i just discovered your vids, and i love em! but i gotta question. i know we cant think or answer for the authors, but here it is: why would matthew add a homeric parallel (pt 5) by having jesus say this was not revealed by man but by my father, but remove a parallel (pt 8) by including women and children to the feeding of the 5000? just wondering if ya got any thoughts...thanks, and keep spreadin the word!
@mrhyde7600 thanks. I'm still barred from my own channel due to false flagging.
My answer: It is not clear to me that Matthew recognized Mark's Homeric parallels and as such, his edits would not rely on removing or adding a parallel as he would not have been aware he was doing so. His inclusion of women and children over Mark seems to be a mere correction of Mark's oddity - how there could be 5000 from all the cities but no women or kids. Matthew simply "fixed" Mark.
@mrhyde7600 Although I may have suggested Matthew did know about the Eurycleia scene I am not convinced of it. I suppose it's possible but again, I am not entirely sure of it. It is odd though that Jesus' identity is revealed to Peter, arguably his closest disciple and at that revelation he would say almost the exact same thing that Odysseus' said to Eurycleia who was the servant who basically raised him. And yet, Matthew didn't seem to catch the feeding parallel.
@mrhyde7600 so, maybe Matthew DID recognize a few of the Homeric parallels in Mark but not all. That's about all I have to offer on that. We must assume Matthew was familiar with the Homer tales as the only people writing Koine Greek were upper class and elite etc. And maybe a few freed men that were lucky enough to learn it in order to sign contracts but Matthew is writing in a way that make me think he is one of the lucky ones and as such he knew Homer for sure.
@mrhyde7600 Now, an interesting experiment would be if we could find more than the Petrine confession in Matthew ref Homer parallels that were NOT in Mark. IOW, if Matthew KNEW Mark was based on Homer in part but Matthew decided to "improve" Mark along those lines, we should see evidence of it and that scene of Peter's confession certainly would match one parallel in Homer that Mark did not include. Never enough time in the day, man. heheheh
It seems that Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann have come to similar conclusions from historical research of the Bible. Interesting how it's so infrequently the other way around.
@TruthSurge Sure, but it's embarrassing to us as a species that scholars in a field of study are necessarily being so sophist in their research - it's intellectually dishonest.
@COEXISTential yep. :) But if we don't destroy the planet in the next 200 years, I'd bet you this stuff I'm showing will be well-known by most but not accepted by MOST Christians for obvious reasons. But if the religion dies off to a minority, it'll be taught in classrooms just like Greek mythology.
@TruthSurge Let's hope so. If I can start characterising the Bible as Aesop's fables with a theme (i.e. there is a higher power) at age 8 or so, I'd really hope that more people can at some point come to a similar conclusion (especially as, when looking for conflicting evidence, I can't find it, all I can find is defensive believers).
Okay, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Odyssey is a primary candidate for Mark's narrative construction. But I guess I am missing how this fact warrants the deduction that Mark was then definitely constructing fiction. How is Mark's narrative construction paralleling the Odyssey different from John's ancient biography/narrative construction which parallels Jesus with ancient wisdom tradition (to the extent that the author seems to say Jesus is the wisdom of God)?
@perichoresis7 "Okay, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Odyssey is a primary candidate for Mark's narrative construction."
Ah, so my brainwashing IS working! MWHAHAHAHHAHHAA
"But I guess I am missing how this fact warrants the deduction that Mark was then definitely constructing fiction."
Do you think Jesus actually sailed around in a ship constantly with 12 guys crammed into it? Do you think Jesus actually exorcized a guy and asked his name and got a pun back?
@TruthSurge hahaha I wouldn't say I'm being brainwashed; maybe I am learning new perspectives that broaden my scope of understanding. :) hahaha Either way, I consider this an addition to my understanding of the Bible, not an alteration.
@perichoresis7 But your life isn't over. 10 years ago, I would have said the same thing. :) Bart Ehrman entered seminary to learn about god. He eventually learned so much about god that he's now agnostic.
@TruthSurge That is true. But Bart Ehrman was a Christian who approached the Bible with a conservative fundamentalist view (a horrible understanding of the Bible) and has now transition to a liberal conservative view (an inadequate understanding of the Bible). With that said, there is no doubt he is a highly knowledgeable NT scholar and has some good things to say.
@perichoresis7 "liberal conservative view (an inadequate understanding of the Bible)"
I'd say Bart Ehrman has one of the best understandings and it is that very understanding that forced him to abandon the beliefs he learned didn't match the evidence.
"highly knowledgeable"
Dude, his resume smokes most all scholars. He's been there, done that. Same thing happened to Robert Price. And COUNTLESS other Christians. The more they studied, the more the became atheists/agnostics.
@TruthSurge That is because their framework of understanding the Bible broke down under the weight of critical scholarship. There are frameworks that do not breakdown because they understand the dynamic flexibility of cultures/traditions and the complex nature in which the Bible has been shaped. I in no way claim to be smarter than Bart Ehrman; I don't even deserve to talk with him. But the framework he approaches the Bible with is flawed.
@TruthSurge Liberal fundamentalist. He absolutizes the Bible as if it is trying to communicate exact historicity on every detail, but because the Bible is not trying to do that, that framework implodes and destroys itself along with the authority of the Bible. This framework was a big thought process in the 50s, 60s, and 70s (and was how he was raised). He arrives at amazingly intelligent answers but they are misguided because his framework/starting point is flawed.
@perichoresis7 I think once one becomes a believer of any religion, it is almost impossible for them to see it any other way. No matter HOW convoluted and error-ridden and fictionalized the Bible was, you would simply say it has no effect upon the "core details". I would say that if 90% of it is untrue, the 10% "core details" are almost certainly untrue as well.
@TruthSurge Even if the "90%" figure is accurate, I would not say it is all untrue. Maybe 10% is "core", 50% is neither true nor false because it is an allegory/metaphor/symbol/parable in order to communicate something true, 20% is neither "true" nor "false" because it is rhetorical device called "synkrisis" where something is used to compare/contrast something else (Odyssey, Melchizedek, Adam, Noah, etc.), and 20% is meaningless false historical info (numbers, locations, timing, etc.).
@perichoresis7 but in absence of TRUE evidence for Jesus' very existence, you are left holding an empty bag if almost all of the PRIMARY source is fiction. But i'll stop saying that. Can't make it more true by repeating it. :)
@TruthSurge hahaha I hate empty bags. There is no denying that we cannot PROVE (or fully disprove) beyond all reason that Jesus existed and was who he said he was (as we see it being said/written by authors) 2,000 years later. What info is reliable and what isn't? Especially when we are examining texts that arose out of an oral society. A lot of difficult issues to deal with; no doubt. Leaving us with the faith/doubt dichotomy. And that's no fun in our society.
@perichoresis7 proof is in the pudding and it's up to each person whether it tastes good or not. I just cook the stuff,man. I didn't make the recipe! heheheh
@TruthSurge “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
But of course, we are both captivated by a "picture". Whatever do we do? hahaha
@perichoresis7 Whatever do we do? We educate ourselves as much as possible about the times and ways of the authors as well as the things they wrote. It will eliminate SOME of the alleged errors/problems and expose a few others too or perhaps hilight is a good word. For example, we know today stars cannot fall onto the earth. They are not tiny. They are huge like our sun and millions upon millions and trillions of miles away. Yet, the Bible authors DID believe they could fall
@perichoresis7 So, it is important to try and know more about the people who wrote the Bible and some of it can be learned by examining the Bible, some from the apocryphal writings and some from archeological studies of not only THOSE people, but the surrounding ones. But back on the idea of being wrong about a passage, the "hate your father and mother" is a great example. I covered that in this series. most atheists would cite it has jesus advising it literally.
@perichoresis7 I would highly doubt it. I mean, the idea of someone's likeness in a painting coming to life would have to be as old as painting itself. But I guess whoever did the game could have known of that guy. I'm not really up on namedropping. I don't know many scholars or philosophers. I guess I enjoy the arguments more than who originally said them or who is their strongest advocate.
@perichoresis7 Just like you are moving away from your earlier beliefs to ones that are more sophisticated. You have to or stop reading the Bible. To study the Bible is to change. How can you not? Did you know that Adam was never named Adam? If you learnthat, you cannot help but change. You then see the evolution of the texts and the doctrines CHANGING THE TEXT over hundreds of years. I will show some of this in part 12 (from Ehrman's book).
@perichoresis7 Mark was writing fiction because the actual DETAILS are coming from Homer, because the only other option is to believe that Jesus actually DID and SAID all those things which just HAPPENED to match Homer's Odyssey and Iliad and Mark just HAPPENED to notice and include them.
@TruthSurge I don't know, man. That seems like a false dichotomy. Believing that "Jesus actually DID and Said" these exact things as they are presented is not the only other deduction from this fact. In Ancient Biographies, the smaller details (like geographical position and exact wording) of actual events were not as essential as the truth of the actual events (Jesus healed people and was on a boat from time to time). If Mark were a history book, this would be an issue though.
@perichoresis7 What you are doing is saying this: "Even though we can't be sure of ANYTHING in the Jesus story, I still believe it."
Even after we show that MANY of the scenes in Jesus' life were invented from pre-existing literature, you still think there is some kernel of truth there? If 90% is demonstrable fiction, ??? If Joe tells you 5 falsehoods you KNOW are false, and 5 other statements you suspect are false but can't prove, what do you do?
@perichoresis7 "If Mark were a history book, this would be an issue though. "
Since mark is the FIRST gospel and all other 3 rely on it for details, it is in effect our PRIMARY source of info on Jesus' escapades. If Mark contains fiction upon fiction, it leaves you saying that even though it's got tons of fiction in it, there still WAS a Jesus. who died and rose. Even tho no one can do that or has ever done that. Even tho it was a primitive time in history. etc.
@TruthSurge The fact that Mark was written first does not then mean that it must be the most historically accurate. A history book is written to be read and learned in such a way that all of the details are important and must be accurate. An ancient biography/hero narrative contained historical events, but its purpose was primarily focused on a central message, not the events (although the events were used to communicate the message).
@perichoresis7 "The fact that Mark was written first does not then mean that it must be the most historically accurate."
Matthew copied almost all of Mark and much of it verbatim. not something someone would do if he was setting about to write his OWN acct of things. It is one author taking another author and improving his story for furthering his beliefs and regardless of Matthew's motives, his account is Mark's acct.
@perichoresis7 If none of the events can be corroborated but show roots in ancient literature, what kind of central message could you possibly have? The same central message we have with Odysseus? Yet you don't worship him.
@TruthSurge Odysseus was not the son of God, did not usher in the kingdom of God, did not die for ushering in the kingdom of God, and was not raised from the dead by the authority/power of God. Mark is not the only account of this fact. What are we to do with Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15:3-5? It seems very plausible he got this info directly from the disciples/Jesus (Gal. 1:11-20; especially verses 15-18 and 20). Paul clearly wrote separately from Mark, yet speaks the same truth.
@perichoresis7 "Odysseus was not the son of God, did not usher in the kingdom of God, did not die for ushering in the kingdom of God, and was not raised from the dead by the authority/power of God."
All of those things you claim have no evidence behind them. In fact, it's the very thing in question. Jesus. His supposed "ministry" and so forth.
All of those things you find from one place - the gospels with hints of the core elements (death, resurrection) in the epistles.
@perichoresis7 In fact, later in this series I go into MUCH depth about the flaunted "appeared unto" passage. Paul never saw or heard a gospel or gospel story about events of an earthly Jesus and he never knew any disciple of Jesus. :) I'm sure you'll wonder about that last statement. I do this on purpose. hehehe
@TruthSurge hahaha I am all ready wondering about it. How do we explain why someone who openly opposed a belief, gave his whole life to uphold and transmit the belief? Something must've happened. What is the motive?
hahaha I am all ready wondering about it. How do we explain why someone who openly opposed a belief, gave his whole life to uphold and transmit the belief? Something must've happened. What is the motive?
@TruthSurge I also wonder why a preacher for 30 years gives it up and devotes the rest of his life to promoting atheism. something must have happened.
@TruthSurge Also, was Mark read as a whole and studied by everyone in the first century so they could see what was said about/by Jesus? No. Mark is in a sense a compilation of individual events that were told orally by people who had the ability to read the text. Therefore it was important to understand good rhetoric and known narrative structures (the Odyssey) in order to speak these true events well. This was done BEFORE it was compiled together into one hero narrative.
@perichoresis7 "Also, was Mark read as a whole and studied by everyone in the first century so they could see what was said about/by Jesus?"
No. Mark was written no earlier than 72 CE but possibly later and likely edited over and over as we can already see with the 16:9-20 ending tacked on.
@perichoresis7 "This was done BEFORE it was compiled together into one hero narrative."
we do not know that. We have Mark, the earliest, which shows every indication that it's a work of fiction. There never was a Jesus on earth. That's why all of the details come from sources OTHER than history! Hate to break that to ya. :)
@karlbuttler hehehehe be funny to do an animation with one disciple of Jesus doing your part. Jesus saying "and be watchful! You don't know when the master will -" I DON'T CARE when the master comes back! I'll be waitin on him with a 6 ft spear, nome sain????? "Bartholomew... please, you're messing up my parable."
This Script has Horseshit all over it, what man in his right mind would go off to "war" gone for 16 years plus the battle time, then finally get his ass back to town and have a problem with his "GirlFriend" / "Fiance" being courted by other Men?? F&$#. hell he should have every expectation that she has found a Reliable "MATE" and raised a Family...What relevance does Any of this have?? other than, dont leave your girlfriend for war & Sailing for 17 years, if you want a girl friend..
@karlbuttler hahahaha yes, I don't think plot holes were so easily seen by the ancient folk. Looking back, we can see the contrivances they set up in order to move their plots forward.
@lawbag1 No, because it's a new claim, afaik. That mark copied homer is probably no more than several years old. THe general claim that authors copied prev literature is prob countered since Justin Martyr and all the early church fathers.
@TeesByTruthSurge - it's very late here, but I'm about to drop you a PM with some thoughts around the wider issue and stop monopolising this comment section.
@TeesByTruthSurge - deliberate forgery among early Christians is another problem - have you read the Abgar letter? Eusebius claimed that he himself "translated it from the Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa" in his History. A letter supposedly from 'Jesus' must rank as possibly the most flagrant forgery of all time. Nice chatting, and sorry for getting well off topic. Probably chat again on your next video - looking forward to it!
@TeesByTruthSurge - agreed, in lieu of tangible evidence well reasoned inference is better than nothing, but we need to be careful to avoid the entrenched Christian bias affecting any such 'soft' inference/evidence. Your point about Mark is well made, but could be explained as copying from an earlier text the Mark author didn't 'fix' it, hardly the only biblical 'error' - perhaps he was too focused on Homer'ing it! The earlier the claim for Mark the longer the complete silence before 145?
@TeesByTruthSurge - like you, I don't take too well to being told rather than persuaded, with evidence. That's why I object to letting Christians get away with their preferred version of the textual timeline based purely on what they would want it to be. I'd like to see any tangible evidence of 1st century authorship, if it exists.
@TeesByTruthSurge - anyway, apologies for steering the discussion away from the Greek influence on Mark, which you've been presenting so well. It's hard to sensibly deny that there was an influence on at least the style of the Mark gospel, but whether that was a style applied to a retelling of an earlier version or if you can demonstrate more than that... Looking forward to the next episode.
@KrokrX no problem. I like talking about the documents and I'm no expert but I still enjoy thinking about when they were written and what parts may have been added later. But this extreme myopia of Xoroaster et al I cannot ascribe to. He'd have me believe that suddenly ALL the gospels spewed forth from various people in a 10 year span and propogated all over the Mediterranean by hand in time for Irenaeus in 180 to name them? HAHAHA please...
@TruthSurge - considering that the gospel accounts would have been the most amazing news that Christians could hear back then, it's unlikely that news of them wouldn't have spread like wildfire(copies could have spread later). Don't confuse actual copies of the gospels with knowledge of their existence, no early church father has even heard of any of them before Papias in 145 names Mark. If the gospels were created in early second century that's plenty of time to let Irenaeus name them in 180.
@KrokrX thanks on the vids and I have TWO more parallels to show which should push you toward a solid belief that Mark indeed drew from Homer in order to at LEAST shape his story but I say that when you copy DETAILS from another story, that's a DIFFERENT story. :) like the name request and riding on a herd of animals in the Polyphemus/DemonPossessedMan scenes. Of course, you could say he merely embellished with Homer. Anyway, more to come.
@TeesByTruthSurge - the earliest mentions of material that is later included in the gospels are 'sayings' attributed to 'Jesus' which pre-date any formal gospels, and these could be related to the hypothesised Q source. On the other hand there are those who think the sayings may have originated much earlier than the Christian 'Jesus' with the Essenes or the Theraputae and been co-opted. It's unclear where the chain of sayings, stories and gospels start and end, and we may now never know.
@KrokrX I OPT for co-OPT. :) The gospel of Thomas is such. "Jesus said..." then just plug in the saying. over and over this document uses this.
But yeah, it's a lot of educated speculation. I don't find a need for Q. The Christian scholar does, though, as it removes the problem of Luke simply creating his details whole cloth.
@TeesByTruthSurge - even if for sake of argument we accept the official Christian position on the Diatessaron, and I remain unconvinced, it still only tells us that the gospels existed in some form by around 160-175, which as I'm only challenging the common 1st century attributions doesn't cause me any discomfort!
@KrokrX Not trying to cause discomfort. If the gospels are mentioned by name around 180CE, then I'd have to assume that they were written MUCH earlier than 160 for that doesn't give enough time for 4 diff gospels to propagate around the Mediterranean and get to Irenaeus (and Tatian) and be among MANY others such that Irenaeus is having to argue for the authority of only THOSE 4. anyway, just don't at all see a late writing for the gospels. It also doesn't acct for church hierarchies.
@TeesByTruthSurge - more that perhaps Marcion created his gospel, possibly based on earlier unattributed works, which his detractors may have suitably modified, perhaps to take the sting out of his presumed heretical docetism. I don't think the evidence is conclusive either way, and I'm always reluctant to simply accept the official Christian version.
@KrokrX I hear ya. Well, I just got blocked by Xoroaster for commenting on his "Marcion" vid. Methinks he can't take a few pts against his claims but even if I was dead wrong in all my pts, I think blocking says a lot and after watching several of his vids, he seems to have tunnel vision. He is so focused on the text of Luke and Marcion and Mark etc that he overlooks, temporarily, the OTHER issues and suddenly claims that Marcion has priority over Mark. I guess he thinks his views R goldn
@TeesByTruthSurge - sorry to hear that Xoroaster blocked you. He had a number of good ideas but seemed to overplay his hand on a number of occasions. This material is so vast that it's important to keep an open mind and consider any new inputs.
@TeesByTruthSurge - meant to add earlier, unless I've missed something, we don't have any original copy of the Diatessaron, only copies dating to later centuries and earlier references to it, so we can't be sure exactly what was and wasn't in the original version by Tatian. So just how accurately it reflected what we now call the gospels is still open to question.
@TeesByTruthSurge - Christians can suppose that their gospels were written as early as they like, there is still no evidence to support those claims, and we shouldn't lazily accept them.
@TeesByTruthSurge - I didn't suggest that Marcion wrote Luke or Acts, merely that there is a good chance that whoever wrote Luke used the extant gospel of Marcion. I do agree that the original versions of the gospel stories were around before 140, but in what form it's all but impossible to say. The church destroyed so many early texts that were inconvenient.
@TeesByTruthSurge - another illustration of how we too easily accept Christian narratives, take the case of Marcion's gospel being a supposed redaction of Luke. Ancient religious texts are usually added to rather than significantly subtracted from, see the gospels as a case in point. In lieu of evidence to the contrary, it would seem more likely that Luke was based on Marcion rather than the reverse, making Luke later than 140, perhaps explaining Papias's silence about it.
@TeesByTruthSurge - we all to easily accept dating and relationships between documents as defined by Christians, who have a clear bias for a particular interpretation, and early dates. It's important as skeptics that we set these aside when evaluating the evidence. For example, even if we grant the claim for Papias's text from Eusebius it's telling that this early bishop doesn't appear to know of any gospel other than Mark in 145, doesn't mean they didn't exist in some form, but is indicative.
@TeesByTruthSurge - agreed, the Diatessaron is later but better evidence for what we now call the gospels, but not necessarily exactly the ones we know now - it doesn't include all verses and incidents. I don't doubt there were many stories in earlier circulation that were proto versions of the gospels, but the attribution of those stories to the authors and the final forms aren't attested as early as Christians like to claim, so we shouldn't automatically grant those claims.
@ONESPECIES If anyone knows what is in the next vid I'll be shocked and I'll do a vid of me naked dancing on my roof singing Oh Little Town of Bethlehem. HAHAHHA
Well, besides those who have read MacDonald's book already (cheaters).
"Both Odysseus' crew and Jesus' buttkissers are rectally extracted, aka fictional. Also, most people on the world (including Christians) never really read the stories.
The only difference is that in Odysseus' case it is a known fact that his stuff is but a work of fiction, in Zombie Lord's case billions of people bought the entire package as reality, including (zillions of) mutually exclusive parts and utmost ridiculous concepts."
@cosmicskydaddy1 haha the next vid is going to lick the envelope closed. Nail the final nail! And all those other euphemisms. hehe Man, I made one crazy error in this vid someone found and it's nothing about the argument just an odd error. Like someone rewrote the Bible when I wasn't looking. haha i added a note to the vid. yeah, it's about to get real.
@Iseeyoursoul I never saw a news blurb about Tapley regarding that. I've got to assume that it's just another of his failed prophecies. hehe yeah, my narration this time was a tad harsh and rushed but I guess I'm just trying to get this one done so I can get the NEXT one done.
Another great video truthsurge, thank you very much for making it. It is truly fascinating to see how "absolute truth" evaporates when the words are looked at closely.
Both Odysseus' crew and Jesus' disciples are foolish, fearful and ignorant.
In both stories these companions at first appear likeable and loyal, but gradually we see their folly till in the end they fail altogether.
Both stories treat them as a unified group, with few having any distinguishing characteristics. In both stories they fail because, unlike the hero, they were unable to endure hardships. Peter plays a role similar to Eurylochus, Odysseus' second in command.
@virumoz ah HA! cheating in my classroom??? why you..... well, ok. It's all for fun anyway. HEHEHHEHEHEHHEHE A+ and move to the head of the class! (mainly so I can pinch your ear when you cheat again)
@SuperZuescannon heheh sure, just ride on someone ELSE'S coattails, why don't ya???? Didn't you know there's going to be a final exam??? Cheating is for cheaters! hmm that's fairly obvious. hehe
@nishbrown I should have made you my lab assistant!! hahahhaa Yes, the similarities between the "crews" are too similar, if you ask me. Good point that they never seem to really have any individuality or play major roles in anything except perhaps for Peter, who gets to share a LITTLE of the stage with Odysseus... oh, I'm sorry, Jesus. HEHEHEH
So, Mr. Lab Assistant, your next homework is to give us a report on the similarity between the Elpenor fall and the Eutychus fall in Acts 20. :)
Sarcastic comment ... They that ate of the loaves were 5,000 men ... doesn't necessarily mean that no women and children were present; it could mean that they were told to eff off. [grin]
@rozeboosje yep. someone could really say that Jesus only fed the men of the crowd since it was a paternally-oriented society. ! But it makes more sense to US non-believers that Mark simply copied the Elisha miracle and made Jesus do a BIGGER miracle while he also had the 5000 in mind from both the Odyssey and the fact that 5000 was equivalent to a Roman legion.
@greyman000 I'm tellin ya! this next vid... oh man,,,, it may take me longer to complete it cuz it is a good 15 min and may need to get split into partA and B. but it's a DOOZY! Best one yet.
@TruthSurge I can see someone explaining away one or two of these points as coincidences, but with one after another the case just keeps building. And, as you point out, I think it ties in nicely with your Jesus Myth series.
@realbojay yes! I have forsaken my "every Sunday" approach and just am trying to do them faster. It has induced a few typos and mistakes that I've had to annotate but ah well. It's the info I'm trying to convey, not my QA skills.
@calmreason thank ya! I'm now working on the final 2 parallels. I REALLY want to hear critics regarding the final 2 parallels. But I suspect all I will hear is (besides maybe the attaboys hehehe) crickets. hahahhaha
@eat666shit thank ya. feel free to chime in. As I said, I'm not able to read/write ancient or modern Greek but I rely on lexicons and scholars so if you see a mistake, just chime in.
This would explain why the synoptic Gospels are different from John, & fits well with the theories that Xoroaster is proposing. Thanks for sharing those interesting ideas :-)
@Nilsy1975 Yeah, it is pretty clear that Mark, Matthew and Luke are just one strand of it while John is more like the Pauline Christianity blended with SOME of the synoptics. I claim John is STILL reliant upon the TEXT of Mark. I should do a vid on that someday but gosh... I'll never do anything but YT vids!!!
@TruthSurge I can see a case for both sides, I think John came first, but that the John we have today was later modified to fit with early Catholic Orthodoxy. I'm really enjoying watching both series (by you & Xoroaster, & do think you both could do some really great colaboratory work.) Wish I had the time & patients of you guys to research this stuff, those videos are awesome :-)
@Nilsy1975 thanks. You could ask if John came first but I think most people agree that it is a later work (later than 72 CE when I say Mark was penned). My chronology is Mark, Matthew, John then Luke (then Acts). Everything works perfectly with that chronology. :)
The earliest mention of anything like a gospel I've seen is when Eusebius(around 300) claims to quote Papias(from about 145) in Historia Ecclesiastica -
"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him".
But with Papias works all lost, and Eusebius a known forger, who knows?
@Nilsy1975 But it's always good to question even your own beliefs. What IF John was retrofitted from a purely gnostic form to the more orthodox form? It is a great question because we KNOW that's exactly what happened to ALL of the NT documents to greater and lesser degrees. Ehrman covers a bit of this in his Misquoting Jesus book.
@TruthSurge I wish I had the time to read those books you guys are referring too, & agreed I think that is one of the strengths of the scientific method & Atheism in general; the ability to question one's own assumptions. How does that quote go? Oh, wait.. I have Google...
@TruthSurge - and don't forget another Hellenic connection - the one between the plagiarising Paul and the philosophies of Alexandrian Hellenised Jew Philo - Rev.S.Baring-Gould admitted in The Lost and Hostile Gospels, 1874 -
"But what is far more remarkable is to find in Philo... the key to most of Paul's theology, - the doctrines of the all-sufficiency of faith, of the worthlessness of good works, of the imputation of righteousness, of grace, mediation, atonement. "
@KrokrX I have read only some of Philo but I'd love to read more. Yes, even the "logos" idea in John comes from Philo.
I did add an annotation to the UFJ part. Hopefully, it will explain I just was in a silly moment and let it seep into the vid. Yeah, mixing the styles... it can seem so innocuous and then others might seem like they got slapped when it happens. thanks!
Nice video. Just one minor point - the use of UFJ(Unidentified Flying Jesus) at 2:59 seemed out of place, and lessened the otherwise more scholarly tone. It certainly wouldn't encourage any wavering Christian viewers to watch the rest and take it seriously, which would be a shame considering the work you've put into this series.
@KrokrX You may be right. But on the other hand, if a Christian GETS that far, they likely would not stop watching just due to that. :) IOW, I doubt those types would get past 3 vids. :) But yeah, the series does have a few places where I drop the documentary style and do my own thing. And yes, I did deliberately try to stay more evenhanded at the first in HOPES that MAYBE some Christians would actually watch but then, I am only human. thank ya!
@FelidaTheG33k thank ya. part 9 is going to rock some people's worlds. I can't wait myself. I have to rewrite some of it tho. I need to clearly establish the problem b4 giving the solution and that isn't in place yet.
@eat666shit Probably, but I was wondering about the original meaning. The fact that most translations say one thing or the other surely points in one direction or the other, but I have then to exclude translations from translations and similar versions and judge only based on the translations based on Greek to make a clear judgement.
@ZergAteu Indeed,and that can become a serious hindrance on research, unless you know the language,especially in its archaic frorm which is not easy even for me,that I,have problems in some instances.
@eat666shit just for a few laughs, look at codexsinaiticus(dot)org to see the original text writen on parchments and more importantly,look at the old testament to see it's all fragmented.
@eat666shit "look at codexsinaiticus(dot)org to see the original text"
The Codex Sinaiticus is old but it is a collection of copies of copies of copies and not the original texts. I'm sure you know this but we wouldn't want to mislead anybody with the wrong choice of words.
@eat666shit he was right. 6:12 did not have anthropos. But Mark 7:7 does. point was simply that Mark would not use aner to refer to a crowd of men and women.
@ZergAteu Yes, I have no idea how I got 6:12 and anthropos mixed up. I will correct the vid but the pt still stands. Mark 7:7. Try that one. IOW, Mark uses anthropos when he wants to indicate mankind, human beings, etc. In the feeding miracle, he does NOT use anthropos (odd) but uses aner (even more odd). Thanks for spotting this and I'm shocked at how suddenly 6:14 changed on me! hahahhaa will annotate the vid. thank ya!!!
@ZergAteu I added a note. thanks! Just look at Mark 7:7 or any verse with men or man. I don't think you'll find aner anywhere else that is referencing men and women as a whole. but if you do, let me know. :)
i just discovered your vids, and i love em! but i gotta question. i know we cant think or answer for the authors, but here it is: why would matthew add a homeric parallel (pt 5) by having jesus say this was not revealed by man but by my father, but remove a parallel (pt 8) by including women and children to the feeding of the 5000? just wondering if ya got any thoughts...thanks, and keep spreadin the word!
mrhyde7600 6 days ago in playlist Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt)
@mrhyde7600 thanks. I'm still barred from my own channel due to false flagging.
My answer: It is not clear to me that Matthew recognized Mark's Homeric parallels and as such, his edits would not rely on removing or adding a parallel as he would not have been aware he was doing so. His inclusion of women and children over Mark seems to be a mere correction of Mark's oddity - how there could be 5000 from all the cities but no women or kids. Matthew simply "fixed" Mark.
TheRealTruthSurge 6 days ago
@mrhyde7600 Although I may have suggested Matthew did know about the Eurycleia scene I am not convinced of it. I suppose it's possible but again, I am not entirely sure of it. It is odd though that Jesus' identity is revealed to Peter, arguably his closest disciple and at that revelation he would say almost the exact same thing that Odysseus' said to Eurycleia who was the servant who basically raised him. And yet, Matthew didn't seem to catch the feeding parallel.
TheRealTruthSurge 6 days ago
@mrhyde7600 so, maybe Matthew DID recognize a few of the Homeric parallels in Mark but not all. That's about all I have to offer on that. We must assume Matthew was familiar with the Homer tales as the only people writing Koine Greek were upper class and elite etc. And maybe a few freed men that were lucky enough to learn it in order to sign contracts but Matthew is writing in a way that make me think he is one of the lucky ones and as such he knew Homer for sure.
TheRealTruthSurge 6 days ago
@mrhyde7600 Now, an interesting experiment would be if we could find more than the Petrine confession in Matthew ref Homer parallels that were NOT in Mark. IOW, if Matthew KNEW Mark was based on Homer in part but Matthew decided to "improve" Mark along those lines, we should see evidence of it and that scene of Peter's confession certainly would match one parallel in Homer that Mark did not include. Never enough time in the day, man. heheheh
TheRealTruthSurge 6 days ago
It seems that Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann have come to similar conclusions from historical research of the Bible. Interesting how it's so infrequently the other way around.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential well, like I say, if you think the lead character in a story saved your soul, it's hard to be unbiased when examining said story. :)
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge Sure, but it's embarrassing to us as a species that scholars in a field of study are necessarily being so sophist in their research - it's intellectually dishonest.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential yep. :) But if we don't destroy the planet in the next 200 years, I'd bet you this stuff I'm showing will be well-known by most but not accepted by MOST Christians for obvious reasons. But if the religion dies off to a minority, it'll be taught in classrooms just like Greek mythology.
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge Let's hope so. If I can start characterising the Bible as Aesop's fables with a theme (i.e. there is a higher power) at age 8 or so, I'd really hope that more people can at some point come to a similar conclusion (especially as, when looking for conflicting evidence, I can't find it, all I can find is defensive believers).
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
Okay, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Odyssey is a primary candidate for Mark's narrative construction. But I guess I am missing how this fact warrants the deduction that Mark was then definitely constructing fiction. How is Mark's narrative construction paralleling the Odyssey different from John's ancient biography/narrative construction which parallels Jesus with ancient wisdom tradition (to the extent that the author seems to say Jesus is the wisdom of God)?
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "Okay, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Odyssey is a primary candidate for Mark's narrative construction."
Ah, so my brainwashing IS working! MWHAHAHAHHAHHAA
"But I guess I am missing how this fact warrants the deduction that Mark was then definitely constructing fiction."
Do you think Jesus actually sailed around in a ship constantly with 12 guys crammed into it? Do you think Jesus actually exorcized a guy and asked his name and got a pun back?
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge hahaha I wouldn't say I'm being brainwashed; maybe I am learning new perspectives that broaden my scope of understanding. :) hahaha Either way, I consider this an addition to my understanding of the Bible, not an alteration.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 But your life isn't over. 10 years ago, I would have said the same thing. :) Bart Ehrman entered seminary to learn about god. He eventually learned so much about god that he's now agnostic.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge That is true. But Bart Ehrman was a Christian who approached the Bible with a conservative fundamentalist view (a horrible understanding of the Bible) and has now transition to a liberal conservative view (an inadequate understanding of the Bible). With that said, there is no doubt he is a highly knowledgeable NT scholar and has some good things to say.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "liberal conservative view (an inadequate understanding of the Bible)"
I'd say Bart Ehrman has one of the best understandings and it is that very understanding that forced him to abandon the beliefs he learned didn't match the evidence.
"highly knowledgeable"
Dude, his resume smokes most all scholars. He's been there, done that. Same thing happened to Robert Price. And COUNTLESS other Christians. The more they studied, the more the became atheists/agnostics.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge That is because their framework of understanding the Bible broke down under the weight of critical scholarship. There are frameworks that do not breakdown because they understand the dynamic flexibility of cultures/traditions and the complex nature in which the Bible has been shaped. I in no way claim to be smarter than Bart Ehrman; I don't even deserve to talk with him. But the framework he approaches the Bible with is flawed.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "There are frameworks that do not breakdown "
haven't seen one yet. and to say Ehrman's "framework" is flawed is interesting.
So, tell me, what is his framework?
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Liberal fundamentalist. He absolutizes the Bible as if it is trying to communicate exact historicity on every detail, but because the Bible is not trying to do that, that framework implodes and destroys itself along with the authority of the Bible. This framework was a big thought process in the 50s, 60s, and 70s (and was how he was raised). He arrives at amazingly intelligent answers but they are misguided because his framework/starting point is flawed.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "as if it is trying to communicate exact historicity on every detail"
I'd say almost all the details in the Bible are not historical. :) So, that leaves us with a myth. How's that for a framework! hahaha
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Or in the words of science, "He is asking the wrong questions about the right issues".
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 I think once one becomes a believer of any religion, it is almost impossible for them to see it any other way. No matter HOW convoluted and error-ridden and fictionalized the Bible was, you would simply say it has no effect upon the "core details". I would say that if 90% of it is untrue, the 10% "core details" are almost certainly untrue as well.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Even if the "90%" figure is accurate, I would not say it is all untrue. Maybe 10% is "core", 50% is neither true nor false because it is an allegory/metaphor/symbol/parable in order to communicate something true, 20% is neither "true" nor "false" because it is rhetorical device called "synkrisis" where something is used to compare/contrast something else (Odyssey, Melchizedek, Adam, Noah, etc.), and 20% is meaningless false historical info (numbers, locations, timing, etc.).
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 but in absence of TRUE evidence for Jesus' very existence, you are left holding an empty bag if almost all of the PRIMARY source is fiction. But i'll stop saying that. Can't make it more true by repeating it. :)
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge hahaha I hate empty bags. There is no denying that we cannot PROVE (or fully disprove) beyond all reason that Jesus existed and was who he said he was (as we see it being said/written by authors) 2,000 years later. What info is reliable and what isn't? Especially when we are examining texts that arose out of an oral society. A lot of difficult issues to deal with; no doubt. Leaving us with the faith/doubt dichotomy. And that's no fun in our society.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 proof is in the pudding and it's up to each person whether it tastes good or not. I just cook the stuff,man. I didn't make the recipe! heheheh
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge hahaha Well I am enjoying what you're cooking, I just don't think it's the only tasty dish. :)
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 cooks always worry if the patrons like the dishes. hehehe but here, I don't mind if some people don't like it. it's inevitable.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 only ones I've seen that make sense are
1) atheism
2) deism
that's it.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
But of course, we are both captivated by a "picture". Whatever do we do? hahaha
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 Whatever do we do? We educate ourselves as much as possible about the times and ways of the authors as well as the things they wrote. It will eliminate SOME of the alleged errors/problems and expose a few others too or perhaps hilight is a good word. For example, we know today stars cannot fall onto the earth. They are not tiny. They are huge like our sun and millions upon millions and trillions of miles away. Yet, the Bible authors DID believe they could fall
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 So, it is important to try and know more about the people who wrote the Bible and some of it can be learned by examining the Bible, some from the apocryphal writings and some from archeological studies of not only THOSE people, but the surrounding ones. But back on the idea of being wrong about a passage, the "hate your father and mother" is a great example. I covered that in this series. most atheists would cite it has jesus advising it literally.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 I did a few voices in this computer game where some guys WERE held captive inside a painting! It happens!
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge hahaha That's awesome! I wonder if it was a nod to Wittgenstein's statement.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 I would highly doubt it. I mean, the idea of someone's likeness in a painting coming to life would have to be as old as painting itself. But I guess whoever did the game could have known of that guy. I'm not really up on namedropping. I don't know many scholars or philosophers. I guess I enjoy the arguments more than who originally said them or who is their strongest advocate.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 Just like you are moving away from your earlier beliefs to ones that are more sophisticated. You have to or stop reading the Bible. To study the Bible is to change. How can you not? Did you know that Adam was never named Adam? If you learnthat, you cannot help but change. You then see the evolution of the texts and the doctrines CHANGING THE TEXT over hundreds of years. I will show some of this in part 12 (from Ehrman's book).
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 Mark was writing fiction because the actual DETAILS are coming from Homer, because the only other option is to believe that Jesus actually DID and SAID all those things which just HAPPENED to match Homer's Odyssey and Iliad and Mark just HAPPENED to notice and include them.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge I don't know, man. That seems like a false dichotomy. Believing that "Jesus actually DID and Said" these exact things as they are presented is not the only other deduction from this fact. In Ancient Biographies, the smaller details (like geographical position and exact wording) of actual events were not as essential as the truth of the actual events (Jesus healed people and was on a boat from time to time). If Mark were a history book, this would be an issue though.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 What you are doing is saying this: "Even though we can't be sure of ANYTHING in the Jesus story, I still believe it."
Even after we show that MANY of the scenes in Jesus' life were invented from pre-existing literature, you still think there is some kernel of truth there? If 90% is demonstrable fiction, ??? If Joe tells you 5 falsehoods you KNOW are false, and 5 other statements you suspect are false but can't prove, what do you do?
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "If Mark were a history book, this would be an issue though. "
Since mark is the FIRST gospel and all other 3 rely on it for details, it is in effect our PRIMARY source of info on Jesus' escapades. If Mark contains fiction upon fiction, it leaves you saying that even though it's got tons of fiction in it, there still WAS a Jesus. who died and rose. Even tho no one can do that or has ever done that. Even tho it was a primitive time in history. etc.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge The fact that Mark was written first does not then mean that it must be the most historically accurate. A history book is written to be read and learned in such a way that all of the details are important and must be accurate. An ancient biography/hero narrative contained historical events, but its purpose was primarily focused on a central message, not the events (although the events were used to communicate the message).
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "The fact that Mark was written first does not then mean that it must be the most historically accurate."
Matthew copied almost all of Mark and much of it verbatim. not something someone would do if he was setting about to write his OWN acct of things. It is one author taking another author and improving his story for furthering his beliefs and regardless of Matthew's motives, his account is Mark's acct.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 without Mark, we have no Matthew or Luke. Might have a john but I seriously doubt it.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 If none of the events can be corroborated but show roots in ancient literature, what kind of central message could you possibly have? The same central message we have with Odysseus? Yet you don't worship him.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Odysseus was not the son of God, did not usher in the kingdom of God, did not die for ushering in the kingdom of God, and was not raised from the dead by the authority/power of God. Mark is not the only account of this fact. What are we to do with Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15:3-5? It seems very plausible he got this info directly from the disciples/Jesus (Gal. 1:11-20; especially verses 15-18 and 20). Paul clearly wrote separately from Mark, yet speaks the same truth.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "Odysseus was not the son of God, did not usher in the kingdom of God, did not die for ushering in the kingdom of God, and was not raised from the dead by the authority/power of God."
All of those things you claim have no evidence behind them. In fact, it's the very thing in question. Jesus. His supposed "ministry" and so forth.
All of those things you find from one place - the gospels with hints of the core elements (death, resurrection) in the epistles.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 In fact, later in this series I go into MUCH depth about the flaunted "appeared unto" passage. Paul never saw or heard a gospel or gospel story about events of an earthly Jesus and he never knew any disciple of Jesus. :) I'm sure you'll wonder about that last statement. I do this on purpose. hehehe
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge hahaha I am all ready wondering about it. How do we explain why someone who openly opposed a belief, gave his whole life to uphold and transmit the belief? Something must've happened. What is the motive?
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 huh?
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge To what comment is the "huh?" question directed?
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 to this:
hahaha I am all ready wondering about it. How do we explain why someone who openly opposed a belief, gave his whole life to uphold and transmit the belief? Something must've happened. What is the motive?
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Oh, I'm talking about Saul/Paul.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@TruthSurge I also wonder why a preacher for 30 years gives it up and devotes the rest of his life to promoting atheism. something must have happened.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge Also, was Mark read as a whole and studied by everyone in the first century so they could see what was said about/by Jesus? No. Mark is in a sense a compilation of individual events that were told orally by people who had the ability to read the text. Therefore it was important to understand good rhetoric and known narrative structures (the Odyssey) in order to speak these true events well. This was done BEFORE it was compiled together into one hero narrative.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "Also, was Mark read as a whole and studied by everyone in the first century so they could see what was said about/by Jesus?"
No. Mark was written no earlier than 72 CE but possibly later and likely edited over and over as we can already see with the 16:9-20 ending tacked on.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 "This was done BEFORE it was compiled together into one hero narrative."
we do not know that. We have Mark, the earliest, which shows every indication that it's a work of fiction. There never was a Jesus on earth. That's why all of the details come from sources OTHER than history! Hate to break that to ya. :)
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@perichoresis7 watch 9a and 9b. that concludes the Homer/Mark stuff that I cover but there are others in MacDonald's book I do not cover.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@TruthSurge I am truly looking forward to watching them and read the book.
perichoresis7 1 month ago
Drama, Drama,Drama, who cares, the master should be overthrone..
karlbuttler 1 month ago
@karlbuttler hehehehe be funny to do an animation with one disciple of Jesus doing your part. Jesus saying "and be watchful! You don't know when the master will -" I DON'T CARE when the master comes back! I'll be waitin on him with a 6 ft spear, nome sain????? "Bartholomew... please, you're messing up my parable."
I DON'T CAREEEEEEEEEEE. hehehehe
TruthSurge 1 month ago
This Script has Horseshit all over it, what man in his right mind would go off to "war" gone for 16 years plus the battle time, then finally get his ass back to town and have a problem with his "GirlFriend" / "Fiance" being courted by other Men?? F&$#. hell he should have every expectation that she has found a Reliable "MATE" and raised a Family...What relevance does Any of this have?? other than, dont leave your girlfriend for war & Sailing for 17 years, if you want a girl friend..
karlbuttler 1 month ago
@karlbuttler hahahaha yes, I don't think plot holes were so easily seen by the ancient folk. Looking back, we can see the contrivances they set up in order to move their plots forward.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
Cunttlefish
2eelShmeal 2 months ago
@2eelShmeal smelly
TruthSurge 2 months ago
has any apologist ever defended this claim?
lawbag1 4 months ago
@lawbag1 No, because it's a new claim, afaik. That mark copied homer is probably no more than several years old. THe general claim that authors copied prev literature is prob countered since Justin Martyr and all the early church fathers.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - it's very late here, but I'm about to drop you a PM with some thoughts around the wider issue and stop monopolising this comment section.
KrokrX 4 months ago
Really good ts :)
jungian9111 4 months ago
@jungian9111 thank ya!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - deliberate forgery among early Christians is another problem - have you read the Abgar letter? Eusebius claimed that he himself "translated it from the Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa" in his History. A letter supposedly from 'Jesus' must rank as possibly the most flagrant forgery of all time. Nice chatting, and sorry for getting well off topic. Probably chat again on your next video - looking forward to it!
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - agreed, in lieu of tangible evidence well reasoned inference is better than nothing, but we need to be careful to avoid the entrenched Christian bias affecting any such 'soft' inference/evidence. Your point about Mark is well made, but could be explained as copying from an earlier text the Mark author didn't 'fix' it, hardly the only biblical 'error' - perhaps he was too focused on Homer'ing it! The earlier the claim for Mark the longer the complete silence before 145?
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - like you, I don't take too well to being told rather than persuaded, with evidence. That's why I object to letting Christians get away with their preferred version of the textual timeline based purely on what they would want it to be. I'd like to see any tangible evidence of 1st century authorship, if it exists.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - anyway, apologies for steering the discussion away from the Greek influence on Mark, which you've been presenting so well. It's hard to sensibly deny that there was an influence on at least the style of the Mark gospel, but whether that was a style applied to a retelling of an earlier version or if you can demonstrate more than that... Looking forward to the next episode.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX no problem. I like talking about the documents and I'm no expert but I still enjoy thinking about when they were written and what parts may have been added later. But this extreme myopia of Xoroaster et al I cannot ascribe to. He'd have me believe that suddenly ALL the gospels spewed forth from various people in a 10 year span and propogated all over the Mediterranean by hand in time for Irenaeus in 180 to name them? HAHAHA please...
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge - considering that the gospel accounts would have been the most amazing news that Christians could hear back then, it's unlikely that news of them wouldn't have spread like wildfire(copies could have spread later). Don't confuse actual copies of the gospels with knowledge of their existence, no early church father has even heard of any of them before Papias in 145 names Mark. If the gospels were created in early second century that's plenty of time to let Irenaeus name them in 180.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX thanks on the vids and I have TWO more parallels to show which should push you toward a solid belief that Mark indeed drew from Homer in order to at LEAST shape his story but I say that when you copy DETAILS from another story, that's a DIFFERENT story. :) like the name request and riding on a herd of animals in the Polyphemus/DemonPossessedMan scenes. Of course, you could say he merely embellished with Homer. Anyway, more to come.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - the earliest mentions of material that is later included in the gospels are 'sayings' attributed to 'Jesus' which pre-date any formal gospels, and these could be related to the hypothesised Q source. On the other hand there are those who think the sayings may have originated much earlier than the Christian 'Jesus' with the Essenes or the Theraputae and been co-opted. It's unclear where the chain of sayings, stories and gospels start and end, and we may now never know.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX I OPT for co-OPT. :) The gospel of Thomas is such. "Jesus said..." then just plug in the saying. over and over this document uses this.
But yeah, it's a lot of educated speculation. I don't find a need for Q. The Christian scholar does, though, as it removes the problem of Luke simply creating his details whole cloth.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - even if for sake of argument we accept the official Christian position on the Diatessaron, and I remain unconvinced, it still only tells us that the gospels existed in some form by around 160-175, which as I'm only challenging the common 1st century attributions doesn't cause me any discomfort!
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX Not trying to cause discomfort. If the gospels are mentioned by name around 180CE, then I'd have to assume that they were written MUCH earlier than 160 for that doesn't give enough time for 4 diff gospels to propagate around the Mediterranean and get to Irenaeus (and Tatian) and be among MANY others such that Irenaeus is having to argue for the authority of only THOSE 4. anyway, just don't at all see a late writing for the gospels. It also doesn't acct for church hierarchies.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - more that perhaps Marcion created his gospel, possibly based on earlier unattributed works, which his detractors may have suitably modified, perhaps to take the sting out of his presumed heretical docetism. I don't think the evidence is conclusive either way, and I'm always reluctant to simply accept the official Christian version.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX I hear ya. Well, I just got blocked by Xoroaster for commenting on his "Marcion" vid. Methinks he can't take a few pts against his claims but even if I was dead wrong in all my pts, I think blocking says a lot and after watching several of his vids, he seems to have tunnel vision. He is so focused on the text of Luke and Marcion and Mark etc that he overlooks, temporarily, the OTHER issues and suddenly claims that Marcion has priority over Mark. I guess he thinks his views R goldn
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - sorry to hear that Xoroaster blocked you. He had a number of good ideas but seemed to overplay his hand on a number of occasions. This material is so vast that it's important to keep an open mind and consider any new inputs.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - meant to add earlier, unless I've missed something, we don't have any original copy of the Diatessaron, only copies dating to later centuries and earlier references to it, so we can't be sure exactly what was and wasn't in the original version by Tatian. So just how accurately it reflected what we now call the gospels is still open to question.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - Christians can suppose that their gospels were written as early as they like, there is still no evidence to support those claims, and we shouldn't lazily accept them.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - I didn't suggest that Marcion wrote Luke or Acts, merely that there is a good chance that whoever wrote Luke used the extant gospel of Marcion. I do agree that the original versions of the gospel stories were around before 140, but in what form it's all but impossible to say. The church destroyed so many early texts that were inconvenient.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - another illustration of how we too easily accept Christian narratives, take the case of Marcion's gospel being a supposed redaction of Luke. Ancient religious texts are usually added to rather than significantly subtracted from, see the gospels as a case in point. In lieu of evidence to the contrary, it would seem more likely that Luke was based on Marcion rather than the reverse, making Luke later than 140, perhaps explaining Papias's silence about it.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - we all to easily accept dating and relationships between documents as defined by Christians, who have a clear bias for a particular interpretation, and early dates. It's important as skeptics that we set these aside when evaluating the evidence. For example, even if we grant the claim for Papias's text from Eusebius it's telling that this early bishop doesn't appear to know of any gospel other than Mark in 145, doesn't mean they didn't exist in some form, but is indicative.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - agreed, the Diatessaron is later but better evidence for what we now call the gospels, but not necessarily exactly the ones we know now - it doesn't include all verses and incidents. I don't doubt there were many stories in earlier circulation that were proto versions of the gospels, but the attribution of those stories to the authors and the final forms aren't attested as early as Christians like to claim, so we shouldn't automatically grant those claims.
KrokrX 4 months ago
Another great episode. I am now just waiting for the bolt of lightning completely unprepared :P
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@ONESPECIES If anyone knows what is in the next vid I'll be shocked and I'll do a vid of me naked dancing on my roof singing Oh Little Town of Bethlehem. HAHAHHA
Well, besides those who have read MacDonald's book already (cheaters).
TruthSurge 4 months ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 4 months ago
Love this series!! :)
L3G3NDizAtheist 4 months ago
Man, there are so many parallels it's ridiculous. it goes way beyond a single coincidence or two.
TempleOfInanna2 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge - The Diatessaron is dated to around 160-175, rather later than the Papias reference, or did you have something else in mind?
KrokrX 4 months ago
Fuuuuuck, I have so much homework to do........
stripymccatpuss 4 months ago
How can we account for the man only thing? Well, it's simple. Jesus loved the cock. Only possible conclusion.
biggingeryeti 4 months ago 7
@biggingeryeti Get thee behind me, Satan! And do your stuff! HEHEHEHHE
TruthSurge 4 months ago 4
@TruthSurge
I think i did my homework too:
"Both Odysseus' crew and Jesus' buttkissers are rectally extracted, aka fictional. Also, most people on the world (including Christians) never really read the stories.
The only difference is that in Odysseus' case it is a known fact that his stuff is but a work of fiction, in Zombie Lord's case billions of people bought the entire package as reality, including (zillions of) mutually exclusive parts and utmost ridiculous concepts."
Did i pass?
realbojay 4 months ago
This series just keeps getting better!
KCKatheist 4 months ago
@KCKatheist thank ya! just wait.... the final parallel (well, 2) are just insane. I can't wait to get them done!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge I'll await their upload as patiently as possible!
KCKatheist 4 months ago
Good stuff. This series just gets better and better!
th30r3m 4 months ago
@th30r3m thank ya!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Great video series.
smartarse001 4 months ago
@smartarse001 thanks!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Let's make that "Homer work". This turkey is about cooked. A couple more episodes,and we can put a fork in it :)
cosmicskydaddy1 4 months ago
@cosmicskydaddy1 haha the next vid is going to lick the envelope closed. Nail the final nail! And all those other euphemisms. hehe Man, I made one crazy error in this vid someone found and it's nothing about the argument just an odd error. Like someone rewrote the Bible when I wasn't looking. haha i added a note to the vid. yeah, it's about to get real.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
What about the prophecy of the 7 gay midgets? =))
Love the narration , it's like one of the midgets are giving me an ear massage.
Iseeyoursoul 4 months ago
@Iseeyoursoul I never saw a news blurb about Tapley regarding that. I've got to assume that it's just another of his failed prophecies. hehe yeah, my narration this time was a tad harsh and rushed but I guess I'm just trying to get this one done so I can get the NEXT one done.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Another great video truthsurge, thank you very much for making it. It is truly fascinating to see how "absolute truth" evaporates when the words are looked at closely.
Moontanman 4 months ago
@Moontanman thanks. it's funny how a naturalistic approach works for everything we could use it on. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Damn, homework?
Both Odysseus' crew and Jesus' disciples are foolish, fearful and ignorant.
In both stories these companions at first appear likeable and loyal, but gradually we see their folly till in the end they fail altogether.
Both stories treat them as a unified group, with few having any distinguishing characteristics. In both stories they fail because, unlike the hero, they were unable to endure hardships. Peter plays a role similar to Eurylochus, Odysseus' second in command.
:)
nishbrown 4 months ago 6
Comment removed
virumoz 4 months ago
@nishbrown -- Can I copy my homework from you? (Don't let TruthSurge read this!)
I'd add a »fictitious« to your »foolish, fearful and ignorant«, but that's just me. (-:
virumoz 4 months ago
@virumoz ah HA! cheating in my classroom??? why you..... well, ok. It's all for fun anyway. HEHEHHEHEHEHHEHE A+ and move to the head of the class! (mainly so I can pinch your ear when you cheat again)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@nishbrown Haha I hope you don't mind if I copy your homework :)
SuperZuescannon 4 months ago
@SuperZuescannon heheh sure, just ride on someone ELSE'S coattails, why don't ya???? Didn't you know there's going to be a final exam??? Cheating is for cheaters! hmm that's fairly obvious. hehe
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@nishbrown I should have made you my lab assistant!! hahahhaa Yes, the similarities between the "crews" are too similar, if you ask me. Good point that they never seem to really have any individuality or play major roles in anything except perhaps for Peter, who gets to share a LITTLE of the stage with Odysseus... oh, I'm sorry, Jesus. HEHEHEH
So, Mr. Lab Assistant, your next homework is to give us a report on the similarity between the Elpenor fall and the Eutychus fall in Acts 20. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
New episode, Yeaaaaaaaayhh!
XheraPhine 4 months ago
@XheraPhine yes, I'm trying to get to the final deathblow for Mark's "historical" story.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
This is very fascinating indeed
rozeboosje 4 months ago
@rozeboosje thank ya! The next vid is going to be the killer. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Sarcastic comment ... They that ate of the loaves were 5,000 men ... doesn't necessarily mean that no women and children were present; it could mean that they were told to eff off. [grin]
rozeboosje 4 months ago
@rozeboosje yep. someone could really say that Jesus only fed the men of the crowd since it was a paternally-oriented society. ! But it makes more sense to US non-believers that Mark simply copied the Elisha miracle and made Jesus do a BIGGER miracle while he also had the 5000 in mind from both the Odyssey and the fact that 5000 was equivalent to a Roman legion.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Looking forward to be struck by the lightning of knowledge.
greyman000 4 months ago
@greyman000 I'm tellin ya! this next vid... oh man,,,, it may take me longer to complete it cuz it is a good 15 min and may need to get split into partA and B. but it's a DOOZY! Best one yet.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Yet another great vid TS, keep em coming.
AussieNaturalist 4 months ago
@AussieNaturalist thank ya. I got one more big parallel and one tiny one left.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
This outstanding series continues, much to my pleasure.
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@ozmoroid and it don't stop... hehe man, next vid.... people are going to pick their jaws off the floor I swear to you. I can't wait.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge I can see someone explaining away one or two of these points as coincidences, but with one after another the case just keeps building. And, as you point out, I think it ties in nicely with your Jesus Myth series.
ozmoroid 4 months ago
what a cliffhanger!
THUMBS UP!!
emancoy 4 months ago
@emancoy thank ya and it will be worth the wait. But may take me another 2 weeks cuz it's just a lot to show.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
OOOh nice!! Christmas is early this week! Ehh.. wait.. I mean.. Christ mess.. sorry :D
realbojay 4 months ago
@realbojay yes! I have forsaken my "every Sunday" approach and just am trying to do them faster. It has induced a few typos and mistakes that I've had to annotate but ah well. It's the info I'm trying to convey, not my QA skills.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
As ever, dude, another great production!
Keep proclaiming the good news!
calmreason 4 months ago
@calmreason thank ya! I'm now working on the final 2 parallels. I REALLY want to hear critics regarding the final 2 parallels. But I suspect all I will hear is (besides maybe the attaboys hehehe) crickets. hahahhaha
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Amazing,as always. Looking forward for the next 2 :D
eat666shit 4 months ago
@eat666shit thank ya. feel free to chime in. As I said, I'm not able to read/write ancient or modern Greek but I rely on lexicons and scholars so if you see a mistake, just chime in.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
This would explain why the synoptic Gospels are different from John, & fits well with the theories that Xoroaster is proposing. Thanks for sharing those interesting ideas :-)
Nilsy1975 4 months ago
@Nilsy1975 Yeah, it is pretty clear that Mark, Matthew and Luke are just one strand of it while John is more like the Pauline Christianity blended with SOME of the synoptics. I claim John is STILL reliant upon the TEXT of Mark. I should do a vid on that someday but gosh... I'll never do anything but YT vids!!!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge I can see a case for both sides, I think John came first, but that the John we have today was later modified to fit with early Catholic Orthodoxy. I'm really enjoying watching both series (by you & Xoroaster, & do think you both could do some really great colaboratory work.) Wish I had the time & patients of you guys to research this stuff, those videos are awesome :-)
Nilsy1975 4 months ago
@Nilsy1975 thanks. You could ask if John came first but I think most people agree that it is a later work (later than 72 CE when I say Mark was penned). My chronology is Mark, Matthew, John then Luke (then Acts). Everything works perfectly with that chronology. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
The earliest mention of anything like a gospel I've seen is when Eusebius(around 300) claims to quote Papias(from about 145) in Historia Ecclesiastica -
"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him".
But with Papias works all lost, and Eusebius a known forger, who knows?
KrokrX 4 months ago
@Nilsy1975 But it's always good to question even your own beliefs. What IF John was retrofitted from a purely gnostic form to the more orthodox form? It is a great question because we KNOW that's exactly what happened to ALL of the NT documents to greater and lesser degrees. Ehrman covers a bit of this in his Misquoting Jesus book.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge I wish I had the time to read those books you guys are referring too, & agreed I think that is one of the strengths of the scientific method & Atheism in general; the ability to question one's own assumptions. How does that quote go? Oh, wait.. I have Google...
Wisest is he who knows he does not know.
Nilsy1975 4 months ago
@TruthSurge - and don't forget another Hellenic connection - the one between the plagiarising Paul and the philosophies of Alexandrian Hellenised Jew Philo - Rev.S.Baring-Gould admitted in The Lost and Hostile Gospels, 1874 -
"But what is far more remarkable is to find in Philo... the key to most of Paul's theology, - the doctrines of the all-sufficiency of faith, of the worthlessness of good works, of the imputation of righteousness, of grace, mediation, atonement. "
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX I have read only some of Philo but I'd love to read more. Yes, even the "logos" idea in John comes from Philo.
I did add an annotation to the UFJ part. Hopefully, it will explain I just was in a silly moment and let it seep into the vid. Yeah, mixing the styles... it can seem so innocuous and then others might seem like they got slapped when it happens. thanks!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Nice video. Just one minor point - the use of UFJ(Unidentified Flying Jesus) at 2:59 seemed out of place, and lessened the otherwise more scholarly tone. It certainly wouldn't encourage any wavering Christian viewers to watch the rest and take it seriously, which would be a shame considering the work you've put into this series.
KrokrX 4 months ago
@KrokrX You may be right. But on the other hand, if a Christian GETS that far, they likely would not stop watching just due to that. :) IOW, I doubt those types would get past 3 vids. :) But yeah, the series does have a few places where I drop the documentary style and do my own thing. And yes, I did deliberately try to stay more evenhanded at the first in HOPES that MAYBE some Christians would actually watch but then, I am only human. thank ya!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
You never disappoint. :-) Looking forward to part 9.
FelidaTheG33k 4 months ago
@FelidaTheG33k thank ya. part 9 is going to rock some people's worlds. I can't wait myself. I have to rewrite some of it tho. I need to clearly establish the problem b4 giving the solution and that isn't in place yet.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Also, I didn't find the anthropos reference in bluletterbible in 6:12. Is there a mistake here?
ZergAteu 4 months ago
@ZergAteu try bible.cc instead to see the passage in most translations,it says "men"
eat666shit 4 months ago
@eat666shit Probably, but I was wondering about the original meaning. The fact that most translations say one thing or the other surely points in one direction or the other, but I have then to exclude translations from translations and similar versions and judge only based on the translations based on Greek to make a clear judgement.
ZergAteu 4 months ago
@ZergAteu Indeed,and that can become a serious hindrance on research, unless you know the language,especially in its archaic frorm which is not easy even for me,that I,have problems in some instances.
eat666shit 4 months ago
@eat666shit just for a few laughs, look at codexsinaiticus(dot)org to see the original text writen on parchments and more importantly,look at the old testament to see it's all fragmented.
eat666shit 4 months ago
@eat666shit "look at codexsinaiticus(dot)org to see the original text"
The Codex Sinaiticus is old but it is a collection of copies of copies of copies and not the original texts. I'm sure you know this but we wouldn't want to mislead anybody with the wrong choice of words.
8WholeThing 4 months ago
@8WholeThing Thanks for correcting me,it's true that, but still an interesting manuscript to look into.
eat666shit 4 months ago
@eat666shit he was right. 6:12 did not have anthropos. But Mark 7:7 does. point was simply that Mark would not use aner to refer to a crowd of men and women.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@ZergAteu Yes, I have no idea how I got 6:12 and anthropos mixed up. I will correct the vid but the pt still stands. Mark 7:7. Try that one. IOW, Mark uses anthropos when he wants to indicate mankind, human beings, etc. In the feeding miracle, he does NOT use anthropos (odd) but uses aner (even more odd). Thanks for spotting this and I'm shocked at how suddenly 6:14 changed on me! hahahhaa will annotate the vid. thank ya!!!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@ZergAteu i meant 6:12. duh, trying to reply to to many mgs. hehe
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@ZergAteu I added a note. thanks! Just look at Mark 7:7 or any verse with men or man. I don't think you'll find aner anywhere else that is referencing men and women as a whole. but if you do, let me know. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago