The History Of The Biblical Canon (1)

[JpForum]

What was the website that Matt cites/credits near the start of the video, around 1:46?

[brazilian777able]

This video is about people who went to "church" and taught that made them "christians" You must be "born again" to be a Christians so you can study and read and still never experience the God of the Bible. To be a true Christian you must REPENT ask Forgiveness for breaking HIS commandments. Torah DOES NOT MEAN LAW BUT TEACHING AND INSTRUCTIONS. Obviously you have not read The Bible the languages show up after the Babel Tower. This viedeo FAIL!

[dmnemaine]

@brazilian777able,

What makes you think that people like me who came out of your religion didn't do all those things you listed? Oh, I know. We couldn't have been "real" Christians because "real" Christians wouldn't question their faith, right?

[brazilian777able]

@dmnemaine Going to church doesn't make you a Christian like going into your garage doesn't make you a car.

[dmnemaine]

@brazilian777able,

I counted myself a Christian because I did exactly what you laid out as the requirement to be a "true Christian". Exactly. It wasn't just about going to church for me. Do you get it now? The only difference is that I came to a place where I required reasonable evidence to support my belief, not just "faith".  When I found that there was no evidence, the only logical choice was to dismiss those beiefs. You just haven't reached that point.

[brazilian777able]

@dmnemaine The reason you've reach a point in which you feel "empty" was because you have never been born again. Born again is not a "mental accent" of something to be true but rather the manifestation (encounter) an "experience" with HIM. The experience of the "born again" stays with you and tongues keep you edified and build up in HIM. If you are sincere go on a 3 days fast and take that meal time and offer to study, worship and prayer to HIM. "Seek me and you shall find me"

[dmnemaine]

@brazilian777able,

I had the "born again" experience. I did the seeking, praying, bible-reading, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. I really reallly really truly truly truly believed in Jesus as my savior, and for a long time my belief was enough to convince me that it was all real. It was when I wanted EVIDENCE to support my belief that I began to find that Christianity FAILS big time in that department. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! (cont.)

[brazilian777able]

@dmnemaine It is not about "believe in God" because the devil believe in God and tremble. The first evidence of been born again is "speaking in tongues" and in the Hebrew language which is the original language and the language Jesus spoke reveals that the "words" were defined for us in Greek not in Hebrew so for example "keep my Word" in several passages means "Obey my Word" in another words DO IT! Did you fed and clothe the poor? Did you help the widow and orphan? Did you gave up all idols?

[ndrthrdr1]

@brazilian777able Just more claims without evidence to back them up. Your claims can simply be ignored.

[brazilian777able]

@ndrthrdr1 Best Seling book OF ALL TIMES? BIBLE!!!

The most read book in the world? BIBLE

The most burned, criticized, hated, loved, fought for it and the only book that NEVER change? BIBLE.

The book that "speaks" to any age regardless, of been rich or poor, white or black, Russian or Western, man or woman...The BIBLE!! Who doesn't want to believe? Those who doesn't want 1. Acknowledge that they violated Gods Ten commandments. 2. They don't want assume "responsibility " their actions

[ndrthrdr1]

@brazilian777able Best selling book of all time? How many of those copies were bought by churches with tithe money, not by individuals who actually wanted to read them? Why is this best seller never on the New York Times Bestseller List?

Belief isn't a matter of wanting to believe. I want to believe that the lottery ticket I bought will win millions of dollars. However, I'm not delusional enough to believe that it truly will. There's no evidence that it will.

No evidence at all.

[brazilian777able]

@ndrthrdr1 Obviously you have a problem not with the Bible but "tithe" so lets park there. Tithe is to pay for books with bible stories for children, pencils, coloring pens etc.

The youth has magazines and Bibles which also cost. Plus the cost to help missionaries all over the world, buy books for prison ministry plus pay for light bill so people like yourself be able to see when inside a building that you call church. Yes, there are sharks out there using the gospel for profit,

[ndrthrdr1]

@brazilian777able I have plenty of trouble with the credibility of the Bible. It doesn't pay my light bill in church, because I don't go to one I don't give money to people indoctrinating children into the cult. That's child abuse and should be illegal. Passing off as truth Iron and Bronze Age barbaric tribal myths and fairy stories of a wonderful eternal life - in contrast with the truth of death as real, permanent, and natural - is bizarre and destructive behavior.

[brazilian777able]

@ndrthrdr1 So you've never read the Bible therefore, you can't have an inteligent conversation so you use the "old" cop out to dismiss a subject that has your life hanging.

[ndrthrdr1]

@brazilian777able

I have read the Bible.. That's how I got a clue and left the cult.

[brazilian777able]

@ndrthrdr1 lucifer was kickout for "pride" so you did not left the "church" you have been kicked out for unsurbordination. you don't want to follow Jesus....You want to be follow....spirit of pride.. arrogancy is deceiving spirits and you are obeying them without knowing. evil spirits are in business of deceit before you even came into existence. repent and escape while you can. .

[ndrthrdr1]

@brazilian777able Lucifer is an imaginary boogeyman made up by cult leaders who manipulated the gullible, superstitious and dim-witted to exert control over them.

The monster under the bed isn't real, and your parents lied to you.

[Callirgos1]

@brazilian777able

lol.... you're completely insane. Which Bible? Are you adding them all together?

Why don't you take some responsibility? Stop asking for forgiveness from your imaginary god for imaginary crimes committed by imaginary characters. Stop thinking you can do whatever you want and go to a big building once a week and be forgiven. Stop being a jerk.

[me25422]

@brazilian777able  the bible never changes? do your homework!

[brazilian777able]

@me25422 The bible has never change; however, what you call bible and what I know" it is the Bible it is two different things.  The Torah is "the" Bible. but the translations are mistranslations.get it?

[brazilian777able]

@me25422 The bible is not my homework.  It is my lifestyle.

[brazilian777able]

@dmnemaine Your born again experience was a figure of your imagination. 1. A born again experience will give you ability to speak in other tongues which is the seal that you have been born again, and is your assurance that you are saved. 2. The definition of the word "Believe" in God's original language which is Hebrew is to OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS! Thus you have no manifestations in your life. In order to change all that 1. repent., 2. Obey the commandments. check Leviticus chapter 23

[brazilian777able]

@dmnemaine Let me clarify to you. One God did not come to earth to bring "religion" HE came to bring HIS "goverment" HIS system of doing things. HIS constitution is the Bible more specifically the Torah which by the way the "christian" are not educated on it actually are told that "old testament" which is a lie. The only thing done away was the sacrificial system bc Yeshua (Jesus is the Greek name) became the eternal sacrifice.

[GahdeMalprigi1488x]

wwwdotExposingChristianitydotc­om

[jolarti]

Wish the sound was better... Had to click 'transcribe audio'. But the line "what we know about it" was transcribed as "portal dot" - quite poetic!!

[RocketCatDK]

WOW!I This video is like.. TOTALLY not about Canon Cameras!

OOPS!

[steffyb528]

@RocketCatDK lol, you're right. Hate it when that happens you think you are going to one thing and end up seeing another.

[redletterchurch]

What if Lucifer wrote the Bible? I invite everyone - atheist and otherwise - to study comparative religions, theologies, mythologies, and philosophies. Then take a close look at science fiction - with all of the above in mind - such as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, and 'V'. Ralph Ellis has done some interesting biblical research and interpretation which you might be interested in. Theology is at the center of everything - even if God does not exist! Just keep digging!

[MasterBlueTiger]

@redletterchurch Intersting thought. I would disagree with the notion that Theology is at the center of everything. Both loving, and writing, Science FIction, I see the question of how theology fits into the setting as part of world building. Some go farther and use theology/mythology as inspiration for actual story like Stargate. A better statement might use philosophy, as we writers tend to express our views that way.

[anonymepelle]

I aprove of this video.

Alsow Matt D. is my hero.

[redletterchurch]

I believe in a combination of evolution and intelligent design. I also believe in reincarnation and the existence of supernatural phenomenon. Having said that - I have huge problems with just about everyone and every paradigm - but I try to listen to just about everyone and every paradigm. Oxymoron - or wave of the future? Atheists do a lot of good biblical research - because they are free of the constraints which encumber a Christian theologian - who is aiming for tenure! Namaste.

[handofnergal]

Go Matt!!! Whooohooo, you slay!

[agnostaxian]

Ok, hebrew was invented in 300 BC? "If Jesus existed" & "Serious debate about that"? "Torah disvcovered around 622 BC"? Wow! and you guys call Young earth creationists ignorant, well at least this guy states his ignorance at the beginning but then proceeds to talk and answer questions as if he knew something about the subject. Joke.

[Humanist555]

By the bible's own admission, in King Josiah's reign they "discovered" fragments of the Law and thus the collection of the various documents of the Torah were compiled. When did King Josiah's reign begin? By all means, enlighten us to when it was.

[agnostaxian]

Hum, Many scholars think that Deut was discovered in the late 7th century BC under Josiah not the entire Torah. Tough guy above needs to study a little more or stop strawmaning. Also, what were the HEBREWS/ Israelites speaking before 300 BC, pig latin? And to say there is a "serious debate" among scholars about the existence of Jesus is like saying their is a serious debate among geologists that the earth is 6-10,000 years old- laughable.

[Humanist555]

I would agree, I don't think scholars really care if there was or was not a Jesus other than those w/a theological axe to grind. Sounds like we are looking at some of the same material as we agree on what was found during King Josiah's reign. I apologize as I misunderstood your comment to be challenging that when the bits of the Law were discovered (Deut. most likely) they started to compile a story to shore up support and stir up nationalism and thus Josiah's kingdom.

[agnostaxian]

Humanist, U are right, we may be talking semantics. I see what you are saying. :)

[BohemianBlasphemy]

Matt simply stated that he has no formal training. He really knows what he is talking about.

You took his honesty and turned it into something negative by calling him ignorant. Why would you do that?

Now tell me, wise guy, how was the bible put together?

[agnostaxian]

Bo, it was a long process that took at least 1,000 years. To much info to put into 500 spaces. But some of the things Matt says up there are a little off to say the least. I did my masters thesis on the historical Jesus and my THD in early Christianity so have put a little bit of study into this stuff and if you are really interested in discussing this topic further I can PM you.

[BohemianBlasphemy]

"To much info to put into 500 spaces"

True. Just tell me this: Was there human manipulation derived from political interests?

Oh, and please do PM me.

[agnostaxian]

BO, Oh, to answer that question (which is loaded and begs some things), I don't even need 500 spaces, the answer is no. Are you talking about the OT or the NT? If it is the whole Bible, especially the NT, which there are some wild theories out there that are pretty silly, I will say that most of the NT canon (4 gospels, acts, pauls letters, 1 Peter, 1 John) were set before the Church had any political power and was actually being persecuted. Is this what u mean?

[SecularInquisitor]

It would've been more about controlling the message, right? Would Marcion be the first time the Church overtly expressed it's power over the faithful? However, I don't think it changes the fact that Paulians outnumbered the original Christians very early on so while ther Roman recognized power would be limited their political power at a grass-roots level would be considerable by sheer number. Jews have always been a small group and the idea of necessary conversion is addressed in the bible...

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Ok, I just have a few questions to understand your position. I understand you saying that Paul created a fictional bio correct? Paul gives his Bio in Phillippians 3:4-7 & 2 Corinthians 11:21-22. Is all of it fabricated or just parts? You say he could have been a hellenized Jew, so do you think he was at least a Jew?

[SecularInquisitor]

I think it was his father who was Jewish for a number of reasons. One reason is, women had little power in those days so it is unlikely she would have the chutzpa to bully her husband into following Kosherite law concerning circumscision. Also to, since so many of his ideas are so foreign to Judaism it is likely that he was a not considered Jewish unless he converted which precludes a Jewish mother as he would have been considered one regardless of his silly dualistic pagan views...

[agnostaxian]

But as for your pointing out Paul's character flaws, you must remember the whole OT is filled with people who messed up. Noah got drunk, Moses (the guy who the whole Torah is attributed to and which the whole Jewish faith rests upon) is a murderer, David? you know... Solomon? definitely under par... Sampson? The prophet Hosea? married a whore in the name of God. Jeremiah? a manic depressant and on and on.. So for Maccoby and others to demonize Paul is applying a double standard.

[SecularInquisitor]

It is waaay more than just character flaws, ONCE AGAIN, it was Paul's logic that is the problem. His logic is SIMPLY NOT JEWISH LOGIC, it is clearly Stoic which means his credibility as a Pharisee of Pharisees is blown right out of the water. It is not simply a character assassition, it is his character and his logic that put the nail in the coffin regarding his claims. Furthermore, I agree the bible lives or dies on the Torah and it being written by Moses, do I really need to point out...

[SecularInquisitor]

...that Moses is CLEARLY not the author of the Torah? Do I really need to point out that there are at least 4 different writers edited and redacted to form a coherent story? Even most Christian scholars will concede to this! If the Torah wasn't written by Moses, Yeshua should have known better, and in words ascribed to him, he didn't. Without to borrowed myths of other ancient cultures to come up w/these silly stories, there is no "original sin" and w/o the bullcrap doctrine there is...

[agnostaxian]

Sec, to say "Just because all experts agree doesn't mean its right" (again these are not all Xians and many are liberal Christians who love to find contradictions) is like a person with rickety backyard telescope disputing what the astronomers say about the amount of stars- silly.I have explained why they reject your position that Paul was lying and how your historical method leads to absurdities (Paul also used athletic illustrations so is he an Olympian now?).Your view is to be dismissed.

[SecularInquisitor]

Not using Rabinnic logic is a pretty good indicator that he wasn't trained in it. The fact that he uses Stoic logic is definitely not analogous to a backyard astronomer debating professional astronomers. It is more akin to someone who is a backyard astronomer claiming to be an atronomy professor and then misuses the telescope. Attempting to fly Paul under the radar by saying Judaism is not a monolithic is slippery but if you can show another Rabbi using the same logic as Paul, I'm all ears.

[SecularInquisitor]

Furthermore, if Paul can use any logic but Jewish logic and then "experts" claim his Jewishness seems a bit odd. It is not comparable to something like evolution. If evolution has facts working against it, it would be proper to dismiss it. However, if there are facts working against Paul's claims then one must entertain them whether or not the experts agree or not. If most of the experts are of that religion is it more likely or less likely that they have a bias? My historical method...

[SecularInquisitor]

...compared with Paul's exegetical method are stellar. He quote mines like a MF'er. Is it absurd to point out that there are facts that do not add up: He uses every logic but Jewish, he has a open feud with the Jerusalem Church that is glossed over w/a thin veneer, Christianity as we know it is largely an invention of Paul and it contains pagan elements. The logic he uses is pagan and also he also happens to be from a pagan city, etc., etc. Yeah, crazy.

[SecularInquisitor]

...no need for to impregnate a Jewish teen, just like every other ancient god seem to have a thing for, where her permission was neither requested nor required, AS SHE WAS ALREADY BETROTHED, which leads to some moral complications right out of the gate. Be that as it may, there is no reason to impreganate this young girl, only to have to sacrifice himself to himself to keep God from sending us to a place he himself created for a nature he himself created us with. He chucks us in the pool...

[SecularInquisitor]

...and then asks us if we want the life preserver. Well of course we do you dick and rather than throw it to us directly, you throw it into the fog of ambiguity that is the tens of thousands (or more) of other options w/an equally valid appearance of truth. In fact, often times Christianity and Judaism appear less true because some of what they say historically and scientifically are demonstrably false.

[agnostaxian]

Also Sec, your Historical approach is highly speculative with physcho-analyzation of Paul. It's like your asking me to prove that Paul wasn't a raving sex addict who visited pagan cult protitutes but tries to suppress his addiction by preaching against it. Well.... how do I disprove that assertion? 1st century Judaism was not a monlith with all Jews sounding and arguing the same way, there was variation. An overview of Paul's views points to the fact that he was rooted in Judaism not paganism

[SecularInquisitor]

Right, and as any religious person would tell you there is a thing called heresy. Paul was a heretic if he were Jewish and he preached about things such as "original sin" which had ZERO precedent. Jeavis' teachings about a lake of fire and brimstone are also foreign to Jewish thought, but we don't know if those are Yeshua's words or the Gentile invention of Jeavis and to address your other comment without having to search for it, this is why Jeavis is not the passover lamb nor...

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Well, I guess Paul was a super genius since he has fooled just about everyone who is an expert in studying him. The only ones really in the know and can see through the plain statements made are you, Maccoby and the amazing atheist.;)

I guess Paul to you is like Bush to the 911 truthers who think Bush has duped everyone but them. You guys must be on some super insight intelligence plain that the rest of us are not privy to.

[SecularInquisitor]

He didn't fool Christians, they believe exactly what they wanted to believe and never questioned him. The real geniuses are the people who edited/redacted the bible over the course of its inception. Paule is a character and he has served his role and if not for him all of those Gentiles would not be able to overshadow the Jewish message of Yeshua. This if the view Jews take of him anyhow so Paul certainly didn't fool them. Also, I didn't know the AmazingAtheist took the position that...

[SecularInquisitor]

...the Impostle Paul was not Jewish or at best an uber-Hellenized Jew. So no, I think Paul duped the Gentiles who grew in number and shouted down the voice of the original Christians...who ended up being wrong anyway since Jeavis never came back. It is not a "super intelligence" that we have and you don't. It is a LACK of confirmation bias. Once again, I am forced to beat the dead horse and ask other than Paul's word (and even the redactors couldn't gloss over...

[SecularInquisitor]

...the dispute between him and the Jerusalem Church) and "scholars say" which I've dealt w/a half dozen times it dow not sway the fact that (sigh) PAUL'S LOGIC IS NOT JEWISH, HIS VERSION OF HA-MOSHIACH IS NOT JEWISH AND HIS "SECOND COMING" IS NOT JEWISH.

[SecularInquisitor]

...the Impostle Paul is notorious for being decietful and slippery when he thought it would save his hide and avoid responsibility (as in his dispute w/James and Peter). His attitude towards the law was NOT that of a Pharisee, Gamaliel's attitude towards the law was. Furthermore, Paul's endless bragfest iin II Corinthians 11:16-30 was repugnant and certainly far from humble and followed up w/a pity party. So now, was he a Jew? Not in the strict sense and if he was he was the most hellenized.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, I guess we could go on and on ad infinitum on this but I do find what most experts see as overwhelming evidence for Paul as a Pharisaic Jew as compelling. So.. the experts said it...I believe it ...that settles it! Lol, J/K. No, but I think the evidence does point to Paul being Jewish at the core but rethinking his Judaism through a new prism. He saw that Jesus was the Passover Lamb who ushered in the New Exodus and had a realize Jewish eschatology- The kingdom was here. Thats my view

[agnostaxian]

Like I said Sec. Usually when plain statements are made, we take them at face value. So Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and a Jew but of course he had thought through his Judaism in light of his encounter with Christ and the early Christian message. He also reached out to pagans with this message and used some of their logical tactics (Stoicism) to try and convince them. Paul had flaws, no doubt but this evidence is overpowering and is the assumed position among almost all experts

[SecularInquisitor]

They really need a feature on YouTube where I can go right to the comment. I spend as much time looking for the comment as I do responding to it.

No, the assertion is overpowering and the lack of interest in tackling the issue is astounding but I understand it. Paul is the last sacred cow in Christianity. People will debate about Jesus before they will about Paul. Again (sigh) consesus does not impress me. There was consensus the earth was flat cuz the bible said so not long ago...

[SecularInquisitor]

...the evidence you claim points to him being a Jew points to him being a uber-Hellenized Jew or not Jewish at all. If I saw a solitary example of Jewish logic I'd say, sure he mixed the two. However, the only thing he mixed was the pseudo-history, the so-called scriptures and his own Christology not Jewish and Stoic logic.

[agnostaxian]

But Sec, I understand that the truth of a thing isn't all about counting noses but scholars have the view they do for good reasons. I pointed out the highlights, they are overpowering to almost all and myself and your arguments don't hold up. When you go against the experts you are in the same position as a Young earth Creationist who is arguing against the comsensus of geologists that the earth is 4.5 billion years. YEC have arguments to but they don't hold up.

[SecularInquisitor]

No, I'm really not. YEC's have nothing to back up their assertions. I am referring to Jewish Logic. The only two arguments I've seen you use have been: A) The scholars say so. I've addressed this point numerous times. Most of them are xian. B) Paul says so and we take that at face value.  I've addressed this point. A corollary argument you've made is that Paul reinterpreted Judaism to reflect his encounter with Jeavis. One HUGE problem, once again, there is ZERO precedent. In order...

[SecularInquisitor]

...to call Yeshua ha-moshiach he has to meet the criteria and ONCE AGAIN, I have to point out the fact that he did not. What Jeavis did, was not what ha-moshiach was supposed to do. Christians only answer for this is, "Oh yeah, he'll do it when he gets back." which is an excuse and an admission of Jeavis' failure. And ONCE AGAIN, Jeavis' promises were not open ended. They havd a time limit of those standing in front of him, which once again...epic fail...

[SecularInquisitor]

...so when Gamaliel makes his statement he is making it to the people, still alive, that Jeavis was talking to. When they died, the fortune telling failed, therefore Christianity was eventually declared heretical. So if you've got something, ANYTHING other than those points which I've addressed I'd love to hear them. I'm tired of treeing the same 'coons over and over again.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Ohh,I agree that Paul was preaching things the Jews disagreed with. The whole book of Acts was testament to that, everywhere he went he got his ass whipped!What I am saying is that his background was Jewish and he reinterpreted Judaism in light of his encounter with Christ. There is precedent for people being born in sin- Read Psalms 51:5 and Genesis 6:5 among others. I have kids and the only word I never had to teach them was "Mine". Let's just end with me being right and u wrong.LOL! ;)

[SecularInquisitor]

They disagreed because Paul was quote mining! Genesis cannot be trusted as it has all of its fact wrong regarding creation, a worldwide flood, etc. I dont' have Psalms 51:5 in front of me so I'll have to get back to you on that one. Yes, but you also didn't have to teach them to share. They don't lie all the time and they don't share all the time so the Jewish concepts of yetzer ha-tov (good inclination) and yetzer ha-ra (bad inclination) make much more sense than utter depravity (orig. sin)

[SecularInquisitor]

...as well as Gamaliel's ecumenical stance which is in start contrast to his supposed student, Paul. Furthermore, does it not seem odd that Paul, a supposed Pharisee, served as an enforcer for the Sadducee High Priest? It wasn't like Dems/Repubs as the Sadducees were considered traitors and were appointees of the Roman Empire (hence not Kohanaim). Paul's writings came before the gospels, doesn't it seem odd that Paul himself claims never to have met Jesus being "untimely born?"

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Almost all scholars agree that Paul there is citing a Pre-Pauline Creed that he got from the Jewish apostles of Jesus (specifically Peter and James), it is Packed with Semitisms. Also, 1 Corinthians 11:23ff. So Paul was in contact with both Peter (Jesus' #1 disciple) and James (Jesus' #1 relative) and many of those who followed Jesus during his ministry. Peter, Paul, James and the Jewish apostles and followers of Jesus had a common core messge.

[SecularInquisitor]

If we are to believe the bible, there is little doubt that there was contact between the Jerusalem Church and Paul. I don't doubt there was a core message, but there was still a dispute - as recorded in the bible - but that is not to say that the matter was put to rest. Paul, if you'll recall was admonished. He shaved his head and bathed in the mikvah to purify per Jewish Law. However, what is the explaination as to why Paul was working as an enforcer for the traitors (Sadducees).

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Also Ludeman does see 1 Corinthians 15 as a pre-pauline tradition that does go back to Jesus' original Jewish disciples that was formed at most 3 years after the crucifixion (He actually thinks the Jewish apostles of Jesus were preaching this within months of the crucifixion, certainly before Paul!). Read his book "The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience and Theology". The style that Paul is using in both 1 Corinthians 11 & 15 is the same as how Rabbinic tradition was passed on.

[SecularInquisitor]

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THERE ANY OTHER JEWISH WRITINGS 3 YEARS AFTER THE CRUCIFICTION?! ZERO evidence for this one. Furthermore, since the dates cannot be reconciled in the gospels with eachother, let alone secular history so how can one ascertain it was 3 years after the crucifixion if you can't even place the date reliably? The style of Rabbinic tradition being passed on was oral, so what? That's how everyone did it as few were literate. It's his STOIC, non-Jewish logic that's the problem.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Also I just don't buy your approach which if applied could make any character of history into anyone. maybe Alex the great wasn't from Macedonia or the son of Phillip but usurped that identity. Maybe Paul was a pagan but why stop there? maybe Paul was really a woman who was a cross dresser to obtain power in a masculine society.. Maybe Jesus had a secret love child with Mary and journeyed to France.. maybe Bush and Osama were in cahoots. This "read between the lines" history doesn't work

[SecularInquisitor]

Well, if your case is so compelling, I have yet to hear it. All you have been doing is throwing out bible verses and making assertions but have yet to make a positive case. Reading between the lines is sometimes necessary. Have you ever seen an interrogation?

"Did you do it?"

"Nope"

"Well, where where you and what were you doing on this date and this time?"...

[SecularInquisitor]

....after giving his explination, it is clear that it's not adding up.

...OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES!! When someone is manipulating the truth, you have no choice. Your argument is a slippery slope, apply some reasonable discernment and you're there. I've given you a ton of examples as to why I think what I do that applies to PAUL, let's not get distracted. The most important of which is that his logic is simply NOT Jewish.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, It just looks to me like your conclusions are based more than just on the evidence. You seem to be angry. I understand that. I just hope your bitterness doesn't consume you my friend. Please read Sanders, Wehnam and NT Wright on Paul and tell me what you think. You are a smart guy, tell me what you think of their stuff and their arguments.

[SecularInquisitor]

Now your asserting what my feelings are? What would make you think I am angry. I emphasize points, hence the caps, but I'm curious as to what would make you think I'm angry? Now, I do get frustrated that you have yet to provide a positive case for your claims yet insist that I do for mine. You say, so and so says this, but what do you thing and more importantly why? I'll give those authors a read, but it does not change the fact that his logic is not Jewish and unless they answer that...

[SecularInquisitor]

...what they have to say might be interesting but that is the central question. No one else asserts their "Jewishness" as much as Paul. Methinks the gentleman doth protesteth too much.

[SecularInquisitor]

...getting back to the core message, history is the propaganda of the victors. Just because the bible says that the matter was settled does not mean that it was. Unless of course you mean that the MUCH larger gentile faction overpowered the smaller Jerusalem Church. In that case, might makes right. Am I misunderstanding the implications?

[agnostaxian]

Sec, no I am talking about what the very first Jewish Christians were saying, even before Paul, ie, Jesus was the messiah, had a memorial meal with his disciples the night before he died, died for our sins, was resurrected and was seen by many witnesses. This was proclaimed even before Paul converted. Also, Paul did have to go to the hated Sudduccean compromisers and work with them. Dem's and Republicans do work together begrudgingly. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" for now.

[SecularInquisitor]

Yes and supposedly many others were resurrected to...followed by nothing. Nowhere in any history is it recorded that an untold number of corpses rose from their graves to do anything. Anyone listed out in Hebrews would have been among this untold number, including Moses. If these resurrected saints rose to the astonishment of their families and their communities this would be newsworthy and it would appear somewhere other than the bible. But...no books written, no endorsement from Moses.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, You are an anomoly. I have never met anyone like u. Interesting. OK, so you think Paul (and Luke) were lying about his Pharisaic background. The reasons why almost all scholars agree that he was a Pharisees with a Jewish backgorund are multiple but the main reason is- why on earth would Paul lie about that? The Pharisees were already suspicious among early Christians (Matt. 23) and so was Paul as a persecutor. Why would he create a fictional bio? He spoke of it in shame-Phillippians 3

[agnostaxian]

hey, there you go, you got it all figured out. The only logical people are strong atheists and the other 99% of us are illiogical. Sounds about right to me. As for your take on Paul, I guess applying your extremely critical approach to history and plain statements made we could prove that Lincoln shot Booth rather than vice versa. It has been nice chittin with ya Secularinquisitor. Hope you have a great holiday season. :)

[SecularInquisitor]

I understand your affinity for Paul but you ask a question, I answer and then rather than answer my rebuttal and counter-question, you answer w/assertions and more questions and make arguments I did not. Luke was Paul's buddy and far from unbias. And yes I was being strident w/the whole "logic" bit, but it was more shock factor than anything. However, I do think a bit of cognative dissonance is going on w/otherwise rational people. They simply don't apply it to their beliefs.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, That's is interesting. I just got done reading two of Ludemans books and even he doesn't buy the "Paul lied about being a Jew" line. The only guy I know that buys that is the Jewish scholar and apologist that you mentioned, Maccoby. The only other prominent scholars that does see Paul in hellenistic terms was Bultman but even he thought that Paul was a Jew. From Schweitzer, Davies, Kasemann to Sanders. All saw Paul as essentially Jewish. Sander's work is seen as definitive today

[SecularInquisitor]

I've not read Sander's work but I happen to agree w/Maccoby. Would it really be the first time people did a double take and they come to realize that someone else had it right all along? Hellenized Jew is fine with me, but no way was he taught under Gamaliel and then held such an opposing view nor was his work anything more than a veneer of "Jewishness."

[SecularInquisitor]

Why did Paul have to work w/the Sadducees? Again, these weren't just rival political parties (which was my point). The Sadducees were appointed by the Romans, not Kohanaim, and traitors who helped quell any messianic hopefuls (included the ones listed in Acts). Again, Christianity as we know it IS Pauline and all the books written are written after Paul's w/the exception of perhaps Mark's gospel whose account is written later than some of Paul's writings but earlier than others.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, also if Paul had created a fictional bio whole cloth, he would have surely made it more impressive among the early Christians. Again, why in the world would he have claimed to be a Pharisee? They were a rival Jewish group in the Galilee and Judea for Christians. It is far more historically probable that all early Christians knew of Paul's background as a zealous violent Pharisee and that he carried that stigma with shame. Also, I am curious, are you Jewish?

[SecularInquisitor]

For starters, it was not out of whole cloth and by implication that answers your second assertion as to why it was not more impressive. He worked w/the elements of his upbringing in a pagan/gentile city. The bible PRESENTS them as a rival group but ALL Pharisees were hoping for ha-moshiach to deliver them from gentile oppression. Why would he claim to be a Pharisee? SImple, when he tried to convert he went w/the group w/the most power the Sadducees and when they ultimately rejected him...

[SecularInquisitor]

...he went w/the "next best thing" when he saw the writing on the wall. The same reason Paul wanted to be Jewish was the same reason the Romans allowed Judaism and the temple to operate; there were impressed w/Jewish Law and Discipline. You must remember Rome started out as a Republic based on the 12 Tables of Roman Law. Once if fell into Oligarchy there were many who longed for the days when the Empire was a Republic and the purity of the rule of law, which the Jews had. Yes, he was...

[SecularInquisitor]

...ashamed. He damn well should have been. According to the story he was a murderous twit comparable so Osama Bin Ladin. However, just because there is this claim does not make it so. It may be no more realistic than the Exodus story which even many religiously observant Jews (Finkelstein and Silberman who co-authored "The Bible Unearthed" to name two) who admit it was a glossy fudging of the truth invented during King Josiah to shore up support and whip up nationalistic fervor...

[agnostaxian]

Sec, the advice of Schweitzer still stands in regards to Paul-why go to a far away watering source with a leaky bucket (Paganism) when there is a stream at your feet (Judaism). Paul stated he was a Jew, he quoted the OT constantly (why would a pagan thinker care about the Torah or the prophets of Israel?)The Ebionites were a later innovation. When you try and "smoke out" the real meaning of plain statements all you are usually left with is the smoke and a world were anything can mean anything.

[SecularInquisitor]

Simple, to attract the most followers you take what you think is the "best of both worlds." If you want to attract gentiles, tell them they're going to have to shave off their foreskin as adults. You forget about it as a baby, but as an adult...perish the thought! Paul MISQUOTED the Tanach/OT a lot, for certain particularly when it comes to the Law. Read/listen to some of the work from Jews4Judaism and see what I mean. They don't tackle Paul but they do tackle Christian exegesis.

[SecularInquisitor]

...if either stories of murder and intrigue were true it is not to their credit, the Jews or the pseudo-Jew; Paul. However, there is a conflict I mentioned between the Jerusalem Church and Paul that is very likely to be true and that was the issue of conversion. Gentiles ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONVERT IN JUDAISM. Judaism have always made provisions for the Gentiles in the Noachide Laws and you are not required to convert. To become Jewish is a lengthy process and requires much study...

[SecularInquisitor]

...and if you were a Christian much de-training and re-training to read the bible w/o spiritualizing everything to make it fit an agenda. Now as to the Jewish question about me, the answer is, that depends on what you mean. Do I practice Judaism? No. Is my Mother Jewish? Definitely not. Did I go to Hebrew School? Uh-uh. Now is my biological Father Jewish? Maybe, but I never met him. I know things from a Jewish perspective because in my deconversion process (I was a Christian)...

[SecularInquisitor]

...I studied the matter fully. I don't think you can know anything about what Christianity is, unless you know where it spawned from. I have a Muslim friend who told me that Islam was like Christianity run through a logic filter. To which I replied, which when ran through a logic filter is Judaism, which ran through a logic filter is Deism, which ran through a logic filter is Pantheism, which ran through a logic filter is Agnostic Atheist, which ran through a logic filter is Strong Atheism.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, I will PM you the other stuff.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, also in Phillipains 2:5-11, Paul is citing an early (maybe even earlier than 1 Cor 11 & 15) Jewish Christian hymn that has a very high Christology. So all the supposed things that were "forced upon the church" were there from the beginning. Jesus was God's Word/Wisdom that created the universe and pre-existed before his birth, was seen as the Messiah, vicarious death, rose again, was seen as alive, is exalted to God's right hand. All this is Pre-Pauline

[SecularInquisitor]

Where is the citation that this is Pre-Pauline and that this is just a quotation? Furthermore, to assert that he is ha-moshiach you must first know what ha-moshiach is. Again, you are quoting Paul. Paul IS the issue and all of the writings You saying it is Pre-Pauline does not make it so as I have yet to see the citation showing the the Pauline version of ha-moshiach is in line w/Jewish thought. Paul is a highly suspect source not only from his stance that is so radically different...

[SecularInquisitor]

...from his supposed mentor (Rabban Gamaliel) but also because his logic is NOT Rabbinic, it is stoic which would would makes sense because it would be an expected reflection of the gentile/pagan culture he would have been exposed to having lived in Tarsus.  Phillipians in no way makes the claim, "as the scriptures say" or other pre-qualifications to indicate it's precedent. He also is guilty of claiming that no one may follow the Law but edits out of his source material that "ye may do it"...

[SecularInquisitor]

...to support the doctrine of "original sin" in such a way that no Jew has EVER supported. Jews do not have a concept of eternal condemnation resulting from their initial disobedience because the consequences of their actions are clearly spelled out in Bereishit/Genesis. Can you show me where it says that ha-moshiach was to die for anyone's sins as a redemptive sacrifice and would be raised from the dead? Matthew makes the claim and so do Christians but the idea is foreign to the Tanach/OT

[agnostaxian]

Sec, Hold on, let's zero in on 1 Corinthians 15. Are you saying that Paul was lying about his background as a Pharisee? Or was he lying about receiving that tradition, that he made it up? Almost all historians and scholars of early Christianity think that 1 Corinthians 15 was a Pre-Pauline tradition that he received from the Jewish followers of Jesus before him, Are you saying they are wrong?

[SecularInquisitor]

Almost all historians and scholars who are at all interested in this subject are theologians and most of them Christians. Now, simple bias is not enough to dismiss the work that they've done, but it certainly plays a part in their viewpoint on what angles to pursue. So if you could provide any research that shows that 1 Cor. 15 was a Pre-Pauline doctine, I would like to read it.  Again, simply asserting it w/o evidence is not going to fly. And no, I do not think Paul was a Pharisee.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, all right now I see! I hope you know that to say that Paul wasn't a Pharisee among scholars of early Christianity (both Christians and non-Christians alike) is like saying Caesar did not cross the Rubicon- a knee slapper.I did my THD in early Christianity and I researched 100's of sources dealing with dozens of historians and scholars (again both Christian and non) and almost all except a radical fridge like AN Wilson or some Muslim writers deny this. Let me ask u this- Did Jesus exist?

[SecularInquisitor]

Again, the consus among scholars does not impress me as most of them are Christian and for the most part non-Christians simply do not delve into it too much. I've heard the Rubicon comparison made before by apologists regarding the resurrection, but never Paul and neither comparison is valid. The fingerprints of a gentile are all over Paul. Again, his logic is Stoic not Pharisaic. Read what you can in the Baraitas, the Tosefta and the Talmud and it will be crystal clear that his logic...

[SecularInquisitor]

...is not Jewish. I don't know who Wilson is and I've read no Muslim opinions on the subject. All of my sources have been secular and Jewish. Perhaps Paul had a Jewish father but because he did not have a Jewish mother, he had to convert but his mind was already polluted w/the dualism and polytheism of his home city. Don't you find it odd that Rabban Gamaliel never mentions an upstart student of his breaking from the tradition that a man can be a god? COMPLETELY foreign to Jewish thought...

[agnostaxian]

Also, Sec I understand ur scepticism but it can go to far. Like I said, almost all scholars acknowledge that Paul was essentially Jewish at the core. Now they all could be wrong but you need a MASSIVE argument to refute them or else you sound like a Young Earth Creationist trying to set all those geologists right or an ID proponent trying to set all those biologists right. Either there is a huge conspiracy or the experts have good evidence for their position.

[SecularInquisitor]

I have presented some of the things I do know: A Messiah dying and resurrecting is completely foreign to Jewish though. Read the Talmud to see what Rabbinic logic looks like and it will be crystal clear his logic is not Jewish. His attitude is entirely counter to the person (Rabban Gamaliel) he was supposedly tutored under. He has a clear dispute w/the Jerusalem Church which actually knew Jesus whom Paul never met being "untimely born" He was raised in a Gentile/pagan city. Creates...

[SecularInquisitor]

..."original sin," and this one is out of whole cloth, not in the Jewish sense but with the dualism present in pagan mystery religions. Once again, I point out that there is no man-god concept present in Judaism prior to the Impostle Paul but such thoughts were commonplace in gentile faiths. In fact, Paul notes that it is no different than what many of them believe and so do the early church fathers in response to Celsus' screed against Christianity. Other sects of Christians, including...

[SecularInquisitor]

...the Ebionites make the claim very early on (though much of their work was destroyed and exist largely in works written by early church fathers) that he is not Jewish. Even the bible records that he was ambitious and decietful when he felt it was necessary which hurts his credibility. I also must mention again that most of the people who study Paul have a theological axe to grind and many of the people who are not Christian generally shy away from direct challenges to the faith itself...

[SecularInquisitor]

...And last but not least, until relatively recently no one would even touch/question his writings and it has come to light that some of the books ascribed to Paul may not have been written by Paul at all but followers attempting to lend authority to their writings by using his name (not uncommon nor considered dishonest in ancient times). The "Pastoral Letters" are certainly not his as they contain elements of an highly organized church structur that simply did not exist in Paul's time.

[SecularInquisitor]

By the way, some of my source materials include works by: Gerd Ludemann, F.C. Baur, Hyam Maccoby, etc.

[SecularInquisitor]

...As far as the Jesus question, Yeshua may have existed. It really is of no consequence as the legends surrounding him are patently absurd. I would say there is enough known of the people surrounding his life to state that it is likely someone by that name existed in or around that time frame. However, the timeline does not match up at all. Watch DeistPaladin's videos on "The Jesus Timeline" and you see, it simply doesn't add up. Again, no proof of Pre-Pauline I Cor 15, citation please.

[agnostaxian]

Sec,500 spaces is hardly enough to formulate a good argument (I can PM u if u like) and if you apply your super critical approach to all history, then we could hardly prove anything especially antiquity and the speculations could go on and on, maybe Paul was gay...maybe Jesus was an alien.. and so forth. as for the metaphysical, I agree w/ you that this is on another level but the atheist is in the same boat as the theist here, To say there is no God is a claim to knowledge that needs proof

[SecularInquisitor]

Yes, that's why I do so many "continues" as the ellipses show. It is not that I am too skeptical, it is many believers are not skeptical enough. An unexamined life is not worth living and an unexamined belief is not worth having. Yes and here is the "Readers Digest" version of why I make the positive claim, "There is no God(s)." At that point, I have accepted the burden of proof. Now, even if I were to fail, the onus is still on you to make your positive case where so far all I have...

[SecularInquisitor]

...heard is assertions, the argument from authority and I can all but guarantee that special pleading is coming next. The fact is there is no credible evidence that would convince a person outside of the person who experienced whatever it is that convinced them. Revelation is first person by its very nature, anything or anyone outside of that is hearsay. Believing hearsay upon hearsay, as in the bible, is even less credible. The bible is proven to be unreliable o even matters of provable...

[SecularInquisitor]

...let alone its largely unprovable metaphysical/magical claims. Of those than can be quantified and tested, it is VERY unlikely that such events occured. So we are not in the same boat, AT ALL. I deal in claims that can be tested. Every definition of God that has ever been posited has failed and rebutted successfully. There is no evidence where there should be evidence so the old standby of "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" argument holds no water. Now, as to the God(s)...

[SecularInquisitor]

...it/themself(selves) all definitions of it, particularly on the issues of omnipotence, omnicience and omnibenevolence are absolutely illogical. If something is logical, then we can go to the evidence to see if it corresponds to reality. If it is not logical, there is no need for further steps, it is nonsense. It is just like a sentence, you can construct a sentence and through grammatically it is correct, it is nonsense and thus does not correspond to reality and thus can be dimissed...

[SecularInquisitor]

...even worse however is if the sentence follows neither sentence structure and filled with nonsense words like "kzftwzz" then it can be dismissed out-of-hand. NO CLAIM, and particularly a negative, can be stated w/absolute certainty. We can only determine things on a practical, useful level and w/as much objectivity as our subjectivity will allow. Even the Theory of Gravity could hypothetically be disproven, though it is unlikely. Likewise, in the same way, while there MIGHT...

[agnostaxian]

... and meeting Peter and James (Galatians 1:11-24) 3 years after his conversion and his conversion dates to within months or at most 1 or 2 years after the crucifixion. So the creed is established at most 5 to 6 years after the crucuifixion which means it had been fixed and in circulation before this. Peter and James are mentioned both passages so they are certainly his sources. I guess you could argue Paul was lying here as well but again this is a dubious historical method rejected by most

[SecularInquisitor]

To which he promptly concedes and lies and says he wasn't telling them to ignore the law. He ducks his head in shame, shaves his head and bathes in the Mikvah...for what exactly? I don't think the bible is telling the whole story. These books were not written, edited/redacted in a vacuum. Dubious, why? If we go with Jewish thought, rejecting Paul's Christology and the one glossed over and paganized to come closer to Paul's point of view to shore up the message is entirely valid: Propaganda.

[SecularInquisitor]

...be a god or god(s), not only is it highly unlikely, that problem is further exacerbated by the fact that certain types of god(s) including biblegod are even less likely. The only room left for the possibility of god(s) are on the margins; Deism, Pantheism, etc. and certainly not any of the god concepts posited thus far by any religion anywhere that all share the same weaknesses in that they rely entirely upon magic, mystery and revelation. Of those claims that CAN be examined they're wrong.

[agnostaxian]

Sec, this is where I would recommend reading Ludemann's book (and he is not a Christian). In 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul is quoting a tradition that is Pre-Pauline citing the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus and his appearances to Peter, James and the rest. The reason Ludemann and almost all other scholars date this creed to within 3 years of the crucifixion is because the greek is not in Paul's style and is full ogf Semitisms. Also, Paul mentioned after 3 years going to Jerusalem....

[SecularInquisitor]

Wait, so it is ful of Semitism...aren't you and most other Christians claiming that Paul was Semetic?! Paul mentioned disappearing for 3 years yes, but it doesn't exactly say when after Yeshua's supposed execution for insurrection against the Roman Empire occurs. Remember, Paul was "untimely born" and never met Yeshua in the flesh. He met Jesus in some mystical experience. So much for biblegod not violating his free will. If there were a God, he would know this is precisely...

[SecularInquisitor]

...what it would take to convert me, along w/some sort of prophecy that was not so ridiculously vaugue as to apply to just about ay point in history. Can you name me one solitary decade where there has not been wars and rumors of wars? Dan Barker, another of my favorite authors (as I was a former Christian) makes the challenge for a specific prophecy. Now before you get into the "Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecy" tirade, I can get a bullseye everytime if I paint the target around my arrows.

[SurelyYewJest]

Thanks A.E. for putting this up. Great to listen to while I work, and great to learn from.

[MisterBoswell]

Gotta disagree with Matt about Moses possibly writing the Torah. None of the old testament scriptures were written until AFTER the Babylonian emancipation of the Jews.

[AbbeyNormal]

I believe he was referring to the biblical timeline there. Like how the creation of the world was after the domestication of dogs.

[KenMacMillan]

Don't quote me on this but I think there's still debate on whether Moses even existed.

[Euphobia1]

Not a trace of him! No historical Moses! and definitely NO Adam & Eve! If that bit isn't right the rest is useless!

[KenMacMillan]

Yeah, I think Adam & Eve are metaphorical for Neolithic man.

[MisterBoswell]

Exactly! In fact, the fifth book "of Moses" describes his own death! So unless zombies write scriptures, there's no chance Moses wrote the Torah, and only a small chance that any of the other books of the bible were written by the people they are attributed to[save only seven of the epistles of Paul, and even then they have been subject to interpolations & such].

[nurikosguardian]

this has some series voebotting. Damn...

[shubidubar]

The delusional should watch this

[alisonly19]

the bible from an atheist point of view is always a good one!

[elbay2]

He was a student of theology and as a result, became an atheist.

[Euphobia1]

The Modern Theory of Evolution proves/shows really beyond all doubt that the bible is a work of fiction and if viewed as a literary work is fascinating if you like that sort of thing but as a basis for living in 2009 it is unacceptable.

That the majority in the USA thinks the bible is true is unbelievable! So why the fuss? No space here but look at Darwin v Adam & Eve.

Interesting lecture.

[Macrochenia]

Modern Theory of Evolution shows that the bible is false? Hell, the Greeks showed that the bible was fiction.

Adding Darwinian Evolution to the mix is just whipping the dead horse.

[KenMacMillan]

I think it's obvious that the bible is the world as they saw it; for example, they found the garden of Eden by following the directions in the bible. It's at the bottom of the Persian gulf. The theory is that at the end of the ice age the sea levels rose & crested over the mountains flooding the valley. Imagine seeing that as a man from the Neolithic period. What would you think? The bible from an atheist point of view is a great tool for understanding early man.

[MisterBoswell]

But why use the Bible which a filtered watered down version? The Torah and much of the other parts of the Old Testament were just jewish rehashings of old sumerian & egyptian mythologies which they picked up during their "captivity" under the Babylonian empire[which included territory in Egypt]. Combine this with the fact that the O.T. wasn't even written until AFTER the babyloian emancipation, which came WAAAY after the neolithic period.

[KenMacMillan]

It still offers insight into the people who wrote it. They're stories that have been passed down for hundreds of years without writing. How did they do that? It doesn't make the bible the word of god by any means but it's still interesting stuff.

[MisterBoswell]

I'm not saying it doesn't have historical significance, I'm just pointing out that it's significance isn't to the neolithic, but to the iron age, since that is when the old testament stories were written.

[KenMacMillan]

I only know about the theory of the story of genesis, it's still just a theory. Most of the stories were probably written about the time they appeared.

[ctvwr]

So says the History Channel? Don't believe everything you see on TV. I've seen claims that Noah's Ark was found on that damn channel. Remember they are a business relying on entertainment ratings. They are not a very reliable source.

[AlmightyAtheismo]

Correction: "Cyrillic drawS on..."

[DefaultPosition]

Excellent subject!!

Really glad he decided to do a lecture on this.

It's amazing that this stuff is so seldom discussed in public.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

I like these lecture series. Great topics so far.