@COEXISTential :) Jesus was the king - of coming. He came and went. He promised to come in the clouds! To come with the angels. Heck, the whole kingdom of god was supposed to come! HAHAHHAHA
@COEXISTential Actually, I'd never heard of Metatron til recently. Another add-on. :) A real angel that's the highest one but he managed to keep a VERY low profile until the middle ages. nice.
Also, many of the verses you cite that use a form of "come", use a form of the Greek word "erchomai". In the Greek, "returning" is implied in this word depending on the context. It is used for both "arriving" and "returning" (blueletterbible). For example, we see Paul using the word "erchomai" with the church in Corinth AFTER he has already been with/seen them (2: Cor. 1:15). Therefore, it can easily be assumed that Paul's hearers naturally deduced that he meant "returning".
@perichoresis7 "It is used for both "arriving" and "returning" (blueletterbible)."
Then my pt still stands. :) And it stands because the use throughout all of the citations is CONSISTENT with a Jesus who would appear for the FIRST time.
Dang it. You said you wouldn't be raising objections early!!!! :)
@TruthSurge hahaha Sorry, I couldn't help myself. But, in case you didn't know, my raising objections/pointing out things is a sign of respect toward you. I wouldn't be wasting my time on pointless "atheist arguments" that don't look at the whole issue, as you are doing. I enjoy/respect your work.
@perichoresis7 Well, it's ok but you will prob do better to watch it all first, THEN ask. Because once this stuff piles up, it will become clear that there IS something to it besides just a lack of evidence. :) In fact, in this whole series, I don't even cover that aspect of the theory! What you will see here are more of the remnants or vestigal fossils that point to that earlier belief.
@perichoresis7 BibleStudyTools: "to come" (...); Strong's Greek: "to come, go"; Wikipedia (deponent verb): "An example in Greek is ἔρχομαι (erchomai, I come or I go), middle/passive in form but active in translation."; Google translate: "ἔρχομαι" -> "come", "έρχονται" -> "come", "return" -> "επιστροφή".
@pedroamaralcouto Google translate is not going to be able to capture the context and minor nuances. The Bible contains Koine Greek, which is a very general and ambiguous language. Looking at the word "erchomai" standing alone means one thing, while joined with certain words it means another (which applies to most Greek words). Like I said, check the verse on blueletterbible and you'll see what I mean.
@perichoresis7 "Google translate is not going to be able to capture the context and minor nuances."
Google translate was one of the attempt I enumerated to check if what you said is true. Strong's Greek (2064) was another example ("to come, go"). And there's much more; ex: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon ("start, set out" ... "(much more freq.) come or go"...), Greek-Dictionary ("to come, to go, to pass"), etc.
@pedroamaralcouto By the way, the koine greek word for "return" is either "epistrephō" and variations of the same word ( ex: "hypostrephō" ): "trans. to turn towards; to turn round; to bring back, convert, Lk. 1:16, 17; Jas. 5:19, 20; intrans. and mid. to turn one's self upon or towards, Acts 9:40; Rev. 1:12; to turn about, Mt. 9:22; to turn back, return, Mt. 12:44; met. to be converted, Acts 28:27"
Example: "And Barnabas and Saul returned ("epistrephō") from Jerusalem".
@pedroamaralcouto Again, for the third time, my source is blueletterbible. Type in the verse. Translate to Greek. Click on the word in question. Read the meanings.
@perichoresis7 Blueletterbible source - Thayers Lexicon: "I. to come; 1. prop. a. of persons; a. univ. to come from one place into another, and used both of persons arriving" (...) "2. a. of Christ's invisible return from heaven, i.e. of the power which through the Holy Spirit he will exert in the souls of his disciples" ...
Funny it has a special definition for christianity (bias) and Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete since 1901 with Koine Greek Lexicography.
@pedroamaralcouto Funny, next time you tell a family member "I'm coming home from work", I'm sure they assume you mean "for the first time". Apparently it is too much of a stretch to assume "come" can mean "returning" just as much as it means "arriving for the first time." As I said, it is implied. Widen your gaze.
@perichoresis7 "Come" and "return" don't have the same meaning. If I'm moving to my parent's house it would be the first time I'm coming to my new home. If someone says that the portuguese word for "to come" is "voltar", I would say that's wrong. "Voltar" means "to return". "Vir" means "to come".
@pedroamaralcouto Yes, we have the the words "come" and "return", and yes Koine Greek has a word for each. But both in english and Greek, the idea of "returning" can easily be implied through the use of "come". Paul was writing to individual churches/communities who knew Jesus had already come in the flesh; therefore, when discussing a future coming (one that has not happened yet) it was easily assumed by the community it would be a "2nd" coming (or "return").
@pedroamaralcouto Also, Jesus' "coming" in the first century was for certain purposes, and his future "coming" will embody different purposes. The two separate "comings" can be considered a "coming for the first time" because of the very different natures of those two appearances. So this "to come" and "return" argument is just an issue of language and culture that 2,000 years of differences has abstracted to mean things that are entirely false (i.e. Jesus never came in the first place).
I'm not going to question anything or point to any verses here, I just want to point something out. It is important to remember that when we look at/read the epistles we are looking at/reading someone's mail. (Not ours). These were letters written to a specific audience, in a specific context, and often out of (as well as into) an orally transmitting community. Paul/epistle authors were not writing knowing that 2,000 years later people would be examining them with a historically critical eye.
But this point (that Jesus was never thought to return by early Christians) is a HUGE point in favor of the JM theory. It's the kind of REVELATION that makes you want to shout it from a mountain so everyone knows it. I think most other theories of Christian origins fail because they are basing it on a real Jesus that lived during the 1st century.
@xdassinx hehe you are not far off! Jesus was, imo, modeled after Odysseus from the Odyssey. Odysseus was a superhero without so many super powers. But he had the gods helping him so yeah, he could fly if they let him!
@TruthSurge Odysseus, that is interesting.There is a bit of a resemblance in some of the art work. I've heard the Mithra comparison before. I'm not sold on a copy and paste comparison. Though there does seem to be some plagiarism going on. I think the larger point is Zoroastrianism was yet another religion. As if because there was no tv after the flood, people had nothing better to do but make up new "good vs evil, better be good for goodness sake" religions for no reason. Sound hinky.
@xdassinx There are vague parallels and influences and then there are some that are beyond a reasonable doubt. In my next vid series, I will show just this regarding Homer and Greek mythology. It will blow some people's minds. :)
Regarding Hebrews 9:28, can you please advise which video it is where you go into explaining "appears for the 2nd time" and how it really isn't a 2nd coming at all? It's getting too monotonous going through all kinds of videos and not finding what I'm after. Excellent points you bring up, btw.
@rawvegan1 I'll tell you here. These early Christians "saw" Jesus in the pages of the old testament. This "appearance" of Jesus to mankind (revealed to man by god) is the FIRST appearance, analogous to the actual incarnation mentioned in the gospels (which is nowhere mentioned outside the gospels). Therefore, to an early Christian, Jesus would appear a 2nd time (his first PHYSICAL appearance to earth at the end of time) and THAT time it would not be to take away sin but to settle matters.
@rawvegan1 The key is to know that the earliest christians (pre-gospel) believed in a Jesus who was not a human, had not lived on earth decades earlier and about whom they had practically no knowledge save the scant info they could glean from OT passages such as:
1. son of god
2. named Jesus
3. killed and hung on a tree
4. rose from the dead
5. would appear on earth soon
This is why all but 1 "coming" reference outside the gospels and acts uses "come/coming/appear" instead of return.
You forget to mention that the epistle of 1 John speaks of Jesus being made manifest in his first coming.
1That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes,which we looked upon andhave touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the lifewas made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life,which was with the Father and was made manifest to u....
@elderaps There are several places that seem to be recalling the Jesus of the gospels or at least a human Jesus if not the same one as the gospels. These passages need to be examined more closely to see if they are 1) translated properly 2) an interpolation or later insertion by an orthodox Christian who felt the passage was lacking or 3) if the document as a whole should be classified as orthodox instead of pre-Orthodox. I've looked at many of these but not this one in particular.
@elderaps What I mean is I've actually made some videos on these problem passages but no video on this one. If you can, watch the remaining vids and I think you will see that there is a ton of indicators that all point toward a mythical Jesus. Also, 2 Cor 4:10 shows that "manifest" doesn't always mean a PHYSICAL manifestation.
Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
@elderaps So, just reading the translation of one passage isn't enough. You really have to look at the other uses of the term as well as the Greek words and almost always you find that it actually ISN'T what it seemed at face value. phaneroo It's the Greek word for manifest and it's pretty much similar to revelation (apokalypses).
to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
@TruthSurge My point was that this is an epistle (not a gospel) and the author is claiming that Christ had been revealed, manifested (whatever) in such a way that they had seen him and touched him - which indicates a recent coming of Christ, not a mythical one. Not a Jesus who came to a lower level of heaven, but a Jesus who came and was seen and touched by human beings in the first century.
@elderaps I understood. ANd I gave you an example showing that manifest does not necessarily mean a physical/real manifestation. The only objection you have to that passage is the touching reference. Here's Darby's translation.
That which was from [the] beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life;
@TruthSurge "That" refers to Jesus Christ, who John says has come in the flesh. This is one of the main points of 1 John - to beware of those who deny that Christ had come in the flesh. Chapter 4 says, "...many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."
@TruthSurge ...1 John 4:9 continues by saying that "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that(U) God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." This is another claim that Christ had been sent into the WORLD. 1 JOhn 4:11 continues by using the same words in 1 John 1:1(AB) we have SEEN and TESTIFY that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of(AD) the world. " John makes it clear that the thing that was seen and testified about in vs 1 was Jesus.
@TruthSurge Of course not. But the author uses the same phrase repeatedly in the same context. The first usage refers to something that was "with the father and has now appeared" the second usage refers to Jesus who was sent from the father into the world. I mean, c'mon, John is talking about the same thing in vs 1:1 as he is in 4:9.
@elderaps Without sounding arrogant, I think one problem you have is that you are reading it in English and you may also have a stubborn streak. :) I can't type out all of the evidence and reasonings and thoughts and Greek and such here. But if you care to watch my vids you will find some very interesting pts. I also cover OTHER problem passages that MIGHT show you how I would approach this one should I do a vid on it. There's also the possibility of later insertions.
@TruthSurge - I know your intention wasn't to employ an ad hominem argument, but ones confidence and defense of his own position certainly doesn't necessarily imply stubborness. Grk is important, but you can't look only at individual words - you must also look at larger contexts. Dictionaries alone arent sufficient. Even if 1 Jn 1:1 wasn't referring to Jesus, 1 Jn does say that Christ came into the world in the flesh. That alone refutes the JM theory concerning the testimony of the epistles.
@elderaps I think you are missing a lot of data that argues for the JM theory and then obsessing over one or two passages that seem to go against it. Of course there are passages that go against the theory but I've explained some of those in the later vids. I have not tackled the "in the flesh" verses, "seed of David" references, etc. Paul calls Jesus a "man" in two different verses. That sounds like he believed he was human, yes? I deal with that in a vid. I'll post the link.
@elderaps Part A of a 2 part vid on how Paul could refer to Jesus as a "man" but not believe him to be human. /watch?v=kIEQoz1dz_0
Anyway, each passage, verse, idea that seems to be anti-JM (so far) has turned out to be easily explained. I don't think I can explain the "flesh" verses completely right now but again, let's assume the were what they seem. They still could have been later insertions. If not, we then need to ask how no miracles or teachings show up in those works. a big prob.
@elderaps There is so much evidence for the theory that EVEN if one or two explanations of passages remained unsatisfactory, I'd still go with the theory. When you have 200 pieces of strong evidence and 2 against.... I'll take those odds any day of the week.
@elderaps Remember, these NT works were not written by one person so if the 1,2 and 3 Johns were removed from the JM works and placed along with the gospels, we do NOT lose the other epistles as you say when you say "that alone refults the JM theory". No, it does not. It would simply put those works into the orthodox camp. You still have the amazing ability of Paul in 7 letters (LONG letters) to avoid mentioned even ONE of Jesus' teachings or miracles. You have huge probs, my friend. :)
@MercuryRis hehehehe I think English wasn't even an option 2000 years ago - even in ENGLAND! hahah Languages take some time to congeal so Jebus (if he existed as a human) would have been exposed to Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and possibly any of the nearby languages of the Middle-East. I think Latin was just a tad later also.
@elderaps I'd say if you watched all of those vids I did on this, you'll have a much better idea of why this theory is strong even with the passages that at face value seem to point away from it and back to the gospel Jesus we know and love. I plan to do another vid on another problem passage but who knows when?
@elderaps You are commenting at 2B. That's vid 2 and I've done 5 hours or more of vids. These vids are really about looking at the issue w/o the gospel glasses on. Not reading INTO the epistles what isn't there. Digging into the Greek because translators were often wrong. etc.
Regarding Hebrews 9:28, can you please advise which video it is where you go into explaining "appears for the 2nd time" and how it really isn't a 2nd coming at all? It's getting too monotonous going through all kinds of videos and not finding what I'm after. Excellent points you bring up, btw.
@rawvegan1 Good question. :) I can't recall right now but in summary, you have two parallel or rather analogous "appearances" going on. In the orthodox view, Jesus' first appearance was on earth during the first half of century 1. In the JM theory view, his first appearance was in the pages of the Old Testament. So, the "he will appear a 2nd time" speaks of his REAL appearance at the end of time. Make sense?
WOW Another American who wants to deny the Bible using the English language 1 corinthians 15: 23 the word here is παρουσία "parousia" - return 1 Corinthians 16:22 - what? 2 Peter 1:16 παρουσία "parousia" - return 1 Thessalonians 2:19 "parousia" - return Apocalipse 3:3 the word here is "heko" - that is to be present (literally in this contest) 1 John 2:28 the word here is "parousia" - return 1 Thessalonians 5:23 παρουσία - return James 5:7 παρουσία - return
Oops. You are uneducated. Go back to Romania and do some studying and THEN come back and we MIGHT be able to discuss this. As it is, your mind has been clouded by religion.
2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
----
Strong's Hebrew-Greek
From the present participle of G3918; a being near, that is, advent (often, return; specifically of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physical aspect: - coming, presence.
@VyckRo You must realize that the 2a definition is ONLY added in due to the fact that the gospels and acts have forced these people to make it an alternative definition when no such meaning actually exists. It's the entire point of my 2A and 2B vids which you simply want to dismiss. There was no sense of a RETURN in the epistles. You don't like that fact. Deal with it.
@VyckRo All of the times parousia appears in the NT it is rendered as "coming". Not once is it rendered as "returning". There are 4 or 5 other Greek words that mean return and parousia is not one of them. Again, the entry into the lexicon was added ONLY because the story of Jesus in the gospels was assumed to be the story in the epistles. Dig? You want truth? You have to be wiling to study and dig under the hood and see what's really there (and not there).
@VyckRo Find me a translation (besides the New LIving Translation) that renders parousia as return or returning or coming back or coming again. Good luck.
@TruthSurge Good video, I can see where your coming from especially due to the literal interpretation so many have.
Now you get my view..lol (symbolic, okay) "Coming" signifies the Holy Spirits decent into the hearts of the people. Revelation that brings completeness. To be cleaned once and for all... sin dies at the death of Christ. Christ is the fulfilling of the law.........
However there has been a strange intermingling of law and grace through out the history of Christianity...
@jungian9111 Its the patterns the opposing' sides run parallel to the process of wholeness by way of two sides. These two natures within are split, and continue to need the shackles of darkness removed by union. As long as people project a satan image they remain blinded by their own darkness.
@jungian9111 I'm not saying there aren't symbols here and there. Just which are which? IMO, Paul "saw" Jesus in the pages of the OT. So, his vision of Jesus I take to be a more symbolic thing or non-literal in that he didn't SEE Jesus himself but a vision a scriptural character found in places like Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 etc.
But yeah, early Christians expected Jesus to appear on earth and it never happened.
Your argument about "revelation" demonstrates only that you don't understand Jewish apocalyptic thinking.
As for "coming", if I say that I'm looking forward to my friend "coming" to see me, does that mean he's never been here before? Hardly.
You cite 1 Cor. 11:26. You neglect to mention that the verses immediately preceding it describe Jesus, "on the night he was betrayed" taking bread, breaking it, and instituting the sacraments. Sounds rather rooted in history, don't you think?
Godz... you really ARE a dumbass. I just thought you might be unaware of the issues surrounding Christian origins but you really have a low IQ, don't you?
It isn't an argument. It's know as a DEFINITION.
Please, do us both a favor, and leave. If you want to learn from someone who obviously has read more about the theory than you and who has personally studied it in DETAIL, fine. else, just leave.
@TruthSurge: "As you know by now, erchomai carries with it NO sense of return ever except that it has NO sense of going or returning."
Strong's: erchomai: to come
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
So: you say it is "amazing" for erchomai to be used of Jesus each time. But how many times would you expect it to be used, given its meaning, and how can you know that?
@TruthSurge: That there was a "return" STRENGTHENS my case. If they had the word "return", why didn't they use it in the nobleman and Elias examples? And they have nothing to do with Jesus, much less clouds. The simple fact is that "erchomai" also bears the sense of "return", which you don't acknowledge in your vid.
Question: you say it is "amazing" for erchomai to be used of Jesus each time. But how many times would you expect it to be used, given its meaning, and how can you know that?
@gdon12987 "The simple fact is that "erchomai" also bears the sense of "return", which you don't acknowledge in your vid. "
As you know by now, erchomai carries with it NO sense of return ever except that it has NO sense of going or returning. It is ambiguous with regard to that. I msged you in detail about that. Perhaps that's why I don't acknowledge it in the vids. :)
@TruthSurge: Thought I might as well continue since I have a degree... :)
"THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT! SINCE THE EPISTLES DON'T SHOW A JESUS ON EARTH, THE USAGE STILL FITS SINCE THERE IS NO "PALIN" OR AGAIN IN ANY INSTANCE."
No, your point was that it is "amazing" that "over 40 "2nd coming" verses in the epistles NEVER use the concept of returning". But word used MEANS "returning", and "coming before the public". So how do you know??? At how many does it become amazing, and why?
@gdon12987 So, you conveniently forgot the other times "return" is used in the epistles AND gospels? You forgot (conveniently) that in the gospels most of the comings are associated with clouds and a return would be silly since clouds never left? What would convince you? The ONLY thing that would convince YOU is if Paul said "Jesus was never on Earth."
I know no logic on earth that says "the data may support my side or support the other side. So it is evidence for my side." The only question is whether "come" containing a nuance of "return" as well is common usage or not. It clearly is. Check the examples. Check Strong's entry on "erchomai" in Blueletter.
But I agree enough has been said on this, so I will make this my last post in this comment thread.
Wow. Just wow. Tell me you don't have some college degree. Please. You can't.
Let's say that we have 40 pieces of evidence and out of 40 we have nothing that PRECLUDES interpretation A but interpretation B can also be made from that same evidence. The evidence then can be used by BOTH parties in support of their case. Take the Greek word "ek". It can mean FROM or it can mean OUT OF or many other prepositions. So, how I interpret the word in context may DIFFER from yours.
@gdon12987 Again, I never said it was cut and dried. I didn't say it was bullet proof. I said that the evidence (facts) support the JM theory and they do.
Erchomai certainly is a more generic usage than what we might use today and ALONE we cannot say if the usage is in the sense of returning or just arriving. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT! SINCE THE EPISTLES DON'T SHOW A JESUS ON EARTH, THE USAGE STILL FITS SINCE THERE IS NO "PALIN" OR AGAIN IN ANY INSTANCE.
@TruthSurge: "So, what I'm saying is that both interpretations [of "come"] are valid. I simply choose the one that fits better with my beliefs."
That's fine, but if both interpretations are valid, then (1) it is hardly evidence for your position, and (2) it is not amazing for it to be used in that way. As I said, it appears to be a common usage. Strong's entry on erchomai ["come"] gives "return" as one of its meanings. The examples of the nobleman and Elias passages support this.
@gdon12987 "That's fine, but if both interpretations are valid, then (1) it is hardly evidence for your position"
! Take a logic course. If the evidence fits BOTH sides, it most certainly IS evidence FOR my position. IOW, it fits. Go look up the word overlap. There is a lot of overlap between the various denominations and various forms of Christianity. I'm done on this topic. believe what you want.
@gdon12987 I already know this. What you still haven't addressed is how not only all of the verses in the epistles use the word come or coming but many use apokolypsis (reveal) and (appear). You can say that come was a broad way of defining movement (from pt a to pt b, from HEAVEN to EARTH) but Jesus' return would in no way be a revelation. He'd already been revealed to the world. Plus, the epistles don't place Jesus in history so "come" has no innate meaning of "come back".
@gdon12987 In the gospels, Jesus IS on earth. So when he says "wait till I come" it's a given he means return to earth after he goes back to heaven. But this is due to the fact that he's depicted as being ON EARTH in the stories. So, what I'm saying is that both interpretations are valid. I simply choose the one that fits better with my beliefs. It answers more questions than the one you seem to be arguing for.
@gdon12987 Luke 12:36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Jesus is describing his second coming in parable form. He also uses the word return (which might be better translated depart) but also in
And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when **he will return** from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
@gdon12987 So, in Luke 19:12 Jesus is describing his second coming in parable form again. This time he uses "hypostrephō" which does mean precisely return.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to*** return ***.
You see, the problem is that you are thinking that because the gospels use "come" more often, then it explains the epistles' usage. Prob is, not ONCE in the epistles do you find anything about returning.
If it common usage of "come", then how can it be amazing that it is used that way? And there are other examples in the Gospels as well (including Jesus -- after being identified as "son of man" -- talks about the "Son of Man coming in clouds").
I tell you what: I've given examples in the Gospels using "come" to describe Jesus and Elijah's return. How many times in the four Gospels does anyone talk about Jesus ***returning***?
@gdon12987 You haven't studied any set theory? Since come exists in both sets of meanings, we would expect it to be used in both. IOW, it is not surprising that you are able to find some "come" verses in the gospels. What IS amazing is that over 40 "2nd coming" verses in the epistles NEVER use the concept of returning. Overanalyzing? I think not.
Great presentation, great point. What do you think of Dec 21, 2012 (galactic alignment, end of time, convergence of calendars). Can that be the day of Jesus' coming?
@popas7 Why would I think that if I believe that Jesus never even existed? The alignment of arbitrary items is meaningless. That's what most people can't understand, I suppose. They don't understand that gravity falls off exponentially as one moves away from a large celestial body such as Earth. Our sun's gravity has little effect at all on anything outside this solar system. It's like a magnet. On the refrigerator it's strong. 1" away, nothing. thanks.
Is there any proof that the early Christians actually believed that Jesus was crucified in Heaven? I mean, the standard take on the Docetics is that Jesus was a spirit that crucified here on earth, but as a spirit he could not die. I would like to know if that could be clarified or whether it's just a subjective interpretation?
There's never "proof". Just evidence pointing toward a conclusion. See Hebrews 9. Jesus is shown offering his sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacles not made by human hands. Also see all the refs in the NT where the gospel of Jesus was hidden throughout the ages. Not possible if he was crucified at the END of the ages. etc.
This is madness. When Paul wrote the epistles he was working off the assumption that the readers knew that Jesus walked the earth and was crucified physically. Consider the following passages:
1 Corinthians 9:5 - Paul refers to the Lord's brother (James)
1 Corinthians 11:23 - refers to Jesus' actions on the night he was betrayed
Good point! I've studied extensively on the subject of Jesus. The figure who appeared referred to himself as a prophet, as well as others declared him during his time. Both Malachi 3:1 and 4:5 refer to a coming messenger and prophet (Elijah). This person was believed to be John the Baptist. However, the powers that be manipulated the scriptures to institute CHRISTIANITY. This explains the inconsistencies in the Bible. The text has been tampered with, and PAUL was a fake apostle -- ANTICHRIST.
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. & for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2 Thess 2:10
BEING BOUND for 1,000 yrs and we/ w Christ will reign very soon , then we shall see him cast into the lake of fire along w/ those he has deceived...soon he will grant the Son of perdition power to deceive many,...seek and know.
What if Allah is the real god and you're wrong? What if you just happened to be born into Christianity due to your parents believing it or your geographical location? If you'd been born in Thailand you'd be a Buddhist. SEEK AND LEARN!
Bible prophecy is being fulfilled, Bless u Brother...No other word like the word of God...Seek truth and u will find seek false hood and u will make it just that...
This man is under no delusion. If you read the bible precept upon precept, and examine Old and New testament you will see that even Jesus misused OT scriptures or quoted scriptures that did not exist. Christianity is a farse. DoNot be fooled. Jesus was a prophet possibly Elijah aka John the Baptist. If you take him away, the POPE and Christianity falls. God stands because he said he would send a prophet before his great and dreadful day. Malachi 3:1. Not a messenger and prophet/messiah. Tampered
TruthSurge I was hoping you could clarify something for me. At around 4:08 the verse 1 peter 5:1 says in part "I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ" Who is the "I" in this verse? At first I thought it might be God who is speaking, but why the fellow elder stuff if it is God? And if it is a normal person, how could they be witness to his death in the lowest level of heaven? Thanks.
The "I" refers to the author of 1st Peter. The Greek there is "martys" from which we get "martyr". In the same way many Christians were said to be martyrs, I believe the author is claiming to be just that: a witness, someone who stands up and proclaims what they believe. Not an EYE-witness. Act 22:20, Rev 2:13 and Rev 17:6 use "martys" in the sense of someone dying for their beliefs and this allows us to interpret 1st Peter 5:1 in the non-literal sense. (i think).
Just simply GREAAAAAAT. I have always inclined towards TJMT and have read Doherty, D C Murduch, Robert M Price, The Jesus Mysteries, but this analysis never occurred to me. Well done.
The absence of something, doesn't affirm anything... Basically, if said people never said X then that only means we dont know their opinion on X and not that they had a negative (or even) any other opinion on X.
Number 1 is not evidence but lack of it.
After watching later videos I kept coming (no pun this time) back to this niggle with your position...
Fair enough comment. But consider this. Absence of something that we would expect to be there should be allowed to be ... evidence. It is a fact on its own. It is a FACT that there is only ONE reference to Jesus' "return" in the New Testament outside the gospels WHILE simultaneously there are 6 or more references to his "return" being a revelation which actually rather goes against the idea of a SECOND coming.
Don't confuse the idea of PROVING something and SUPPORTING something. more...
And that one verse I mentioned isn't even a return. It is a second "appearance" (phaneroo which means manifest or revelation, something made known that was unknown).
If Jesus had left the earth promising to RETURN within a few decades, wouldn't we expect at least SOME of these people to say Jesus is RETURNING? COMING AGAIN? COMING BACK? If we found them to say NOTHING about it, you'd be justified in saying it cannot be used to say they believed in a first and only coming. BUT, they did say something. They exclusively referred to it as a mere appearance.
Absence of evidence where said evidence is expected, IS evidence in some cases (IMO).
So, therein lies the difference. In the case of the "2nd coming", it isn't a pure absence of evidence.
Hope that makes sense. It'd be like Abraham Lincoln's letters and writings not mentioning slavery. ! Are you kidding me? He is the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation!
no, I always have my mind in the "gutter" and once you "learn" a word like "come"... heheh you can't unlearn, really. JESUS IS COMING! Run everybody! hahahahaa
Then!! Jesus will be revealed and will be truth by the spirit no by the knowledge of your best companion,U only know the the flesh,, .you will find him. Jesus states: The true worshipers will worship God by the sPIRIT AND TRUTH! God is spirit his diciples in privacy then 4 you too his glory will be revealed. Then your spiritual eyes will be opened not only see him but feel him.
You're right. It's all my fault that Jesus hasn't shown himself to me. I should have been more receptive to the omnipotent creator of the universe. Man, how could I have shut him out when he desires me to be saved? That's so horrible of me to thwart Jesus' will like that. You'd almost think an all-powerful deity wouldn't allow his will to be overridden by a lowly worm such as myself. I hope Jesus can forgive me for overpowering him all those years and give me another chance!
When from the bottom of you heart you get the desire to know Jesus,and not to be skepical about his existence, or try to explain who is him with your very understanding ...
@TruthSurge: Why does it say at 4:07 that he (the elder) is a witness of Christ's sufferings, if it happened in heaven in the indefinite past?
Very good video though, I like your scientific approach...I myself would say that I am an agnostic, at least until I come accross evidence for one side or the other, which I don't believe exists.
Acts 1:8,22 Greek word for "witness" is "martys" from which we get martyr.
Acts 22:20 uses "martys" referring to Stephen. But Stephen isn't listed as being a disciple or at the crucifixion. And this is probably why the translators don't use "witness" in that verse but "martyr".
Witness doesn't necessarily mean an EYE witness but can mean someone who is standing up for the thing in question as IF they were an eye witness (such as Stephen). More...
So, my take is that the author of 1 Peter is not claiming to be an eye witness but a spokesperson for the sufferings of Jesus. A martyr. Just my take.
You know, Christians are so hypocritical. They say sex is shameful and all but Jesus was the KING of sex! Yeah, every time I talk to a Christian they tell me, "Jesus is coming! Jesus is coming!"
He's coming in the clouds. He's coming with his angels. He's coming here, he's coming there, he's coming day and night!
More seriously I thought you put Doherty's case very well, perhaps better than his book does given your conciseness. Sometimes less IS more.
I have a question however. You make the point that the Epistles are the oldest christian documents. I have recently heard that the Matthew Gospel is the oldest text from an Anglican source, and Wiki currently says the same thing. Their argument seems somewhat hollow unless Roman Agent 007 St. Paul's epistles are inauthentic. What do you think ?
I don't have any good reasons to believe that the seven authentic Pauline epistles are actually forgeries. The argument has been put forth by some but the problem is one of evidence. If they were forged in the 2nd century (by Marcion himself?) then the content should belie that fact (ie, 2nd century christianity would be a bit more sophisticated with NO imminent return of Jesus in the text but Paul writes about a Jesus who could return any second, etc). more...
As for your "earliest" question, can you elaborate on this? A link to this wiki page of which you speak would help. Meaning, I need to read what it is that you read so I'll know how to answer. Also, not sure if you mean "content" or actual physical manuscript.
Generally, scholars believe 1st Thess. (50-60CE) is the earliest Christian document in terms of content. (we may have a copy of that from 200 CE but it was written b4 John, eg.). Matthew prob > 80CE.
What translation do you use?
TheSurlyHippo 1 week ago
Somehow Jesus was crucified and yet was never present on earth when, years after, Jesus was expected to reveal himself in the future? Oh please.
If this interpretation makes me go "Hmm", it also makes me go "B%llsh!t Alert!"
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
Ratings disabled? Looks fishy.
saamohod 1 week ago
Jesus is coming quickly. He can't hold his load for very long.
DeistPaladin 1 week ago
All this coming makes it sound like bad porn.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential :) Jesus was the king - of coming. He came and went. He promised to come in the clouds! To come with the angels. Heck, the whole kingdom of god was supposed to come! HAHAHHAHA
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge Jizzes Christ? Jizzovah? And presumably it was the holy ghost that actually said 'I am come', making it a trinity of spilled seed.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential that's why they are all referred to as "he". One big 3-way circle jerk!
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential why do you think Jesus called the HS "the comforter"? HEHEHEHE
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge Oooh, the metaphor goes deeper, or is that the Metatron?
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential Actually, I'd never heard of Metatron til recently. Another add-on. :) A real angel that's the highest one but he managed to keep a VERY low profile until the middle ages. nice.
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge Have you seen Dogma (the movie)? Hilarious pairing of God and Metatron in that :D
Are you suggesting that Metatron is an extra-Biblical invention? :D
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential never saw it. Yes, I'm suggesting it. hehe
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
Also, many of the verses you cite that use a form of "come", use a form of the Greek word "erchomai". In the Greek, "returning" is implied in this word depending on the context. It is used for both "arriving" and "returning" (blueletterbible). For example, we see Paul using the word "erchomai" with the church in Corinth AFTER he has already been with/seen them (2: Cor. 1:15). Therefore, it can easily be assumed that Paul's hearers naturally deduced that he meant "returning".
perichoresis7 4 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 "It is used for both "arriving" and "returning" (blueletterbible)."
Then my pt still stands. :) And it stands because the use throughout all of the citations is CONSISTENT with a Jesus who would appear for the FIRST time.
Dang it. You said you wouldn't be raising objections early!!!! :)
TruthSurge 4 weeks ago
@TruthSurge hahaha Sorry, I couldn't help myself. But, in case you didn't know, my raising objections/pointing out things is a sign of respect toward you. I wouldn't be wasting my time on pointless "atheist arguments" that don't look at the whole issue, as you are doing. I enjoy/respect your work.
perichoresis7 3 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 Well, it's ok but you will prob do better to watch it all first, THEN ask. Because once this stuff piles up, it will become clear that there IS something to it besides just a lack of evidence. :) In fact, in this whole series, I don't even cover that aspect of the theory! What you will see here are more of the remnants or vestigal fossils that point to that earlier belief.
TruthSurge 3 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 BibleStudyTools: "to come" (...); Strong's Greek: "to come, go"; Wikipedia (deponent verb): "An example in Greek is ἔρχομαι (erchomai, I come or I go), middle/passive in form but active in translation."; Google translate: "ἔρχομαι" -> "come", "έρχονται" -> "come", "return" -> "επιστροφή".
pedroamaralcouto 3 weeks ago
@pedroamaralcouto Google translate is not going to be able to capture the context and minor nuances. The Bible contains Koine Greek, which is a very general and ambiguous language. Looking at the word "erchomai" standing alone means one thing, while joined with certain words it means another (which applies to most Greek words). Like I said, check the verse on blueletterbible and you'll see what I mean.
perichoresis7 3 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 "Google translate is not going to be able to capture the context and minor nuances."
Google translate was one of the attempt I enumerated to check if what you said is true. Strong's Greek (2064) was another example ("to come, go"). And there's much more; ex: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon ("start, set out" ... "(much more freq.) come or go"...), Greek-Dictionary ("to come, to go, to pass"), etc.
So what are your sources?
pedroamaralcouto 3 weeks ago
@pedroamaralcouto By the way, the koine greek word for "return" is either "epistrephō" and variations of the same word ( ex: "hypostrephō" ): "trans. to turn towards; to turn round; to bring back, convert, Lk. 1:16, 17; Jas. 5:19, 20; intrans. and mid. to turn one's self upon or towards, Acts 9:40; Rev. 1:12; to turn about, Mt. 9:22; to turn back, return, Mt. 12:44; met. to be converted, Acts 28:27"
Example: "And Barnabas and Saul returned ("epistrephō") from Jerusalem".
pedroamaralcouto 3 weeks ago
@pedroamaralcouto Again, for the third time, my source is blueletterbible. Type in the verse. Translate to Greek. Click on the word in question. Read the meanings.
perichoresis7 3 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 Blueletterbible source - Thayers Lexicon: "I. to come; 1. prop. a. of persons; a. univ. to come from one place into another, and used both of persons arriving" (...) "2. a. of Christ's invisible return from heaven, i.e. of the power which through the Holy Spirit he will exert in the souls of his disciples" ...
Funny it has a special definition for christianity (bias) and Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete since 1901 with Koine Greek Lexicography.
pedroamaralcouto 2 weeks ago
@pedroamaralcouto Funny, next time you tell a family member "I'm coming home from work", I'm sure they assume you mean "for the first time". Apparently it is too much of a stretch to assume "come" can mean "returning" just as much as it means "arriving for the first time." As I said, it is implied. Widen your gaze.
perichoresis7 2 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 "Come" and "return" don't have the same meaning. If I'm moving to my parent's house it would be the first time I'm coming to my new home. If someone says that the portuguese word for "to come" is "voltar", I would say that's wrong. "Voltar" means "to return". "Vir" means "to come".
pedroamaralcouto 1 week ago
@pedroamaralcouto Yes, we have the the words "come" and "return", and yes Koine Greek has a word for each. But both in english and Greek, the idea of "returning" can easily be implied through the use of "come". Paul was writing to individual churches/communities who knew Jesus had already come in the flesh; therefore, when discussing a future coming (one that has not happened yet) it was easily assumed by the community it would be a "2nd" coming (or "return").
perichoresis7 1 week ago
@pedroamaralcouto Also, Jesus' "coming" in the first century was for certain purposes, and his future "coming" will embody different purposes. The two separate "comings" can be considered a "coming for the first time" because of the very different natures of those two appearances. So this "to come" and "return" argument is just an issue of language and culture that 2,000 years of differences has abstracted to mean things that are entirely false (i.e. Jesus never came in the first place).
perichoresis7 1 week ago
I'm not going to question anything or point to any verses here, I just want to point something out. It is important to remember that when we look at/read the epistles we are looking at/reading someone's mail. (Not ours). These were letters written to a specific audience, in a specific context, and often out of (as well as into) an orally transmitting community. Paul/epistle authors were not writing knowing that 2,000 years later people would be examining them with a historically critical eye.
perichoresis7 4 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 and yet... we are. :) Dinosaurs didn't know that MILLIONS of years later we'd be digging their bones up and studying them and yet...
TruthSurge 4 weeks ago
LMAO ... dirty mind*
uewVumopVapIsVdn 1 month ago
@uewVumopVapIsVdn don't tell me.... Jesus is COMING!
TruthSurge 1 month ago
Beautifully written and well put together.
But, be honest, how many commenters were giggling during the first 26 comings of Christ?
arthurjeremypearson 2 months ago in playlist Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?
@arthurjeremypearson thanks. probably all the guys. HEHEHEHE
But this point (that Jesus was never thought to return by early Christians) is a HUGE point in favor of the JM theory. It's the kind of REVELATION that makes you want to shout it from a mountain so everyone knows it. I think most other theories of Christian origins fail because they are basing it on a real Jesus that lived during the 1st century.
TruthSurge 2 months ago
@arthurjeremypearson No kidding, after all that COMING, the Bible sounds more like porn. Nice observation TruthSurge :)
a0eoj 2 months ago
Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah????
Little known fact: Jesus climbed walls and shot webs out of his wrist. So I'm going to have to go with Super Hero.
Seriously though, good video, nice work.
xdassinx 7 months ago
@xdassinx hehe you are not far off! Jesus was, imo, modeled after Odysseus from the Odyssey. Odysseus was a superhero without so many super powers. But he had the gods helping him so yeah, he could fly if they let him!
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge Odysseus, that is interesting.There is a bit of a resemblance in some of the art work. I've heard the Mithra comparison before. I'm not sold on a copy and paste comparison. Though there does seem to be some plagiarism going on. I think the larger point is Zoroastrianism was yet another religion. As if because there was no tv after the flood, people had nothing better to do but make up new "good vs evil, better be good for goodness sake" religions for no reason. Sound hinky.
xdassinx 7 months ago
@xdassinx There are vague parallels and influences and then there are some that are beyond a reasonable doubt. In my next vid series, I will show just this regarding Homer and Greek mythology. It will blow some people's minds. :)
TruthSurge 7 months ago
Regarding Hebrews 9:28, can you please advise which video it is where you go into explaining "appears for the 2nd time" and how it really isn't a 2nd coming at all? It's getting too monotonous going through all kinds of videos and not finding what I'm after. Excellent points you bring up, btw.
rawvegan1 1 year ago
@rawvegan1 I'll tell you here. These early Christians "saw" Jesus in the pages of the old testament. This "appearance" of Jesus to mankind (revealed to man by god) is the FIRST appearance, analogous to the actual incarnation mentioned in the gospels (which is nowhere mentioned outside the gospels). Therefore, to an early Christian, Jesus would appear a 2nd time (his first PHYSICAL appearance to earth at the end of time) and THAT time it would not be to take away sin but to settle matters.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@rawvegan1 The key is to know that the earliest christians (pre-gospel) believed in a Jesus who was not a human, had not lived on earth decades earlier and about whom they had practically no knowledge save the scant info they could glean from OT passages such as:
1. son of god
2. named Jesus
3. killed and hung on a tree
4. rose from the dead
5. would appear on earth soon
This is why all but 1 "coming" reference outside the gospels and acts uses "come/coming/appear" instead of return.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@rawvegan1 hope that helps.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
You forget to mention that the epistle of 1 John speaks of Jesus being made manifest in his first coming.
1That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes,which we looked upon andhave touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the lifewas made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life,which was with the Father and was made manifest to u....
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps There are several places that seem to be recalling the Jesus of the gospels or at least a human Jesus if not the same one as the gospels. These passages need to be examined more closely to see if they are 1) translated properly 2) an interpolation or later insertion by an orthodox Christian who felt the passage was lacking or 3) if the document as a whole should be classified as orthodox instead of pre-Orthodox. I've looked at many of these but not this one in particular.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps What I mean is I've actually made some videos on these problem passages but no video on this one. If you can, watch the remaining vids and I think you will see that there is a ton of indicators that all point toward a mythical Jesus. Also, 2 Cor 4:10 shows that "manifest" doesn't always mean a PHYSICAL manifestation.
Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps So, just reading the translation of one passage isn't enough. You really have to look at the other uses of the term as well as the Greek words and almost always you find that it actually ISN'T what it seemed at face value. phaneroo It's the Greek word for manifest and it's pretty much similar to revelation (apokalypses).
to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge My point was that this is an epistle (not a gospel) and the author is claiming that Christ had been revealed, manifested (whatever) in such a way that they had seen him and touched him - which indicates a recent coming of Christ, not a mythical one. Not a Jesus who came to a lower level of heaven, but a Jesus who came and was seen and touched by human beings in the first century.
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps I understood. ANd I gave you an example showing that manifest does not necessarily mean a physical/real manifestation. The only objection you have to that passage is the touching reference. Here's Darby's translation.
That which was from [the] beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life;
Does "that" refer to a human or a thing?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge "That" refers to Jesus Christ, who John says has come in the flesh. This is one of the main points of 1 John - to beware of those who deny that Christ had come in the flesh. Chapter 4 says, "...many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps pselaphao (handled, touched, felt after) is the word there for handled.
It is used only a couple of times in the NT and as such, likely means...
metaph. mentally to seek after tokens of a person or a thing
This is Strong's alternate definition for the word.
Again, would someone refer to Jesus as "that"? That which was from the beginning? Shouldn't it say "He who was from the beginning"?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge ...1 John 4:9 continues by saying that "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that(U) God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." This is another claim that Christ had been sent into the WORLD. 1 JOhn 4:11 continues by using the same words in 1 John 1:1(AB) we have SEEN and TESTIFY that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of(AD) the world. " John makes it clear that the thing that was seen and testified about in vs 1 was Jesus.
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps Do you believe that words have only one meaning?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Of course not. But the author uses the same phrase repeatedly in the same context. The first usage refers to something that was "with the father and has now appeared" the second usage refers to Jesus who was sent from the father into the world. I mean, c'mon, John is talking about the same thing in vs 1:1 as he is in 4:9.
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps Without sounding arrogant, I think one problem you have is that you are reading it in English and you may also have a stubborn streak. :) I can't type out all of the evidence and reasonings and thoughts and Greek and such here. But if you care to watch my vids you will find some very interesting pts. I also cover OTHER problem passages that MIGHT show you how I would approach this one should I do a vid on it. There's also the possibility of later insertions.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge - I know your intention wasn't to employ an ad hominem argument, but ones confidence and defense of his own position certainly doesn't necessarily imply stubborness. Grk is important, but you can't look only at individual words - you must also look at larger contexts. Dictionaries alone arent sufficient. Even if 1 Jn 1:1 wasn't referring to Jesus, 1 Jn does say that Christ came into the world in the flesh. That alone refutes the JM theory concerning the testimony of the epistles.
elderaps 1 year ago
@elderaps I think you are missing a lot of data that argues for the JM theory and then obsessing over one or two passages that seem to go against it. Of course there are passages that go against the theory but I've explained some of those in the later vids. I have not tackled the "in the flesh" verses, "seed of David" references, etc. Paul calls Jesus a "man" in two different verses. That sounds like he believed he was human, yes? I deal with that in a vid. I'll post the link.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps Part A of a 2 part vid on how Paul could refer to Jesus as a "man" but not believe him to be human. /watch?v=kIEQoz1dz_0
Anyway, each passage, verse, idea that seems to be anti-JM (so far) has turned out to be easily explained. I don't think I can explain the "flesh" verses completely right now but again, let's assume the were what they seem. They still could have been later insertions. If not, we then need to ask how no miracles or teachings show up in those works. a big prob.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps There is so much evidence for the theory that EVEN if one or two explanations of passages remained unsatisfactory, I'd still go with the theory. When you have 200 pieces of strong evidence and 2 against.... I'll take those odds any day of the week.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps Remember, these NT works were not written by one person so if the 1,2 and 3 Johns were removed from the JM works and placed along with the gospels, we do NOT lose the other epistles as you say when you say "that alone refults the JM theory". No, it does not. It would simply put those works into the orthodox camp. You still have the amazing ability of Paul in 7 letters (LONG letters) to avoid mentioned even ONE of Jesus' teachings or miracles. You have huge probs, my friend. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I once heard a Christian say "If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me" I kid you not.
MercuryRis 9 months ago
@MercuryRis hehehehe I think English wasn't even an option 2000 years ago - even in ENGLAND! hahah Languages take some time to congeal so Jebus (if he existed as a human) would have been exposed to Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and possibly any of the nearby languages of the Middle-East. I think Latin was just a tad later also.
TruthSurge 9 months ago
@TruthSurge I think Im right about this, but theres no section in the Bible that clearly says he was nailed to a cross.
MercuryRis 9 months ago
@elderaps I'd say if you watched all of those vids I did on this, you'll have a much better idea of why this theory is strong even with the passages that at face value seem to point away from it and back to the gospel Jesus we know and love. I plan to do another vid on another problem passage but who knows when?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@elderaps You are commenting at 2B. That's vid 2 and I've done 5 hours or more of vids. These vids are really about looking at the issue w/o the gospel glasses on. Not reading INTO the epistles what isn't there. Digging into the Greek because translators were often wrong. etc.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Regarding Hebrews 9:28, can you please advise which video it is where you go into explaining "appears for the 2nd time" and how it really isn't a 2nd coming at all? It's getting too monotonous going through all kinds of videos and not finding what I'm after. Excellent points you bring up, btw.
rawvegan1 1 year ago
@rawvegan1 Good question. :) I can't recall right now but in summary, you have two parallel or rather analogous "appearances" going on. In the orthodox view, Jesus' first appearance was on earth during the first half of century 1. In the JM theory view, his first appearance was in the pages of the Old Testament. So, the "he will appear a 2nd time" speaks of his REAL appearance at the end of time. Make sense?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo Strong's Greek 3952
parousia
1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent
Oops. You are uneducated. Go back to Romania and do some studying and THEN come back and we MIGHT be able to discuss this. As it is, your mind has been clouded by religion.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
Thayers`s Greek Definitions
Thayer Definition:
1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent
2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
----
Strong's Hebrew-Greek
From the present participle of G3918; a being near, that is, advent (often, return; specifically of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physical aspect: - coming, presence.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo You must realize that the 2a definition is ONLY added in due to the fact that the gospels and acts have forced these people to make it an alternative definition when no such meaning actually exists. It's the entire point of my 2A and 2B vids which you simply want to dismiss. There was no sense of a RETURN in the epistles. You don't like that fact. Deal with it.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"2a definition is ONLY added in due to the fact that the gospels and acts have forced these people to make it an alternative definition"
And yet you did not quote this definition "alternative definition".
"You don't like that fact. Deal with it."
I just find it ridiculous
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo All of the times parousia appears in the NT it is rendered as "coming". Not once is it rendered as "returning". There are 4 or 5 other Greek words that mean return and parousia is not one of them. Again, the entry into the lexicon was added ONLY because the story of Jesus in the gospels was assumed to be the story in the epistles. Dig? You want truth? You have to be wiling to study and dig under the hood and see what's really there (and not there).
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@VyckRo Find me a translation (besides the New LIving Translation) that renders parousia as return or returning or coming back or coming again. Good luck.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthSurge
"Oops. You are uneducated." am more educated than you could ever be!
And that is a fact!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Good video, I can see where your coming from especially due to the literal interpretation so many have.
Now you get my view..lol (symbolic, okay) "Coming" signifies the Holy Spirits decent into the hearts of the people. Revelation that brings completeness. To be cleaned once and for all... sin dies at the death of Christ. Christ is the fulfilling of the law.........
However there has been a strange intermingling of law and grace through out the history of Christianity...
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 Its the patterns the opposing' sides run parallel to the process of wholeness by way of two sides. These two natures within are split, and continue to need the shackles of darkness removed by union. As long as people project a satan image they remain blinded by their own darkness.
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 I'm not saying there aren't symbols here and there. Just which are which? IMO, Paul "saw" Jesus in the pages of the OT. So, his vision of Jesus I take to be a more symbolic thing or non-literal in that he didn't SEE Jesus himself but a vision a scriptural character found in places like Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 etc.
But yeah, early Christians expected Jesus to appear on earth and it never happened.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Your argument about "revelation" demonstrates only that you don't understand Jewish apocalyptic thinking.
As for "coming", if I say that I'm looking forward to my friend "coming" to see me, does that mean he's never been here before? Hardly.
You cite 1 Cor. 11:26. You neglect to mention that the verses immediately preceding it describe Jesus, "on the night he was betrayed" taking bread, breaking it, and instituting the sacraments. Sounds rather rooted in history, don't you think?
Daytimeofnight 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight "
"Your argument about "revelation""
Godz... you really ARE a dumbass. I just thought you might be unaware of the issues surrounding Christian origins but you really have a low IQ, don't you?
It isn't an argument. It's know as a DEFINITION.
Please, do us both a favor, and leave. If you want to learn from someone who obviously has read more about the theory than you and who has personally studied it in DETAIL, fine. else, just leave.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Glad to leave. Especially when your responses are nothing more than insults. Enjoy your conspiracy theory.
Daytimeofnight 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight lol retard
mikesomething 1 year ago
@TruthSurge: "As you know by now, erchomai carries with it NO sense of return ever except that it has NO sense of going or returning."
Strong's: erchomai: to come
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
So: you say it is "amazing" for erchomai to be used of Jesus each time. But how many times would you expect it to be used, given its meaning, and how can you know that?
gdon12987 1 year ago
@TruthSurge: That there was a "return" STRENGTHENS my case. If they had the word "return", why didn't they use it in the nobleman and Elias examples? And they have nothing to do with Jesus, much less clouds. The simple fact is that "erchomai" also bears the sense of "return", which you don't acknowledge in your vid.
Question: you say it is "amazing" for erchomai to be used of Jesus each time. But how many times would you expect it to be used, given its meaning, and how can you know that?
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 "The simple fact is that "erchomai" also bears the sense of "return", which you don't acknowledge in your vid. "
As you know by now, erchomai carries with it NO sense of return ever except that it has NO sense of going or returning. It is ambiguous with regard to that. I msged you in detail about that. Perhaps that's why I don't acknowledge it in the vids. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge: Thought I might as well continue since I have a degree... :)
"THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT! SINCE THE EPISTLES DON'T SHOW A JESUS ON EARTH, THE USAGE STILL FITS SINCE THERE IS NO "PALIN" OR AGAIN IN ANY INSTANCE."
No, your point was that it is "amazing" that "over 40 "2nd coming" verses in the epistles NEVER use the concept of returning". But word used MEANS "returning", and "coming before the public". So how do you know??? At how many does it become amazing, and why?
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 So, you conveniently forgot the other times "return" is used in the epistles AND gospels? You forgot (conveniently) that in the gospels most of the comings are associated with clouds and a return would be silly since clouds never left? What would convince you? The ONLY thing that would convince YOU is if Paul said "Jesus was never on Earth."
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge:
Strong's: erchomai: to come
a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
"Returning", "come before the public". Seems appropriate. And to repeat, we see examples not just using Jesus (the nobleman, Elias).
So, which of the following statements are true:
1. erchomai can mean return
2. You think it is "amazing" that it is used so many times for Jesus' return
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 2.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
I know no logic on earth that says "the data may support my side or support the other side. So it is evidence for my side." The only question is whether "come" containing a nuance of "return" as well is common usage or not. It clearly is. Check the examples. Check Strong's entry on "erchomai" in Blueletter.
But I agree enough has been said on this, so I will make this my last post in this comment thread.
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987
Wow. Just wow. Tell me you don't have some college degree. Please. You can't.
Let's say that we have 40 pieces of evidence and out of 40 we have nothing that PRECLUDES interpretation A but interpretation B can also be made from that same evidence. The evidence then can be used by BOTH parties in support of their case. Take the Greek word "ek". It can mean FROM or it can mean OUT OF or many other prepositions. So, how I interpret the word in context may DIFFER from yours.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@gdon12987 Again, I never said it was cut and dried. I didn't say it was bullet proof. I said that the evidence (facts) support the JM theory and they do.
Erchomai certainly is a more generic usage than what we might use today and ALONE we cannot say if the usage is in the sense of returning or just arriving. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT! SINCE THE EPISTLES DON'T SHOW A JESUS ON EARTH, THE USAGE STILL FITS SINCE THERE IS NO "PALIN" OR AGAIN IN ANY INSTANCE.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge: "So, what I'm saying is that both interpretations [of "come"] are valid. I simply choose the one that fits better with my beliefs."
That's fine, but if both interpretations are valid, then (1) it is hardly evidence for your position, and (2) it is not amazing for it to be used in that way. As I said, it appears to be a common usage. Strong's entry on erchomai ["come"] gives "return" as one of its meanings. The examples of the nobleman and Elias passages support this.
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 "That's fine, but if both interpretations are valid, then (1) it is hardly evidence for your position"
! Take a logic course. If the evidence fits BOTH sides, it most certainly IS evidence FOR my position. IOW, it fits. Go look up the word overlap. There is a lot of overlap between the various denominations and various forms of Christianity. I'm done on this topic. believe what you want.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Darn that I can't put in links! It isn't just with clouds. More examples:
Luke 19:13 He called ten servants of his... and told them, 'Conduct business until I come.'
John 14:28 You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.'
John 17:13 But now I come to you
John 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come...'
Check Strong's entry on erchomai. The nobleman passage and the Elias one (that I gave below) seem clear examples.
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 I already know this. What you still haven't addressed is how not only all of the verses in the epistles use the word come or coming but many use apokolypsis (reveal) and (appear). You can say that come was a broad way of defining movement (from pt a to pt b, from HEAVEN to EARTH) but Jesus' return would in no way be a revelation. He'd already been revealed to the world. Plus, the epistles don't place Jesus in history so "come" has no innate meaning of "come back".
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@gdon12987 In the gospels, Jesus IS on earth. So when he says "wait till I come" it's a given he means return to earth after he goes back to heaven. But this is due to the fact that he's depicted as being ON EARTH in the stories. So, what I'm saying is that both interpretations are valid. I simply choose the one that fits better with my beliefs. It answers more questions than the one you seem to be arguing for.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@gdon12987 Luke 12:36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Jesus is describing his second coming in parable form. He also uses the word return (which might be better translated depart) but also in
And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when **he will return** from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@gdon12987 So, in Luke 19:12 Jesus is describing his second coming in parable form again. This time he uses "hypostrephō" which does mean precisely return.
Luke 19:12
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to*** return ***.
You see, the problem is that you are thinking that because the gospels use "come" more often, then it explains the epistles' usage. Prob is, not ONCE in the epistles do you find anything about returning.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
If it common usage of "come", then how can it be amazing that it is used that way? And there are other examples in the Gospels as well (including Jesus -- after being identified as "son of man" -- talks about the "Son of Man coming in clouds").
I tell you what: I've given examples in the Gospels using "come" to describe Jesus and Elijah's return. How many times in the four Gospels does anyone talk about Jesus ***returning***?
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 John 14:3 (erchomai palin or come again)
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will **** come again ****, and receive you unto myself;
Many of the gospel "coming"s are related to clouds.
`I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming with the clouds, of the heaven.'
Surely you don't think it's proper to say that the clouds were returning?
Besides, even if no one said return or come again, my interpretation is still valid.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@gdon12987 And what of revealed? Appear? This is language that one would use to describe a FIRST appearance, not a return.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
I think you may be over-analysing this. Lots of verses where "come" is used rather than "return". Some examples:
1. Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. ("come" instead of "return' to the father)
2. Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come... (not "return")
3. Mark 9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come (not "come back")
4. Mark 14:62 Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven (not "returning")
gdon12987 1 year ago
@gdon12987 You haven't studied any set theory? Since come exists in both sets of meanings, we would expect it to be used in both. IOW, it is not surprising that you are able to find some "come" verses in the gospels. What IS amazing is that over 40 "2nd coming" verses in the epistles NEVER use the concept of returning. Overanalyzing? I think not.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Great presentation, great point. What do you think of Dec 21, 2012 (galactic alignment, end of time, convergence of calendars). Can that be the day of Jesus' coming?
popas7 1 year ago
@popas7 Why would I think that if I believe that Jesus never even existed? The alignment of arbitrary items is meaningless. That's what most people can't understand, I suppose. They don't understand that gravity falls off exponentially as one moves away from a large celestial body such as Earth. Our sun's gravity has little effect at all on anything outside this solar system. It's like a magnet. On the refrigerator it's strong. 1" away, nothing. thanks.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge So the ancient civilizations that predicted major changes around Dec 21, 2012 are simply wrong?
popas7 1 year ago
@popas7 That would be my stance.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@pakleglia I'm saying! hahaa Make me want to be more like Jesus. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Who framed Jesus? Satan.
The devil wears Prada? No.
The devil "wishes" she wore prada.
Now she just works at target.
Surrounded by Christians.
What goes around comes around bitch.
Best of luck.
I'm OUT.
laughlintwins 2 years ago
Is there any proof that the early Christians actually believed that Jesus was crucified in Heaven? I mean, the standard take on the Docetics is that Jesus was a spirit that crucified here on earth, but as a spirit he could not die. I would like to know if that could be clarified or whether it's just a subjective interpretation?
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
There's never "proof". Just evidence pointing toward a conclusion. See Hebrews 9. Jesus is shown offering his sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacles not made by human hands. Also see all the refs in the NT where the gospel of Jesus was hidden throughout the ages. Not possible if he was crucified at the END of the ages. etc.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
This is madness. When Paul wrote the epistles he was working off the assumption that the readers knew that Jesus walked the earth and was crucified physically. Consider the following passages:
1 Corinthians 9:5 - Paul refers to the Lord's brother (James)
1 Corinthians 11:23 - refers to Jesus' actions on the night he was betrayed
1 Timothy 6:13 - refers to Jesus before Pilate
2 Timothy 2:8 - Jesus descended from David
Hebrews 5:7 - Jesus' life on earth
2 Peter 1:16 - Peter was an eyewitness
chewy531 2 years ago
Please watch all the vids THEN come back and say that. Please watch them?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Good point! I've studied extensively on the subject of Jesus. The figure who appeared referred to himself as a prophet, as well as others declared him during his time. Both Malachi 3:1 and 4:5 refer to a coming messenger and prophet (Elijah). This person was believed to be John the Baptist. However, the powers that be manipulated the scriptures to institute CHRISTIANITY. This explains the inconsistencies in the Bible. The text has been tampered with, and PAUL was a fake apostle -- ANTICHRIST.
cookiemonsterog 2 years ago
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. & for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2 Thess 2:10
very soon u will see him
SWAUVE4U 2 years ago
very soon you will see Satan.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
BEING BOUND for 1,000 yrs and we/ w Christ will reign very soon , then we shall see him cast into the lake of fire along w/ those he has deceived...soon he will grant the Son of perdition power to deceive many,...seek and know.
SWAUVE4U 2 years ago
What if Allah is the real god and you're wrong? What if you just happened to be born into Christianity due to your parents believing it or your geographical location? If you'd been born in Thailand you'd be a Buddhist. SEEK AND LEARN!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Nope...
Bible prophecy is being fulfilled, Bless u Brother...No other word like the word of God...Seek truth and u will find seek false hood and u will make it just that...
SWAUVE4U 2 years ago
"No other word like the word of God"
I couldn't have said it better.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Revelation 19
;)
we shall see him very soon...very
SWAUVE4U 2 years ago
I can't wait.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
This man is under no delusion. If you read the bible precept upon precept, and examine Old and New testament you will see that even Jesus misused OT scriptures or quoted scriptures that did not exist. Christianity is a farse. DoNot be fooled. Jesus was a prophet possibly Elijah aka John the Baptist. If you take him away, the POPE and Christianity falls. God stands because he said he would send a prophet before his great and dreadful day. Malachi 3:1. Not a messenger and prophet/messiah. Tampered
cookiemonsterog 2 years ago
TruthSurge I was hoping you could clarify something for me. At around 4:08 the verse 1 peter 5:1 says in part "I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ" Who is the "I" in this verse? At first I thought it might be God who is speaking, but why the fellow elder stuff if it is God? And if it is a normal person, how could they be witness to his death in the lowest level of heaven? Thanks.
samirnayanajaad 2 years ago
The "I" refers to the author of 1st Peter. The Greek there is "martys" from which we get "martyr". In the same way many Christians were said to be martyrs, I believe the author is claiming to be just that: a witness, someone who stands up and proclaims what they believe. Not an EYE-witness. Act 22:20, Rev 2:13 and Rev 17:6 use "martys" in the sense of someone dying for their beliefs and this allows us to interpret 1st Peter 5:1 in the non-literal sense. (i think).
TruthSurge 2 years ago
thanks for these vids, you have the art of being able to put these ideas over well.subbed and look forward to your future efforts.
yellowlabrador 2 years ago
thanks! I'm going to do more "problem" passages soon. Ones that seem to go against the theory.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Just simply GREAAAAAAT. I have always inclined towards TJMT and have read Doherty, D C Murduch, Robert M Price, The Jesus Mysteries, but this analysis never occurred to me. Well done.
kamikazee100 2 years ago
the idea is mentioned in doherty's book but he doesn't go into enough detail so I decided to kick it up a notch. HEHEH thanks!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
This is a great series: I look forward to watching the remaining videos. Instantly subscribed.
tenneral 2 years ago
thanks!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
GRR!!! I can't take this seriously! I can't listen to someone say come (cum) so many times in 10 minutes! Oh Lord, he is CUMMING! GRR!!
atlant80 2 years ago
Oh, CUM now! Surely, you can take it. Take it like a man. HAHAHHAA Boy, this vid is going to get an XXX rating before it's over! hahahha
TruthSurge 2 years ago
OK. Serious question...
The absence of something, doesn't affirm anything... Basically, if said people never said X then that only means we dont know their opinion on X and not that they had a negative (or even) any other opinion on X.
Number 1 is not evidence but lack of it.
After watching later videos I kept coming (no pun this time) back to this niggle with your position...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
Fair enough comment. But consider this. Absence of something that we would expect to be there should be allowed to be ... evidence. It is a fact on its own. It is a FACT that there is only ONE reference to Jesus' "return" in the New Testament outside the gospels WHILE simultaneously there are 6 or more references to his "return" being a revelation which actually rather goes against the idea of a SECOND coming.
Don't confuse the idea of PROVING something and SUPPORTING something. more...
TruthSurge 2 years ago
And that one verse I mentioned isn't even a return. It is a second "appearance" (phaneroo which means manifest or revelation, something made known that was unknown).
TruthSurge 2 years ago
If Jesus had left the earth promising to RETURN within a few decades, wouldn't we expect at least SOME of these people to say Jesus is RETURNING? COMING AGAIN? COMING BACK? If we found them to say NOTHING about it, you'd be justified in saying it cannot be used to say they believed in a first and only coming. BUT, they did say something. They exclusively referred to it as a mere appearance.
Absence of evidence where said evidence is expected, IS evidence in some cases (IMO).
You can't
TruthSurge 2 years ago
So, therein lies the difference. In the case of the "2nd coming", it isn't a pure absence of evidence.
Hope that makes sense. It'd be like Abraham Lincoln's letters and writings not mentioning slavery. ! Are you kidding me? He is the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I'm sorry I can't listen to that amount of "coming" without cracking a childish smile...
I am truly a disgrace... :)
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
Same here.
InfinityAlarm 2 years ago
no, I always have my mind in the "gutter" and once you "learn" a word like "come"... heheh you can't unlearn, really. JESUS IS COMING! Run everybody! hahahahaa
TruthSurge 2 years ago
It was "Therefore if you will not watch, I will COME upon you as a theif, and you will not know what hour I will COME upon you"...
Then you followed with, "Surely I am COMING quickly." Amen.
So childish but I'm still laughing...
Great videos though, I was totally unaware of this and although not yet convinced will check out more...
Thanks... and sorry again...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
no, it IS funny. I'm sure someone could make a funny skit from those verses. and what about
"Get thee behind me, Satan. For I am coming quickly!"
OOOOOOOOOOO! You see? You are a bad influence on me!!!! :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I will not be at peace until Jesus has entered each and every one of my children in person... :)
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
why, you sick bastard! HAHAHH
TruthSurge 2 years ago
"So childish but I'm still laughing..."
I know what you mean. When I listened to it, I felt like I was in middle school again. I can't help but laugh.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
pff.. christianity is just another cult. desert superstition. you know, crap.
dednikko 2 years ago
It is totally false. No doubt.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Then!! Jesus will be revealed and will be truth by the spirit no by the knowledge of your best companion,U only know the the flesh,, .you will find him. Jesus states: The true worshipers will worship God by the sPIRIT AND TRUTH! God is spirit his diciples in privacy then 4 you too his glory will be revealed. Then your spiritual eyes will be opened not only see him but feel him.
enzo2009 3 years ago
You're right. It's all my fault that Jesus hasn't shown himself to me. I should have been more receptive to the omnipotent creator of the universe. Man, how could I have shut him out when he desires me to be saved? That's so horrible of me to thwart Jesus' will like that. You'd almost think an all-powerful deity wouldn't allow his will to be overridden by a lowly worm such as myself. I hope Jesus can forgive me for overpowering him all those years and give me another chance!
TruthSurge 3 years ago
When from the bottom of you heart you get the desire to know Jesus,and not to be skepical about his existence, or try to explain who is him with your very understanding ...
enzo2009 3 years ago
@TruthSurge: Why does it say at 4:07 that he (the elder) is a witness of Christ's sufferings, if it happened in heaven in the indefinite past?
Very good video though, I like your scientific approach...I myself would say that I am an agnostic, at least until I come accross evidence for one side or the other, which I don't believe exists.
itsTugi 3 years ago
Acts 1:8,22 Greek word for "witness" is "martys" from which we get martyr.
Acts 22:20 uses "martys" referring to Stephen. But Stephen isn't listed as being a disciple or at the crucifixion. And this is probably why the translators don't use "witness" in that verse but "martyr".
Witness doesn't necessarily mean an EYE witness but can mean someone who is standing up for the thing in question as IF they were an eye witness (such as Stephen). More...
TruthSurge 3 years ago
So, my take is that the author of 1 Peter is not claiming to be an eye witness but a spokesperson for the sufferings of Jesus. A martyr. Just my take.
Thanks!
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Oh dear, the first part sounded like some horrible bukake fest. ROFL
formless777 3 years ago
You know, Christians are so hypocritical. They say sex is shameful and all but Jesus was the KING of sex! Yeah, every time I talk to a Christian they tell me, "Jesus is coming! Jesus is coming!"
He's coming in the clouds. He's coming with his angels. He's coming here, he's coming there, he's coming day and night!
I want to be more like Jesus. :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
More seriously I thought you put Doherty's case very well, perhaps better than his book does given your conciseness. Sometimes less IS more.
I have a question however. You make the point that the Epistles are the oldest christian documents. I have recently heard that the Matthew Gospel is the oldest text from an Anglican source, and Wiki currently says the same thing. Their argument seems somewhat hollow unless Roman Agent 007 St. Paul's epistles are inauthentic. What do you think ?
formless777 3 years ago
I don't have any good reasons to believe that the seven authentic Pauline epistles are actually forgeries. The argument has been put forth by some but the problem is one of evidence. If they were forged in the 2nd century (by Marcion himself?) then the content should belie that fact (ie, 2nd century christianity would be a bit more sophisticated with NO imminent return of Jesus in the text but Paul writes about a Jesus who could return any second, etc). more...
TruthSurge 3 years ago
As for your "earliest" question, can you elaborate on this? A link to this wiki page of which you speak would help. Meaning, I need to read what it is that you read so I'll know how to answer. Also, not sure if you mean "content" or actual physical manuscript.
Generally, scholars believe 1st Thess. (50-60CE) is the earliest Christian document in terms of content. (we may have a copy of that from 200 CE but it was written b4 John, eg.). Matthew prob > 80CE.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Oh, thanks, too!
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Excellent job of bringing out this part of Doherty's case. Your compilation brings much greater force to Doherty's argument. Bravo!
MetricSU 3 years ago