I like what you're doing and can tell you're a stand up guy. Cheers. Just wanted to ask your thoughts on science; basically the probability that any god could be as real as the other or none. History; Since scripts there have been texts that are very similar, sometimes identical, to every jesus reference... these were written millennia before AD and from all corners of the globe. Even indigenous peoples had there own way to guide spirituality. None as dangerous as the monotheistic judxiaslam.
@FundFreedom thanks. If you get ja chance, maybe watch a few more of these and see how much evidence there really is for the theory. it's amazing. thank ya
really enjoying your vids. only found your channel due to your comedy song classic on that fuckwit nutbag nephfree. makes me wonder how many other YTers are out there making well researched well made videos analysing bible horseshit Keep up the excellent work. I,m now at the point i look forward to jehovah's witnesses calling.
@JOOGAL1111 aint it the trufe? I mean, there is a certain power in knowing tons about the Bible and how Christianity really formed. When a JW knocks on your door, you get this adrenaline rush and go oh shit, they don't have a farking clue! and you run to the door and smile and let them in and get them talking for a while so they don't run off TOO quickly. hehe well, I've talked to only a few proselytizers but it's like Mike Tyson vs a 4 year old. how's that gonna turn out? hahah thanks!
@delphiote Thanks. You're the 1st person to compliment me on the intro. HAHAHHA it is a bit low on production values but sometimes you just have to start somewhere. I think this idea is going to be taught in universities one day.
@TruthSurge just think... is what says the bible real? why are 1000s of religions and gods? why is "my god" the real one"? why religion has so many power and money? just be smart (im not talking about you :) )
@bestplugins of course. but Christians are so brainwashed that they can't even think like that. They certainly won't watch THIS series of vids because they cannot accept that Jesus never existed. I can. But then I was an atheist when I started reading about the idea.
Hey, what plugins do you have? Any good audio ones?
@TeesByTruthSurge What's really interesting is that you can see the evolution of the myth, and it keeps going past John, but after Constantine's ascent to power most of the writings after John were suppressed, they would have been lost forever if fragments hadn't survived.
@GodlessInfinity Luke and Acts and 2nd Peter and 1&2 Timothy and Titus are all 2nd century works and later than John but they are part of the NT canon. But I do agree with regard to the ones that DIDN'T make it in. The only reason we have most of what we do is that more Christians found them worth copying than not. And as for the "heretical" ones, we did lose many of those do to them being "unworthy" of being copied but we know of them via their detractors attacks.
@GodlessInfinity Luke and Acts and 2nd Peter and 1&2 Timothy and Titus are all 2nd century works and later than John but they are part of the NT canon. But I do agree with regard to the ones that DIDN'T make it in. The only reason we have most of what we do is that more Christians found them worth copying than not. And as for the "heretical" ones, we did lose many of those do to them being "unworthy" of being copied but we know of them via their detractors attacks.
@TeesByTruthSurge Paul's resurrection story is not the one we know, it's written in allegorical language and and doesn't even contain the events we know so well as the Jesus story, it's merely a mirror of previous allegorical myths. Paul basically planted the seed for the myth early on with his seditious allegorical writings against Rome (overt sedition carried penalty of death), and the story just gets more and more fantastic after the destruction of the temple, a decade or more after Paul.
@GodlessInfinity Um, you lost me. Nowhere in Paul's writings does he condemn the Roman government as far as I know. In fact, he does the opposite in his letter to the Romans and says that the Christians should submit to Rome because the only reason they are in power is because God allowed it.
The resurrection details of the gospels are certainly not in Paul's letters. His letters are the earliest works of Christians to survive and so I'm still waiting for how it was a late entry. ?
@TruthSurge Paul can't condemn Rome directly because open sedition is punishable by death (he eventually is sentenced by Nero anyway, so the story goes), instead Paul uses heavy allegory, if you read his writings in the context of the time they were written it's steeped in metaphore and allegory about the decline of Rome. Paul's resurrection was definitely not the resurrection in the gospels, it was an allegory. The late entry I'm referencing is the earthly resurrection myth in the Gospels.
Where do you get this? Acts? Acts is fiction written likely 80 years after Paul's letters. The concept of early Christians dying for their beliefs is itself a myth invented by Luke and the other "acts of ______" works. It was what they wanted to hear and a good author gives his readers what they want.
We differ in opinion then because I do not believe Paul is using allegory or secret phrases to avoid being killed by Romans.
@TruthSurge I know that how Paul is questionable at best and that there's no historically credible record of his beheading, that's why I said "So the story goes", but in any event Paul drops off the radar during the reign of Nero before the destruction of the temple. There's a general consensus that Paul's writings were largely allegorical, especially the apocalyptic writings, as for the Jesus story Paul tells it's very different from the one in the gospels, I think it's meaning was not literal.
@GodlessInfinity But how would that help Paul? He's still preaching a religion that is not one of the Roman religions. And further, Rome had several religions and those of other nations that they tolerated so this idea that Christianity was in some danger from Rome is a myth, IMO. Where do you get that Paul had to be secretive for fear of Rome? I have never seen evidence of it in my readings.
@TruthSurge The Romans generally viewed the Jews as rebellious monotheist barbarians who placed their one barbarian god above Rome and the proper Roman gods, Jews were not properly Roman. There was little distinction between Christian and Jew, to the Romans the Christians were just a new crop of competing Jewish sects with seditious Anti-Roman overtones. Any Anti-Roman group was at risk of persecution, even if all the stories are true it pales in comparison to what the Romans did to the Gauls.
@GodlessInfinity I just don't see that Paul was doing what you say. Does that mean that the authors of the gospels and acts were thrill seekers? Why would Mark write such stuff then? Matthew? Luke? why wouldn't they employ the code words and such to encrypt it and avoid Rome's wrath? To me, it makes more sense to think Paul and other epistle writers simply had no gospel story at that time and gleaned what they had from OT passages. The first gospel, Mark, was ca 72CE AFTER Paul.
@TruthSurge It's unclear who the actual authors of the gospels were, but why would it follow that they were thrill seekers? All I'm saying is that Paul's teachings were largely allegorical, it's not uncommon for an allegorical myth to expand and be taken more seriously. Moral myths become urban legends become urban facts, what I think started out as a compilation of myths and allegorical stories for the Jewish people obviously inspired the new more literal myths in the Gospels.
@TruthSurge There seems to be a disconnect in our communication, you're telling me the things I'm trying to tell you as if I'm trying to tell you the opposite. I know that the Gospels were written well after Paul, that was one of the points I made, Paul's teachings are not the Gospels, Paul's teachings appear to be largely allegorical myths which inspired the gospels. Paul never told us the Jesus story we know, his writings appear to use the Character as a narrative device.
@GodlessInfinity I'm still wondering what you mean by Paul's apocalyptic writings. Do you mean his belief about the end of time and the parousia of Jesus? Apocalyptic means revelation. apokalypses. Not really some end time blowout. So, I'm just trying to understand what you were talking about.
I think we disagree mostly on the idea that Paul and other epistle writers wrote in some secretive manner to avoid Roman backlash. That's why I asked why the gospel writers didn't do it.
@TruthSurge That's what I'm saying, what people consider Paul's apocalyptic writings are an example of how much Paul relied on allegory, it's not about some literal end time blow out it's about the Jewish people and the empire. Think about what Paul is writing in the context of the conditions of the Jewish people, and what he knew about Rome. If he directly just out and said "This will pass, the empire is in decline, it will destroy itself, our people will be free" he would have been killed.
@GodlessInfinity So, if Christianity was anti-Rome and you had to write secretively why would Mark implicate Rome at all as having anything to do with crucifying Jesus? Or maybe he did that to make Rome look like they had done a good thing and with the Pilate part they had no real crime, no real guilt since the Jews are ultimately to blame. ? I think Mark was likely a Roman so he wouldn't write anything overtly negative of Rome anyway but he does make a soldier confess that Jesus was...
@GodlessInfinity that jesus was the messiah or son of god. That doesn't sound too helpful to keep quiet about Roman emperors being deities to me. Hey, not trying to be a hardhead. Just don't see that these authors were deliberately writing in code or allegory to avoid Roman persecution.
@TruthSurge The Gospels were written some decades later, after Nero, after Paul, and after the destruction of the Temple. Civil War was starting to break out, large anti-roman movements were spreading, it was easy for the authors of the Gospel to be more overt, more literalistic, and garner more influence. I think you're making too much of the allegory, imagining it as some secretive code when really allegory was just a common form of narration in the time, and useful to avoid sedition.
@GodlessInfinity "The Gospels were written some decades later, after Nero, after Paul, and after the destruction of the Temple."
That's true.
As for allegory, I suppose at this point you'd need to supply me with a concrete example of what you are calling allegory in Paul before I could comment further.
@TruthSurge You've surely noticed that a lot of modern comedians use fictional substitutes for real people in order to avoid libel charges and the like. Often videogames and movies also use allegorical metaphors to represent real institutions and real people, and you see these narratives repeated, take the legend of Robin Hood for example, it's often been used as a narrative about real events, often with an anti-establishment bent. This sort of story telling was extremely common at the time.
@GodlessInfinity If the main purpose was an attack on Roman govt I'd likely agree that the epistles are deliberately veiled. I just don't see it. It isn't as if they changed the doctrines or even hid their belief that Jesus was divine. That surely wouldn't have gone over well with Nero and the later emperors like Vespasian and Titus and Domitian. And not one mention of Jesus' sayings or miracles in the epistles? Allegory doesn't explain all of that, IMO.
@TruthSurge That's just the thing though, allegories aren't so absolute. The allegorical writings of Paul and other contemporay authors and orators among downtrodden from the time period (not just the Christians and Jews) often conveyed moral lessons, inspirational stories, entertainment, predictions about the future, and caricatures of people, families, institutions, and State. I really don't think Paul believed in a literal Jesus, much less a literal rapture.
^ I perceive Paul's teachings about Jesus as allegories for his people, akin to the allegories of other mythical figures from the time, I think they were intended to give his people hope and resolve, to tell them that in the end they would prevail and rise again, to warn against the seduction of Rome and the Romanized Pharisees, and the Roman Legion and the Beasts that ruled Rome, and Rome itself as the controlling insatiable monster many downtrodden peoples saw it as.
@GodlessInfinity 1 Cor 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
Boy, if Roman authorities knew about that line, what would they think? How can Paul warn them about Rome without .... warning them about Rome? Your statements don't add up. Paul does not ever condemn Rome in his letters. He only states that ALL authority would be subject to Jesus at his parousia.
@TruthSurge See that's the thing, I don't take everything Paul said as literal, I see it it as allegory like so many of the other writings of the time. You're familiar with how metaphors are used today, well Paul came from a long oral tradition and was in a climate steeped with myths and metaphors, I believe the Resurrection of Jesus and in fact the entire Jesus narrative was a compilation of allegories and metaphors meant to convey teachings and inspire his people.
@GodlessInfinity "I really don't think Paul believed in a literal Jesus,"
It's your right to believe what you want. But 1 Cor 15 seems to argue against it. Paul's entire corpus seems to argue against it. Paul obsesses over the resurrection of Jesus and claims if he hasn't been TRULY resurrected, then it's all for naught. That seems pretty clear to me. Anyway, interesting to think about.
@TruthSurge I see Jesus largely as a metaphor for the Jewish people, his oppression representative of the oppression Jews faced under Rome, and his apocalyptic writings as metaphors for Rome, the Roman Legion, his people and their destiny, ect. Paul's Jesus came to him in a vision, after decades of persecuting his own people, he felt 'called by god' to spread his teachings, Paul's Jesus appears to be a metaphor for the Jewish people, for their fall/death, their resurrection, and their ascension.
^ I speak in metaphorical terms of course, the Jewish people had fallen under the long shadow of the roman empire, they were dying as a people, their own kingdom was becoming just another minor Roman province, I believe that Paul was metaphorically conveying that they would rise again, I believe he had the cunning and foresight to see the troubles Rome was facing. I don't believe Paul believed in a literal jesus, or a literal supernatural resurrection, or a literal beast.
@GodlessInfinity Well, I'll quit now because I think you are completely wrong. So, rather than upset you by posting countless verses that preclude that theory, I'll just say I disagree. :) You'd be closer saying the gospels or at least Mark's was an allegory. Basically, Mark's gospel is fiction using the Jesus of Paul and co. Whether Mark believed in Paul's Jesus and just made the fiction I cannot say. But I lean toward it. The gentiles accepted it more readily and Mark is...
@GodlessInfinity Mark is full of anti-semitism (Gentile hate for the Jesus-rejecting Jews) and this is why Mark has Jesus slamming the Jewish leadership so hard. A fellow Jew would NOT have done that (as we can see from Paul's writings).
@GodlessInfinity I guess YT is happy deleting my post I had all typed up.
To believe Jesus is allegory, you must ignore most of Paul's writing. Take this verse, for example. Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
What on earth was Paul thinking when he included a known fictional character in the same context as the very real god he worshiped?
Allegory is where you tell a tale that's fiction, not write as if it's real.
@TruthSurge Some Christians may believe that Paul was speaking literally on everything but it's pretty widely accepted that Paul's writings and teachings were largely allegorical, as allegory they match up with the situation and time period and match up with other allegorical writings. The Jews weren't the only people using myth and metaphor to say what could not be said directly, or to craft moral stories and inspirational myths. Take the story of Robin Hood and it's many iterations for example
@GodlessInfinity your theory requires that the author of Hebrews be writing in allegory as well. Plus the author of 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus. Plus the author of 1st Peter. And James. and Ephesians. Pt is, how did all these authors know to write in allegory or symbolism? They somehow all got the msg? I can't buy that. grrrrrrr :)
@GodlessInfinity we should skype sometime and hash out this idea. I'd be able to get my ideas out faster and you might be able to throw some things my way.
@TruthSurge ;) I'm a bit behind the times with this internet technology, I only recently made a Youtube channel and I still don't have a facebook or skype.
@GodlessInfinity skype you just sign up and have a headset or a mic and PC speakers. You then find someone and call then talk. It sounds really clear and not much lag. I rarely do it but have chatted a few times. Facebook sucks.
@GodlessInfinity Have you perused earlychristianwritings (d o t) com? I just saw a blurb on the revelation page that reminded me of our convo. Kummel is talking about Rome and their persecution of Christians. He states that there was no persecution of Christians prior to Domitian (ca 95 or so). It certainly makes sense in that they were simply not in big enough numbers yet and from 60 to 80, they had their hands full with Jews. Only by 95 or so did Rome officially go after christians.
@TruthSurge The Christians didn't have to be specifically targeted for persecution by the Romans, because most of them were Jewish and even those who weren't were just another barbarian cult that failed to worship in a properly Roman fashion. To the Romans the Jews were nothing but another Barbarian people that Rome was trying to civilize. Do you believe that all of Pauls writings were meant to be read as literal statements of fact? I'm confused as to what you're trying to suggest.
Actually, most of them were Gentiles. It's the very reason for Jesus' hateful demeanor toward the Jewish authorities in Mark (Mark being a Gentile Christian himself). Paul also lets us know that his sales pitches toward his own people failed miserably and so thoroughly that he gave up preaching to them and started preaching to.... wait for it.... the Gentiles! He even claimed that it was his new god-given purpose.
@GodlessInfinity Ephesus... Galatia... Phillipi... Rome... Corinth... these are all non-Jewish lands that Paul had either visited personally or at least had correspondence with. Early Christianity began in the Jewish sector but almost immediately became a Gentile movement. Gospel of Mark... written by a Gentile Christian. Luke.... Gentile. Mathew... possibly Gentile as he used the LXX for his OT quotes instead of the Hebrew. etc.
@GodlessInfinity "Do you believe that all of Pauls writings were meant to be read as literal statements of fact? I'm confused as to what you're trying to suggest."
BINGO! That's exactly what I'm saying. When Paul says that Jesus rose on the third day, he means Jesus came back from the dead after being dead for 3 days. When he says how he knows this (from the OT passages) he means precisely that. When he says believers will float up into the clouds at Jesus' parousia, he means just that.
@GodlessInfinity Your theory also has to reach to the other epistles as well because they avoid most all of the details of the gospels as well but were not written by Paul. Much harder to swallow than the idea that they simply had no earthly Jesus story at that time until Mark's version circulated by the end of the 1st century.
@TruthSurge Erm, that's what I'm saying though, they had no earthly Jesus story until Mark's version began to circulate. Before that you have a tangled mess of myths and allegories being spread mostly by word of mouth.
@GodlessInfinity Reason is, Christians were nothing to Romans in the 1st century. They had their hands full with the Jews who outnumbered the Christians 1000 to 1. That Nero said anything about Christians is unlikely to me. They simply weren't numerous enough yet. Not yet on the radar, IMO.
The reason Paul's resurrection is so sparse is because he got his info about it from the Old Testament which had virtually nothing in there about it. Paul references the OT for pretty much everythg.
@TruthSurge I agree with your assessment on pretty much everything, I think somewhere I gave the wrong impression of my position. About the only place we differ is that I think Paul's resurrection myth was intended as allegory and distinguish it from the myths in the Gospels, largely because it fits so perfectly with other allegorical archetypes that were common among those oppressed by Rome. They often sought inspirational myths or personified allegories for their people's lot in life.
@GodlessInfinity That's what I'm wanting to find out. What religions were oppressed by the Roman government during the 1st century? I don't think you'll be able to uncover any evidence that shows definitively that Christianity was oppressed or in some way attacked by the Roman government. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Rome controlled Palestine in that they had to pay taxes to them and such but all the hubub around 60 to 70 was about Jews, not Christians.
@GodlessInfinity so, I'm not really arguing. I just find that when 2 people have a differing view, one has to be wrong. :) And if it's ME, I want to change my view. Thanks for the chat and let me know what causes you to believe that Rome had it out for Christians in the 1st century.
@TruthSurge Rome didn't have it out for Christianity in particular, it barely even recognized Christianity's existence for the first century, but the price of open sedition against Rome was death, dissident movements regardless of origin were generally dealt with in the same way. Paul's writings, particularly his apocalyptic writings, are full of allegories about his people and the Roman empire, and in offense to the emperor Paul's teachings generally conflicted with imperial deification.
@GodlessInfinity One example ref metaphore, allegory, symbolism, figure of speech... "slain from the foundation of the world" You could say that is just another way of saying that god foreknew it would happen. But I claim it is a literal belief of the early Christians. Jesus was crucified around the time the world was made. This explains why Paul and company claim the gospel was hidden "from the foundation of the world". etc. Have you watched my vids yet? I explain all this.
@TeesByTruthSurge Not only that, but compare Dionysus and Mithras to Jesus, I mean just right here, Water to Wine, Loaves and Fishes, Wine is his Blood, even the mock cannibalism which was part of the Bacchic festivals. Then to Mithras, born of a god, self sacrificing savior, speared in the side, died in atonement for the sins of others. And then you could make the same comparison to a dozen other gods, but Mithras was regional and popular, and influenced Christmas, even if largely copied itself
^ It's worth nothing that the Dying and Rising aspects of the Jesus character were late entries into the myth. There was not mention of them for decades after his supposed death. Jesus' was more a self sacrificing romantic hero, a dissident martyred by Rome, a common legend of a benevolent guru persecuted and killed by the hated oppressors. The Cliche couldn't compete with a dying and rising god however, the miracles just got more and more fantastic as the decades went by, many thrown out.
^ Most people aren't aware of just how many competing sects of Christianity cropped up, and how many Jesus myths there were. The one we know today is the one that won out, some of the miracles and legends were considered just too patently absurd for the Council of Nicaea to include into doctrine. Even Corinthians, parts of it were accepted into doctrine but the rest was considered just too radical at the time. The myths were refined, as the Church became the ruling body of the Empire.
Zeitgeist has created an unfortunate stigma by association to the Jesus Myth theory, most people don't know the evidence or arguments, they just know Zeitgeist was full of shit.
@GodlessInfinity yep. I have about 5 hours of vids in this series and not ONE of them deals with pagan influences or silences in the epistles. Those must be examined, of course, but what I present here are more positive evidences for the theory. I also deal with a few problem passages that seem to contradict the theory. You might enjoy watching these because there are a few things in them that Earl Doherty has not elaborated upon or in the way I do.
@TruthSurge It's annoying too because there were authentic pagan connections to the Christ myth, the Jesus character seems loosely based on a variety or urban legends pertaining to mythical saviors and heroes common in the region, there isn't a single unique element to any of them and their time frame and events aren't coherent with an actual person. I'll definitely watch those videos, your videos are really interesting thanks for uploading them.
@TruthSurge I don't get what all the focus on egypt is about, what about the other myths that influenced the Jesus character? I mean the Hebrew people had been saturated in Greek culture and greek myths for centuries, by the time the Jesus myth got started (before it even grew into a resurrecting savior myth around the first century) Jesus already had the characteristics of many greek and roman gods and mythic heroes, and the resurrection part of the myth came long late in the myth.
Hey Truthsurge, Im listening to your great vids but i have a question for you. The biggest support people use for the Bible being accurate is the re-establishment of Israil in 1945, as it was predicted by the prophets. Do you think this is a vague prediction, embellished, fabricated? I like to know your opinion. Thanks!
@MercuryRis Ok. So, we have tons of failed prophecies, prophecy synthesis by Matthew, a Jesus who promised to return within 40 or 50 years of his death who didn't, a Bible that couldn't be more contradictory which also contains immoral decrees and acts by this so-called loving god and now they want to say one prophecy fulfillment does away with the rest of all the problems? Even if I granted it was a true prophecy, why would anyone worship such a being?
@MercuryRis I'm not intimately familiar with the issues of this "prophecy" but in general, every prophecy I've looked at fails on one or more levels. I wouldn't expect this one to pass either.
For your "friends" who claim the thing is valid, ask them why Jesus failed to return within the very clear time frame he gave (roughly 40 to 50 years) in four different passages. Let me know what they say. (I already know. :) )
@VyckRo There were MANY gospels (versions of christianity) floating around in the mid fities (ca 50 CE) and the gospel story as found in the 4 canonical gospels (actually, it's really one story as Matthew, Luke and John rely on Mark's version to greater and lesser degrees) is the version that won favor and BECAME the orthodox version.
@TruthSurge No! and No! 1."There were MANY gospels (versions of christianity) floating around in the mid fities (ca 50 CE) " MANY and (ca 50 CE) are two words that do not fit together in this phrase! 2. "one story as Matthew, Luke and John rely on Mark's version to greater and lesser degrees" John "rely on Mark's version"? WHAT!!?? Do you know the: Two-source hypothesis or Two-gospel hypothesis? PS Do you know the Synoptic Problem? and the relationship between synoptic gospels?
@VyckRo Do you know that the gospel of John contains a sequence of scenes that matches the gospel of Mark? Do you know that entire chapters and stories were added to the gospels? The adulteress story, for example? Everything from Mark 16:9 forward? The last chapter of John?
Do you not know that Paul admits there were many versions of Christianity flying about in his day? You honestly haven't read the Bible? A shame.
@VyckRo "Surprisingly know this hypothes, but I can not seriously consider it, because we do not have the original texts!"
The earliest and best mss of John do not contain the adulteress story. Later mss do contain it. The early church fathers never quoted the adulteress story and Origen's commentary on John in that section skips from right b4 the story to right after it.
Isn't the best explanation that the story was inserted later? Now that I'm in your face you want to say we can't know.
@VyckRo If we "can't know" then we "can't know" that a man raised from the dead and ascended bodily up through the clouds to get to heaven. You're skeptical about an obvious addition to the gospel of John but not skeptical about a man floating up through the clouds to reach heaven. Amazing.
This is due to the fact that your brain work in the "Protestant World", and refuse to aceepte, information contrary to your theory!
"Protestant World" = Bible proves the Bible
In reality, the bible is just a collection of texts, the bible do not proves the bible. The Bible text has been gathered by the Church, the church authority proves the Bible.
@VyckRo "This is due to the fact that your brain work in the "Protestant World", and refuse to aceepte, information contrary to your theory!"
Nope. My theory RESTS upon the evidence found within the Bible and all other sources of that time. That is why my viewpoint is superior. It is FORMED by the evidence. It is an unbiased view. I have no vested interest like you do (heaven).
There is no swamp for me. You have nothing upon which to hang your beliefs. I do.
"You have nothing upon which to hang your beliefs. I do."
Like I said, on the Church, the visible part of the invisible kingdom!
Like I said it many times that the center of attention do not falls on the Bible, as you are accustomed to think!
The Bible is the most important book for a Christian, but we believe in it because we believe in church, and the church had full authority decide what texts are or are not correct, enter or not in the Bible!
@VyckRo "Like I said, on the Church, the visible part of the invisible kingdom!"
The "church" evolved from day 1 through THOUSANDS of denominations and doctrinal stances. WHICH version do you say is the correct one and where, pray tell, do you think they got their info from? ALL church fathers got their info about Christianity from the Bible and other Christians' opinions about the Bible. The people BEFORE the "fathers" were not unified in their doctrines. ?
@VyckRo My take is a little different here, although I wish no one offense its my view that Christians believe in literal interpretation, and it makes no difference to me if there was a literal "Christ" or not, for me, its the symbolic expressions of the psyche on its journey toward meaning, and worth. And all writings have benefit but the problem is that there is no respect for any other religion unless its yours. That makes for death sentence as far as communications go..
The problem with a continues repenting system is that one ends up hiding instead because it becomes to unbearable to do the things that you think you have to in order to be right. It Causes a severe split in the psyche due to the inability to look at your actions which causes complete insanity. How is there any reconciliation in this?
@jungian9111 In Paul and other Jewish Christians' minds, Jesus was an answer to a prayer. heheh BECAUSE his "once for all" sacrifice meant that the animal sacrifices (which they did) were done away with. How awesome would that be to a Jew then? Also, Jesus solved an age-old problem for the early Christians: death. With Jesus, no one had to rot in the grave forever. He as going to appear on earth SOON and take living and dead up into heaven. Ahhh the fiction fevered minds can weave.
@TruthSurge Yes, but the truer meaning of what Christ did was missed in my opinion. Redeeming them from the curse of accusation has been virtually overlooked, and not only that but the fact that covenant demands still apply in Christian mentality. Which states perfection, sinless, purity, righteousness, and worth is the only way to stand in the presence of God. (symbolic) This wasn't possible under law.
@VyckRo You thought you'd run in here and beat up on a poor ignorant atheist and found out that you know less than I do. Now you have a choice. Stay and learn or run away and stay in your current (erroneous) beliefs. I'd prefer you go away and read Bart Ehrman's books for starters. If you read "Misquoting Jesus", you'll find out tons of goodies but the main gist is that the NT has been deliberately altered from the originals in many places.
@VyckRo There were so many variants of the "gospel" that Paul has to warn the Corinthians and Galations in his letters.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
@VyckRo "The fact that were false gospe rejected by the church, does not exclude the true gospel!"
How do you know you believe the TRUE one?
Paul uses the phrase "my gospel". What do you think of that? Surely one so knowledgable as you has an opinion about that.
Back to competing doctrines, by the end of the 1st century, altering the letters had become so common that the author of "revelation" put a curse at the end to ward off those who would later try to alter his writing.
@VyckRo ""How do you know you believe the TRUE one?"
Because I do not belong to one of the Heterodoxy sects."
So, you know your beliefs are true because you believe they are true. IOW, you have no real evidence why your beliefs are true and mine are not? Mine have tons of evidence to support them. And you have... hearsay.
IOW, when you really examine the Bible, it comes up way short and you simply won't allow yourself to study it independently of your pet beliefs.
@VyckRo "Because they can be logically demonstrated"
Okay. Logically demonstrate that a man rose from the dead after laying dead for several days and ascended bodily up through the clouds in order to get to heaven.
Logically demonstrate that an all-powerful god cannot simply forgive humans for their failures but instead requires blood to be spilled.
@VyckRo You are like the church leaders who persecuted Galileo and Copernicus because they believed something so wacky that no one else believed it. That the sun did NOT orbit the earth as it appeared to do. They were ALL wrong, the Bible was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. Majority doesn't equal truth.
@TruthSurge Hundreds of years of inquisitions from minds that weren't fully developed, our consciousness is getting there in my view.
Respect is a big one for me, due to the psychological fact that the validity we have of ourselves is also the validity we have in others. Our image is extremely important , I just wished others could grasp the symbolic renderings of the bible instead of the literal :-( Between the hammer and the anvil I think they call it..
@jungian9111 The rub is this: how does one determine what should be taken symbolically or literally? I think most people are lazy about that and choose NOT what is right but what supports their current beliefs.
Example: When the Bible says stars will fall to Earth, did the writer intend that as symbolic or literal? Most people would say symbolic. I say literal as that is precisely the Mesopotamian cosmological view. Stars were small lights affixed to the dome of heaven.
@TruthSurge It makes no difference to me. The reality lies within, so even if its literal the renderings of wholeness are nevertheless to be taken symbolically.
Most people are unaware I think of how to relinquish the two sides inside him. Lazy, or not willing to deal with the issue at hand because they don't know how, is my summation.
@jungian9111 I think you give the Bible too much credit. :) hehehe
We all struggle with right and wrong to more or lesser degrees. I've done my share of both. I just sort of call that being human and the grab my guitar and indulge myself.
@jungian9111 I'm gonna be away for a while. just fyi. :) Hope you enjoy my Jesus Myth vids. It is basically trying to explain the problems between the epistles and gospels/acts. A heavenly jesus who'd not been on earth does that. Although there are problem verses to deal with.
@VyckRo Christianity began as a diverse movement primarily among the non-Jewish races. Remember Paul? He was forced to abandon preaching to the Jews because they would not listen to the ridiculous message he preached. God having a son. HAHAHAHHA really? And just how did god beget this son? oh. A human woman. Such a Greek myth it is.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
@VyckRo Would you care to watch my vids before spouting your great knowledge at me? It might clear up a few things for you if you were to take the time to actually WATCH the 5 hours or so of EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS I put forth to support the idea that Jesus began as a heavenly son of a heavenly god.
I'll be glad to discuss once you see what the actual evidence and arguments are for you clearly have some desire to preach at me so 5 hrs of viewing isn't much to ask. :)
@VyckRo The things you can find when looking under the hood may surprise you. If you can be honest with yourself, you may learn some new things. If not, you'll find nothing of interest in my vids, I'm sure. If you want to discuss a particular point, fine. But please be specific. It's too deep to try and address broad issues.
I just did a 4 part vid on dating the NT writings using Mark as example. You might enjoy watching that. If you find FACTUAL errors in any vids, let me know.
Interesting, I've never heard this before about Jesus being crucified by demons in the lowest level of hell... where does that come from, is that in one of the epistles?
@jumpoutatree I talk about that in this series. forget the exact # of vid but it's in there in some detail. It comes from basically a few ideas. 1, Paul claims that the "rulers of this age" or perhaps a better wording "rulers of this world" killed Jesus and Ephesians shows those rulers to be demons and many early church fathers agreed with this. WHERE he was killed isn't necessarily set in stone. could have been on the earth but also just above it.
Christ/Messiah is a mythical title, applied to various literary characters, including one Jesus, an itinerant Galilean rabbi who, like the others, may or may not have existed historically.
Similarly, Buddha is a mythical title, applied to various literary characters, including one Siddhartha, a prince of the Sakya family who probably did exist historically.
I've watched the entire series and downloaded them all.
I've also bookmarked "The Jesus Puzzle" web site and have already read through a good deal of it.
Fascinating!
The argument you present that I find especially compelling is the "coming" of the NT letters vs the "returning" of the gospels. The dichotomy sounds too good to true. Is it all really so consistent? Also "apostle" vs "disciple".
I often get into it with a JW cousin and it would be nice to have these points available.
@EvenGodsSuffer well, many detractors post comments in the first vid w/o watching ONE of the others and they want to bash the theory and not really watch the vids that explain the whys. Your comment wasn't bashing but I just wondered if you had watched them. Yes, the "coming" thing I have never seen expanded like that so I decided to do it. The apostle/disciple is not as cut n dried BUT it does have some consistency to it. I wish I had the $ to get his new edition of TJP but ... i don't. :(
Hi TruthSurge, Im starting to really get into your videos. Im wondering what you think about the prophesies, meaning maninly the establishment of Isreal in 1948. I personally think Christians warp the prophesies into the events to justify them, but what about the old testament, such as the Fall of Babylon?
@MercuryRis thanks. prophecies that are very specific and obvious in the Bible were simply written AFTER the events occurred. Other ones about Jesus, for example, were simply invented (we can prove this using Matthew). Others are simply too vague to be proof of any foreknowledge. The naturalistic explanation explains them all without violating science. :)
Daytime: Even mainstream scholars acknowledge that their timeline is messed up by Paul. Paul is the most important source we have: he is closest (supposedly) to the time Christ is said to have lived, the seven or so epistles on which there is agreement were written by Paul would be important secondary source documents(no primary) that could confirm the Jesus story. Perplexing as it is, Paul fails to do that.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a Jesus mythicist. This would explain your approach to historical data of saying that because there are problems with a source you can basically ignore the entire source. Mythicism is a position that no serious scholar holds (including the very liberal ones). You may want to spend some time reading mainstream scholarship on this issue. You'll find that the book you're reading represents a fringe view.
@Daytimeofnight "This would explain your approach to historical data of saying that because there are problems with a source you can basically ignore the entire source."
Any day of the week you want to debate, just let me know. BlogTV, skype, whatever. I take ALL of it into consideration and weigh it for what we can be sure of and what we can suspect is going on based on OTHER evidences as well, such as the fact that NT documents were added to across the board, etc.
@Daytimeofnight So, no, I don't ignore the entire source but I keep a healthy dose of skepticism when reading someone like Eusebius or Tertullian.
Please tell me you don't believe hyenas vascillate between male and female each year, changing from male then to female over and over. Do you?
Of course you don't. But Tertullian did. Not only this but these people were blinded by their emotional attachment to their beliefs (a bit like you are to yours, apparently).
@Daytimeofnight "You'll find that the book you're reading represents a fringe "
One you are afraid to learn about for fear of your own views being shown wrong? Watch my JM vids and tell me ONE thing I got wrong. JUST ONE. You can't. No one has yet.
@Daytimeofnight Saying no serious scholar hold the mythicist view is an ad Hominem attack on TS and Doherty, an ad Verecundiam appeal to unnamed authority, and an instance of Petitio principii begging the question. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit. Scholarship occurs independently of credentials. Assuming HJ is a sound theory begs the question because truth is not established by beliefs but by evidence, a near total dearth of which graces the HJ position.
@9432bce6 yep. although a complete reversal of popular belief is fairly rare, it has happened many times in history. Heliocentricity fell. Flat earth fell. Stars being small heavenly bodies affixed to the firmament above the earth fell. Storms caused by angry gods fell. The evidence finally was uncovered and put out. Many people denied it outright. Eventually, the truths won out. The JM theory is going to be taught in all colleges within 200 years.
@9432bce6 My idea is that when a theory explains the phenomena better than any other theory, you really need to just go with it. As you said, it's just about the arguments and evidence, not how many people disagree with it.
why is their solar puns to jesus where there is a picture of the cross there is the rising sun in the background on easter why is a christian network called Day Star(sun network) why are there solar orbs around jesus's head in artwork why is there a rising sun logo on the bible why is worship on sun-day every where there is christ there is the sun its because the elite of christianity are really closet sun worshippers
Jesus is the sun of rightousness with healing of his wings (the sun is often depicted with wings) light of the world we will see him in the clouds he had twelve disciples the sun had twelve zodiac signs jesus started his minsitry at thirty the sun takes thirty degrees to go into each sign Samson in hebrew means like the sun which has multiples of 30 in his life kills a lion in leo gets jinxed by a women and looses his strength hercules kills a lion then hes jinxed by a woman
@sagitarian000028 Your claims have errors. Simple word association and imprecision doesn't make a belief true. The sun doesn't "have" zodiac signs. Zodiac symbols represented star configurations in the NIGHT sky.
At best, there may be some vestigial remnants of sun worship in the ancient Hebrew vernacular. It is NOT related to Jesus. Sorry.
christianity is based on astrology and Greek mythology and other worldly religions if only plagiarism was invented back then lol our solar sun is represented as the son of god there is a lot of paganism in the bible also if god was real there would be evidence of religion before cromagnon and modern homo sapiens evolved but there isnt
@Embasolkilluminati Yeah, but most Christians don't buy evolution anyway. The mere fact that we can find fossils and pottery older than 7000 years should clue them in but they cling to the Bible instead of science. Well, that is, until they get sick and need a doctor.
If only you realized that Mark and Luke were both disciples of Paul. Or that Peter accounts Paul as an official Apostle 2 Peter. Or that Acts talks about the original disciples and Paul meeting together. How can you say the Gospels and the Epistles are at odds? That makes no sense.
@DopoNotte "If only you realized that Mark and Luke were both disciples of Paul. "
No, they weren't. Acts contains numerous contradictions to Paul's letters and due to the dating of Paul's letters and Acts, you'd need to believe Luke was about 120 when he wrote Acts if he hung out with Paul in the mid 50s of the first century.
PLEASE, go learn some facts about the NT writings. May I suggest earlychristianwritings (d o t) com?
@TruthSurge In order to believe there are contradictions between Paul and the Gospels I need to also believe that the Bishops who collected the books were A: not aware of these contradictions, B: knew of them but didn't care, or C: did not view any contradictions between the Gospels and Paul. Since I have faith in those who first put together the NT, St. Athanasius especially, I am left with the other logical conclusion that those who think there is a difference have a flawed interpretation
@DopoNotte "In order to believe there are contradictions between Paul and the Gospels I need to also believe that the Bishops who collected the books were A: not aware of these contradictions"
No, you don't. You simply need to be willing to open your eyes and see them instead of closing your eyes and brain as you are doing now. Let me show you what you are doing.
"If the earth really orbits the sun, I'd need to believe that all the people 500 years ago were wrong!"
@DopoNotte Are you aware that there are tons of contradictions between the 4 gospels? Are you aware that the church fathers and bishops were just like you? Extremely biased and so biased that they TOO denied the contradictions because they were unable to examine the documents objectively because they had too much emotional investments in them. You cannot be objective about the documents because you claim to worship the lead character of the story.
@DopoNotte You do know that Paul taught that Jesus' death and resurrection nullified the Mosaic law, yes? I'll wait for your answer before continuing.
@TruthSurge There were more documents that professed to have Christ as the lead story that people were "invested to," hence the Nag Hammadi Library, yet for some reason the Church Fathers chose only these 27 books. Paul wrote a 3rd letter to Corinth, Peter also wrote a supposed 3rd letter. Why not include these? If all that mattered was Christ is the lead in the story then the NT would be a LOT larger. The issue is you're coming to the Bible with your own pre-conceived ideas as well.
@TruthSurge The idea that you're interpreting onto the Bible is that it's erroneous even before you read it. Just b/c you say there are contradictions does not mean that there are. You have a Papal mentality, that however you interpret the Scriptures MUST be the ONLY logical and rational and correct way. If the Scriptures do not make sense to you, then obviously they are false, and everyone who believes differently than you is a 3rd grader (as you once said).
@TruthSurge I do not believe Paul taught that Jesus' death and Resurrection NULLIFIED the Mosaic Law. There are, after all, Jews for Jesus and other types, Messianic Jews, etc. Obviously they do not believe Paul taught Jesus nullified the Mosaic Law. In fact I know a person who deleavens his house before Pesach yet he calls himself a Christian; he also keeps the Fri-Sat Sabbath among other things. The only thing that changed really were the temple sacrifices and more b/c the Temple is GONE
@TruthSurge Orthodox profess that Christ's Body IS the Temple so by participating in the Eucharist we still participate in the "sacrifices" as well. Catholics go too far into believing this is the continual sacrifice each week. I need to make it clear that Orthodoxy does not profess this. Orthodoxy still has the presentation of new borns in the temple, and a 40 days period new mothers before re-entering the Church. We still celebrate Passover, called Pascha. Tell me again what Law was nullified?
@TruthSurge I mean, tell me exactly why I should put stock into what someone says when he believes God worked and injustice by casting Adam and Eve out from the Garden; or by giving women birth pangs?! And yet you claim ignorance when I tell you that it's your interpretation of the Scriptures that is erroneous and NOT the Scriptures themselves!
@julzabro it is interesting. but it gets WAY more interesting as these vids progress. I see someone commented on like every one so maybe you have watched them already.
Dude i feel sorry for you: When I get to the kingdom of God I'll come visit you down below during visiting hours. Unless you regain your salvation of course. God bless you!
I like what you're doing and can tell you're a stand up guy. Cheers. Just wanted to ask your thoughts on science; basically the probability that any god could be as real as the other or none. History; Since scripts there have been texts that are very similar, sometimes identical, to every jesus reference... these were written millennia before AD and from all corners of the globe. Even indigenous peoples had there own way to guide spirituality. None as dangerous as the monotheistic judxiaslam.
FundFreedom 3 months ago
@FundFreedom Peace, brother. Ran out of space but wanted to mention that i respect your views.
FundFreedom 3 months ago
@FundFreedom thanks. If you get ja chance, maybe watch a few more of these and see how much evidence there really is for the theory. it's amazing. thank ya
TruthSurge 3 months ago
really enjoying your vids. only found your channel due to your comedy song classic on that fuckwit nutbag nephfree. makes me wonder how many other YTers are out there making well researched well made videos analysing bible horseshit Keep up the excellent work. I,m now at the point i look forward to jehovah's witnesses calling.
JOOGAL1111 4 months ago
@JOOGAL1111 aint it the trufe? I mean, there is a certain power in knowing tons about the Bible and how Christianity really formed. When a JW knocks on your door, you get this adrenaline rush and go oh shit, they don't have a farking clue! and you run to the door and smile and let them in and get them talking for a while so they don't run off TOO quickly. hehe well, I've talked to only a few proselytizers but it's like Mike Tyson vs a 4 year old. how's that gonna turn out? hahah thanks!
TruthSurge 4 months ago
Truth you are a great artist and musician as well as an expert on religion. I enjoyed watching lots of your vids.
baxtar1963 5 months ago
GREAT introduction. So clear. Thank you for doing this! The literature on this subject isn't easily accessible.
delphiote 1 year ago
@delphiote Thanks. You're the 1st person to compliment me on the intro. HAHAHHA it is a bit low on production values but sometimes you just have to start somewhere. I think this idea is going to be taught in universities one day.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Myth, end of story.
bestplugins 1 year ago
@bestplugins sure, but I figure I need to explain why. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge just think... is what says the bible real? why are 1000s of religions and gods? why is "my god" the real one"? why religion has so many power and money? just be smart (im not talking about you :) )
bestplugins 1 year ago
@bestplugins of course. but Christians are so brainwashed that they can't even think like that. They certainly won't watch THIS series of vids because they cannot accept that Jesus never existed. I can. But then I was an atheist when I started reading about the idea.
Hey, what plugins do you have? Any good audio ones?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge What's really interesting is that you can see the evolution of the myth, and it keeps going past John, but after Constantine's ascent to power most of the writings after John were suppressed, they would have been lost forever if fragments hadn't survived.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Luke and Acts and 2nd Peter and 1&2 Timothy and Titus are all 2nd century works and later than John but they are part of the NT canon. But I do agree with regard to the ones that DIDN'T make it in. The only reason we have most of what we do is that more Christians found them worth copying than not. And as for the "heretical" ones, we did lose many of those do to them being "unworthy" of being copied but we know of them via their detractors attacks.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Luke and Acts and 2nd Peter and 1&2 Timothy and Titus are all 2nd century works and later than John but they are part of the NT canon. But I do agree with regard to the ones that DIDN'T make it in. The only reason we have most of what we do is that more Christians found them worth copying than not. And as for the "heretical" ones, we did lose many of those do to them being "unworthy" of being copied but we know of them via their detractors attacks.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Paul's resurrection story is not the one we know, it's written in allegorical language and and doesn't even contain the events we know so well as the Jesus story, it's merely a mirror of previous allegorical myths. Paul basically planted the seed for the myth early on with his seditious allegorical writings against Rome (overt sedition carried penalty of death), and the story just gets more and more fantastic after the destruction of the temple, a decade or more after Paul.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Um, you lost me. Nowhere in Paul's writings does he condemn the Roman government as far as I know. In fact, he does the opposite in his letter to the Romans and says that the Christians should submit to Rome because the only reason they are in power is because God allowed it.
The resurrection details of the gospels are certainly not in Paul's letters. His letters are the earliest works of Christians to survive and so I'm still waiting for how it was a late entry. ?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Paul can't condemn Rome directly because open sedition is punishable by death (he eventually is sentenced by Nero anyway, so the story goes), instead Paul uses heavy allegory, if you read his writings in the context of the time they were written it's steeped in metaphore and allegory about the decline of Rome. Paul's resurrection was definitely not the resurrection in the gospels, it was an allegory. The late entry I'm referencing is the earthly resurrection myth in the Gospels.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "he eventually is sentenced by Nero anyway,"
Where do you get this? Acts? Acts is fiction written likely 80 years after Paul's letters. The concept of early Christians dying for their beliefs is itself a myth invented by Luke and the other "acts of ______" works. It was what they wanted to hear and a good author gives his readers what they want.
We differ in opinion then because I do not believe Paul is using allegory or secret phrases to avoid being killed by Romans.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I know that how Paul is questionable at best and that there's no historically credible record of his beheading, that's why I said "So the story goes", but in any event Paul drops off the radar during the reign of Nero before the destruction of the temple. There's a general consensus that Paul's writings were largely allegorical, especially the apocalyptic writings, as for the Jesus story Paul tells it's very different from the one in the gospels, I think it's meaning was not literal.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity But how would that help Paul? He's still preaching a religion that is not one of the Roman religions. And further, Rome had several religions and those of other nations that they tolerated so this idea that Christianity was in some danger from Rome is a myth, IMO. Where do you get that Paul had to be secretive for fear of Rome? I have never seen evidence of it in my readings.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge The Romans generally viewed the Jews as rebellious monotheist barbarians who placed their one barbarian god above Rome and the proper Roman gods, Jews were not properly Roman. There was little distinction between Christian and Jew, to the Romans the Christians were just a new crop of competing Jewish sects with seditious Anti-Roman overtones. Any Anti-Roman group was at risk of persecution, even if all the stories are true it pales in comparison to what the Romans did to the Gauls.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity I just don't see that Paul was doing what you say. Does that mean that the authors of the gospels and acts were thrill seekers? Why would Mark write such stuff then? Matthew? Luke? why wouldn't they employ the code words and such to encrypt it and avoid Rome's wrath? To me, it makes more sense to think Paul and other epistle writers simply had no gospel story at that time and gleaned what they had from OT passages. The first gospel, Mark, was ca 72CE AFTER Paul.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge It's unclear who the actual authors of the gospels were, but why would it follow that they were thrill seekers? All I'm saying is that Paul's teachings were largely allegorical, it's not uncommon for an allegorical myth to expand and be taken more seriously. Moral myths become urban legends become urban facts, what I think started out as a compilation of myths and allegorical stories for the Jewish people obviously inspired the new more literal myths in the Gospels.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@TruthSurge There seems to be a disconnect in our communication, you're telling me the things I'm trying to tell you as if I'm trying to tell you the opposite. I know that the Gospels were written well after Paul, that was one of the points I made, Paul's teachings are not the Gospels, Paul's teachings appear to be largely allegorical myths which inspired the gospels. Paul never told us the Jesus story we know, his writings appear to use the Character as a narrative device.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity I'm still wondering what you mean by Paul's apocalyptic writings. Do you mean his belief about the end of time and the parousia of Jesus? Apocalyptic means revelation. apokalypses. Not really some end time blowout. So, I'm just trying to understand what you were talking about.
I think we disagree mostly on the idea that Paul and other epistle writers wrote in some secretive manner to avoid Roman backlash. That's why I asked why the gospel writers didn't do it.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge That's what I'm saying, what people consider Paul's apocalyptic writings are an example of how much Paul relied on allegory, it's not about some literal end time blow out it's about the Jewish people and the empire. Think about what Paul is writing in the context of the conditions of the Jewish people, and what he knew about Rome. If he directly just out and said "This will pass, the empire is in decline, it will destroy itself, our people will be free" he would have been killed.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity So, if Christianity was anti-Rome and you had to write secretively why would Mark implicate Rome at all as having anything to do with crucifying Jesus? Or maybe he did that to make Rome look like they had done a good thing and with the Pilate part they had no real crime, no real guilt since the Jews are ultimately to blame. ? I think Mark was likely a Roman so he wouldn't write anything overtly negative of Rome anyway but he does make a soldier confess that Jesus was...
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity that jesus was the messiah or son of god. That doesn't sound too helpful to keep quiet about Roman emperors being deities to me. Hey, not trying to be a hardhead. Just don't see that these authors were deliberately writing in code or allegory to avoid Roman persecution.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge The Gospels were written some decades later, after Nero, after Paul, and after the destruction of the Temple. Civil War was starting to break out, large anti-roman movements were spreading, it was easy for the authors of the Gospel to be more overt, more literalistic, and garner more influence. I think you're making too much of the allegory, imagining it as some secretive code when really allegory was just a common form of narration in the time, and useful to avoid sedition.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "The Gospels were written some decades later, after Nero, after Paul, and after the destruction of the Temple."
That's true.
As for allegory, I suppose at this point you'd need to supply me with a concrete example of what you are calling allegory in Paul before I could comment further.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge not decades but centuries, even better.
bestplugins 1 year ago
@bestplugins not sure what you are replying to.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge not replying, just posting my opinion, i like these videos.
bestplugins 1 year ago
@bestplugins thanks!
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge You've surely noticed that a lot of modern comedians use fictional substitutes for real people in order to avoid libel charges and the like. Often videogames and movies also use allegorical metaphors to represent real institutions and real people, and you see these narratives repeated, take the legend of Robin Hood for example, it's often been used as a narrative about real events, often with an anti-establishment bent. This sort of story telling was extremely common at the time.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity If the main purpose was an attack on Roman govt I'd likely agree that the epistles are deliberately veiled. I just don't see it. It isn't as if they changed the doctrines or even hid their belief that Jesus was divine. That surely wouldn't have gone over well with Nero and the later emperors like Vespasian and Titus and Domitian. And not one mention of Jesus' sayings or miracles in the epistles? Allegory doesn't explain all of that, IMO.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge That's just the thing though, allegories aren't so absolute. The allegorical writings of Paul and other contemporay authors and orators among downtrodden from the time period (not just the Christians and Jews) often conveyed moral lessons, inspirational stories, entertainment, predictions about the future, and caricatures of people, families, institutions, and State. I really don't think Paul believed in a literal Jesus, much less a literal rapture.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ I perceive Paul's teachings about Jesus as allegories for his people, akin to the allegories of other mythical figures from the time, I think they were intended to give his people hope and resolve, to tell them that in the end they would prevail and rise again, to warn against the seduction of Rome and the Romanized Pharisees, and the Roman Legion and the Beasts that ruled Rome, and Rome itself as the controlling insatiable monster many downtrodden peoples saw it as.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity 1 Cor 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
Boy, if Roman authorities knew about that line, what would they think? How can Paul warn them about Rome without .... warning them about Rome? Your statements don't add up. Paul does not ever condemn Rome in his letters. He only states that ALL authority would be subject to Jesus at his parousia.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Where in his letters does Paul warn about the seduction of Rome? I'm at a loss.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge See that's the thing, I don't take everything Paul said as literal, I see it it as allegory like so many of the other writings of the time. You're familiar with how metaphors are used today, well Paul came from a long oral tradition and was in a climate steeped with myths and metaphors, I believe the Resurrection of Jesus and in fact the entire Jesus narrative was a compilation of allegories and metaphors meant to convey teachings and inspire his people.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "I really don't think Paul believed in a literal Jesus,"
It's your right to believe what you want. But 1 Cor 15 seems to argue against it. Paul's entire corpus seems to argue against it. Paul obsesses over the resurrection of Jesus and claims if he hasn't been TRULY resurrected, then it's all for naught. That seems pretty clear to me. Anyway, interesting to think about.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I see Jesus largely as a metaphor for the Jewish people, his oppression representative of the oppression Jews faced under Rome, and his apocalyptic writings as metaphors for Rome, the Roman Legion, his people and their destiny, ect. Paul's Jesus came to him in a vision, after decades of persecuting his own people, he felt 'called by god' to spread his teachings, Paul's Jesus appears to be a metaphor for the Jewish people, for their fall/death, their resurrection, and their ascension.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ I speak in metaphorical terms of course, the Jewish people had fallen under the long shadow of the roman empire, they were dying as a people, their own kingdom was becoming just another minor Roman province, I believe that Paul was metaphorically conveying that they would rise again, I believe he had the cunning and foresight to see the troubles Rome was facing. I don't believe Paul believed in a literal jesus, or a literal supernatural resurrection, or a literal beast.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Well, I'll quit now because I think you are completely wrong. So, rather than upset you by posting countless verses that preclude that theory, I'll just say I disagree. :) You'd be closer saying the gospels or at least Mark's was an allegory. Basically, Mark's gospel is fiction using the Jesus of Paul and co. Whether Mark believed in Paul's Jesus and just made the fiction I cannot say. But I lean toward it. The gentiles accepted it more readily and Mark is...
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Mark is full of anti-semitism (Gentile hate for the Jesus-rejecting Jews) and this is why Mark has Jesus slamming the Jewish leadership so hard. A fellow Jew would NOT have done that (as we can see from Paul's writings).
Anyway, I'm done!
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity I guess YT is happy deleting my post I had all typed up.
To believe Jesus is allegory, you must ignore most of Paul's writing. Take this verse, for example. Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
What on earth was Paul thinking when he included a known fictional character in the same context as the very real god he worshiped?
Allegory is where you tell a tale that's fiction, not write as if it's real.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Some Christians may believe that Paul was speaking literally on everything but it's pretty widely accepted that Paul's writings and teachings were largely allegorical, as allegory they match up with the situation and time period and match up with other allegorical writings. The Jews weren't the only people using myth and metaphor to say what could not be said directly, or to craft moral stories and inspirational myths. Take the story of Robin Hood and it's many iterations for example
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity your theory requires that the author of Hebrews be writing in allegory as well. Plus the author of 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus. Plus the author of 1st Peter. And James. and Ephesians. Pt is, how did all these authors know to write in allegory or symbolism? They somehow all got the msg? I can't buy that. grrrrrrr :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity we should skype sometime and hash out this idea. I'd be able to get my ideas out faster and you might be able to throw some things my way.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge ;) I'm a bit behind the times with this internet technology, I only recently made a Youtube channel and I still don't have a facebook or skype.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity skype you just sign up and have a headset or a mic and PC speakers. You then find someone and call then talk. It sounds really clear and not much lag. I rarely do it but have chatted a few times. Facebook sucks.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Have you perused earlychristianwritings (d o t) com? I just saw a blurb on the revelation page that reminded me of our convo. Kummel is talking about Rome and their persecution of Christians. He states that there was no persecution of Christians prior to Domitian (ca 95 or so). It certainly makes sense in that they were simply not in big enough numbers yet and from 60 to 80, they had their hands full with Jews. Only by 95 or so did Rome officially go after christians.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge The Christians didn't have to be specifically targeted for persecution by the Romans, because most of them were Jewish and even those who weren't were just another barbarian cult that failed to worship in a properly Roman fashion. To the Romans the Jews were nothing but another Barbarian people that Rome was trying to civilize. Do you believe that all of Pauls writings were meant to be read as literal statements of fact? I'm confused as to what you're trying to suggest.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "because most of them were Jewish"
Actually, most of them were Gentiles. It's the very reason for Jesus' hateful demeanor toward the Jewish authorities in Mark (Mark being a Gentile Christian himself). Paul also lets us know that his sales pitches toward his own people failed miserably and so thoroughly that he gave up preaching to them and started preaching to.... wait for it.... the Gentiles! He even claimed that it was his new god-given purpose.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Ephesus... Galatia... Phillipi... Rome... Corinth... these are all non-Jewish lands that Paul had either visited personally or at least had correspondence with. Early Christianity began in the Jewish sector but almost immediately became a Gentile movement. Gospel of Mark... written by a Gentile Christian. Luke.... Gentile. Mathew... possibly Gentile as he used the LXX for his OT quotes instead of the Hebrew. etc.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "Do you believe that all of Pauls writings were meant to be read as literal statements of fact? I'm confused as to what you're trying to suggest."
BINGO! That's exactly what I'm saying. When Paul says that Jesus rose on the third day, he means Jesus came back from the dead after being dead for 3 days. When he says how he knows this (from the OT passages) he means precisely that. When he says believers will float up into the clouds at Jesus' parousia, he means just that.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Your theory also has to reach to the other epistles as well because they avoid most all of the details of the gospels as well but were not written by Paul. Much harder to swallow than the idea that they simply had no earthly Jesus story at that time until Mark's version circulated by the end of the 1st century.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Erm, that's what I'm saying though, they had no earthly Jesus story until Mark's version began to circulate. Before that you have a tangled mess of myths and allegories being spread mostly by word of mouth.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Reason is, Christians were nothing to Romans in the 1st century. They had their hands full with the Jews who outnumbered the Christians 1000 to 1. That Nero said anything about Christians is unlikely to me. They simply weren't numerous enough yet. Not yet on the radar, IMO.
The reason Paul's resurrection is so sparse is because he got his info about it from the Old Testament which had virtually nothing in there about it. Paul references the OT for pretty much everythg.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I agree with your assessment on pretty much everything, I think somewhere I gave the wrong impression of my position. About the only place we differ is that I think Paul's resurrection myth was intended as allegory and distinguish it from the myths in the Gospels, largely because it fits so perfectly with other allegorical archetypes that were common among those oppressed by Rome. They often sought inspirational myths or personified allegories for their people's lot in life.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity That's what I'm wanting to find out. What religions were oppressed by the Roman government during the 1st century? I don't think you'll be able to uncover any evidence that shows definitively that Christianity was oppressed or in some way attacked by the Roman government. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Rome controlled Palestine in that they had to pay taxes to them and such but all the hubub around 60 to 70 was about Jews, not Christians.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity so, I'm not really arguing. I just find that when 2 people have a differing view, one has to be wrong. :) And if it's ME, I want to change my view. Thanks for the chat and let me know what causes you to believe that Rome had it out for Christians in the 1st century.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Rome didn't have it out for Christianity in particular, it barely even recognized Christianity's existence for the first century, but the price of open sedition against Rome was death, dissident movements regardless of origin were generally dealt with in the same way. Paul's writings, particularly his apocalyptic writings, are full of allegories about his people and the Roman empire, and in offense to the emperor Paul's teachings generally conflicted with imperial deification.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity What are you calling his apocalyptic writings?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity One example ref metaphore, allegory, symbolism, figure of speech... "slain from the foundation of the world" You could say that is just another way of saying that god foreknew it would happen. But I claim it is a literal belief of the early Christians. Jesus was crucified around the time the world was made. This explains why Paul and company claim the gospel was hidden "from the foundation of the world". etc. Have you watched my vids yet? I explain all this.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Not only that, but compare Dionysus and Mithras to Jesus, I mean just right here, Water to Wine, Loaves and Fishes, Wine is his Blood, even the mock cannibalism which was part of the Bacchic festivals. Then to Mithras, born of a god, self sacrificing savior, speared in the side, died in atonement for the sins of others. And then you could make the same comparison to a dozen other gods, but Mithras was regional and popular, and influenced Christmas, even if largely copied itself
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ It's worth nothing that the Dying and Rising aspects of the Jesus character were late entries into the myth. There was not mention of them for decades after his supposed death. Jesus' was more a self sacrificing romantic hero, a dissident martyred by Rome, a common legend of a benevolent guru persecuted and killed by the hated oppressors. The Cliche couldn't compete with a dying and rising god however, the miracles just got more and more fantastic as the decades went by, many thrown out.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ Most people aren't aware of just how many competing sects of Christianity cropped up, and how many Jesus myths there were. The one we know today is the one that won out, some of the miracles and legends were considered just too patently absurd for the Council of Nicaea to include into doctrine. Even Corinthians, parts of it were accepted into doctrine but the rest was considered just too radical at the time. The myths were refined, as the Church became the ruling body of the Empire.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Zeitgeist has created an unfortunate stigma by association to the Jesus Myth theory, most people don't know the evidence or arguments, they just know Zeitgeist was full of shit.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity yep. I have about 5 hours of vids in this series and not ONE of them deals with pagan influences or silences in the epistles. Those must be examined, of course, but what I present here are more positive evidences for the theory. I also deal with a few problem passages that seem to contradict the theory. You might enjoy watching these because there are a few things in them that Earl Doherty has not elaborated upon or in the way I do.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge It's annoying too because there were authentic pagan connections to the Christ myth, the Jesus character seems loosely based on a variety or urban legends pertaining to mythical saviors and heroes common in the region, there isn't a single unique element to any of them and their time frame and events aren't coherent with an actual person. I'll definitely watch those videos, your videos are really interesting thanks for uploading them.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I don't get what all the focus on egypt is about, what about the other myths that influenced the Jesus character? I mean the Hebrew people had been saturated in Greek culture and greek myths for centuries, by the time the Jesus myth got started (before it even grew into a resurrecting savior myth around the first century) Jesus already had the characteristics of many greek and roman gods and mythic heroes, and the resurrection part of the myth came long late in the myth.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Hey Truthsurge, Im listening to your great vids but i have a question for you. The biggest support people use for the Bible being accurate is the re-establishment of Israil in 1945, as it was predicted by the prophets. Do you think this is a vague prediction, embellished, fabricated? I like to know your opinion. Thanks!
MercuryRis 1 year ago
@MercuryRis Ok. So, we have tons of failed prophecies, prophecy synthesis by Matthew, a Jesus who promised to return within 40 or 50 years of his death who didn't, a Bible that couldn't be more contradictory which also contains immoral decrees and acts by this so-called loving god and now they want to say one prophecy fulfillment does away with the rest of all the problems? Even if I granted it was a true prophecy, why would anyone worship such a being?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@MercuryRis I'm not intimately familiar with the issues of this "prophecy" but in general, every prophecy I've looked at fails on one or more levels. I wouldn't expect this one to pass either.
For your "friends" who claim the thing is valid, ask them why Jesus failed to return within the very clear time frame he gave (roughly 40 to 50 years) in four different passages. Let me know what they say. (I already know. :) )
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@MercuryRis thanks for the compliment, too.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
6:31
the Orthodox version it is the correct version! LOL
THIS IS THE ORTHODOX WORD MEANS
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo Orthodox is simply the version that won out.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
I speak of the Greek definition of the word
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo There were MANY gospels (versions of christianity) floating around in the mid fities (ca 50 CE) and the gospel story as found in the 4 canonical gospels (actually, it's really one story as Matthew, Luke and John rely on Mark's version to greater and lesser degrees) is the version that won favor and BECAME the orthodox version.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo Do you know that the gospel of John contains a sequence of scenes that matches the gospel of Mark? Do you know that entire chapters and stories were added to the gospels? The adulteress story, for example? Everything from Mark 16:9 forward? The last chapter of John?
Do you not know that Paul admits there were many versions of Christianity flying about in his day? You honestly haven't read the Bible? A shame.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"The adulteress story, for example? Everything from Mark 16:9 forward? The last chapter of John?"
Surprisingly know this hypothes, but I can not seriously consider it, because we do not have the original texts!
"Paul admits there were many versions of Christianity flying about in his day?"
No! not "many" but there were few heterodox versions.
Luckily, that our entire faith is based only on the Bible
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "Surprisingly know this hypothes, but I can not seriously consider it, because we do not have the original texts!"
The earliest and best mss of John do not contain the adulteress story. Later mss do contain it. The early church fathers never quoted the adulteress story and Origen's commentary on John in that section skips from right b4 the story to right after it.
Isn't the best explanation that the story was inserted later? Now that I'm in your face you want to say we can't know.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"The earliest and best mss of John do not contain the adulteress story"
But " we can't know." and the if it was inserted later, that do not prove, it did not happen!
The story could have come from oral tradition!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo If we "can't know" then we "can't know" that a man raised from the dead and ascended bodily up through the clouds to get to heaven. You're skeptical about an obvious addition to the gospel of John but not skeptical about a man floating up through the clouds to reach heaven. Amazing.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthSurge
"You're skeptical about an obvious addition to the gospel of John"
"obvious"? you want to make me believe something?
so from the story whit the woman we arrived at something we never discussed, perhaps you mean the story of speaking in tongues? ...so?
"raised from the dead and ascended bodily up through the clouds"
This quote should be the add? (you want to discuss this on the Greek text)
I thought we discuss the return doctrine?
VyckRo 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"Amazing."
This is due to the fact that your brain work in the "Protestant World", and refuse to aceepte, information contrary to your theory!
"Protestant World" = Bible proves the Bible
In reality, the bible is just a collection of texts, the bible do not proves the bible. The Bible text has been gathered by the Church, the church authority proves the Bible.
Here we enter in to a swamp land for you!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "This is due to the fact that your brain work in the "Protestant World", and refuse to aceepte, information contrary to your theory!"
Nope. My theory RESTS upon the evidence found within the Bible and all other sources of that time. That is why my viewpoint is superior. It is FORMED by the evidence. It is an unbiased view. I have no vested interest like you do (heaven).
There is no swamp for me. You have nothing upon which to hang your beliefs. I do.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"You have nothing upon which to hang your beliefs. I do."
Like I said, on the Church, the visible part of the invisible kingdom!
Like I said it many times that the center of attention do not falls on the Bible, as you are accustomed to think!
The Bible is the most important book for a Christian, but we believe in it because we believe in church, and the church had full authority decide what texts are or are not correct, enter or not in the Bible!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "Like I said, on the Church, the visible part of the invisible kingdom!"
The "church" evolved from day 1 through THOUSANDS of denominations and doctrinal stances. WHICH version do you say is the correct one and where, pray tell, do you think they got their info from? ALL church fathers got their info about Christianity from the Bible and other Christians' opinions about the Bible. The people BEFORE the "fathers" were not unified in their doctrines. ?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@VyckRo My take is a little different here, although I wish no one offense its my view that Christians believe in literal interpretation, and it makes no difference to me if there was a literal "Christ" or not, for me, its the symbolic expressions of the psyche on its journey toward meaning, and worth. And all writings have benefit but the problem is that there is no respect for any other religion unless its yours. That makes for death sentence as far as communications go..
jungian9111 1 year ago
The problem with a continues repenting system is that one ends up hiding instead because it becomes to unbearable to do the things that you think you have to in order to be right. It Causes a severe split in the psyche due to the inability to look at your actions which causes complete insanity. How is there any reconciliation in this?
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 In Paul and other Jewish Christians' minds, Jesus was an answer to a prayer. heheh BECAUSE his "once for all" sacrifice meant that the animal sacrifices (which they did) were done away with. How awesome would that be to a Jew then? Also, Jesus solved an age-old problem for the early Christians: death. With Jesus, no one had to rot in the grave forever. He as going to appear on earth SOON and take living and dead up into heaven. Ahhh the fiction fevered minds can weave.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Yes, but the truer meaning of what Christ did was missed in my opinion. Redeeming them from the curse of accusation has been virtually overlooked, and not only that but the fact that covenant demands still apply in Christian mentality. Which states perfection, sinless, purity, righteousness, and worth is the only way to stand in the presence of God. (symbolic) This wasn't possible under law.
jungian9111 1 year ago
@VyckRo You thought you'd run in here and beat up on a poor ignorant atheist and found out that you know less than I do. Now you have a choice. Stay and learn or run away and stay in your current (erroneous) beliefs. I'd prefer you go away and read Bart Ehrman's books for starters. If you read "Misquoting Jesus", you'll find out tons of goodies but the main gist is that the NT has been deliberately altered from the originals in many places.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"You thought you'd run in here and beat up on a poor ignorant atheist "
and that is exactly what I found !
"you know less than I do. "
vice versa!
"If you read `Misquoting Jesus`"
've seen videos on youtube, the man is not a historian by profession, and make a lot of mistakes!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo I'M RIGHT! YOU'RE WRONG!
wow. this is so easy!
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@VyckRo There were so many variants of the "gospel" that Paul has to warn the Corinthians and Galations in his letters.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Comment removed
VyckRo 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"There were so many variants of the gospel"
One or two are not many, and a false theory does not deny the existence of a correct theory!
The fact that were false gospe rejected by the church, does not exclude the true gospel!
Also! if Paul teaches them what to do if I receive "false letters" does not mean that the fakes had emerged, yet.
There were apparently false doctrines, but we can not imply the existence of entire gospel in a century when Christian manuscripts were few
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "The fact that were false gospe rejected by the church, does not exclude the true gospel!"
How do you know you believe the TRUE one?
Paul uses the phrase "my gospel". What do you think of that? Surely one so knowledgable as you has an opinion about that.
Back to competing doctrines, by the end of the 1st century, altering the letters had become so common that the author of "revelation" put a curse at the end to ward off those who would later try to alter his writing.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"How do you know you believe the TRUE one?"
Because I do not belong to one of the Heterodoxy sects.
That is the fundamental mistake made by the authors quoted by you, this error actually includes two aspects:
1. The protestant doctrine on the Bible
2. The Catholic Doctrine on the Church.
The Early Christians did not have a Bible, but they had a Church!
And this Ecclesia decided since the time of the apostles.
Just like you showed whit Paul!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo ""How do you know you believe the TRUE one?"
Because I do not belong to one of the Heterodoxy sects."
So, you know your beliefs are true because you believe they are true. IOW, you have no real evidence why your beliefs are true and mine are not? Mine have tons of evidence to support them. And you have... hearsay.
IOW, when you really examine the Bible, it comes up way short and you simply won't allow yourself to study it independently of your pet beliefs.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"So, you know your beliefs are true because you believe they are true"
Because they can be logically demonstrated
" you have no real evidence why your beliefs are true "
Again you are think inside the Protestant circle, The Church is the best proof
"From nothing, nothing comes"
The Christian Church whit traditions, doctrines, bishops, could not originate from nothing!
No myth originates from nothing, so if you prove the "myth" you are left to prove the myth origin
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "Because they can be logically demonstrated"
Okay. Logically demonstrate that a man rose from the dead after laying dead for several days and ascended bodily up through the clouds in order to get to heaven.
Logically demonstrate that an all-powerful god cannot simply forgive humans for their failures but instead requires blood to be spilled.
You see? Even your core beliefs make no sense.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@VyckRo "The Christian Church whit traditions, doctrines, bishops, could not originate from nothing!"
The Islam religion with its imams and leaders and prophet Muhammad could not originate from nothing! That proves Islam is TRUE!
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
"Mine have tons of evidence to support them. "
Tons? :) And yet they are not recognized by anyone, you are no different from those shows evidence of alien conspiracy!
This method does not work in history, and this is one reason why the international community,has not accepted unconditionally your hypothesis.
" I have no vested interest like you do (heaven)."
Protestant doctrine again..."faith will save you"
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo You are like the church leaders who persecuted Galileo and Copernicus because they believed something so wacky that no one else believed it. That the sun did NOT orbit the earth as it appeared to do. They were ALL wrong, the Bible was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. Majority doesn't equal truth.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Hundreds of years of inquisitions from minds that weren't fully developed, our consciousness is getting there in my view.
Respect is a big one for me, due to the psychological fact that the validity we have of ourselves is also the validity we have in others. Our image is extremely important , I just wished others could grasp the symbolic renderings of the bible instead of the literal :-( Between the hammer and the anvil I think they call it..
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 The rub is this: how does one determine what should be taken symbolically or literally? I think most people are lazy about that and choose NOT what is right but what supports their current beliefs.
Example: When the Bible says stars will fall to Earth, did the writer intend that as symbolic or literal? Most people would say symbolic. I say literal as that is precisely the Mesopotamian cosmological view. Stars were small lights affixed to the dome of heaven.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge It makes no difference to me. The reality lies within, so even if its literal the renderings of wholeness are nevertheless to be taken symbolically.
Most people are unaware I think of how to relinquish the two sides inside him. Lazy, or not willing to deal with the issue at hand because they don't know how, is my summation.
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 I think you give the Bible too much credit. :) hehehe
We all struggle with right and wrong to more or lesser degrees. I've done my share of both. I just sort of call that being human and the grab my guitar and indulge myself.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge lol, I like scripture :-)
jungian9111 1 year ago
@jungian9111 I'm gonna be away for a while. just fyi. :) Hope you enjoy my Jesus Myth vids. It is basically trying to explain the problems between the epistles and gospels/acts. A heavenly jesus who'd not been on earth does that. Although there are problem verses to deal with.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@VyckRo Christianity began as a diverse movement primarily among the non-Jewish races. Remember Paul? He was forced to abandon preaching to the Jews because they would not listen to the ridiculous message he preached. God having a son. HAHAHAHHA really? And just how did god beget this son? oh. A human woman. Such a Greek myth it is.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthSurge
"or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]."
That was the beginning of church, our church see Acts 11:26-27
The church by tradition had full authority to choose the correct gospel
see:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
---
and
Ephesians 3:10
VyckRo 1 year ago
WE the "early Christians" never thought in a virtual Jesus!
Dude you talk of a heresy that emerged later
see the video.
Earliest evidence for Christianity
/watch?v=_kxeG3ivBLw
By the way, do you know how long it takes for a myth to develop?
Because you should know that this creed occurs in about 10 years after Jesus' death and resurrection, and is written after 30 years from Jesus!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo Would you care to watch my vids before spouting your great knowledge at me? It might clear up a few things for you if you were to take the time to actually WATCH the 5 hours or so of EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS I put forth to support the idea that Jesus began as a heavenly son of a heavenly god.
I'll be glad to discuss once you see what the actual evidence and arguments are for you clearly have some desire to preach at me so 5 hrs of viewing isn't much to ask. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
I do not preach (my religion does not allow me)
just trying to criticize what I see wrong.
Ok!
I will watch three of four a day
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo The things you can find when looking under the hood may surprise you. If you can be honest with yourself, you may learn some new things. If not, you'll find nothing of interest in my vids, I'm sure. If you want to discuss a particular point, fine. But please be specific. It's too deep to try and address broad issues.
I just did a 4 part vid on dating the NT writings using Mark as example. You might enjoy watching that. If you find FACTUAL errors in any vids, let me know.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Interesting, I've never heard this before about Jesus being crucified by demons in the lowest level of hell... where does that come from, is that in one of the epistles?
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree I talk about that in this series. forget the exact # of vid but it's in there in some detail. It comes from basically a few ideas. 1, Paul claims that the "rulers of this age" or perhaps a better wording "rulers of this world" killed Jesus and Ephesians shows those rulers to be demons and many early church fathers agreed with this. WHERE he was killed isn't necessarily set in stone. could have been on the earth but also just above it.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree go to blueletterbible (d o t) org and compare ephesians 6:12 with 1 Cor 2:6-8.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Christ/Messiah is a mythical title, applied to various literary characters, including one Jesus, an itinerant Galilean rabbi who, like the others, may or may not have existed historically.
Similarly, Buddha is a mythical title, applied to various literary characters, including one Siddhartha, a prince of the Sakya family who probably did exist historically.
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
@EvenGodsSuffer If you watch the subsequent vids, let me know what you think. thanks.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge
I've watched the entire series and downloaded them all.
I've also bookmarked "The Jesus Puzzle" web site and have already read through a good deal of it.
Fascinating!
The argument you present that I find especially compelling is the "coming" of the NT letters vs the "returning" of the gospels. The dichotomy sounds too good to true. Is it all really so consistent? Also "apostle" vs "disciple".
I often get into it with a JW cousin and it would be nice to have these points available.
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
@EvenGodsSuffer well, many detractors post comments in the first vid w/o watching ONE of the others and they want to bash the theory and not really watch the vids that explain the whys. Your comment wasn't bashing but I just wondered if you had watched them. Yes, the "coming" thing I have never seen expanded like that so I decided to do it. The apostle/disciple is not as cut n dried BUT it does have some consistency to it. I wish I had the $ to get his new edition of TJP but ... i don't. :(
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Hi TruthSurge, Im starting to really get into your videos. Im wondering what you think about the prophesies, meaning maninly the establishment of Isreal in 1948. I personally think Christians warp the prophesies into the events to justify them, but what about the old testament, such as the Fall of Babylon?
MercuryRis 1 year ago
@MercuryRis thanks. prophecies that are very specific and obvious in the Bible were simply written AFTER the events occurred. Other ones about Jesus, for example, were simply invented (we can prove this using Matthew). Others are simply too vague to be proof of any foreknowledge. The naturalistic explanation explains them all without violating science. :)
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Daytime: Even mainstream scholars acknowledge that their timeline is messed up by Paul. Paul is the most important source we have: he is closest (supposedly) to the time Christ is said to have lived, the seven or so epistles on which there is agreement were written by Paul would be important secondary source documents(no primary) that could confirm the Jesus story. Perplexing as it is, Paul fails to do that.
egrog225 1 year ago
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a Jesus mythicist. This would explain your approach to historical data of saying that because there are problems with a source you can basically ignore the entire source. Mythicism is a position that no serious scholar holds (including the very liberal ones). You may want to spend some time reading mainstream scholarship on this issue. You'll find that the book you're reading represents a fringe view.
Daytimeofnight 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight "This would explain your approach to historical data of saying that because there are problems with a source you can basically ignore the entire source."
Any day of the week you want to debate, just let me know. BlogTV, skype, whatever. I take ALL of it into consideration and weigh it for what we can be sure of and what we can suspect is going on based on OTHER evidences as well, such as the fact that NT documents were added to across the board, etc.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight So, no, I don't ignore the entire source but I keep a healthy dose of skepticism when reading someone like Eusebius or Tertullian.
Please tell me you don't believe hyenas vascillate between male and female each year, changing from male then to female over and over. Do you?
Of course you don't. But Tertullian did. Not only this but these people were blinded by their emotional attachment to their beliefs (a bit like you are to yours, apparently).
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight "Mythicism is a position that no serious scholar holds "
If I had a dime for every time someone typed that into my vids, I'd truly be able to retire young.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight "You'll find that the book you're reading represents a fringe "
One you are afraid to learn about for fear of your own views being shown wrong? Watch my JM vids and tell me ONE thing I got wrong. JUST ONE. You can't. No one has yet.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight Saying no serious scholar hold the mythicist view is an ad Hominem attack on TS and Doherty, an ad Verecundiam appeal to unnamed authority, and an instance of Petitio principii begging the question. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit. Scholarship occurs independently of credentials. Assuming HJ is a sound theory begs the question because truth is not established by beliefs but by evidence, a near total dearth of which graces the HJ position.
9432bce6 1 year ago
@9432bce6 yep. although a complete reversal of popular belief is fairly rare, it has happened many times in history. Heliocentricity fell. Flat earth fell. Stars being small heavenly bodies affixed to the firmament above the earth fell. Storms caused by angry gods fell. The evidence finally was uncovered and put out. Many people denied it outright. Eventually, the truths won out. The JM theory is going to be taught in all colleges within 200 years.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@9432bce6 My idea is that when a theory explains the phenomena better than any other theory, you really need to just go with it. As you said, it's just about the arguments and evidence, not how many people disagree with it.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
why is their solar puns to jesus where there is a picture of the cross there is the rising sun in the background on easter why is a christian network called Day Star(sun network) why are there solar orbs around jesus's head in artwork why is there a rising sun logo on the bible why is worship on sun-day every where there is christ there is the sun its because the elite of christianity are really closet sun worshippers
sagitarian000028 1 year ago
@sagitarian000028 "why is their solar puns to jesus"
One question at a time. Can you
1) clarify what you mean and
2) provide me with some examples of it
?
Thanks,
TS
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Jesus is the sun of rightousness with healing of his wings (the sun is often depicted with wings) light of the world we will see him in the clouds he had twelve disciples the sun had twelve zodiac signs jesus started his minsitry at thirty the sun takes thirty degrees to go into each sign Samson in hebrew means like the sun which has multiples of 30 in his life kills a lion in leo gets jinxed by a women and looses his strength hercules kills a lion then hes jinxed by a woman
sagitarian000028 1 year ago
@sagitarian000028 Your claims have errors. Simple word association and imprecision doesn't make a belief true. The sun doesn't "have" zodiac signs. Zodiac symbols represented star configurations in the NIGHT sky.
At best, there may be some vestigial remnants of sun worship in the ancient Hebrew vernacular. It is NOT related to Jesus. Sorry.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
christianity is based on astrology and Greek mythology and other worldly religions if only plagiarism was invented back then lol our solar sun is represented as the son of god there is a lot of paganism in the bible also if god was real there would be evidence of religion before cromagnon and modern homo sapiens evolved but there isnt
Embasolkilluminati 1 year ago
@Embasolkilluminati Yeah, but most Christians don't buy evolution anyway. The mere fact that we can find fossils and pottery older than 7000 years should clue them in but they cling to the Bible instead of science. Well, that is, until they get sick and need a doctor.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
If only you realized that Mark and Luke were both disciples of Paul. Or that Peter accounts Paul as an official Apostle 2 Peter. Or that Acts talks about the original disciples and Paul meeting together. How can you say the Gospels and the Epistles are at odds? That makes no sense.
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@DopoNotte "If only you realized that Mark and Luke were both disciples of Paul. "
No, they weren't. Acts contains numerous contradictions to Paul's letters and due to the dating of Paul's letters and Acts, you'd need to believe Luke was about 120 when he wrote Acts if he hung out with Paul in the mid 50s of the first century.
PLEASE, go learn some facts about the NT writings. May I suggest earlychristianwritings (d o t) com?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@DopoNotte You really don't have the first clue about what the NT says? Wow. Just wow. Here is just ONE contradiction.
Paul claims that the law is no longer in effect due to Jesus' death and resurrection.
Jesus says the law will NEVER become void until heaven and earth pass away.
Last I checked, Earth hadn't passed away yet. I'm done. This is like a 3rd grader trying to tell Einstein that relativity is false. Bye.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge In order to believe there are contradictions between Paul and the Gospels I need to also believe that the Bishops who collected the books were A: not aware of these contradictions, B: knew of them but didn't care, or C: did not view any contradictions between the Gospels and Paul. Since I have faith in those who first put together the NT, St. Athanasius especially, I am left with the other logical conclusion that those who think there is a difference have a flawed interpretation
DopoNotte 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DopoNotte "In order to believe there are contradictions between Paul and the Gospels I need to also believe that the Bishops who collected the books were A: not aware of these contradictions"
No, you don't. You simply need to be willing to open your eyes and see them instead of closing your eyes and brain as you are doing now. Let me show you what you are doing.
"If the earth really orbits the sun, I'd need to believe that all the people 500 years ago were wrong!"
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@DopoNotte Are you aware that there are tons of contradictions between the 4 gospels? Are you aware that the church fathers and bishops were just like you? Extremely biased and so biased that they TOO denied the contradictions because they were unable to examine the documents objectively because they had too much emotional investments in them. You cannot be objective about the documents because you claim to worship the lead character of the story.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@DopoNotte You do know that Paul taught that Jesus' death and resurrection nullified the Mosaic law, yes? I'll wait for your answer before continuing.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge There were more documents that professed to have Christ as the lead story that people were "invested to," hence the Nag Hammadi Library, yet for some reason the Church Fathers chose only these 27 books. Paul wrote a 3rd letter to Corinth, Peter also wrote a supposed 3rd letter. Why not include these? If all that mattered was Christ is the lead in the story then the NT would be a LOT larger. The issue is you're coming to the Bible with your own pre-conceived ideas as well.
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@TruthSurge The idea that you're interpreting onto the Bible is that it's erroneous even before you read it. Just b/c you say there are contradictions does not mean that there are. You have a Papal mentality, that however you interpret the Scriptures MUST be the ONLY logical and rational and correct way. If the Scriptures do not make sense to you, then obviously they are false, and everyone who believes differently than you is a 3rd grader (as you once said).
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I do not believe Paul taught that Jesus' death and Resurrection NULLIFIED the Mosaic Law. There are, after all, Jews for Jesus and other types, Messianic Jews, etc. Obviously they do not believe Paul taught Jesus nullified the Mosaic Law. In fact I know a person who deleavens his house before Pesach yet he calls himself a Christian; he also keeps the Fri-Sat Sabbath among other things. The only thing that changed really were the temple sacrifices and more b/c the Temple is GONE
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Orthodox profess that Christ's Body IS the Temple so by participating in the Eucharist we still participate in the "sacrifices" as well. Catholics go too far into believing this is the continual sacrifice each week. I need to make it clear that Orthodoxy does not profess this. Orthodoxy still has the presentation of new borns in the temple, and a 40 days period new mothers before re-entering the Church. We still celebrate Passover, called Pascha. Tell me again what Law was nullified?
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@TruthSurge I mean, tell me exactly why I should put stock into what someone says when he believes God worked and injustice by casting Adam and Eve out from the Garden; or by giving women birth pangs?! And yet you claim ignorance when I tell you that it's your interpretation of the Scriptures that is erroneous and NOT the Scriptures themselves!
DopoNotte 1 year ago
@DopoNotte You shouldn't. You should quit commenting on channels such as mine and keep your thoughts on Jesus.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Interesting.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro it is interesting. but it gets WAY more interesting as these vids progress. I see someone commented on like every one so maybe you have watched them already.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Dude i feel sorry for you: When I get to the kingdom of God I'll come visit you down below during visiting hours. Unless you regain your salvation of course. God bless you!
MrRandycouturefan 1 year ago
@MrRandycouturefan Feeling's are mutual, bro. I feel sorry for you being unable to think for yourself.
TruthSurge 1 year ago