn't bad at all. Some damage here and there, but nothing terrible. In some parts of the upstate counties, over in New Jersey, and in some places out on Long Island things got fairly bad. I have a friend who is still pumping water out of his basement in New Jersey.
The fact that Jesus was alive in and around the time that Paul was also alive while Adam was a figure that has been passed down by Jewish tradition to explain ancestry is enough to suggest that he could be wrong about Adam and still right about Jesus.
@gambleor "The fact that Jesus was alive in and around the time that Paul was also alive while Adam was a figure that has been passed down by Jewish tradition to explain ancestry is enough to suggest that he could be wrong about Adam and still right about Jesus."
@ProfMTH Because there was no one within relatively close proximity to Adam's life who wrote and could attest to his existence. Tradition passed down that Moses wrote Genesis just like it passed down that Adam was the first man - it wasn't factual, but that's what tradition taught. Paul had not met Jesus pre-crucifixion but he knew people who had known Him and attested to His existence. I would think that attestation matters somewhat toward existence claims.
@gambleor Thanks for your response. So, let's assume arguendo that it's more likely than not that Paul could still be correct about Jesus' historicity while at the same time being wrong about Adam's. We still have Paul's purportedly inspired declaration to deal with, i.e., that Jesus' was sent and underwent execution in order to solve a problem created by Adam, i.e., sin & death entered the world & spread as a consequence of Adam's transgression--a declaration that, if Adam never existed...
(con't) @gambleor ...must be inaccurate. Does this error seem insignificant to you? If so, why? Also, why would the Christian god allow one of his chief spokespeople to propagate such error with respect to Jesus mission? Doesn't the Holy Spirit work to preserve the Church from such error?
@ProfMTH Paul was, by his own admission, a Pharisee and it showed in his rhetorical approach. The fact that Paul references Adam is an appeal to the Jewish people who would have been familiar with the narrative. Note that his personal belief given his model of reality and should remain so. The teaching itself is still error-free and the point is more memorable in reference to the parallel. Basically, sin and death entered the world through man and life through the Son of Man.
@gambleor "The fact that Paul references Adam is an appeal to the Jewish people who would have been familiar with the narrative."
Although he does it when writing to the Corinthians (overwhelmingly, if not exclusively Gentiles) and the largely Gentile Romans. So, that doesn't work as well as you may think it does.
So, I just want to be sure I understand your position. Paul's error regarding Adam is insignificant, is that correct? It was unimportant for the Holy Spirit to preserve one...
@ProfMTH Remember that Paul is writing to a Christian community in Rome in order to gain support for his mission. This means that he was still appealing to a community that would have been familiar with Adam. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit allowed this error in the OT, so I'm not seeing why the error in details is any more of a problem in the NT. If it still transmits the same theological point, which is what Paul was really getting at, it's not a theological error. Details are of no consequence.
@gambleor "...the Holy Spirit allowed this error in the OT, so I'm not seeing why the error in details is any more of a problem in the NT."
I'll reformulate my questions in light of your latest statement. The Bible's error regarding Adam is insignificant, is that correct? It was not important for the Holy Spirit to preserve the written word of God from having this error in it (both in the Jewish *and* Christian scriptures), is that correct?
@ProfMTH Yes, the Bible's error regarding a literal Adam is insignificant doctrinally and, therefore, it would not be important for the Holy Spirit preserve the texts from having this error. The theological point is the same whether Adam literally existed or not. That is unless you hold to a metaphorical Adam, Original Sin and Penal Substitution.
Good analysis. I would take issue with one point, which you make at 3:09, which is that Paul regarded Jesus as a "real person in history" just like Adam. I note that Paul only saw Jesus in visions and "events" and his personhood was irrelevant. For him, the Risen Christ mattered, but the human Jesus who taught and preached adherence to the moral points of the Law? Not so much. Adam, for Paul, was the foil for God's plan, and, I might add, saw him in this way very much UNLIKE Jews of his day did.
@nhprman "I note that Paul only saw Jesus in visions and "events" and his personhood was irrelevant. For him, the Risen Christ mattered, but the human Jesus who taught and preached adherence to the moral points of the Law? Not so much."
In light of passages such as Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2, and a number of others, I'm not so sure you're correct that the human Jesus didn't matter much to Paul. But I appreciate the comment. Thanks.
@ProfMTH "In light of passages such as ... I'm not so sure you're correct that the human Jesus didn't matter much to Paul."
The human Jesus' actual words mean little to Paul, who rarely quotes him. Paul's "Gospel" (which was not the Gospel of those in Jerusalem) consists of the crucifixion (topic of 2 of the verses you note) & resurrection. Sure, Paul saw him a historic person like Adam, but only Jesus' last day on earth & resurrection mattered. So his "personhood" is rendered meaningless.
@StormTrek A huge difference, which has been papered over by both the writer of Acts (which nonetheless shows very strong cracks in the so-called "agreement") & which is shown when Paul's contempt for the Apostles & those who sent people to proclaim "another Gospel," whom I believe are one & the same. There's evidence outside the NT too. The Ebionites rejected Paul in Jerusalem for 150+ years after Christ & I believe they are descendants of The Twelve. The full story clearly hasn't been told.
@StormTrek Read my post from 2 days ago. Paul had no use for the teachings of the human Jesus. None. Those who knew Jesus and walked with him for three years did, and the difference is pretty clear between the two gospel messages.
@StormTrek I know it's very, very hard to hear (and to comprehend, apparently) that Paul preached a radically different Gospel than Jesus did, but it's true nonetheless, even if the opposite has been repeated billions of times by easy-believist preachers, ministers, and priests. That doesn't make Paul's Gospel "true." One (Jesus) taught obedience led to Heaven, the other (Paul) taught there was no need to obey, just "believe on" a mystical experience of a Risen Christ-being. Huge difference.
@nhprman The synoptics say Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15, etc.) The gospel of John and Paul's epistles preached the gospel of the Son of God (John 1:34, Galatians 1:16). However, those are essentially the same gospel because the kingdom of God is established through the Jewish messiah. None of them were teaching about an afterlife in heaven, they were all teaching the Pharisaic idea of eternal life (physical resurrection).
@StormTrek Well, the Synoptics do indeed differ from John (which is more spiritual & theological than historical - no one was present to record entire paragraphs of Christ, for instance) & all 4 Gospels differ greatly from Paul's Gospel of salvation & belief without works. It's so obviously counter to the Gospel Jesus taught that it's almost amazing that they are seen as the same. Your analysis of eternal life doesn't square with Jesus's words, "today, you will be with me in paradise."
@nhprman It's likely the gospel of John did record complete conversations, John 3, for example, is more cohesive when retranslated into the original language it was spoken -- Aramaic -- from the original language John was written -- Greek. Jesus, talking to a Pharisee, says one must be resurrected -- born again -- before he can see the kingdom of God. That's why Nicodemus makes the comment about reentering a mothers womb. The Greek "born from above" doesn't work.
@StormTrek re: the Gospel of John and Aramaic, you may be onto something, and I've heard this rather compelling argument before. But again, that's not evidence that complete, long conversations were recorded, just that they were probably in Aramaic. Of course that's raising a difficult question for literalists: "The NT is only literally true in their ORIGINAL languages - the texts we do NOT have?" While I believe there's THEOLOGICAL truth in John's Gospel, there's not much in Paul's.
@nhprman When read from a Jewish perspective, John certainly seems authentic. The conversation with Nicodemus wouldn't exist in a story that evolved in a gentile world. That means both language and content point toward authenticity. Paul's epistles -- when read from a Jewish perspective -- are entirely consistent with John. The seeming theological differences are rooted in later gentile misunderstandings.
@StormTrek "When read from a Jewish perspective, John certainly seems authentic." Well, there are certainly Jewish elements there, but they are hidden beneath an avalanche of man-made Greek philosophy. No monotheistic Jew would adhere to the belief that a man was a pre-existent being who created the earth with God & indeed WAS God. That, in fact, is the "Gentile misunderstanding" in a nutshell. Church Fathers as late as 180 report that the Jerusalem Church remained Jewish & rejected Paul.
@nhprman " No monotheistic Jew would adhere to the belief that a man was a pre-existent being who created the earth with God & indeed WAS God."
Some monotheistic Jews would. You can view the video in my favorites titles "Hear O Israel...". Jewish monotheism does not apply to singularity of person. In addition, there are Messianic Jews who are monotheistic (as are gentile Christians) and believe that a man was the pre-existenct Creator.
@dlandon2000 "What do you mean by "Personhood?" How can you exist without being a person?!?"
I agree, one cannot. But Paul is only interested in the VISION of Christ, not his life or his teachings, which he abandoned in favor of mere assent to a creed that included only his resurrection.
@nhprman "But Paul is only interested in the VISION of Christ, not his life or his teachings, which he abandoned in favor of mere assent to a creed that included only his resurrection."
A creed that included ONLY his resurrection? What are you talking about?
@ProfMTH I'm specifically responding to the confusion of a fellow who believes that Paul taught what Christ taught, which is demonstrably false. To Paul, all that mattered was the Risen Christ & belief ON him in order to be "saved." Works were condemned by him as illegitimate. By contrast, Jesus taught continued obedience and fidelity to the Law, though in the legalistic way of the Pharisees. These are completely different "gospels" that are irreconcilable.
@nhprman You didn't really answer the question. I find it very revealing that theology always needs to hide in obscure language and shies away from clear or meaningful definitions.
@dlandon2000 I'm being as clear as possible. For Paul, the human being Jesus, who walked and talked on the earth, is irrelevant. To him, only the spiritualized Christ he met in visions is important for him (and for Christians) to put their faith into. How much clearer can I be?
@nhprman But it in christian theology it was the real jesus that died for "sins" which allows people to get into heaven so how can that jesus be irrelevant? It's the basis of the whole need to worship him.
And on a related note how can there be a "real" vs "spiritualized" jesus? This is similar to the problem with the whole jesus/god same but different thing, he sacrificed himself (jesus) to himself (god) to make a loophole in a system (sin and hell) he made... How does that make any sense?
@dlandon2000 I'm actually agreeing with you on your last point. It does not make sense to me. That's why, to me, the teachings and preaching of Jesus during his time on earth ARE the salvation that he offered, not the "commercial transaction" of a death one must give assent to in order to get a "free ticket" to heaven. That's ludicrous and is NOT what was preached from the mouth of Jesus (if one assumes the Bible does record these words accurately, and I think they do, for the most part.)
@nhprman "This isn't a religious discussion, so I'm not going to engage in guessing games."
Uhh ok... It was just a way of phrasing the question, I was enjoying the discussion. I'm always interested in what people believe and why, but if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.
Hey Mr. ProfMTH,Hope you are in good health.What's going on is that the believer can use absolutely anything their imagination can conjure up while reason and knowledge is"limited" to factual,verifiable truth.Thou shall not lie or bullshit should be the first commandment for all religions.It is for science.I just seen a billboard that said GOD SPRINKLES US WITH MIRACLE GROW.Only the religious could worship a deity who covers them with pesticidal horseshit.
I'm an atheist but I think there are a LOT of believers out there who just don't think about these things too hard. They don't care about finding the truth - they're happy feeling sure their god exists.They don't think it matters to read the bible. The bible is obviously written by humans and not exactly the flawless word of God, just inspired by God maybe. Evolution/all science is true but you work god into the gaps so he can still exist. You pray/know your loved ones are in heaven as comfort.
I have always been fascinated by the concept of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What on earth does that mean? It seems to me to indicate that we were not truly sentient before eating the fruit. To the Christian god, becoming self-aware was the original sin. I sure bet there was more to this part of the story that has been lost in the mists of time. Is the talking snake a proto-Jewish Prometheus?
The "deeper meaning" = "realizing the foundation of your belief is crumbling, so you grasp at straws by throwing out a phrase that hints of something profound: a phrase that you may not understand understand yourself, but that's okay as long as others don't either, and they just nod along out of respect (or out of not caring enough to dig for details)."
(Okay, not my most elegant sentence. But my daughter is watching RuPaul's Drag Race on TV right now and I can't concentrate!)
My favorite part of the extensive hurricane coverage was multiple news anchors' palpable irritation at people not buying the doomsaying. I love seeing normally composed anchors have their childlike "WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO ME!" seep through, just a little. Also, it gave me an excuse to watch Lonnie Quinn for hours, which is always welcome.
Eve represents free will and choice, which cause "sin" aka "missing the mark, making mistakes." Adam & Eve "lived in Paradise" b4 choice: there were no mistakes. We were primates, not yet human, living by instinct. When we evolve abstract thinking & rational thought, we develop choice and the ability to make mistakes. That's why the tree in the story, and the fruit thereof, is of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. more
@rriverstone1 First, we make accidental mistakes. Then, we learn our mistakes have consequences.Then we discover our mistakes influence the world around us. Then, we develop meanness aka evil. We can be mean for the fun of it, for personal gain, etc.Christ (redemption) is modeled in Jesus. Jesus kept saying, screw the old nit-picking laws, eschew materialism, treat our fellow humans as loved ones. In other words, turn our backs on meanness, evil, intentional mistakes, "sin." more
So, by living with humility, rejecting greed and selfishness, embracing compassion, etc., we clean up our act, redeem ourselves and discover that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within us." Paradise has been here, buried under a pile of arrogance and meanness, the whole time. Clean up your act; redeem yourself. That's a "liberal" interpretation of xianity. Just stop acting like a spoiled brat, quit throwing tantrums and grow a pair (ovaries/testicles,/whatever). We are all sons/daughters of Creation.
Love your rubber ducky. Quoting Barbara Ehrenreich 's personal Facebook page from the Monday after Hurricane Irene: Lovely morning here in No VA. I would like to see an estimate of the cost of Irene hysteria (cancelled flights, unnecessary candle purchases, etc.) as opposed to actual damage caused by wind and water.
@rriverstone1 I'd like to see the same estimate. I'm all for erring on the side on caution, but this seemed more than a little out of hand. I guess after Katrina no one is taking *any* chances, which I can understand. But the palpable disappointment among the news media in the hurricane turning into largely a nonevent once it reached NYC was quite bothersome.
The deeper meaning is that Paul never even met the Jesus character or the Adam character. There may be a moral to some of the stories but Aesop's fables had valid points too. We don't worship Aesop.
Prof, are you implying that if St. Paul got the story about Adam wrong, then he got the story about Jesus wrong, and therefore, Jesus was mythical as well?
@Mkvine It can certainly lead to the conclusion that Jesus was mythical, yes. But even if one doesn't get to that point, I believe this provides a basis for a believer to conclude that Paul merely imposed significance on Jesus' execution, that Paul proposed a problem (i.e., Adam's "trangression" brought sin and death into the world and, as a result, everyone became sinners and died) and Jesus came along to solve that problem. This, in Paul's construction of the story, was Jesus' raison d'être.
I don't think its reasonable to conclude from St. Paul alone, that Jesus was a mythical figure because we have early attestation of Jesus existence as a historical person from early and independent sources (i.e. pre-Markan narrative, L-sayings, John, and extrabiblical material). So even if St. Paul thought he was mythical, it wouldn't explain the other material.
@Mkvine As I said, one doesn't even have to get to the "Jesus was mythical" thing in order for it to be problematic that Paul, purportedly under divine inspiration, presented Jesus as coming to solve a set of problems created by a person who never existed, namely, Adam. So, let's assume Jesus was historical (I tend to believe he was). Paul's inspired declaration that Jesus' execution functioned to solve a problem created by Adam remains in peril. What do you say about *that*?
Well, I don't believe Adam was mythical, but I'm just going along here for the sake of argument. All that would prove is that St. Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the "New Adam" was incorrect. It wouldn't do anything to disprove that Jesus died for the sins of humanity and us receiving life through him because the Gospels made that connection without mentioning Adam. But that is based on the assumption that Adam was mythical, which is difficult to conclusively prove.
@Mkvine "Well, I don't believe Adam was mythical...."
Of course, as a Catholic you're not at liberty to believe Adam was mythical.
"All that would prove is that St. Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the 'New Adam' was incorrect."
Does that strike you as insignificant?
And why would the Christian god allow one of his chief spokesman to propagate error with respect to this? Doesn't the Holy Spirit work to preserve the Church from such error?
That all presupposes that St. Paul was wrong, which I don't believe. And I guess that's where the heart of the debate is on. I simply cannot see how one can *conclusively* say Adam was mythical. Why couldn't the author of Genesis use purely symbolic imagery to convey the story of an actual person? That's possible. As long as that's even a possibility, I think its enough to discount the whole notion of concluding *absolutely* that Adam was mythical.
@Mkvine "That all presupposes that St. Paul was wrong, which I don't believe."
Right. So, as you did in your earlier comment, let's assume arguendo that Paul *was* wrong about Adam, that, as you put it, "Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the 'New Adam' was incorrect." Would that be insignificant, in your opinion?
I am being quite charitable with playing devils advocate here. But to answer your question, the insignificance or signifance of St. Paul's error would depend on a person's presuppositions. In my Catholic presupposition, it would be of great significance because we believe St. Paul was correct. However, if someone presupposes that the Bible is not inspired but still sees historic truths and teachings in it, then I don't think it will be of great significance.
On the latter pressuposition, St. Paul's error would not disprove the teachings of Jesus, it would not disprove his ressurection, it would not disprove his radical identity with divine athority, it would not even disprove many of St. Paul's theology, it would only prove that the Bible is not inspired. One interesting thing to note, is that Christianity got along well without a NT canon for hundreds of years.
@Mkvine There are no credible extrabiblical material, no independent sources of any significance, this is very telling considering God supposedly sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself, you would think that to be a big event. Furthermore there is NOTHING to prove the divinity of Jesus even if he did exist. Christians took the Jewish scriptures that were originally base on a pantheon of gods and twisted them for there own purposes.
That just shows your unfamiliarity with scholarship in this area. I mentioned the independent sources, which are significant because they are very early. Second, you don't need to presuppose that God exist for us to find in the historical records that a person died by crucifixion in Palestine, that is religiously neutral. Third, neither this video nor am I even suggesting that crucifixion equals divinity, and its irrelevant to the discussion. How you arrived at that is beyond me.
@Mkvine There were thousands crucified during that time. I'm quite familiar with what Christians call evidence, so you are wrong, I know there is no credible evidence for a man called Jesus and there is absolutely no evidence for his divinity. In fact Jesus mentions the World Wide Flood as if it really happened and the world was never flooded by water, so Jesus if he did exist was not a god. So there is no point in even wondering if he did exist.
I gave you the evidence regarding Jesus' crucifixion, which are early, multiple and independently attested. As a matter of fact, his crucifixion is undisputed among historians of the NT. People like Marcus Borg and John Crossan of the radical Jesus' seminar don't dispute it, neither does Bart Erhman or Gerd Ludemman. So you are taking a very radical fringe position. Whether Jesus mentioned the flood or not has absolutely nothing to do with his crucifixion, that is a red herring.
@Mkvine Without Jesus being a god, the question of did he really exist is meaningless. Mr. Smith was also crucified during this time, so who cares? All information on Jesus comes from hearsay accounts well after his alleged life. You sir, have ulterior motives for wanting people to say Jesus existed. The Bible is full of errors and myths, why am I a radical for not believing in this one?
I think you are over psychoanalyzing my motives. Jesus' divinity never entered into this conversation. I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Even granting his non-divinity would do absolutely nothing to discredit his existence as a historical person. If you cannot see that, then I don't know how else to help you.
@Mkvine "I think you are over psychoanalyzing my motives." No, I just looked at your channel! Jesus never existed, there is no reason to believe he existed, if all he is is a man, who cares? Without Christianity his life is meaningless and his death is meaningless and of no consequence, so don't lie about your motives. After looking at your channel sir, you are the one in need of help!
I'm sorry but your comments are completely out of place here. If you want to talk about the Divinity of Jesus there are plenty of videos, including some of mine that deal with that. This video is focusing on the parallels that St. Paul draws between Jesus and Adam and the implication that has on the historicity of each person. Hence a discussion on whether Jesus existed as a historical person is of importance here. So people do care. That's one of the main points of this video.
@ProfMTH "Paul merely imposed significance on Jesus' execution, that Paul proposed a problem ... and Jesus came along to solve that problem. This, in Paul's construction of the story, was Jesus' raison d'être."
This is sound analysis. It helps to understand that Jews did not see the Adam story as literal, and certainly didn't see it as a curse that caused all people to be utterly separated from God, later elaborated by Augustine and Calvin, adding more bizarre layers to that philosophy.
Well, to be honest, since Eve ate the fruit first in the fall story Paul isn't even right if this is taken literally.
In light of this, it seems obvious that Paul is either wrong about Jesus as you claim, or just using "Adam" as a metaphor to emphasize Christ's redemptive power.
Paul didn't believe in the jesus we know of, because he neglects most of the events we associate with his story.
You know pagan saviours were very popular, and a lot of them including the recent jesus share the same story points. In those days people used the stories of saviours as an illustration, that is to say they did not believe the events happened on earth but rather on a mythical plain of existance.
so the early christians didn't even believe in a living jesus.
Another version of original sin that just came to my mind was from one of Eddie Izzard's rambles - father, I have committed an original sin - I poked a badger with a spoon
It's almost like Paulian Christianity is a kind of protection racket - it introduces this new threat of original sin and hell and then claims it will protect you from it if you follow it. But most of the Jews weren't going around agonising about how they could be forgiven for their sin --- "original" sin wasn't an issue and other sin was dealt with by temple sacrifice
Another thing I find weird about original sin is that it's not mentioned in the Old Testament anywhere - take the Flood -- God got pissed off with everyone except Noah and his family for being immoral, and killed them all as punishment. He made a new covenant with Noah, sealed by a rainbow. Later on he made another new pact with Moses. At neither time did he say "but by the way, you are still all going to hell because of what Adam did; at least until I figure out some way of sorting that out"
Damnit! I said I was gonna stop watching religious and political videos for awhile and you peaked my curiosity and sucked me in for this one! Damn you ProfMTH! Damn you straight to hell! That'd mean more if hell was real of course...
@xtremejohnny69 "Damnit! I said I was gonna stop watching religious and political videos for awhile and you peaked my curiosity and sucked me in for this one! Damn you ProfMTH! Damn you straight to hell! That'd mean more if hell was real of course..."
On a side issue - I looked again at Genesis and God only specifically said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil --- so, arguably he was going to let them eat from the tree of life, but changed his mind after their disobedience. What I find espccially odd in the Christian interpretation though is that God saying they will die, is supposed to also have the unspoken addition "and then suffer in hell for eternity" , as if that just wasn't important enough to mention at this point
I believe it would be much easier in the long run if Christians would or could just fast forward to the point in the debate over their god and admit that it is all mythological and written by a primitive species in search of a way to explain all of life's mysteries. As well as setting guidelines for societies and lifestyles that were obviously better than their existing non-functional laws or traditions. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better life or society. Now its been outgrown.IMHO
A simple answer would be that neither Adam nor Jesus ever existed, especially considering the only evidence for either is a really old book full of suspicious, impossible stories. But of course we would never hear that from a Christian so their answers should be entertaining.
@TheCurmudgen Right, Christians like Bart Erhman and Dale Martin insist Jesus existed based on that really old book. Maybe you could teach them a thing or two.
HEY ProfMTH - The genealogy in the Gospel of Luke traces Jesus' ancestry all the way back to Adam. How can that be possible if the Adam and Eve story is not intended to be understood as literal?
i agree, witout the ridiculousness of the old testament, the new testament's gory 'i'm here 2 save u from a torturer' is unnecessary, there 4 any1 wit half an amount of decent sense would throw out that disgusting piece of immoral filth they call the bible and start from scratch, what's moral based on consequences, what's true, based on evidence.
cruelbusiness1984 3 weeks ago
I was born in the UK, most Christians I know are CofE and I think all of them would reject a historic Adam and Eve.
They are what I would call "deeds above faith" Christians.
I think it is important for Atheists to support this kind of Christianity.
We can't kill Religion! But the world would be a better place if people dropped some of the worst aspects of religion. That includes the hideous idea that faith is all important.
kandtell 4 months ago 2
@kandtell
I don't think that Abrachamic religions could abandon this, because then there would be no gain in being a believer - just being a nice person would suffice. And god can't have that!! ;-))
grozde 3 months ago
@grozde
I still say it's more realistic than trying to convince the whole world to de-convert.
But I also think that both approaches have merit. In other words I think a "broad church" if you will pardon the pun is probably a good idea.
kandtell 3 months ago
@kandtell
Oh, trying to "de-convert" the world over night - or decade - is hardly possible at all.
As for the "broad church" - I used to share your understanding, as I come from a country where Christians were always tolerant to other believers and unbelievers. But now I'm inclined more to the positions expressed by Dawkins: the "nice" theists unwillingly provide base and cover to the bigots.
grozde 3 months ago
@grozde
I think you understood me, but just to be sure other people got it: by "broad church" I meant Atheists. In other words Atheists should agree to disagree on the subject of how "evangelical" we want to be when faced by theists.
There is room for a wide range of approaches.
kandtell 3 months ago
@kandtell
Oh, I share the understanding that the only communality between atheists is not accepting god claims.
Everything else is up to the particular person(s). :-)
grozde 3 months ago
Side note about the tale of Genesis: The Neolithic Subpluvial (or Wet Sahara) was wrapping up about 6k years ago. The land drying up and turning to desert could be the context of being kicked out of the Garden. Just an idea I had... presumably has occurred to others.
triftenC 5 months ago
@kerplunk288 over all forms of destruction, both physical and spiritual. That there was a need for salvation from death and destruction is obvious, as to the cause of this mortal state is unclear. In any case, Christ is not invalidated by the dubious historicity of Adam.
kerplunk288 5 months ago
Whether initiated by one man in an isolated sinful act, or perpetuated through hundreds of thousands of years of human and pre-human evolution, the point remains the same - we are broken and sinful. Though the actions of our ancestors might not be the cause for physical death, one could argue it has caused a spiritual death. Physical death cements our spiritual death, as there is no possibility for redemption if we cease to exist. Therefore, Christ's death and resurrection comes to mark the
kerplunk288 5 months ago
There is a simple answer to this issue that all Christians can agree on...(fingers in ears) "La la la, not listening, not listening!"
Hadezul2 5 months ago
Thought provoking as usual Prof! Although I’m a bit late to the party, I would like to say I love the live video, you should have done it long ago. (States the guy still working up the courage to do his first video after almost 4 years)
mtsac1 5 months ago
A believer who "rejects an historical Adam and Eve" is wrong. Paul was right about Adam and about Jesus.
AmericanWayne 5 months ago
@AmericanWayne Thank you for contributing.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
You nailed it. However to go further. The apostle Paul states that if the dead rise not then our faith is in vain. I will watch the other video on the topic. Jesus himself refers to the first family. If that is not the case then Jesus is a liar. Any deeper meaning needs the foundation of the literal in order to be true. BTW some scientists are now saying that something is faster than light. If this is PROVEN TRUE then science continues to be wrong again and again.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
Comment removed
sillygoose544 5 months ago
It basically comes down to this. Whenever biblical claims have any bearing on observable reality, they can be torn down. Believers will then migrate their beliefs about the claims into the realm of the unknowable and the inaccessible. Deeper meaning is some vague notion propped up against their faith which is itself largely and most commonly something inscrutable to them. Apparently faith doesn't need to have a literal meaning, or an alternative one that has any bearing on reality.
dookiecheez 5 months ago
I dont think it says very much about whether jesus was real. Even though Paul had no reason to think adam existed, it was accepted as fact all around him. Jesus on the other hand was someone closer in time. he would have known people who knew jesus. (this is assuming paul is one person who lived exactly as scripture indicates he did, a dubious prospect). I dont think his lack of knowledge on adam says anything about jesus's existence.
1robopm 5 months ago
@1robopm Not necessarily about Jesus' existence, but rather the claims Paul makes about Jesus. That's what I'm talking about.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH Given their fantastic nature, and the poor track record of consistency within his and other writings within the bible, you are absolutely correct to make the conclusion that Paul's writings on Jesus are ludicrous. The fact that he is foolish enough to accept adam as fact shouldnt even appear on the radar given the other ridiculous statements. that said, you are absolutely correct about what it implies about the academic credibility of paul's works.
1robopm 5 months ago
@1robopm "The fact that he is foolish enough to accept adam as fact shouldnt even appear on the radar given the other ridiculous statements"
Paul reinterpreted Judaism in light of what he believed about Jesus. Adam is a Jewish character. So why did Paul fit Adam into a new Jewish eschatology? Because he believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, Jewish God, and first to be resurrected. Paul believed a historical event warranted a reworking of his core beliefs.
StormTrek 5 months ago
Comment removed
StormTrek 5 months ago
Just letting you know I've listened to you for a long time and it's great being able to see your face. You look beautiful!
badhousekeeper 5 months ago
@badhousekeeper "Just letting you know I've listened to you for a long time and it's great being able to see your face. You look beautiful!"
Well, thank you very much both for listening for a long time and for the nice words. :-)
ProfMTH 5 months ago
Do any of you guys seem to get very slow loads on ProfMTH's videos? I get it on random channels. This seems to be one of them. Do they host channels on different servers and that's why some load better?
Reip187 5 months ago
@subJOKEtive Peter never claimed to have a vision of Jesus. He said it was a resurrection. In addition, the resurrected Jesus was claimed to have been observed by more than one witness at a time. Visions aren't shared, they're unique to the individual. The entire Christian theology is based off a claimed event of resurrection and the resulting reinterpretation of Jewish eschatology.
StormTrek 5 months ago
I don't see how Paul being mistaken about Adam and Eve makes his other points invalid from a theological perspective. Stories are told because they reveal truths about humanity, and the fact that, for example, King Midas didn't really exist doesn't change the fact that money can't buy happiness.
Granted, I don't think there's any such thing as original sin or anything we need to be "saved" FROM, but that doesn't mean that Christians might not be on to something.
Ongarukat 5 months ago
@Ongarukat "I don't see how Paul being mistaken about Adam and Eve makes his other points invalid from a theological perspective."
So, for a believer, there needn't be any nexus between theology and fact/reality?
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@subJOKEtive People will believe what they want to believe. You can't stop them.
Ongarukat 5 months ago
@subJOKEtive A messiah wins. There's no room for guilt because there is too much anger at the one claiming to be messiah for failing to win. A messiah raises an army to kick out the Romans and unify the kingdom under one banner, he is a warrior king like David. Why do you think Peter was so quick to cut off the ear of those who came to arrest Jesus?
StormTrek 5 months ago
The spot light of science has finally penetrated it's light to the very core of nonsensical biblical claims. Hallelujah!!!!!!!
Fact deniers start your engines............ and go.
metalsusa1 5 months ago 6
@subJOKEtive "where the foundations of their faith are shown to be what they are: after-the-fact rationalizations"
That's exactly what they are, but not about what you think. The NT writers rationalized - after the fact -- that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and tried to fit him into Jewish eschatology. So, the question of Christianity is: what made them think he was the Jewish messiah *after* he died?
StormTrek 5 months ago
@subJOKEtive "Paul sells us a remedy for a disease that doesn't exist."
I agree. It's very interesting to me that many of the Christian respondents are saying that what Paul was talking theology and that even if he doesn't have the historical point, the theological point survives. It seems to me the theological point is intimately dependent on the historical one. Still sorting through the responses though, as time permits.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
Jesus died for a metaphor.
cpqarray 5 months ago
Another point to make is: Why would God allow the Bible to be written in such a way that this whole debate even comes up at all to those of us living 2000+ years later? Why doesn't Genesis just talk about evolution? Isn't God not supposed to be the author of confusion?
superman79015 5 months ago
The Age Of The Earth: /watch?v=bFxGFEhK-5s
The Garden: /watch?v=Z04J9tm3cLw
Dragons(or ‘’dinosaurs’’) in History: /watch?v=sj99O-NS_oc
Lies In The Textbooks: /watch?v=cv__yQhtAb0
The Dangers Of Evolution: /watch?v=xhTsMLRRlVI
The Hovind ’’Theory’’: /watch?v=678tes82T88
Questions & Answers:
Part 1: /watch?v=PBkTnzbzGu8
Part 2: /watch?v=XwU2_TMwMbs
007thinkagain 5 months ago
The deeper understanding is that it is time to give up on the failed belief system, as I did 30 years ago. It is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic to talk about the deeper meaning. No Adam, no redemption necessary.
sevenahm 5 months ago
@sevenahm
well said! toss the old beliefs away... they were suspect from the start!
ZelphKinderhook 5 months ago
How bad was the hurricane up there, anyway? It wasn't TOO bad where I am, but the coastal region got flooded, IIRC.
therealfriday13th 6 months ago
@therealfriday13th Here in the city, it wasn't bad at all. Some damage here and there, but nothing terrible. In some parts of the upstate counties, over in New Jersey, and in some places out on Long Island things got fairly bad. I have a friend who is still pumping water out of his basement in New Jersey.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
What the... is that a beer with a cork? Fancy.
FrostdPoptart 6 months ago
@FrostdPoptart lol Yes, it has a cork.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Comment removed
SRobacker 6 months ago
CHIMAY! Yes people, he has taste in beer. :)
somtwo 6 months ago
I love your voice. You sound like a radio spokesperson.
jamiegreuber 6 months ago 10
@jamiegreuber Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
LoL Prof has erection problems!!!
johnster1968 6 months ago
The fact that Jesus was alive in and around the time that Paul was also alive while Adam was a figure that has been passed down by Jewish tradition to explain ancestry is enough to suggest that he could be wrong about Adam and still right about Jesus.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "The fact that Jesus was alive in and around the time that Paul was also alive while Adam was a figure that has been passed down by Jewish tradition to explain ancestry is enough to suggest that he could be wrong about Adam and still right about Jesus."
Why?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Because there was no one within relatively close proximity to Adam's life who wrote and could attest to his existence. Tradition passed down that Moses wrote Genesis just like it passed down that Adam was the first man - it wasn't factual, but that's what tradition taught. Paul had not met Jesus pre-crucifixion but he knew people who had known Him and attested to His existence. I would think that attestation matters somewhat toward existence claims.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor Thanks for your response. So, let's assume arguendo that it's more likely than not that Paul could still be correct about Jesus' historicity while at the same time being wrong about Adam's. We still have Paul's purportedly inspired declaration to deal with, i.e., that Jesus' was sent and underwent execution in order to solve a problem created by Adam, i.e., sin & death entered the world & spread as a consequence of Adam's transgression--a declaration that, if Adam never existed...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @gambleor ...must be inaccurate. Does this error seem insignificant to you? If so, why? Also, why would the Christian god allow one of his chief spokespeople to propagate such error with respect to Jesus mission? Doesn't the Holy Spirit work to preserve the Church from such error?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Paul was, by his own admission, a Pharisee and it showed in his rhetorical approach. The fact that Paul references Adam is an appeal to the Jewish people who would have been familiar with the narrative. Note that his personal belief given his model of reality and should remain so. The teaching itself is still error-free and the point is more memorable in reference to the parallel. Basically, sin and death entered the world through man and life through the Son of Man.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "Note that his personal belief given his model of reality [is irrelevant to the theological content] and should remain so."
My mistake.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "The fact that Paul references Adam is an appeal to the Jewish people who would have been familiar with the narrative."
Although he does it when writing to the Corinthians (overwhelmingly, if not exclusively Gentiles) and the largely Gentile Romans. So, that doesn't work as well as you may think it does.
So, I just want to be sure I understand your position. Paul's error regarding Adam is insignificant, is that correct? It was unimportant for the Holy Spirit to preserve one...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @gambleor ...of the Christian god's chief spokepeople from including this error regarding Adam in the Christian scriptures, is that correct?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Remember that Paul is writing to a Christian community in Rome in order to gain support for his mission. This means that he was still appealing to a community that would have been familiar with Adam. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit allowed this error in the OT, so I'm not seeing why the error in details is any more of a problem in the NT. If it still transmits the same theological point, which is what Paul was really getting at, it's not a theological error. Details are of no consequence.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "...the Holy Spirit allowed this error in the OT, so I'm not seeing why the error in details is any more of a problem in the NT."
I'll reformulate my questions in light of your latest statement. The Bible's error regarding Adam is insignificant, is that correct? It was not important for the Holy Spirit to preserve the written word of God from having this error in it (both in the Jewish *and* Christian scriptures), is that correct?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Yes, the Bible's error regarding a literal Adam is insignificant doctrinally and, therefore, it would not be important for the Holy Spirit preserve the texts from having this error. The theological point is the same whether Adam literally existed or not. That is unless you hold to a metaphorical Adam, Original Sin and Penal Substitution.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor Thank you.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@gambleor "Details are of no consequence." Have you ever watched the movie "My Cousin Vinny"?
TheMidwestAtheist 6 months ago
@TheMidwestAtheist Sure I have. Why do you ask?
gambleor 6 months ago
Deeper meaning?!...hmmmm...must be, bcos of its unexplainable nature, as in deep shit, then came "deeper meaning" to expain the shit.
IN short its just the bible is in DEEP SHIT.
mykegoh 6 months ago
Good analysis. I would take issue with one point, which you make at 3:09, which is that Paul regarded Jesus as a "real person in history" just like Adam. I note that Paul only saw Jesus in visions and "events" and his personhood was irrelevant. For him, the Risen Christ mattered, but the human Jesus who taught and preached adherence to the moral points of the Law? Not so much. Adam, for Paul, was the foil for God's plan, and, I might add, saw him in this way very much UNLIKE Jews of his day did.
nhprman 6 months ago
@nhprman "I note that Paul only saw Jesus in visions and "events" and his personhood was irrelevant. For him, the Risen Christ mattered, but the human Jesus who taught and preached adherence to the moral points of the Law? Not so much."
In light of passages such as Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2, and a number of others, I'm not so sure you're correct that the human Jesus didn't matter much to Paul. But I appreciate the comment. Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH "In light of passages such as ... I'm not so sure you're correct that the human Jesus didn't matter much to Paul."
The human Jesus' actual words mean little to Paul, who rarely quotes him. Paul's "Gospel" (which was not the Gospel of those in Jerusalem) consists of the crucifixion (topic of 2 of the verses you note) & resurrection. Sure, Paul saw him a historic person like Adam, but only Jesus' last day on earth & resurrection mattered. So his "personhood" is rendered meaningless.
nhprman 6 months ago
@nhprman "Paul's "Gospel" (which was not the Gospel of those in Jerusalem)"
What is the difference?
StormTrek 6 months ago
@StormTrek A huge difference, which has been papered over by both the writer of Acts (which nonetheless shows very strong cracks in the so-called "agreement") & which is shown when Paul's contempt for the Apostles & those who sent people to proclaim "another Gospel," whom I believe are one & the same. There's evidence outside the NT too. The Ebionites rejected Paul in Jerusalem for 150+ years after Christ & I believe they are descendants of The Twelve. The full story clearly hasn't been told.
nhprman 6 months ago
@nhprman But what is the gospel of Paul and what is the gospel of those in Jerusalem?
StormTrek 6 months ago
@StormTrek Read my post from 2 days ago. Paul had no use for the teachings of the human Jesus. None. Those who knew Jesus and walked with him for three years did, and the difference is pretty clear between the two gospel messages.
nhprman 6 months ago
@nhprman Are you able to articulate the two gospels?
StormTrek 5 months ago
@StormTrek I know it's very, very hard to hear (and to comprehend, apparently) that Paul preached a radically different Gospel than Jesus did, but it's true nonetheless, even if the opposite has been repeated billions of times by easy-believist preachers, ministers, and priests. That doesn't make Paul's Gospel "true." One (Jesus) taught obedience led to Heaven, the other (Paul) taught there was no need to obey, just "believe on" a mystical experience of a Risen Christ-being. Huge difference.
nhprman 5 months ago
@nhprman The synoptics say Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15, etc.) The gospel of John and Paul's epistles preached the gospel of the Son of God (John 1:34, Galatians 1:16). However, those are essentially the same gospel because the kingdom of God is established through the Jewish messiah. None of them were teaching about an afterlife in heaven, they were all teaching the Pharisaic idea of eternal life (physical resurrection).
StormTrek 5 months ago
@StormTrek Well, the Synoptics do indeed differ from John (which is more spiritual & theological than historical - no one was present to record entire paragraphs of Christ, for instance) & all 4 Gospels differ greatly from Paul's Gospel of salvation & belief without works. It's so obviously counter to the Gospel Jesus taught that it's almost amazing that they are seen as the same. Your analysis of eternal life doesn't square with Jesus's words, "today, you will be with me in paradise."
nhprman 5 months ago 2
@nhprman It's likely the gospel of John did record complete conversations, John 3, for example, is more cohesive when retranslated into the original language it was spoken -- Aramaic -- from the original language John was written -- Greek. Jesus, talking to a Pharisee, says one must be resurrected -- born again -- before he can see the kingdom of God. That's why Nicodemus makes the comment about reentering a mothers womb. The Greek "born from above" doesn't work.
StormTrek 5 months ago
@StormTrek re: the Gospel of John and Aramaic, you may be onto something, and I've heard this rather compelling argument before. But again, that's not evidence that complete, long conversations were recorded, just that they were probably in Aramaic. Of course that's raising a difficult question for literalists: "The NT is only literally true in their ORIGINAL languages - the texts we do NOT have?" While I believe there's THEOLOGICAL truth in John's Gospel, there's not much in Paul's.
nhprman 5 months ago
@nhprman When read from a Jewish perspective, John certainly seems authentic. The conversation with Nicodemus wouldn't exist in a story that evolved in a gentile world. That means both language and content point toward authenticity. Paul's epistles -- when read from a Jewish perspective -- are entirely consistent with John. The seeming theological differences are rooted in later gentile misunderstandings.
StormTrek 5 months ago
@StormTrek "When read from a Jewish perspective, John certainly seems authentic." Well, there are certainly Jewish elements there, but they are hidden beneath an avalanche of man-made Greek philosophy. No monotheistic Jew would adhere to the belief that a man was a pre-existent being who created the earth with God & indeed WAS God. That, in fact, is the "Gentile misunderstanding" in a nutshell. Church Fathers as late as 180 report that the Jerusalem Church remained Jewish & rejected Paul.
nhprman 5 months ago
Comment removed
StormTrek 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nhprman " No monotheistic Jew would adhere to the belief that a man was a pre-existent being who created the earth with God & indeed WAS God."
Some monotheistic Jews would. You can view the video in my favorites titles "Hear O Israel...". Jewish monotheism does not apply to singularity of person. In addition, there are Messianic Jews who are monotheistic (as are gentile Christians) and believe that a man was the pre-existenct Creator.
StormTrek 5 months ago
@StormTrek
How could he possibly? He actually thinks the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
middlekk 5 months ago
@nhprman "but only Jesus' last day on earth & resurrection mattered. So his "personhood" is rendered meaningless."
What do you mean by "Personhood?" How can you exist without being a person?!?
dlandon2000 6 months ago
@dlandon2000 "What do you mean by "Personhood?" How can you exist without being a person?!?"
I agree, one cannot. But Paul is only interested in the VISION of Christ, not his life or his teachings, which he abandoned in favor of mere assent to a creed that included only his resurrection.
nhprman 5 months ago
@nhprman "But Paul is only interested in the VISION of Christ, not his life or his teachings, which he abandoned in favor of mere assent to a creed that included only his resurrection."
A creed that included ONLY his resurrection? What are you talking about?
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH I'm specifically responding to the confusion of a fellow who believes that Paul taught what Christ taught, which is demonstrably false. To Paul, all that mattered was the Risen Christ & belief ON him in order to be "saved." Works were condemned by him as illegitimate. By contrast, Jesus taught continued obedience and fidelity to the Law, though in the legalistic way of the Pharisees. These are completely different "gospels" that are irreconcilable.
nhprman 5 months ago
@nhprman You didn't really answer the question. I find it very revealing that theology always needs to hide in obscure language and shies away from clear or meaningful definitions.
dlandon2000 5 months ago
@dlandon2000 I'm being as clear as possible. For Paul, the human being Jesus, who walked and talked on the earth, is irrelevant. To him, only the spiritualized Christ he met in visions is important for him (and for Christians) to put their faith into. How much clearer can I be?
nhprman 5 months ago
@nhprman But it in christian theology it was the real jesus that died for "sins" which allows people to get into heaven so how can that jesus be irrelevant? It's the basis of the whole need to worship him.
And on a related note how can there be a "real" vs "spiritualized" jesus? This is similar to the problem with the whole jesus/god same but different thing, he sacrificed himself (jesus) to himself (god) to make a loophole in a system (sin and hell) he made... How does that make any sense?
dlandon2000 5 months ago
@dlandon2000 I'm actually agreeing with you on your last point. It does not make sense to me. That's why, to me, the teachings and preaching of Jesus during his time on earth ARE the salvation that he offered, not the "commercial transaction" of a death one must give assent to in order to get a "free ticket" to heaven. That's ludicrous and is NOT what was preached from the mouth of Jesus (if one assumes the Bible does record these words accurately, and I think they do, for the most part.)
nhprman 4 months ago
@nhprman Hmmm. ok so I'm guessing you don't believe in hell then? What about heaven? If so what is it and who would go there?
dlandon2000 4 months ago
@dlandon2000 This isn't a religious discussion, so I'm not going to engage in guessing games.
nhprman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nhprman "This isn't a religious discussion, so I'm not going to engage in guessing games."
Uhh ok... It was just a way of phrasing the question, I was enjoying the discussion. I'm always interested in what people believe and why, but if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.
dlandon2000 4 months ago
good beer
wastoinand 6 months ago
muahahahaha! like #666.
MrWaddefak 6 months ago
Hey Mr. ProfMTH,Hope you are in good health.What's going on is that the believer can use absolutely anything their imagination can conjure up while reason and knowledge is"limited" to factual,verifiable truth.Thou shall not lie or bullshit should be the first commandment for all religions.It is for science.I just seen a billboard that said GOD SPRINKLES US WITH MIRACLE GROW.Only the religious could worship a deity who covers them with pesticidal horseshit.
rickuj 6 months ago
I'm an atheist but I think there are a LOT of believers out there who just don't think about these things too hard. They don't care about finding the truth - they're happy feeling sure their god exists.They don't think it matters to read the bible. The bible is obviously written by humans and not exactly the flawless word of God, just inspired by God maybe. Evolution/all science is true but you work god into the gaps so he can still exist. You pray/know your loved ones are in heaven as comfort.
luvtheheaven5 6 months ago
in other words most Christians haven't read their bibles. It's that easy. i.e., "DON'T STEAL MY PACIFIER!"
cowards. Your compassion is admirable. I tire, myself, of caring of the ethically apathetic.
yogurtking 6 months ago
I have always been fascinated by the concept of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What on earth does that mean? It seems to me to indicate that we were not truly sentient before eating the fruit. To the Christian god, becoming self-aware was the original sin. I sure bet there was more to this part of the story that has been lost in the mists of time. Is the talking snake a proto-Jewish Prometheus?
Miata822 6 months ago
"Fucking umbrella won't go up."
There's no shame in that. All guys have that problem now and then.
Maxdwolf 6 months ago
The "deeper meaning" = "realizing the foundation of your belief is crumbling, so you grasp at straws by throwing out a phrase that hints of something profound: a phrase that you may not understand understand yourself, but that's okay as long as others don't either, and they just nod along out of respect (or out of not caring enough to dig for details)."
(Okay, not my most elegant sentence. But my daughter is watching RuPaul's Drag Race on TV right now and I can't concentrate!)
ToddAllenGates 6 months ago
My favorite part of the extensive hurricane coverage was multiple news anchors' palpable irritation at people not buying the doomsaying. I love seeing normally composed anchors have their childlike "WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO ME!" seep through, just a little. Also, it gave me an excuse to watch Lonnie Quinn for hours, which is always welcome.
LoneGunman90 6 months ago
"Fuckin' umbrella won't go up."
Don't sweat it, PfofMTH,- it happens to all guys once in a while. *chortle*
billygutter01 6 months ago
@billygutter01 *ProfMTH, I meant. Apparently my spelling won't go up either.
billygutter01 6 months ago
@billygutter01 lol
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Eve represents free will and choice, which cause "sin" aka "missing the mark, making mistakes." Adam & Eve "lived in Paradise" b4 choice: there were no mistakes. We were primates, not yet human, living by instinct. When we evolve abstract thinking & rational thought, we develop choice and the ability to make mistakes. That's why the tree in the story, and the fruit thereof, is of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. more
rriverstone1 6 months ago
@rriverstone1 First, we make accidental mistakes. Then, we learn our mistakes have consequences.Then we discover our mistakes influence the world around us. Then, we develop meanness aka evil. We can be mean for the fun of it, for personal gain, etc.Christ (redemption) is modeled in Jesus. Jesus kept saying, screw the old nit-picking laws, eschew materialism, treat our fellow humans as loved ones. In other words, turn our backs on meanness, evil, intentional mistakes, "sin." more
rriverstone1 6 months ago
So, by living with humility, rejecting greed and selfishness, embracing compassion, etc., we clean up our act, redeem ourselves and discover that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within us." Paradise has been here, buried under a pile of arrogance and meanness, the whole time. Clean up your act; redeem yourself. That's a "liberal" interpretation of xianity. Just stop acting like a spoiled brat, quit throwing tantrums and grow a pair (ovaries/testicles,/whatever). We are all sons/daughters of Creation.
rriverstone1 6 months ago
Love your rubber ducky. Quoting Barbara Ehrenreich 's personal Facebook page from the Monday after Hurricane Irene: Lovely morning here in No VA. I would like to see an estimate of the cost of Irene hysteria (cancelled flights, unnecessary candle purchases, etc.) as opposed to actual damage caused by wind and water.
rriverstone1 6 months ago
@rriverstone1 I'd like to see the same estimate. I'm all for erring on the side on caution, but this seemed more than a little out of hand. I guess after Katrina no one is taking *any* chances, which I can understand. But the palpable disappointment among the news media in the hurricane turning into largely a nonevent once it reached NYC was quite bothersome.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Chimay is a great beer
ctastrophe 6 months ago
Nice to see your ring on camera.... that came out wrong.
Rambleale 6 months ago
@Rambleale lol But I knew what you meant.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
You get a thumbs up just for your hurricane preparedness.
FireAngelofLaughter 6 months ago
@FireAngelofLaughter "You get a thumbs up just for your hurricane preparedness."
Thanks!
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Chimay is great stuff! Never had the blue before though.
Satanos777 6 months ago
"I'm spiritual", "deeper meaning", etc = I have no real position about anything. I just want everyone to like me.
dookdawg214 6 months ago
The deeper meaning is that Paul never even met the Jesus character or the Adam character. There may be a moral to some of the stories but Aesop's fables had valid points too. We don't worship Aesop.
MsMommaRose 6 months ago
Prof, are you implying that if St. Paul got the story about Adam wrong, then he got the story about Jesus wrong, and therefore, Jesus was mythical as well?
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine
Also, I don't understand your position when you say Paul could be wrong about Jesus. Wrong in respect to what? You didn't make that clear.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine It can certainly lead to the conclusion that Jesus was mythical, yes. But even if one doesn't get to that point, I believe this provides a basis for a believer to conclude that Paul merely imposed significance on Jesus' execution, that Paul proposed a problem (i.e., Adam's "trangression" brought sin and death into the world and, as a result, everyone became sinners and died) and Jesus came along to solve that problem. This, in Paul's construction of the story, was Jesus' raison d'être.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
I don't think its reasonable to conclude from St. Paul alone, that Jesus was a mythical figure because we have early attestation of Jesus existence as a historical person from early and independent sources (i.e. pre-Markan narrative, L-sayings, John, and extrabiblical material). So even if St. Paul thought he was mythical, it wouldn't explain the other material.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine As I said, one doesn't even have to get to the "Jesus was mythical" thing in order for it to be problematic that Paul, purportedly under divine inspiration, presented Jesus as coming to solve a set of problems created by a person who never existed, namely, Adam. So, let's assume Jesus was historical (I tend to believe he was). Paul's inspired declaration that Jesus' execution functioned to solve a problem created by Adam remains in peril. What do you say about *that*?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Well, I don't believe Adam was mythical, but I'm just going along here for the sake of argument. All that would prove is that St. Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the "New Adam" was incorrect. It wouldn't do anything to disprove that Jesus died for the sins of humanity and us receiving life through him because the Gospels made that connection without mentioning Adam. But that is based on the assumption that Adam was mythical, which is difficult to conclusively prove.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine "Well, I don't believe Adam was mythical...."
Of course, as a Catholic you're not at liberty to believe Adam was mythical.
"All that would prove is that St. Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the 'New Adam' was incorrect."
Does that strike you as insignificant?
And why would the Christian god allow one of his chief spokesman to propagate error with respect to this? Doesn't the Holy Spirit work to preserve the Church from such error?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
That all presupposes that St. Paul was wrong, which I don't believe. And I guess that's where the heart of the debate is on. I simply cannot see how one can *conclusively* say Adam was mythical. Why couldn't the author of Genesis use purely symbolic imagery to convey the story of an actual person? That's possible. As long as that's even a possibility, I think its enough to discount the whole notion of concluding *absolutely* that Adam was mythical.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine "That all presupposes that St. Paul was wrong, which I don't believe."
Right. So, as you did in your earlier comment, let's assume arguendo that Paul *was* wrong about Adam, that, as you put it, "Paul's theology concerning Jesus becoming the 'New Adam' was incorrect." Would that be insignificant, in your opinion?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
I am being quite charitable with playing devils advocate here. But to answer your question, the insignificance or signifance of St. Paul's error would depend on a person's presuppositions. In my Catholic presupposition, it would be of great significance because we believe St. Paul was correct. However, if someone presupposes that the Bible is not inspired but still sees historic truths and teachings in it, then I don't think it will be of great significance.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine "In my Catholic presupposition, it would be of great significance because we believe St. Paul was correct."
Thank you.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@Mkvine
On the latter pressuposition, St. Paul's error would not disprove the teachings of Jesus, it would not disprove his ressurection, it would not disprove his radical identity with divine athority, it would not even disprove many of St. Paul's theology, it would only prove that the Bible is not inspired. One interesting thing to note, is that Christianity got along well without a NT canon for hundreds of years.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine There are no credible extrabiblical material, no independent sources of any significance, this is very telling considering God supposedly sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself, you would think that to be a big event. Furthermore there is NOTHING to prove the divinity of Jesus even if he did exist. Christians took the Jewish scriptures that were originally base on a pantheon of gods and twisted them for there own purposes.
MrBigInfidel 6 months ago
@MrBigInfidel
That just shows your unfamiliarity with scholarship in this area. I mentioned the independent sources, which are significant because they are very early. Second, you don't need to presuppose that God exist for us to find in the historical records that a person died by crucifixion in Palestine, that is religiously neutral. Third, neither this video nor am I even suggesting that crucifixion equals divinity, and its irrelevant to the discussion. How you arrived at that is beyond me.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine There were thousands crucified during that time. I'm quite familiar with what Christians call evidence, so you are wrong, I know there is no credible evidence for a man called Jesus and there is absolutely no evidence for his divinity. In fact Jesus mentions the World Wide Flood as if it really happened and the world was never flooded by water, so Jesus if he did exist was not a god. So there is no point in even wondering if he did exist.
MrBigInfidel 6 months ago
@MrBigInfidel
I gave you the evidence regarding Jesus' crucifixion, which are early, multiple and independently attested. As a matter of fact, his crucifixion is undisputed among historians of the NT. People like Marcus Borg and John Crossan of the radical Jesus' seminar don't dispute it, neither does Bart Erhman or Gerd Ludemman. So you are taking a very radical fringe position. Whether Jesus mentioned the flood or not has absolutely nothing to do with his crucifixion, that is a red herring.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine Without Jesus being a god, the question of did he really exist is meaningless. Mr. Smith was also crucified during this time, so who cares? All information on Jesus comes from hearsay accounts well after his alleged life. You sir, have ulterior motives for wanting people to say Jesus existed. The Bible is full of errors and myths, why am I a radical for not believing in this one?
MrBigInfidel 6 months ago
@MrBigInfidel
I think you are over psychoanalyzing my motives. Jesus' divinity never entered into this conversation. I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Even granting his non-divinity would do absolutely nothing to discredit his existence as a historical person. If you cannot see that, then I don't know how else to help you.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine "I think you are over psychoanalyzing my motives." No, I just looked at your channel! Jesus never existed, there is no reason to believe he existed, if all he is is a man, who cares? Without Christianity his life is meaningless and his death is meaningless and of no consequence, so don't lie about your motives. After looking at your channel sir, you are the one in need of help!
MrBigInfidel 6 months ago
@MrBigInfidel
I'm sorry but your comments are completely out of place here. If you want to talk about the Divinity of Jesus there are plenty of videos, including some of mine that deal with that. This video is focusing on the parallels that St. Paul draws between Jesus and Adam and the implication that has on the historicity of each person. Hence a discussion on whether Jesus existed as a historical person is of importance here. So people do care. That's one of the main points of this video.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@ProfMTH "Paul merely imposed significance on Jesus' execution, that Paul proposed a problem ... and Jesus came along to solve that problem. This, in Paul's construction of the story, was Jesus' raison d'être."
This is sound analysis. It helps to understand that Jews did not see the Adam story as literal, and certainly didn't see it as a curse that caused all people to be utterly separated from God, later elaborated by Augustine and Calvin, adding more bizarre layers to that philosophy.
nhprman 5 months ago
"For since one man came death"
Well, to be honest, since Eve ate the fruit first in the fall story Paul isn't even right if this is taken literally.
In light of this, it seems obvious that Paul is either wrong about Jesus as you claim, or just using "Adam" as a metaphor to emphasize Christ's redemptive power.
insidetrip101 6 months ago
Paul didn't believe in the jesus we know of, because he neglects most of the events we associate with his story.
You know pagan saviours were very popular, and a lot of them including the recent jesus share the same story points. In those days people used the stories of saviours as an illustration, that is to say they did not believe the events happened on earth but rather on a mythical plain of existance.
so the early christians didn't even believe in a living jesus.
Ziggletooth 6 months ago
don't you know its bad luck to put up an umbrella indoors !
sausage4mash 6 months ago
Another version of original sin that just came to my mind was from one of Eddie Izzard's rambles - father, I have committed an original sin - I poked a badger with a spoon
oliveranthonyrowland 6 months ago
It's almost like Paulian Christianity is a kind of protection racket - it introduces this new threat of original sin and hell and then claims it will protect you from it if you follow it. But most of the Jews weren't going around agonising about how they could be forgiven for their sin --- "original" sin wasn't an issue and other sin was dealt with by temple sacrifice
oliveranthonyrowland 6 months ago
Another thing I find weird about original sin is that it's not mentioned in the Old Testament anywhere - take the Flood -- God got pissed off with everyone except Noah and his family for being immoral, and killed them all as punishment. He made a new covenant with Noah, sealed by a rainbow. Later on he made another new pact with Moses. At neither time did he say "but by the way, you are still all going to hell because of what Adam did; at least until I figure out some way of sorting that out"
oliveranthonyrowland 6 months ago
Damnit! I said I was gonna stop watching religious and political videos for awhile and you peaked my curiosity and sucked me in for this one! Damn you ProfMTH! Damn you straight to hell! That'd mean more if hell was real of course...
xtremejohnny69 6 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 "Damnit! I said I was gonna stop watching religious and political videos for awhile and you peaked my curiosity and sucked me in for this one! Damn you ProfMTH! Damn you straight to hell! That'd mean more if hell was real of course..."
My diabolical plan prevailed! ;-)
ProfMTH 6 months ago
On a side issue - I looked again at Genesis and God only specifically said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil --- so, arguably he was going to let them eat from the tree of life, but changed his mind after their disobedience. What I find espccially odd in the Christian interpretation though is that God saying they will die, is supposed to also have the unspoken addition "and then suffer in hell for eternity" , as if that just wasn't important enough to mention at this point
oliveranthonyrowland 6 months ago
I believe it would be much easier in the long run if Christians would or could just fast forward to the point in the debate over their god and admit that it is all mythological and written by a primitive species in search of a way to explain all of life's mysteries. As well as setting guidelines for societies and lifestyles that were obviously better than their existing non-functional laws or traditions. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better life or society. Now its been outgrown.IMHO
carpnter2000 6 months ago
Good point about Jesus not being real. As far as your 'umbrella' goes ... they have pills for that
uewVumopVapIsVdn 6 months ago
@DumbFuckMcCready
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
If god(s) exist(s), he/she/it/they made them ALL, you stupid FUCKHEAD.
lotanddaughters 6 months ago
Liberal Theology addresses this, but I cant provide you a more accurate reference than that.
Kindertautenleider 6 months ago
A simple answer would be that neither Adam nor Jesus ever existed, especially considering the only evidence for either is a really old book full of suspicious, impossible stories. But of course we would never hear that from a Christian so their answers should be entertaining.
TheCurmudgen 6 months ago
@TheCurmudgen Right, Christians like Bart Erhman and Dale Martin insist Jesus existed based on that really old book. Maybe you could teach them a thing or two.
StormTrek 6 months ago
@StormTrek Bart Ehrman is an agnostic. lol
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood Well, I stand corrected.
StormTrek 6 months ago
HEY ProfMTH - The genealogy in the Gospel of Luke traces Jesus' ancestry all the way back to Adam. How can that be possible if the Adam and Eve story is not intended to be understood as literal?
KentonForshee 6 months ago
@KentonForshee Yes, I talked about that in the previous video. Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Oops my bad.
KentonForshee 6 months ago
@KentonForshee No, not bad. Just wanted to note it.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
I don't know how u'll get this. u can't logically understand an illogical concept not based in reality
cruelbusiness1984 6 months ago
Good to see you wearing a ring ;).
ForYeensSake 6 months ago
@ForYeensSake Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Comment removed
ZelphKinderhook 6 months ago
@ZelphKinderhook It means he's married ?