Im a bible student in Atlanta who finds historic accuracy to be very important in understanding the faith. I appreciate your lectures and have viewed many. They have helped me develop my teaching style. Thanks sir
Paul converting Judaism-curious Gentiles strikes me as similar to how various "gurus" will sell Eastern religion to curious Westerners today, often diluting or reframing the cultural context to better appeal to their cultural sensitivities.
Jesus and John the Baptist were living among the Essenes. A gnostic and strictly separate community from others. Jewish but separate from the temple folk. Think Amish or Quakers? You could join but only after a year of observation. They were like yogis. As was Jesus/Jeshuah. Seek. Search. In the stillness you will find me. The only place in the Bible that says where "you" can find God in his words. Where else? Be still, and know that the "I Am" is God. You have to still the mind to recieve. Your 3rd eye can only receive when you still the projections of the mind, ego, thinkingness and story. This is what prayer used to be. The Paulinian church was built much differently. Its an institution with a finger pointing at something that requires personnel integrity and intentionally reaching for personally communion with God/consciousness/all that is. Religion is like training wheels for the unconscious . The Authenticity of the seeker is more important than the religion you come from. Religion is just a human finger pointing at something that you can have a personal relationship with. It doesn't matter what you call it.
@@josephpchajek2685 the current Bible or the first century Christian apocryphal gospels as well? Alot changed in the hundreds of years moving towards Europe.
The mixed multitudes apparently were not limited to the exodus from Egypt. Another writer I listen to spoke of Jesus’ teachings being in the Synogogue and from Synogogue life in the 21st Century this seemed implausible. This explanation fits. Thanks
Paul barely touched on Judaism with Greeks/gentiles/pagans. In fact his goal was to use a rebellious Jew Paul persecuted in Jerusalem, Yeshua, recast by Paul into a different role, undoing Judaism in the creation of a new religion antithetical to it, to destroy the Greek religion of the Greek gods and attempt to destroy Judaism by claiming Jews killed Iesous, Paul's character he created to steal Yeshua's mantle as literally the legendary Son of Zeus Greeks knew was foretold in Greek legend to someday eclipse his father Zeus, and succeeded in doing exactly that while failing to take down Judaism though succeeding in 1900 years so far of genocidal persecution of Jews for refusing to accept the preposterous claim Iesous was the Son of God when the God of the Jews was not a human, let alone one who magically fertilized a Jewish girl to make him his "son". To this date, which will never end, Jews refuse to succumb to the lies Paul made about the Hebrew Bible and his other insulting twaddle. And there it stands.
I really enjoy your lectures. I am not a Christian, in fact I am not a believer on any deity but I really enjoy your lectures and how you answer complex questions. Congratulations!!
Believe in Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved. He is the True God Who came to this world for you and me. He took the eternal punishment which you want deserve for your sins He died for your sins. He shed his blood for you and buried in the grave. And on the 3rd day. he rose from the death. Repent of your sins... And accept Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.,
How many Jews in their right mind would believe a "risen Jesus" entered Paul's essence and told him the Torah had become irrelevant because the End Times had begun? Not many. Now, how many non-Jews would be willing to entertain the possibility that a "risen Jesus" entered Paul's essence and told him the Torah had become irrelevant because the End Times had begun? Some. They had no particular reason to reject the idea out-of-hand.
John: It would be interesting to hear a discussion of what may have occurred in Jerusalem when James the Just led the movement. How his perspective changed, how others in his group viewed him as time passed, and how situations changed upon his death. A lot to get into there.Thanks for your time creating these wonderful and enriching learning experiences. Your teaching is something to behold, along with putting my learning curve into hyperdrive.
I am falling in love with this channel. And this is by far the most entertaining and information packed lecture I’ve seen here. The wealth of knowledge contained in this UA-cam channel is astonishing. Thank you so much for your work.
Great lecture John, the first 100 years of the church are so shrouded in mystery and drama, it’s fascinating to study. I didn’t get to ask this during the live chat, but what are your thoughts on the Pseudo-Clementines literature in relation to the schism between the Pauline and Jacobite branches? Modern day Ebionites and Nazarenes try to claim that they actually go back to Peter, but I haven’t read them myself yet. My understanding is that scholars say they were written in the 4th century. I’d love to hear a lecture by you on the Pseudo-Clementine literature like you did with Pseudo-Dionysus.
Sorry for the nitpicking but it's distracting me from your otherwise very interesting presentation: "We" is NOT the 2d person. It is the First Person Plural. The 2d person is "You" (both in singular and plural).
1:12:00 Paul says: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." This is not "Conclusive proof of a New Testament woman apostle". He merely says that the couple is well-known among the apostles. Meaning the apostles know about the couple. Even if you don't agree with this interpretation, at least it's a VALID interpretation. It's not conclusive proof that Andronicus and Junia were apostles. The whole presentation is filled with things like this, taking a small passage and making a big conclusion about early Christianity from it.
I absolutely agree with your statement; you can look for my similar comments. the dude is total clickbait ; he's been doing this for quite a few years. I used to listen to him cause I like the historical interpretations; but now he's apostate.
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2Time 4:3-4) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. *_I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth._* (1Jn2:18-21)
Please comment, in the same excellent detail as provided here...where the "tradition stories" come from. Are these some books hidden in the vaults of the Vatican Library ? Are there other ancient books with mentions of Paul ?? A curious listener would like to know 🙂
There are people in Britton who say that Paul's accusers never showed up to his trail in Rome so he was released and he went on to Spain and Britton. They say he lived there for a couple of years then when back to Spain. There's a lot of early Christian history in Britton that we know little about.
"Send them out two by two", isn't that a group of four? That seems like a strange way to say it. By this logic, how would you say a group of four, would you say four by four?
Reading the New Testament we see that Paul was in union with Jesus' disciples. It describes one disagreement but also that they solved it. Peter also explicitly showed allegence with Paul in one of his letters.
As far as writing goes of the Jerusalem church, the one letter of Paul to the Corinthians says that the community had received a letter from some of the followers of the Jerusalem Church. As Paul's take became dominant, might any letters or works in opposition to Paul were suppressed and destroyed and seen as heresy?
You'd think people would take the word of people who actually knew Jesus, like his own brother and right hand man (basically) Peter, instead of some random convert who never knew Jesus ...
@@AB-et6nj i think Paul had a better sales pitch. If you read the gospels, it seems people are ready to be done with the (Torah) law. Jesus seems to mostly focus on God's Law, the ten commandments, but also says that not one yod will be removed from the (Torah) law, until heaven and earth pass away. On Paul's side, he takes James' idea of a simple set of rules for gentiles, and applies it even to himself, even though he was Jewish, as far as we know.
The "People" who ended up making the church weren't jews in Nazareth... Not only don't they have access to James or Peter, They spoke the wrong language and their ideas of religion was harder to grasp
Paul went against Jesus's teaching, Paul is THE creator of Christianity. Jesus did not know what Christianity was, no one in his time used that term or anything close to it, nor did anyone believe Jesus was God
So was Jesus wrong when he stated that Peter would be the rock upon which his church would be built, or were his followers just disregarding Jesus's words.
No one knows what Jesus actually said. We just know what early Christ groups thought he said and believed. That saying could just be a quote from a work that comes from the Jerusalem church.
There is only one Gospel. Peter, Paul and all the Apostles preached the same Gospel. The idea that Paul preached a different gospel is only about 200 years old and is an offshoot of Darby's dispensationalism.
@Kornheiser10 Jesus was with his disciples in a place know for pagan worship, and believed to be the gateway from hades to this world, when Peter declared : "You(Jesus) are the Christ, Son of the Living God" implying Jesus deity as the Messiah. He was literally standing on a rock, and was probably using a play on words to declare that on the truth of what Peter had confessed the Church of Christ would be established. Perter was one of those at the forefront, but nothing was 'built' on him Christ is our rock, there is no other.
It's no mystery to me. You can follow Paul that says you don't have to follow the Jewish laws or you can have a very painful procedure made on the most sensitive part of your body that is circumcision. As an adult male which one will you choose.?
You can’t call Paul a false Apostle And one in derision with the other Apostles When both Luke and Peter call him a Brother in Christ 2 Peter 3:14-16 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
Paul's teaching of savation was contrary to James and Yeshua. On the matter of Faith Paul and James disagreed. Paul said that justification comes “by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16) while James said that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:20-21, 23-24). For James faith alone was not enough to put a person into a right standing before God. There is a stark differences in teachings between Jesus and Paul regarding salvation. Jesus taught that SALVATION was obtained by obeying God's commandment ( Matt. 19: 16-21) while Paul stated that salvation came through the death and resurrection of Yeshua (Rom 5:10, 8: 11) and believing in Jesus. Let us compare: Salvation according to Jesus (as expressed in the synoptic gospels, which are considered more historical than John’s “spiritual gospel”): Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21, NIV). Salvation according to Paul: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Rom 10:9-10, NIV). [Source: Salvation according to Jesus vs. Apostle Paul MAY 8, 2014]. Not surprizingly in the literature written by Paul he is silent on Jesus’ earthly life and teachings.
@@kendrajade6688go and make disciples” The mandate to the twelve was to duplicate themselves. Not being apart of the 12 is not a disqualification. Paul sat under the teachings of the apostles for years before his ministry to the gentiles.
Wow! Almost 10K views in less than 24 hours - congrats on the growing ministry, @CentrePlace. Just as Paul opened Jewish tradition to those who could not adhere to the letter of judaic law - I hope that you are opening Christian tradition to many who can't hold unquestioning belief in things that don't fit with modern knowledge.
John, I understand It is possible that the Jerusalem Jewish/Christians after moving to Pella and possible other parts of Arabia may have been around until 1000 or 1100. It seems Mohammed might have been aware of their monotheism and took from it a solid monotheism as opposed to the Greek influenced Trinitarians. Do have any info on this or is it accurate?
the warlord Mohamad, plagiarized both the early Christians and Jews. Ishmailites and Hagarenes were the third people of Abrahams books, mighty and angry and mean though spurious. ,Isaac was the child of the promise.
Paul is basically responsible for creating Christianity, it wasn't just him obviously, but he basically founded the religion and he never even met Jesus in the flesh!
I agree with you. Looking back on it, Paul created what would become the proto-orthodox church which would eventually lead to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I think it also helps he was influential to the Gnostics too. I think he invented two ideas that have influenced Christians to this day: rejection of the Torah and the Eucharist or communion. By cresting new ways of thinking and new rituals he created the building blocks of a new religion.
@4:22 - there were a few more divisions I imagine. The disciples of Mary and Martha is listed as part of the "Great Church" but clearly isn't Petrine. -__- dubious thesis right at the introduction. LOL
@@ambrosemalone1151 So you don't believe that God is infinity just and will give to each of us what we deserve? I do. I believe, as science teaches us that the Universe has a beginning. That it is intricately and wonderfully made and as only a fool would look at a work of art hanging on a wall and conclude that it somehow got up there by random unintelligent processes, So too would a fool conclude that something as complex as DNA occurred without a great designer! The God of the Bible is that designer and He has promised us that in the end, all things will be made right..... May the Lord Bless you
@@METVWETV DNA is just a computer chip without the silicon. Sometimes a mutation will work. Sometimes not. All species will eventually die out. I don't particularly want to be preached to by some Jorge who believed as Jesus did in the magical thinking of Astrology: when the age of the "fish" (Pices) comes to an end and the age of the "water bearer" (Aquarius) begins--this plagiarized Zoroastrian crap comes from the Gospel of Luke. If someone would have asked Jesus about parallax, Cepheid variable stars, LL Lyras, neutron star collisions, luminosoties and red shifts, we would have immediately seen what ridiculous ignorant frauds these, "don't tell anyone" Messiahs are, So Jesus, tell me about Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. How old and large is this Universe? Does your sky daddy know? How convenient that you don't have the need to know. Time to move on from this wild west flimflamming
@@METVWETVwhy would any deity bother with any petty, insignificant “transgressions” that millions of tiny, scurrying humans would commit ? Is your hybris that big that you would suppose to merit this attention from any higher being ? Is your person that much more important than an ant or an earthworm ? Really ?
The books were written in the language applicable to the people it was written for There is an historical record you can find in quite a few books on the subject. I have read quite a few. So I am very familiar with the theories and historical records the narrator refers too.
Both "I" and "we" are first person; they are first person singular and plural respectively. Modern English doesn't differentiate between plural and singular with the second person (archaic singular: thou). Third person: he, she, it (singular) and they (plural).
Genuinely great lectures. Concerning James, the term "brother" is multivalent, right? It can refer to cousins and close companions. Your thoughts, brother?
He has said on multiple occasions that it would have been a blood brother. I believe it is also the scholarly consensus as I've heard Bart Ehrman say the same thing. Edit: John also has a lecture on James from a few months back.
It can never mean cousin. This is an invention by St. Augustine because he had this weird notion that all saints must be virgins, and since Joseph was a saint, he must also be a virgin and can't have kids. Thus Jesus' brothers must be his cousins. To justify his interpretation, he then grabbed some Greek writings where cousins call each other brothers out of context. Many of these examples are actually of heroes in combat calling each other brothers in arms who happen to be cousins. However, Augustine became authoritative in the West, so his totally dishonest sleight-of-hand persisted. What is correct is that brother could mean co-religionists or brothers-in-arms. This is in fact the argument made to justify James not being a true brother of Jesus, but again, this is taking things out of context. Whenever James is referred to as a brother of Jesus it actually means brother.
Bart also says that “brother” can mean ANYONE that believed Jesus performed supernatural acts. As two members of the same motorcycle gang refer to each other.
Read the first chapter of Galatians. You’ll see “brother” used in multiple places, when it’s used to refer to James you can see the difference in context and tone to indicate that James is a relative of Jesus.
I wonder what really happens in the brain with these Eureka / Damaskus moments. One is contemplating a problem that resists solving, and suddenly one makes a leap to a solution that gets around whatever was in the way. And the larger the problem seemed to be, the greater the feeling of release probably is. It’s like gaining a new perspective, from which the original roadblock now seems meaningless. The question is: what in the original gospel made Saul go after the followers of Jesus? And what jump occurred in his thinking? You see, the problem is: If you have a single wrong axiom in your thinking, you can deduce anything. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start false, you can prove everything / get to any conclusion you like, which makes the whole endeavor of getting to conclusions / Eureka moments useless. Paul was certainly wrong about the end of the world; from a secular individual perspective he is also wrong about death not being the end. What then would it even mean to be right about Jesus being Christ as predicted in the scriptures - which tbh is also wrong, as the gospels are constructed as types from the anti-types of the OT. (And it can’t be otherwise, when most of the predictions are retrodictions, as literary criticism teaches.) ((Die Propheten waren keine Vorhersager, sondern Hervorsager. (Gruß an Dr. Böttcher, falls er das liest.)) So: rationally I don’t share any of the assumptions. Why am I even watching these lectures? Ethical law ideally is about how to live a life well lived. A conduct of life that makes it conducive to the continuation of life and civilization in general (“playing the long game”): So to not (only) gather capital in your own bank / grain in your own barn, but gather “Treasures in Heaven” = do good, give back to the community. Maybe also help stabilize the institutions that adjudicate the law sensibly, give the law democratically, execute the law without bias, teach the law in its original spirit. - Or transform or replace the old institutions with new ones that do these things. The message of the NT still is: Turn your life around from taking to giving, get a view for the needs of others. - Jesus approach is reverse psychology: the best way to teach people to see the need of others, and to give freely, is to confront them with intentionally poor disciples, who on the one hand serve as extreme examples, as they have given everything away themselves out of their free will, but also must inevitably be seen by the host as a good opportunity for a practical first step of true cathartical change in their life by literally practicing giving, or at least as an opportunity for virtue signaling, as practically they only are required to show a minimal amount of hospitality anyway. The burning of the books in every revolution is first about the burning of the debt records, and only second about establishing a new ideology and destroying the old values and hierarchies. Think that the Year of Jubilee in the OT even allowed keeping the structure and values of society as a whole intact, by only getting rid of the excesses. How would preparing for the end of the age look like? How long can you survive the Zombie Apocalypse? You have food for a year in your bunker? So what? - You need intact communities, because in the end, everybody has to start over from pretty much nothing again, and this works only by working together again on a basis of free will (and pure need), as all the larger social structures will probably collapse. So we are back to family and friends and local communities, where everyone knows everyone else. So it will all be about your skills (and your tools), your general wisdom and problem solving capabilities, your health and mainly your relationships and ability to integrate and communicate. - But that is what it should have been all along from the beginning. - Why don’t we have that now / before? What do we have in its place? Accumulated wealth and societal structures that keep the incentives and penalties in a way to support the perpetuation of structures of privilege. But the original reason for accumulating wealth and creating hierarchical structures of power, was to ward off greater crises in the first place, or be prepared to mitigate them when they happen. The problem is: in times when there is no crisis, those structures and potentials and fortunes become self-serving. And then when the crisis happens, but they fail to react and the potentials and fortunes and powers are not getting used to mitigate the damage, they lose their legitimacy. Then the powers and the wealth need to be transferred and transformed to new institutions and actors that are willing to do what is necessary. Conclusion? The natural growth of Christianity might have been a failing of the existing elites in times of crisis. Out of the crisis did grow grand new institutions later on. Feels like we are in the nth cycle. The Elites are failing us again. Rahm Emmanuel said during the banking crisis in 2008 “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”, but the crisis was not used to mitigate the damage, but to consolidate wealth and power even more in the wrong hands. Crisis calls for a new Reformation of structures, or for cutting them down and growing them back from grassroots. Phoenix reborn from its ashes. Great potentials for the mitigation of our modern day crisis remain unused, as our elites fail us again. This destroys the legitimacy of their power and wealth and privilege. Good times for religion, I guess.
Really good, in a way. But you cant be serious with your : „The question is…..“. All these rather „well known“ ( for educated people concerning these matters) jewish „sects“ alternative to established judaism were and had to be seen ( by the ‚establishment’) as blasphemy and treason. That goes without saying, nicht wahr?
I’m curious… Paul converts after having a vision of Jesus and then immediately starts preaching the gospels and converting people, but who teaches Paul? He’s not hanging out with any of the other apostles so I don’t understand where he gets his information regarding Jesus’ teachings and what not.
I am enchanted with Centre Place. "We" is First Person PLURAL form of the pronoun "I". "You" is the Second Person. You have accurately identified a personal pronoun in the Third Person (Subject case: he, she, it, they Object case: him, her, it, them. As I have learned so much from you: Personal pronouns have four attributes: person, gender, number, case. They overlap.
You are a smart one. I am not! It’s ok. We are some part of Christianity. With that said there are literally 2.5 BILLION members of Christianity the religion! You might say that they are part of the most successful faith group on Earth
whilst making a "point" that the writer of Acts switches from third person to "second" (by saying "we" instead of "they") haven't you erred since "we" is not second person but First Person plural? second person pronouns are "thou", singular, and "you", singular or plural.
Excellent video. I first saw you on Gospel Tangents a few years ago. The development of Joseph Smith Jr.'s teachings is one of the other lectures by you that I've seen previously. I'm glad I found your UA-cam channel. The lectures on your website match many of my interests. A former Christian, now a 12er Shi'ite Muslim, I have a big interest in history, as well as comparative religion. So, I will be watching many more of your videos.
So far I only have one correction, Paul had took the vow of the Nazarite in Acts 18 which is why he shaved his head… he was starting the vow…. Then in Acts 21 they are telling him to go to the temple and shave his head with the other brothers who also have the vow on them as a show that he is indeed keeping the Law… so no sir this is not a “trap” they are setting for him… he wasn’t with any Gentile brothers… but the people wouldn’t hear Paul out…. Unless you are saying Paul was lying… the whole time Paul was there in Jerusalem (for Passover might I add) he is denying the claims of teaching against the Law…. Which he wasn’t
@@jrgvsqz I'm going to believe Jesus I am not going to believe you. You just made an ignorant and foolish comment. It came across as arrogant too. Thanks for adding to the conversation even though your contribution is worthless.
@@shifty8277 Proof? wtf are you talking about proof. James did not teach that good work saves you. Keep in mind, James and Peter stood condemned before Paul. I am aware it was not over this topic. But if there is confusion, then clear verses must govern unclear verses. James did not say my good work will save me. Because it won't. Do you even do good work? Really? Like what? Prove you do good work It won't save you. Only believers are saved, unbelievers like you stand condemned.
I really enjoy your video's. If possible, please do not speed up or slow down your content. Trying to correct the play speed is always the first thing I do before watching. Thanks!
This is a great lecture. Great context for understanding mythicist debates too - since Paul had such an influence despite never meeting an actual Jesus, it could appear as if no such person existed from a certain perspective, but not so if we take the Jerusalem church into account. Incredible though if the Jerusalem church plotted Paul's downfall... but eye opening that they apparently had such a deep disagreement about adherence to law.
Most people at that time didn’t really have last names. They’d be referred to as the son-of-whomever or of-wherever to distinguish them from others with the same name.
People didn't have a second name as we do today. To distinguish one John from another John, for example, historians would normally use the town the persona was from or their father's name. Saúl/Paul was "of Tarsus" because he was born there.
@@MiguelRamosLIve thank you for your post. It’s a joke. We are having fun about not having last names. On a serious note. Based on reading Paul’s letters, I do not think his original was Saul, I think it was always Paul. Additionally, I do not think he was from Taurus. I think, based on his letters, he may have been from Damascus.
Many said that Paul invented the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism and that the Jews did not accept outsiders to join Judaism at all. But I think that this idea overlooks and contradicts with the concept of "God-fearers" in Judaism, which means a person who is interested in God and Judaism but has not completely converted to Judaism for one reason or another, such as to avoid circumcision for example.
You are impressive in your tackling this historically. Shows great strength. Last, a good discussion might be about what were exactly those laws the Jewish Christians had to adhere to? Were they the over 600 ones Jews now follow? And if relaxed rules were allowed for gentile Christians, which ones might they have been? I have to say, your lectures make me wonder where you and your church stands on all of this spiritually. Was Jesus God for your group? Maybe only a blessed man? Where do you stand on the faith only, and faith and good works divide? You've piqued my interest. But you stear clear of these in your lectures. Commendable, but leaves me curious.
Modern Rabbinical Jews are mostly progressive and don't literally adhere to all the commandments. Some of that starts in the Talmud when they start sorting out how to implement these rules that sometimes are vague or have multiple contradictory versions (such as if matzoh is supposed to be boiled or cooked on a direct flame). When Jesus asks about if someone should help their neighbor's animal out of a ditch on the sabbath, he's talking about one of those kinds of debates, because both things are commandments. Jesus, like most of the Talmud contributors, resolves such practical conflicts by choosing to save the life instead of keeping the more symbolic or ritualistic commandments.
Sorry for nitpicking. But "he, she, it" (singular) and "they" (plural) is 3rd person. "you" ("thou", singular) and "you" (plural) is 2nd person. And "I" (singular) and "we" (plural) is 1st person. However, thank you very much for an, again, very informative lecture!
I've wanted to know for a long time how a man who never met Yashua, changed his teachings and was able to convince influential people that he was telling the truth...wild stuff😮
well how does some one believe false narratives..and repeat them❓ They don't go to the source they are ignorant and gullible 'They have a zeal for God but not in the knowledge' ~ God
Paul wasn't a Jew he was a Hebrew, as you yourself said he wasn't of the tribe of Judah which is how you said yourself the term Jew comes from, a contradiction in such quick succession from the explanation of where Jews get their name from compels me to correct you.
I find James' writings to be the most logical and swalloable truths of the new testament. Works always makes more sense than just Faith. Works proves what you believe. Faith is just hope that isn't really acted upon.
Paul also exhorts people to do works. he shows them their faith and strengthens their faith, then tells them to do works. (so does peter in 1 peter) It's all very similar really. But I do agree James is nice and digestable
Paul is more mystical in his teachings. It's probably why the gnostics read his letters. People simply don't get the transcendental message of Paul. I'd wager a lot more modern folks, even agnostics, would be on Paul's side moreso than James'. James is still strict to adhere to the law of Moses. That's why he's by "actions." What Paul is arguing is that our faith produces those actions, in fact, he's saying that faith and actions are the same thing. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The substance of things hoped for." Read that again, but slowly. People confuse faith and belief. I've always viewed faith as belief in action. Faith isn't just believing in something you don't see. Faith is the production of the things you believe. In fact, these ideas don't really conflict with James at all. But where James and Paul really do conflict. Meaning, that you can't merry their theology together, is that what Paul is saying is that our good works don't bring salvation. James, on the other hand, is arguing this. Paul is saying, following the law doesn't save you. That's why Jesus came and accomplished it for us. James is saying that we still have to achieve them, just as Jesus. Then Paul argues that the divine spark, the Christ in you (the hope of glory) is what accomplishes it. I'm gonna have to side with Paul on this. James is right on so many things but Paul is more transcendent in his teachings. They're less strict on legality and more on this innate divine inspiration that is in all of us. I think of it like an artist. You don't go to school to practice all these tactics and tricks to create art. The artistry is through your imagination. It's inside of you already. There's no need for school. No right or wrong way of doing it. This is essentially what Paul is trying to inspire in everyone. James, on the other hand, is still attached to his Judaic traditions.
Abraham first, and chooses his work, that was an act of faith. His point in 23 is that his work of offering isaac was active with his faith in God, and his power to revive the dead. It is then this real faith, that credits abraham with righteousness. Rahab again. A clear "work", that was the outworking of genuine faith. And verse 26 again clarifies he's tackling people who claim faith, but have no works. That is in fact no faith at all. And Paul would 100% agree. Faith that causes regeneration also causes santcification, ie works.
I thought Gospel was a military term used to spread word that victory had been achieved in war. And the Gospels were a victory for new life over eternal damnation.
@@yellowcoat970 I was right I just googled it! - In ancient Greece and Rome, the word gospel was a military word that referred to a proclamation of victory by the winning army of a battle or war. In Greek, the word is euangelion, literally translated as good news. After a fight among nations, messengers from the winning side (or angelos) would go around the conquered territories proclaiming the good news of what this victory meant for their lives. The authors of the New Testament repurposed this word throughout their letters. But rather than a declaration of military victory, it was rooted in a declaration about Jesus.
Yeah Pauline' churches. That actually answers all open questions. Fuck, he was the one and only founder of "Christianity", and the massive set of lies involved. And nearly everyone fell for it.
I want to tell you the fascinating story about when the Trinity verse was added to the Bible. This is a well-documented fact, detailed in "Whose Word Is It?: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why" by Professor Bart Ehrman, an expert in biblical textual criticism. In the 16th century, Erasmus, a Dutch scholar, produced the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, but had been translated into Latin over the centuries. Erasmus aimed to create a critical scholarly edition based on Greek texts, relying mainly on late medieval manuscripts from the 12th century. Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament was later used by the translators of the King James Bible and other versions until the end of the 19th century. However, the Greek manuscripts Erasmus used were not of high quality and were produced about eleven hundred years after the originals. For example, his main manuscript for the gospels included the story of the woman taken in adultery and the last verses of Mark, which were not part of the original gospels. One key passage missing from Erasmus’s manuscripts was 1 John 5:7-8, known as the Johannine Comma, which explicitly supports the doctrine of the Trinity. This passage is found in Latin Vulgate manuscripts but not in the majority of Greek manuscripts. The King James Version includes this verse: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Bart Ehrman notes, "The Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used were not of the best quality... produced some eleven hundred years after the originals." Erasmus did not find this verse in any Greek manuscripts he consulted, so he omitted it from his first edition. This omission outraged theologians of his time, who accused him of tampering with the text. Erasmus reportedly agreed to include the verse in future editions if a Greek manuscript containing it could be produced. Consequently, a Greek manuscript was created in the 16th century, likely by translating the Latin text into Greek. Despite his reservations, Erasmus included the verse in subsequent editions. These editions formed the basis for the King James Bible and other translations for centuries. The phrase "Textus Receptus" refers to this widely accepted form of the Greek text, despite its reliance on inferior manuscripts. Modern textual scholars now insist on using older and better manuscripts to base the Greek New Testament on scientific principles. The Textus Receptus, though still revered by some fundamentalists, is based on late medieval manuscripts, whereas earlier manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain the Johannine Comma or other later additions. Ehrman explains, "This passage... states the doctrine directly and succinctly," but it "was not in Erasmus's primary manuscript or in any of the others that he consulted." This realization challenges the solid basis for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible, making it difficult for some Christians to accept.
@@dok9024 ### Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Controversies : **Codex Sinaiticus:** 1. **Authenticity and Dating**: - The Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the 4th century, is questioned for its authenticity by some who argue it might be a modern forgery. This is partly because of its pristine condition and the vast number of corrections (around 27,000) made by various scribes over centuries. 2. **Discovery Controversy**: - Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery in the mid-19th century, the manuscript's removal and transfer to European institutions have been controversial. Some critics challenge the narrative that Tischendorf saved the manuscript from destruction, suggesting unethical acquisition. 3. **Textual Variants and Content**: - The Codex includes several apocryphal books and heretical writings like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which are not part of the canonical Bible. These inclusions, along with notable textual omissions and variations, raise questions about its reliability and the theological influences on its scribes **Codex Vaticanus:** 1. **Authenticity and Provenance**: - Also from the 4th century, the Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest and most reliable texts of the Greek Bible. However, it faces questions regarding its authenticity due to differences in the text and possible Gnostic influences 2. **Textual Integrity**: - Scholars have noted textual peculiarities in the Vaticanus, such as the omission of the last part of the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These omissions have sparked discussions about the manuscript’s completeness and the fidelity of its transmission. Both manuscripts, their histories and the controversies surrounding them continue to provoke scholarly debate
@@dok9024 Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus: In-depth Statistical Exhibits of Discrepancies Codex Sinaiticus: 1. **Corrections and Variations**: - **Number of Corrections**: Codex Sinaiticus contains approximately 27,000 corrections. These corrections are attributed to various scribes and revisers across different centuries, from its initial creation in the 4th century up to the 7th century - **Errors and Omissions**: The manuscript is known for a high frequency of scribal errors. For example, in the Gospels alone, it omits 3,455 words when compared to the Greek Received Text - **Notable Omissions**: Mark 16:9-20, a passage concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus, is notably absent in the Codex Sinaiticus. Additionally, there are instances of entire sentences and clauses being repeated or omitted due to scribal errors. 2. **Non-Canonical Books**: - **Apocryphal Inclusions**: The codex includes books that are not part of the canonical New Testament, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. These texts were controversial as they contain theological elements considered heretical, such as gnostic beliefs 3. **Textual Differences**: - **John 1:18**: Codex Sinaiticus reads "the only begotten God" instead of "the only begotten Son," aligning with some other Alexandrian texts but differing from the Byzantine text tradition. - **Matthew 5:22**: The codex omits the word "without cause" from the phrase "whosoever is angry with his brother without cause" Codex Vaticanus: 1. **Textual Variations**: - **Consistency with Alexandrian Text**: Codex Vaticanus is also an Alexandrian text type and shares many textual similarities with Codex Sinaiticus. However, there are notable differences. - **Matthew 5:22**: Unlike Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus includes the phrase "without cause" in this verse, aligning more closely with the Byzantine tradition on this point 2. **Omissions and Differences**: - **Hebrews 9:14**: In Codex Vaticanus, this verse reads, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God," while the Byzantine text includes additional phrases that are not found in Vaticanus - **John 1:18**: Similar to Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus reads "the only begotten God," contributing to the theological debates about the nature of Jesus' divinity. 3. **Scriptural Integrity**: - **Physical Condition**: Codex Vaticanus is noted for its high-quality vellum and careful script, suggesting a highly controlled copying process. However, it too contains corrections, though not as numerous as those in Codex Sinaiticus Comparative Analysis 1. **Textual Harmony**: - **Discrepancies in Text**: Both codices exhibit a range of discrepancies from the Byzantine text, which is the basis for many later translations of the New Testament. This includes differences in wording, omitted verses, and the inclusion of non-canonical books. - **Gospel Variations**: Specific passages in the Gospels show significant textual variations. For example, Matthew 4:23 and 5:22 exhibit different phrases and omissions between the two codices and other text traditions 2. **Scholarly Impact**: - **Influence on Modern Translations**: These codices are critical in modern biblical scholarship for reconstructing the earliest possible text of the New Testament. They highlight the fluidity and variation in early Christian texts and the processes of textual transmission and correction over centuries.
Not clear how Acts (and even the Synoptics) are dated AFTER 70AD (that is after Jerusalem was destroyed) when neither Acts nor any of the Gospels mentions the Temple's destruction (you would think that was an important event), or the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, or even the Roman-Jewish war from 66 AD onward. Respected scholars like N T Wright believe Luke-Acts written to a "Theophilus" was part of a legal brief written in Paul's defense in Rome when he was awaiting trial under Nero - a brief drafted likely by Luke. Americans are threatened by Paul since they regard themselves "Super-Jews" after being circumcised apparently or because they love their Ten Commandments in their school buildings after Post-Holocaust guilt, OR after losing faith in Christ and God altogether, or believing in Christ but preferring a "Hypergrace" that will excuse their carnality and sexual licenses the post-Modern west with its relaxed morality permits them - something Paul calls out and admonishes against.
When it comes to Apostles and Prophets… I’ve often wondered how parishioners of evangelical mega-churches can sit in those pews, week after week, listening to those preachers claiming powers of prophecy, while they also insist that Jesus commands said parishioners to empty their pockets, to pay for the preachers’s fourth luxury jet. How do they square that?🤔
Probably they make the "argumen" that it is not for them personally, but for the wellbeing of the community and the spreading of the message (infamous example: Kenneth Copeland and his private jets that he definetly needs).
@@happytofu5 I’m sure you’re right. But that ‘argument’ seems pretty absurd when one considers what $60M (plus $1.2M a year, in operating costs) could do for that same community. And as far as spreading the ‘message’ goes, he already had 2 private jets, and claimed that he needed the 3rd so he didn’t have to refuel on longer trips… and, so that he didn’t have to fly with demons, lol. One would think that spending that money on people and communities in need, would be far more inline with Jesus’ teachings… and not for nothing but if he was really a man/prophet of God, these said ‘demons’ would be exactly the ones you’re supposed to bring that message to, and ‘save’!😉😂
I believe in the 1st century there were two main sects 1. Yeshua apostolic church 2. Pauline church The yeshuan church did not live long enough because they were eventually overshadowed by the the Pauline and Roman church, the closest to this sect are the Muslims and other non trinitarian middle eastern sects. The Pauline Christianity is solely responsible for the recklessness in the lives of believer's who look to forsake the law, thus the pervasion and unrighteousness in the church. It gave rise to high level of immorality and unguided living. The Pauline church later became mainstream Christianity, instead of the righteous/law/faith base church of James and Peter founded in jerusalem. Jesus specifically appointed Peter to head his church not Paul. Early Jewish Christianity is clearly Peter based or based of faith and Torah.
@ashichiroma1183 There is only one God, one faith, one baptism and one body of believers - the church You clearly don't know what you are talking about if you think being saved by grace through the blood of Jesus is a license to live lawlessly. Maybe you're coming from a catholic background, as Jesus never 'chose' any one person head his body, in fact contrary to what you understand, at least by your comment, Jesus is the head of his body, the church, leading today by his Spirit, the Spirit of God Jesus called Paul to preach this message predominantly to those who were not Jews by birth, those from the worlds nations.
@@MRFITTA too much nonsense in such a short statement! Only those blinded by indoctrination and ignorance can be so wrong in so many ways. Look around you.
It looks you are in Hebrew root movement. Paul knew the new covenant. Torah law is for Israel kingdom which failed miserably. We are after a man Israel, Jesus. Not after a nation go corrupt.
I don't think Paul ever thought that his ministry could it had been superseded by Peter's. Otherwise, he wouldn't had written to his assistant Timothy stating that he has fought a good fight and had finished the race when his mission was culminating (2 Tim 4:7). He further wrote that "a crown of righteousness was waiting for him". That is a thought of knowing that his work was a great climax and successful at best. The conflict that arose between the two was relating to issues of jews laws and customs which was not the gospel the Lord revealed to Paul for the gentiles.
Christianity didn't "Come later" as the Way is mentioned along with Christianity in Acts, the King even mentioned Christianity in court with Paul saying that Paul "Almost convinced him of Christianity" which was My Gospel according to Paul.
Jesus reformed Judaism and paved the way for Christianity that was spread by Paul. It was a movement inspired by the Holy Spirit among the gentiles to proclaim the gospel to them.
The Rabbis reformed Judaism and some of Matthew’s sayings of Jesus could fall into the rabbinic tradition. However, Paul could not have cared less about Jesus’ teaching. The reason Paul went to the gentiles was because he thought the world was ending and gentiles needed to be reconciled to YHWH.
@@user-qq6rr2je4q who? Jesus or Paul. Paul deviated from Judaism and if you were a first century Jew, Christianity would be a heretical sect of Judaism and this is why Paul was persecuted by the Jews. But that was where the wind of the Spirit blew, for when Christ's teachings were taken to the gentiles, the Message was adapted to their situation. This was how the Spirit of God worked among them and so we are beneficiaries of this inclusive outlook. Divine revelation adapts to human culture just as God's grace does to human nature to perfect it in a process that is gradual. Revelation came as a gradual unfolding from the OT to the NT to the age of the Church.
@@winstonbarquez3373 that’s very assumptive and Christian-centric on your part. How do you know that the Holy Spirit ( or Ruach Ha-kodesh as they call it) was not with the Pharisees instead of the early Christian church?
Excellent lecture. Simply put yet very clarified and informative.. Thank you.🤍 As student of religious studies that lives in Thessaloniki city, in the region of Macedonia in Greece ,can I ask you to please refrain from repeating that "Macedonia AND Greece " ? . Because Greece and Macedonia were never two separate countries /states /regions /nations. Not in the 1st century AD not in the middle ages not now..We are one. Excluding macedonia from Greece is like excluding Crete from Greece , or Peloponnese from Greece..sounds pretty off. The newly formed state of north Macedonia aka ex FYROM (former Yugoslavia) has nothing to do with macedonia the greek region and as far as i know Paul never visited there. Forgive my intervention, but that name dispute it's just a very delicate matter for the modern hellenic republic..Just to avoid confusion.
yes, I have believed that for the last 10 years. Something wrong happened when the "church" started its Canon in the 3rd century [ by then, the Catholic church that constructed the new testament bible ]. Too much Paul. Its almost as if they wanted people to be suspicious and not believe the big claims of the bible, because most of the original sources were GONE or dead or not allowed to have their writings and stories in the constructed first bible.
As one of its most profound persecutors and critics of the faith, if Saul's intention to subvert Christianity was to infiltrate it by masquerading as its biggest supporter...seems like he would have burned the whole thing to the ground once he was regarded as an authority. That just doesn't make logical sense to suggest he infiltrated anything.
Good presentation, many truths to it in terms of historical context, many non christian can come to the same faith by hearing this divine works of God.
I find Revelation 2:2 extremely interesting. Ephesus was one of Paul’s churches, and they are commended for testing those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be liars. To the Romans, Paul says, “If by my LIE God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” Rom. 3:7. Since it is Paul who rejects the authority of the apostles Jesus himself chose, and taught different doctrines, perhaps believers would do well to question the authority of Paul. God allowed a serpent in the Garden to test Adam and Eve; perhaps Paul was allowed to influence the early church to test who would follow Jesus.
You ripped Romans 3:7 straight out of its context Romans 3:5-8 “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?-as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.” This is Paul condemning the line of thinking in Romans 3:7 -_- Not supporting it
Good reflexion, jesus came to correct the gad corrupted Law by jews , afrer him, suddenly je became god ( Trinity) so god sent the last prophet " Muhammad" to correct both of them we have that in the Coran, Read it and judge by yourself
If you think "St. Paul's churches won," or that he led a significantly different movement than the rest of earliest Christianity, then you are confused about Christian origins. This probably comes from looking at early Christianity through the lens of a modern European, particularly Protestant, bias.
I absolutely agree with your statement; you can look for my similar comments. the dude is total clickbait ; he's been doing this for quite a few years. I used to listen to him cause I like the historical interpretations; but now he's apostate.
Not Protestant. People actually read only half of Paul. Insult the rest as fake and form funny opinions as St Peter said. To understand Paul you have to understand the other Apostles. Jewish Law was rejected by Jesus Christ not Paul. It is not to be confused with the Law.
I am pretty sure "we" is 1st person, just plural. 2nd person would be "you" (both plural and singular), just as "he, she, it" are singular 3rd, and "they" is plural 3rd person.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your generous donation. This gift helps us continue to produce this content!
That "Timeline of Paul's Ministry" adds a lot, Thanks to John and Centre Place Team!
Im a bible student in Atlanta who finds historic accuracy to be very important in understanding the faith. I appreciate your lectures and have viewed many. They have helped me develop my teaching style. Thanks sir
There isn't much historical accuracy in the bible. Ask God to guide you to the truth.
Do you limit your reading?
@@FirstPersonHoodJohn is very well versed, that's for sure 😊
Have you studied the 7 authentic letters of Paul? He admits to being a liar.
Paul converting Judaism-curious Gentiles strikes me as similar to how various "gurus" will sell Eastern religion to curious Westerners today, often diluting or reframing the cultural context to better appeal to their cultural sensitivities.
Jesus and John the Baptist were living among the Essenes. A gnostic and strictly separate community from others.
Jewish but separate from the temple folk.
Think Amish or Quakers?
You could join but only after a year of observation.
They were like yogis.
As was Jesus/Jeshuah.
Seek.
Search.
In the stillness you will find me.
The only place in the Bible that says where "you" can find God in his words. Where else?
Be still, and know that the "I Am" is God. You have to still the mind to recieve. Your 3rd eye can only receive when you still the projections of the mind, ego, thinkingness and story.
This is what prayer used to be.
The Paulinian church was built much differently.
Its an institution with a finger pointing at something that requires personnel integrity and intentionally reaching for personally communion with God/consciousness/all that is.
Religion is like training wheels for the unconscious .
The Authenticity of the seeker is more important than the religion you come from.
Religion is just a human finger pointing at something that you can have a personal relationship with.
It doesn't matter what you call it.
@@josephpchajek2685 the current Bible or the first century Christian apocryphal gospels as well? Alot changed in the hundreds of years moving towards Europe.
The mixed multitudes apparently were not limited to the exodus from Egypt. Another writer I listen to spoke of Jesus’ teachings being in the Synogogue and from Synogogue life in the 21st Century this seemed implausible. This explanation fits. Thanks
Paul barely touched on Judaism with Greeks/gentiles/pagans. In fact his goal was to use a rebellious Jew Paul persecuted in Jerusalem, Yeshua, recast by Paul into a different role, undoing Judaism in the creation of a new religion antithetical to it, to destroy the Greek religion of the Greek gods and attempt to destroy Judaism by claiming Jews killed Iesous, Paul's character he created to steal Yeshua's mantle as literally the legendary Son of Zeus Greeks knew was foretold in Greek legend to someday eclipse his father Zeus, and succeeded in doing exactly that while failing to take down Judaism though succeeding in 1900 years so far of genocidal persecution of Jews for refusing to accept the preposterous claim Iesous was the Son of God when the God of the Jews was not a human, let alone one who magically fertilized a Jewish girl to make him his "son". To this date, which will never end, Jews refuse to succumb to the lies Paul made about the Hebrew Bible and his other insulting twaddle. And there it stands.
I dont know of any gentiles who were curious about converting to Judaism. Where are you getting that from?
I really enjoy your lectures. I am not a Christian, in fact I am not a believer on any deity but I really enjoy your lectures and how you answer complex questions. Congratulations!!
Believe in Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved.
He is the True God
Who came to this world for you and me.
He took the eternal punishment which you want deserve for your sins
He died for your sins.
He shed his blood for you
and buried in the grave.
And on the 3rd day. he rose from the death.
Repent of your sins...
And accept Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.,
How many Jews in their right mind would believe a "risen Jesus" entered Paul's essence and told him the Torah had become irrelevant because the End Times had begun? Not many. Now, how many non-Jews would be willing to entertain the possibility that a "risen Jesus" entered Paul's essence and told him the Torah had become irrelevant because the End Times had begun? Some. They had no particular reason to reject the idea out-of-hand.
Unbelievably correct 🙏
My favorite channel on youtube- big thanks to everyone involved! Keep up the good work :)
Thank you!
Yes it’s very interesting. I also like watching Blogging Theology on UA-cam.
John: It would be interesting to hear a discussion of what may have occurred in Jerusalem when James the Just led the movement. How his perspective changed, how others in his group viewed him as time passed, and how situations changed upon his death. A lot to get into there.Thanks for your time creating these wonderful and enriching learning experiences. Your teaching is something to behold, along with putting my learning curve into hyperdrive.
We'll consider that, thanks for the suggestion!
@@centre-place Thank you very kindly!
Thanks! Incredible content
We can produce these lectures and offer them for free because of your support. 🙏Thank you 🙏
Thanks
Thank you for supporting the channel!
This is excellent I cannot believe how much I learned in such a short time. Quite the eye opener for me. Thanks so much.
Great presentation and very informative - please keep them coming 😊
I chuckled with Paul finishing his story of the meeting with Peter with the ancient equivalent of "and then everyone clapped" lol
Thank you so much. I have hungered for a well researched and expertly presented history of the church.
You answered practically all my questions
I am falling in love with this channel. And this is by far the most entertaining and information packed lecture I’ve seen here. The wealth of knowledge contained in this UA-cam channel is astonishing. Thank you so much for your work.
Wow, thank you!
Excellent lecture. Thank you John. Blessings to all.
Great lecture John, the first 100 years of the church are so shrouded in mystery and drama, it’s fascinating to study. I didn’t get to ask this during the live chat, but what are your thoughts on the Pseudo-Clementines literature in relation to the schism between the Pauline and Jacobite branches?
Modern day Ebionites and Nazarenes try to claim that they actually go back to Peter, but I haven’t read them myself yet. My understanding is that scholars say they were written in the 4th century. I’d love to hear a lecture by you on the Pseudo-Clementine literature like you did with Pseudo-Dionysus.
Sorry for the nitpicking but it's distracting me from your otherwise very interesting presentation: "We" is NOT the 2d person. It is the First Person Plural. The 2d person is "You" (both in singular and plural).
Right: "we" is first person plural.
Lol🏴🇬🇧
Acts 1:1 NIV
[1] In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
Acts 1:1 NIV
[1] In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
I was about to add the same comment… but scanned and found yours before I did 😊
1:12:00 Paul says: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
This is not "Conclusive proof of a New Testament woman apostle". He merely says that the couple is well-known among the apostles. Meaning the apostles know about the couple. Even if you don't agree with this interpretation, at least it's a VALID interpretation. It's not conclusive proof that Andronicus and Junia were apostles.
The whole presentation is filled with things like this, taking a small passage and making a big conclusion about early Christianity from it.
I absolutely agree with your statement; you can look for my similar comments. the dude is total clickbait ; he's been doing this for quite a few years. I used to listen to him cause I like the historical interpretations; but now he's apostate.
Feel the same way. He's stretched material on purpose .flimsy
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2Time 4:3-4)
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. *_I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth._* (1Jn2:18-21)
If you read it in the original Greek, you cannot make that interpretation
@@senefelder Which one? Mine or his?
Please comment, in the same excellent detail as provided here...where the "tradition stories" come from. Are these some books hidden in the vaults of the Vatican Library ? Are there other ancient books with mentions of Paul ??
A curious listener would like to know 🙂
Like many others, was looking forward to this presentation. Great job, and thanks!
It's truly rewarding to receive such positive feedback!
There are people in Britton who say that Paul's accusers never showed up to his trail in Rome so he was released and he went on to Spain and Britton. They say he lived there for a couple of years then when back to Spain. There's a lot of early Christian history in Britton that we know little about.
Yes, British fairy tales
@@happycamper848
Simon and Garfunkle said it best.
"A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest"
The Boxer
Soooooo excited when these come out! Love you guys! Thanks John and everyone who makes these so great!
Thank you!
"Send them out two by two", isn't that a group of four? That seems like a strange way to say it. By this logic, how would you say a group of four, would you say four by four?
Thanks, we have your question and we'll give it to John tonight (Oct 22) for our second episode of "Let There Be Answers."
Reading the New Testament we see that Paul was in union with Jesus' disciples. It describes one disagreement but also that they solved it. Peter also explicitly showed allegence with Paul in one of his letters.
correct. Same team.
Hello, I’m curious where abouts you grew up in Minnesota?
I grew up in Circle Pines area 😊
As far as writing goes of the Jerusalem church, the one letter of Paul to the Corinthians says that the community had received a letter from some of the followers of the Jerusalem Church. As Paul's take became dominant, might any letters or works in opposition to Paul were suppressed and destroyed and seen as heresy?
Most definitely we also know paul had sent a letter to the laocideans
Paul of Tarsus is argualy the most influential historical figure in Western thought.
yessir
Sal
@@andrew3979Saul
@happycamper848 close enough
You'd think people would take the word of people who actually knew Jesus, like his own brother and right hand man (basically) Peter, instead of some random convert who never knew Jesus ...
@@AB-et6nj i think Paul had a better sales pitch. If you read the gospels, it seems people are ready to be done with the (Torah) law. Jesus seems to mostly focus on God's Law, the ten commandments, but also says that not one yod will be removed from the (Torah) law, until heaven and earth pass away.
On Paul's side, he takes James' idea of a simple set of rules for gentiles, and applies it even to himself, even though he was Jewish, as far as we know.
@@double7crossor not part of the Torah to begin with.
The "People" who ended up making the church weren't jews in Nazareth...
Not only don't they have access to James or Peter,
They spoke the wrong language and their ideas of religion was harder to grasp
Paul went against Jesus's teaching, Paul is THE creator of Christianity. Jesus did not know what Christianity was, no one in his time used that term or anything close to it, nor did anyone believe Jesus was God
Their god is a Jew? That does not sound right.
At 32:46, 'we' is first person, not second person.
You are incredible! I can listen all day.. I have learned so much from your videos..thank you!
Sound is not good you must turn it up to max and still don’t hear unless it’s a few inches away
So was Jesus wrong when he stated that Peter would be the rock upon which his church would be built, or were his followers just disregarding Jesus's words.
I'm not sure that Saul had head that.
No one knows what Jesus actually said.
We just know what early Christ groups thought he said and believed.
That saying could just be a quote from a work that comes from the Jerusalem church.
There is only one Gospel. Peter, Paul and all the Apostles preached the same Gospel. The idea that Paul preached a different gospel is only about 200 years old and is an offshoot of Darby's dispensationalism.
That's not what Jesus said though. That's what the Jesuits chose to interpret is as, so that they could create Roman Catholicism and popery.
@Kornheiser10 Jesus was with his disciples in a place know for pagan worship, and believed to be the gateway from hades to this world, when Peter declared :
"You(Jesus) are the Christ, Son of the Living God" implying Jesus deity as the Messiah.
He was literally standing on a rock, and was probably using a play on words to declare that on the truth of what Peter had confessed the Church of Christ would be established.
Perter was one of those at the forefront, but nothing was 'built' on him
Christ is our rock, there is no other.
And why do we think something is going to happen in this particular hour or so?
It's no mystery to me. You can follow Paul that says you don't have to follow the Jewish laws or you can have a very painful procedure made on the most sensitive part of your body that is circumcision. As an adult male which one will you choose.?
Neither. I follow Jesus.
This says a lot about your relationship with your penis 😂😂😂😂 sorry. just a joke no judgement
@@br.mIf you want to be sure you are going to Heaven watch How to go to Heaven by Steven Anderson
I really enjoy your lectures!
You can’t call Paul a false Apostle
And one in derision with the other Apostles
When both Luke and Peter call him a Brother in Christ
2 Peter 3:14-16
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
2nd Peter wasn't written by Peter.
2 Peter is pseudepigripha
Luke isn't one of the 12 AND didn't write Luke
Paul's teaching of savation was contrary to James and Yeshua. On the matter of Faith Paul and James disagreed. Paul said that justification comes “by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16) while James said that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:20-21, 23-24). For James faith alone was not enough to put a person into a right standing before God. There is a stark differences in teachings between Jesus and Paul regarding salvation. Jesus taught that SALVATION was obtained by obeying God's commandment ( Matt. 19: 16-21) while Paul stated that salvation came through the death and resurrection of Yeshua (Rom 5:10, 8: 11) and believing in Jesus. Let us compare:
Salvation according to Jesus (as expressed in the synoptic gospels, which are considered more historical than John’s “spiritual gospel”):
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21, NIV). Salvation according to Paul:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Rom 10:9-10, NIV). [Source: Salvation according to Jesus vs. Apostle Paul
MAY 8, 2014].
Not surprizingly in the literature written by Paul he is silent on Jesus’ earthly life and teachings.
@@kendrajade6688go and make disciples”
The mandate to the twelve was to duplicate themselves. Not being apart of the 12 is not a disqualification.
Paul sat under the teachings of the apostles for years before his ministry to the gentiles.
Very interesting & thought-provoking. And in a way, it's like Time-Travel !
yet timeless
Thank you. Always worth listening to; I always learn interesting stuff from these lectures.
The "we passages" in Acts are not 2nd person plural. They are 1st person plural. Has anyone else picked this up???
Wow! Almost 10K views in less than 24 hours - congrats on the growing ministry, @CentrePlace. Just as Paul opened Jewish tradition to those who could not adhere to the letter of judaic law - I hope that you are opening Christian tradition to many who can't hold unquestioning belief in things that don't fit with modern knowledge.
Thanks you! Glad you enjoy our content!
John, I understand It is possible that the Jerusalem Jewish/Christians after moving to Pella and possible other parts of Arabia may have been around until 1000 or 1100. It seems Mohammed might have been aware of their monotheism and took from it a solid monotheism as opposed to the Greek influenced Trinitarians. Do have any info on this or is it accurate?
Muhammad is the last prophet what is telling is the Coran
the warlord Mohamad, plagiarized both the early Christians and Jews. Ishmailites and Hagarenes were the third people of Abrahams books, mighty and angry and mean though spurious. ,Isaac was the child of the promise.
Love your presentations and all of the work you study in-depth.
Paul is basically responsible for creating Christianity, it wasn't just him obviously, but he basically founded the religion and he never even met Jesus in the flesh!
Didn't he take it from james and bastardise it...
I agree with you. Looking back on it, Paul created what would become the proto-orthodox church which would eventually lead to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I think it also helps he was influential to the Gnostics too.
I think he invented two ideas that have influenced Christians to this day: rejection of the Torah and the Eucharist or communion. By cresting new ways of thinking and new rituals he created the building blocks of a new religion.
@@jdjones4825 I suppose you could look at it that way. Interesting suggestion!
@@michaelhenry1763 Yes well said! I didn't know about the Eucharist rejection. I need to study Paul more
'You are my rock'
'Get behind me satan' ~Jesus to Paul in the olive grove
@4:22 - there were a few more divisions I imagine. The disciples of Mary and Martha is listed as part of the "Great Church" but clearly isn't Petrine. -__- dubious thesis right at the introduction. LOL
I wish the TV evangelists would listen to this .....and realize how wrong it is to beg for airplane money while wearing a 5k dollar suit..
They know.
They don't care.
They will be judged
@@METVWETVno, they won't. They should pay for their crimes on earth.
@@ambrosemalone1151
So you don't believe that God is infinity just and will give to each of us what we deserve?
I do.
I believe, as science teaches us that the Universe has a beginning.
That it is intricately and wonderfully made and as only a fool would look at a work of art hanging on a wall and conclude that it somehow got up there by random unintelligent processes,
So too would a fool conclude that something as complex as DNA occurred without a great designer!
The God of the Bible is that designer and He has promised us that in the end, all things will be made right.....
May the Lord Bless you
@@METVWETV DNA is just a computer chip without the silicon. Sometimes a mutation will work. Sometimes not. All species will eventually die out. I don't particularly want to be preached to by some Jorge who believed as Jesus did in the magical thinking of Astrology: when the age of the "fish" (Pices) comes to an end and the age of the "water bearer" (Aquarius) begins--this plagiarized Zoroastrian crap comes from the Gospel of Luke. If someone would have asked Jesus about parallax, Cepheid variable stars, LL Lyras, neutron star collisions, luminosoties and red shifts, we would have immediately seen what ridiculous ignorant frauds these, "don't tell anyone" Messiahs are, So Jesus, tell me about Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. How old and large is this Universe? Does your sky daddy know? How convenient that you don't have the need to know. Time to move on from this wild west flimflamming
@@METVWETVwhy would any deity bother with any petty, insignificant “transgressions” that millions of tiny, scurrying humans would commit ? Is your hybris that big that you would suppose to merit this attention from any higher being ? Is your person that much more important than an ant or an earthworm ? Really ?
The books were written in the language applicable to the people it was written for
There is an historical record you can find in quite a few books on the subject. I have read quite a few. So I am very familiar with the theories and historical records the narrator refers too.
Both "I" and "we" are first person; they are first person singular and plural respectively. Modern English doesn't differentiate between plural and singular with the second person (archaic singular: thou). Third person: he, she, it (singular) and they (plural).
The Letters of Paul were written in Greek. It is very different from modern English.
Side note: ref. 55:50. When Paul met Peter and James...man, WHERE WERE THE REST of the Apostles? did he ask?
Genuinely great lectures. Concerning James, the term "brother" is multivalent, right? It can refer to cousins and close companions. Your thoughts, brother?
He has said on multiple occasions that it would have been a blood brother. I believe it is also the scholarly consensus as I've heard Bart Ehrman say the same thing.
Edit: John also has a lecture on James from a few months back.
It can never mean cousin. This is an invention by St. Augustine because he had this weird notion that all saints must be virgins, and since Joseph was a saint, he must also be a virgin and can't have kids. Thus Jesus' brothers must be his cousins. To justify his interpretation, he then grabbed some Greek writings where cousins call each other brothers out of context. Many of these examples are actually of heroes in combat calling each other brothers in arms who happen to be cousins. However, Augustine became authoritative in the West, so his totally dishonest sleight-of-hand persisted.
What is correct is that brother could mean co-religionists or brothers-in-arms. This is in fact the argument made to justify James not being a true brother of Jesus, but again, this is taking things out of context. Whenever James is referred to as a brother of Jesus it actually means brother.
Bart also says that “brother” can mean ANYONE that believed Jesus performed supernatural acts. As two members of the same motorcycle gang refer to each other.
Read the first chapter of Galatians. You’ll see “brother” used in multiple places, when it’s used to refer to James you can see the difference in context and tone to indicate that James is a relative of Jesus.
Brother used at that time referred to anyone within the burgeoning sect of Judaism.
Is it possible that Paul was setup when he returned to Jerusalem?
I wonder what really happens in the brain with these Eureka / Damaskus moments.
One is contemplating a problem that resists solving, and suddenly one makes a leap to a solution that gets around whatever was in the way. And the larger the problem seemed to be, the greater the feeling of release probably is. It’s like gaining a new perspective, from which the original roadblock now seems meaningless.
The question is: what in the original gospel made Saul go after the followers of Jesus? And what jump occurred in his thinking?
You see, the problem is: If you have a single wrong axiom in your thinking, you can deduce anything. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start false, you can prove everything / get to any conclusion you like, which makes the whole endeavor of getting to conclusions / Eureka moments useless.
Paul was certainly wrong about the end of the world; from a secular individual perspective he is also wrong about death not being the end. What then would it even mean to be right about Jesus being Christ as predicted in the scriptures - which tbh is also wrong, as the gospels are constructed as types from the anti-types of the OT. (And it can’t be otherwise, when most of the predictions are retrodictions, as literary criticism teaches.)
((Die Propheten waren keine Vorhersager, sondern Hervorsager. (Gruß an Dr. Böttcher, falls er das liest.))
So: rationally I don’t share any of the assumptions. Why am I even watching these lectures?
Ethical law ideally is about how to live a life well lived. A conduct of life that makes it conducive to the continuation of life and civilization in general (“playing the long game”): So to not (only) gather capital in your own bank / grain in your own barn, but gather “Treasures in Heaven” = do good, give back to the community. Maybe also help stabilize the institutions that adjudicate the law sensibly, give the law democratically, execute the law without bias, teach the law in its original spirit. - Or transform or replace the old institutions with new ones that do these things.
The message of the NT still is: Turn your life around from taking to giving, get a view for the needs of others. - Jesus approach is reverse psychology: the best way to teach people to see the need of others, and to give freely, is to confront them with intentionally poor disciples, who on the one hand serve as extreme examples, as they have given everything away themselves out of their free will, but also must inevitably be seen by the host as a good opportunity for a practical first step of true cathartical change in their life by literally practicing giving, or at least as an opportunity for virtue signaling, as practically they only are required to show a minimal amount of hospitality anyway.
The burning of the books in every revolution is first about the burning of the debt records, and only second about establishing a new ideology and destroying the old values and hierarchies. Think that the Year of Jubilee in the OT even allowed keeping the structure and values of society as a whole intact, by only getting rid of the excesses.
How would preparing for the end of the age look like? How long can you survive the Zombie Apocalypse? You have food for a year in your bunker? So what? - You need intact communities, because in the end, everybody has to start over from pretty much nothing again, and this works only by working together again on a basis of free will (and pure need), as all the larger social structures will probably collapse. So we are back to family and friends and local communities, where everyone knows everyone else.
So it will all be about your skills (and your tools), your general wisdom and problem solving capabilities, your health and mainly your relationships and ability to integrate and communicate. - But that is what it should have been all along from the beginning. - Why don’t we have that now / before? What do we have in its place? Accumulated wealth and societal structures that keep the incentives and penalties in a way to support the perpetuation of structures of privilege.
But the original reason for accumulating wealth and creating hierarchical structures of power, was to ward off greater crises in the first place, or be prepared to mitigate them when they happen.
The problem is: in times when there is no crisis, those structures and potentials and fortunes become self-serving. And then when the crisis happens, but they fail to react and the potentials and fortunes and powers are not getting used to mitigate the damage, they lose their legitimacy. Then the powers and the wealth need to be transferred and transformed to new institutions and actors that are willing to do what is necessary.
Conclusion? The natural growth of Christianity might have been a failing of the existing elites in times of crisis. Out of the crisis did grow grand new institutions later on.
Feels like we are in the nth cycle. The Elites are failing us again. Rahm Emmanuel said during the banking crisis in 2008 “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”, but the crisis was not used to mitigate the damage, but to consolidate wealth and power even more in the wrong hands.
Crisis calls for a new Reformation of structures, or for cutting them down and growing them back from grassroots. Phoenix reborn from its ashes.
Great potentials for the mitigation of our modern day crisis remain unused, as our elites fail us again. This destroys the legitimacy of their power and wealth and privilege.
Good times for religion, I guess.
Really good, in a way. But you cant be serious with your :
„The question is…..“. All these rather „well known“ ( for educated people concerning these matters) jewish „sects“ alternative to established judaism were and had to be seen ( by the ‚establishment’) as blasphemy and treason. That goes without saying, nicht wahr?
I love this channel. I relate to this guy because he seems like a regular dude just really intelligent.
This was the most informative video I’ve watched by far!
Thanks for that feedback!
I’m curious… Paul converts after having a vision of Jesus and then immediately starts preaching the gospels and converting people, but who teaches Paul? He’s not hanging out with any of the other apostles so I don’t understand where he gets his information regarding Jesus’ teachings and what not.
It says a disciple (not one of the 12) teaches Paul for three years. This is after he is healed of his blindness
His name was Ananias..If he ever existed..
I am enchanted with Centre Place. "We" is First Person PLURAL form of the pronoun "I". "You" is the Second Person. You have accurately identified a personal pronoun in the Third Person (Subject case: he, she, it, they Object case: him, her, it, them. As I have learned so much from you: Personal pronouns have four attributes: person, gender, number, case. They overlap.
as Victoria said, "We are not amused."
You are a smart one. I am not! It’s ok. We are some part of Christianity. With that said there are literally 2.5 BILLION members of Christianity the religion! You might say that they are part of the most successful faith group on Earth
whilst making a "point" that the writer of Acts switches from third person to "second" (by saying "we" instead of "they") haven't you erred since "we" is not second person but First Person plural? second person pronouns are "thou", singular, and "you", singular or plural.
Excellent video. I first saw you on Gospel Tangents a few years ago. The development of Joseph Smith Jr.'s teachings is one of the other lectures by you that I've seen previously.
I'm glad I found your UA-cam channel. The lectures on your website match many of my interests. A former Christian, now a 12er Shi'ite Muslim, I have a big interest in history, as well as comparative religion. So, I will be watching many more of your videos.
You chose Islam that right but make more researches of differents schools I don't think 12 are the good one
You have to make a decision to believe a book. I would no more choose his book over pauls writings
So far I only have one correction, Paul had took the vow of the Nazarite in Acts 18 which is why he shaved his head… he was starting the vow…. Then in Acts 21 they are telling him to go to the temple and shave his head with the other brothers who also have the vow on them as a show that he is indeed keeping the Law… so no sir this is not a “trap” they are setting for him… he wasn’t with any Gentile brothers… but the people wouldn’t hear Paul out…. Unless you are saying Paul was lying… the whole time Paul was there in Jerusalem (for Passover might I add) he is denying the claims of teaching against the Law…. Which he wasn’t
Very interesting how the faith alone vs faith + works debate is still going on today
No it's not. Salvation is faith based and there is no debate. There are only liars who want to deceive.
That was Paul who said that. James taught it is by faith and works. Paul never met Jesus. James was his brother. Who are you going to believe more?
@@jrgvsqz I'm going to believe Jesus I am not going to believe you. You just made an ignorant and foolish comment. It came across as arrogant too. Thanks for adding to the conversation even though your contribution is worthless.
@@br.mWithout proof your statement is just as worthless.
@@shifty8277 Proof? wtf are you talking about proof.
James did not teach that good work saves you. Keep in mind, James and Peter stood condemned before Paul. I am aware it was not over this topic. But if there is confusion, then clear verses must govern unclear verses.
James did not say my good work will save me. Because it won't.
Do you even do good work? Really? Like what? Prove you do good work
It won't save you. Only believers are saved, unbelievers like you stand condemned.
I really enjoy your video's. If possible, please do not speed up or slow down your content. Trying to correct the play speed is always the first thing I do before watching. Thanks!
This is a great lecture. Great context for understanding mythicist debates too - since Paul had such an influence despite never meeting an actual Jesus, it could appear as if no such person existed from a certain perspective, but not so if we take the Jerusalem church into account.
Incredible though if the Jerusalem church plotted Paul's downfall... but eye opening that they apparently had such a deep disagreement about adherence to law.
What’s Paul’s last name? I’m having trouble finding him.
Jones, Paul Jones.
@@michaelhenry1763 Wasn’t he also the drummer for Led Zeppelin?
Most people at that time didn’t really have last names. They’d be referred to as the son-of-whomever or of-wherever to distinguish them from others with the same name.
People didn't have a second name as we do today. To distinguish one John from another John, for example, historians would normally use the town the persona was from or their father's name. Saúl/Paul was "of Tarsus" because he was born there.
@@MiguelRamosLIve thank you for your post. It’s a joke. We are having fun about not having last names.
On a serious note. Based on reading Paul’s letters, I do not think his original was Saul, I think it was always Paul. Additionally, I do not think he was from Taurus. I think, based on his letters, he may have been from Damascus.
Wow, thank you so much! It was excellent!
Many said that Paul invented the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism and that the Jews did not accept outsiders to join Judaism at all. But I think that this idea overlooks and contradicts with the concept of "God-fearers" in Judaism, which means a person who is interested in God and Judaism but has not completely converted to Judaism for one reason or another, such as to avoid circumcision for example.
You are impressive in your tackling this historically. Shows great strength. Last, a good discussion might be about what were exactly those laws the Jewish Christians had to adhere to? Were they the over 600 ones Jews now follow? And if relaxed rules were allowed for gentile Christians, which ones might they have been?
I have to say, your lectures make me wonder where you and your church stands on all of this spiritually. Was Jesus God for your group? Maybe only a blessed man? Where do you stand on the faith only, and faith and good works divide? You've piqued my interest. But you stear clear of these in your lectures. Commendable, but leaves me curious.
Modern Rabbinical Jews are mostly progressive and don't literally adhere to all the commandments. Some of that starts in the Talmud when they start sorting out how to implement these rules that sometimes are vague or have multiple contradictory versions (such as if matzoh is supposed to be boiled or cooked on a direct flame). When Jesus asks about if someone should help their neighbor's animal out of a ditch on the sabbath, he's talking about one of those kinds of debates, because both things are commandments. Jesus, like most of the Talmud contributors, resolves such practical conflicts by choosing to save the life instead of keeping the more symbolic or ritualistic commandments.
1:26:28-30… the sickness Paul was talking about was his epileptic seizures
Sorry for nitpicking. But "he, she, it" (singular) and "they" (plural) is 3rd person. "you" ("thou", singular) and "you" (plural) is 2nd person. And "I" (singular) and "we" (plural) is 1st person. However, thank you very much for an, again, very informative lecture!
This is in English. The original text was written in Greek. Big difference.
@@VSP4591 In Greek it's the same thing, though.
I am not so sure but if you know Koine is OK.@@chutspe
Isn;t "We," FIRST PERSON PLURAL?
See you next Tuesday for another Hamercopia of Knowledge
Ha! You ain't lyin' !
We hope to see you there!
I am confused: wasn't Barnaby Peter's father-in-law?
I've wanted to know for a long time how a man who never met Yashua, changed his teachings and was able to convince influential people that he was telling the truth...wild stuff😮
He didn't, it is all a plot!!!
He clearly told people things they liked to hear
Easy to do when the character is made up to begin with.
well how does some one believe false narratives..and repeat them❓
They don't go to the source
they are ignorant and gullible
'They have a zeal for God
but not in the knowledge' ~ God
Paul wasn't a Jew he was a Hebrew, as you yourself said he wasn't of the tribe of Judah which is how you said yourself the term Jew comes from, a contradiction in such quick succession from the explanation of where Jews get their name from compels me to correct you.
@:32:07 *"We" is not **_second_** person-it's **_first person._*
I find James' writings to be the most logical and swalloable truths of the new testament. Works always makes more sense than just Faith. Works proves what you believe. Faith is just hope that isn't really acted upon.
Paul also exhorts people to do works. he shows them their faith and strengthens their faith, then tells them to do works. (so does peter in 1 peter) It's all very similar really. But I do agree James is nice and digestable
@@lierox9If you want to be sure you are going to Heaven watch How to go to Heaven by Steven Anderson
Paul is more mystical in his teachings. It's probably why the gnostics read his letters. People simply don't get the transcendental message of Paul.
I'd wager a lot more modern folks, even agnostics, would be on Paul's side moreso than James'. James is still strict to adhere to the law of Moses. That's why he's by "actions."
What Paul is arguing is that our faith produces those actions, in fact, he's saying that faith and actions are the same thing. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The substance of things hoped for." Read that again, but slowly.
People confuse faith and belief. I've always viewed faith as belief in action. Faith isn't just believing in something you don't see. Faith is the production of the things you believe.
In fact, these ideas don't really conflict with James at all.
But where James and Paul really do conflict. Meaning, that you can't merry their theology together, is that what Paul is saying is that our good works don't bring salvation. James, on the other hand, is arguing this.
Paul is saying, following the law doesn't save you. That's why Jesus came and accomplished it for us.
James is saying that we still have to achieve them, just as Jesus.
Then Paul argues that the divine spark, the Christ in you (the hope of glory) is what accomplishes it.
I'm gonna have to side with Paul on this. James is right on so many things but Paul is more transcendent in his teachings. They're less strict on legality and more on this innate divine inspiration that is in all of us.
I think of it like an artist. You don't go to school to practice all these tactics and tricks to create art. The artistry is through your imagination. It's inside of you already. There's no need for school. No right or wrong way of doing it. This is essentially what Paul is trying to inspire in everyone.
James, on the other hand, is still attached to his Judaic traditions.
Abraham first, and chooses his work, that was an act of faith. His point in 23 is that his work of offering isaac was active with his faith in God, and his power to revive the dead. It is then this real faith, that credits abraham with righteousness.
Rahab again. A clear "work", that was the outworking of genuine faith.
And verse 26 again clarifies he's tackling people who claim faith, but have no works. That is in fact no faith at all.
And Paul would 100% agree. Faith that causes regeneration also causes santcification, ie works.
I thought Gospel was a military term used to spread word that victory had been achieved in war. And the Gospels were a victory for new life over eternal damnation.
Gospel in English means “good news”
@@yellowcoat970 I was right I just googled it! - In ancient Greece and Rome, the word gospel was a military word that referred to a proclamation of victory by the winning army of a battle or war. In Greek, the word is euangelion, literally translated as good news. After a fight among nations, messengers from the winning side (or angelos) would go around the conquered territories proclaiming the good news of what this victory meant for their lives.
The authors of the New Testament repurposed this word throughout their letters. But rather than a declaration of military victory, it was rooted in a declaration about Jesus.
Yeah Pauline' churches.
That actually answers all open questions.
Fuck, he was the one and only founder of "Christianity",
and the massive set of lies involved.
And nearly everyone fell for it.
I want to tell you the fascinating story about when the Trinity verse was added to the Bible. This is a well-documented fact, detailed in "Whose Word Is It?: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why" by Professor Bart Ehrman, an expert in biblical textual criticism.
In the 16th century, Erasmus, a Dutch scholar, produced the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, but had been translated into Latin over the centuries. Erasmus aimed to create a critical scholarly edition based on Greek texts, relying mainly on late medieval manuscripts from the 12th century.
Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament was later used by the translators of the King James Bible and other versions until the end of the 19th century. However, the Greek manuscripts Erasmus used were not of high quality and were produced about eleven hundred years after the originals. For example, his main manuscript for the gospels included the story of the woman taken in adultery and the last verses of Mark, which were not part of the original gospels.
One key passage missing from Erasmus’s manuscripts was 1 John 5:7-8, known as the Johannine Comma, which explicitly supports the doctrine of the Trinity. This passage is found in Latin Vulgate manuscripts but not in the majority of Greek manuscripts. The King James Version includes this verse: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Bart Ehrman notes, "The Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used were not of the best quality... produced some eleven hundred years after the originals." Erasmus did not find this verse in any Greek manuscripts he consulted, so he omitted it from his first edition. This omission outraged theologians of his time, who accused him of tampering with the text. Erasmus reportedly agreed to include the verse in future editions if a Greek manuscript containing it could be produced. Consequently, a Greek manuscript was created in the 16th century, likely by translating the Latin text into Greek. Despite his reservations, Erasmus included the verse in subsequent editions.
These editions formed the basis for the King James Bible and other translations for centuries. The phrase "Textus Receptus" refers to this widely accepted form of the Greek text, despite its reliance on inferior manuscripts. Modern textual scholars now insist on using older and better manuscripts to base the Greek New Testament on scientific principles.
The Textus Receptus, though still revered by some fundamentalists, is based on late medieval manuscripts, whereas earlier manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain the Johannine Comma or other later additions. Ehrman explains, "This passage... states the doctrine directly and succinctly," but it "was not in Erasmus's primary manuscript or in any of the others that he consulted." This realization challenges the solid basis for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible, making it difficult for some Christians to accept.
Lol. Maybe you should look up the debunking of Bart ehrman. Quite a lot.
😅
Please lookup the controversies surrounding the codex sinaticus and vaticanus.
@@dok9024
### Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Controversies :
**Codex Sinaiticus:**
1. **Authenticity and Dating**:
- The Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the 4th century, is questioned for its authenticity by some who argue it might be a modern forgery. This is partly because of its pristine condition and the vast number of corrections (around 27,000) made by various scribes over centuries.
2. **Discovery Controversy**:
- Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery in the mid-19th century, the manuscript's removal and transfer to European institutions have been controversial. Some critics challenge the narrative that Tischendorf saved the manuscript from destruction, suggesting unethical acquisition.
3. **Textual Variants and Content**:
- The Codex includes several apocryphal books and heretical writings like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which are not part of the canonical Bible. These inclusions, along with notable textual omissions and variations, raise questions about its reliability and the theological influences on its scribes
**Codex Vaticanus:**
1. **Authenticity and Provenance**:
- Also from the 4th century, the Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest and most reliable texts of the Greek Bible. However, it faces questions regarding its authenticity due to differences in the text and possible Gnostic influences
2. **Textual Integrity**:
- Scholars have noted textual peculiarities in the Vaticanus, such as the omission of the last part of the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These omissions have sparked discussions about the manuscript’s completeness and the fidelity of its transmission.
Both manuscripts, their histories and the controversies surrounding them continue to provoke scholarly debate
@@dok9024
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus: In-depth Statistical Exhibits of Discrepancies
Codex Sinaiticus:
1. **Corrections and Variations**:
- **Number of Corrections**: Codex Sinaiticus contains approximately 27,000 corrections. These corrections are attributed to various scribes and revisers across different centuries, from its initial creation in the 4th century up to the 7th century
- **Errors and Omissions**: The manuscript is known for a high frequency of scribal errors. For example, in the Gospels alone, it omits 3,455 words when compared to the Greek Received Text
- **Notable Omissions**: Mark 16:9-20, a passage concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus, is notably absent in the Codex Sinaiticus. Additionally, there are instances of entire sentences and clauses being repeated or omitted due to scribal errors.
2. **Non-Canonical Books**:
- **Apocryphal Inclusions**: The codex includes books that are not part of the canonical New Testament, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. These texts were controversial as they contain theological elements considered heretical, such as gnostic beliefs
3. **Textual Differences**:
- **John 1:18**: Codex Sinaiticus reads "the only begotten God" instead of "the only begotten Son," aligning with some other Alexandrian texts but differing from the Byzantine text tradition.
- **Matthew 5:22**: The codex omits the word "without cause" from the phrase "whosoever is angry with his brother without cause"
Codex Vaticanus:
1. **Textual Variations**:
- **Consistency with Alexandrian Text**: Codex Vaticanus is also an Alexandrian text type and shares many textual similarities with Codex Sinaiticus. However, there are notable differences.
- **Matthew 5:22**: Unlike Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus includes the phrase "without cause" in this verse, aligning more closely with the Byzantine tradition on this point
2. **Omissions and Differences**:
- **Hebrews 9:14**: In Codex Vaticanus, this verse reads, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God," while the Byzantine text includes additional phrases that are not found in Vaticanus
- **John 1:18**: Similar to Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus reads "the only begotten God," contributing to the theological debates about the nature of Jesus' divinity.
3. **Scriptural Integrity**:
- **Physical Condition**: Codex Vaticanus is noted for its high-quality vellum and careful script, suggesting a highly controlled copying process. However, it too contains corrections, though not as numerous as those in Codex Sinaiticus
Comparative Analysis
1. **Textual Harmony**:
- **Discrepancies in Text**: Both codices exhibit a range of discrepancies from the Byzantine text, which is the basis for many later translations of the New Testament. This includes differences in wording, omitted verses, and the inclusion of non-canonical books.
- **Gospel Variations**: Specific passages in the Gospels show significant textual variations. For example, Matthew 4:23 and 5:22 exhibit different phrases and omissions between the two codices and other text traditions
2. **Scholarly Impact**:
- **Influence on Modern Translations**: These codices are critical in modern biblical scholarship for reconstructing the earliest possible text of the New Testament. They highlight the fluidity and variation in early Christian texts and the processes of textual transmission and correction over centuries.
I've been thoroughly enjoying these lectures. Thank you for making scholarly content free and available to all!
The 2nd Person is when you address people directly: "'You' are walking in the desert...and 'you' are thirsty."
Thanks been waiting for this one
Hope you enjoyed it!
Not clear how Acts (and even the Synoptics) are dated AFTER 70AD (that is after Jerusalem was destroyed) when neither Acts nor any of the Gospels mentions the Temple's destruction (you would think that was an important event), or the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, or even the Roman-Jewish war from 66 AD onward. Respected scholars like N T Wright believe Luke-Acts written to a "Theophilus" was part of a legal brief written in Paul's defense in Rome when he was awaiting trial under Nero - a brief drafted likely by Luke. Americans are threatened by Paul since they regard themselves "Super-Jews" after being circumcised apparently or because they love their Ten Commandments in their school buildings after Post-Holocaust guilt, OR after losing faith in Christ and God altogether, or believing in Christ but preferring a "Hypergrace" that will excuse their carnality and sexual licenses the post-Modern west with its relaxed morality permits them - something Paul calls out and admonishes against.
Great insight and thought provoking post!
Fantastic lecture!! Good work.🎉
Thank you! 😃
When it comes to Apostles and Prophets… I’ve often wondered how parishioners of evangelical mega-churches can sit in those pews, week after week, listening to those preachers claiming powers of prophecy, while they also insist that Jesus commands said parishioners to empty their pockets, to pay for the preachers’s fourth luxury jet.
How do they square that?🤔
Probably they make the "argumen" that it is not for them personally, but for the wellbeing of the community and the spreading of the message (infamous example: Kenneth Copeland and his private jets that he definetly needs).
@@happytofu5 I’m sure you’re right. But that ‘argument’ seems pretty absurd when one considers what $60M (plus $1.2M a year, in operating costs) could do for that same community. And as far as spreading the ‘message’ goes, he already had 2 private jets, and claimed that he needed the 3rd so he didn’t have to refuel on longer trips… and, so that he didn’t have to fly with demons, lol. One would think that spending that money on people and communities in need, would be far more inline with Jesus’ teachings… and not for nothing but if he was really a man/prophet of God, these said ‘demons’ would be exactly the ones you’re supposed to bring that message to, and ‘save’!😉😂
Jet to hell
I believe in the 1st century there were two main sects
1. Yeshua apostolic church
2. Pauline church
The yeshuan church did not live long enough because they were eventually overshadowed by the the Pauline and Roman church, the closest to this sect are the Muslims and other non trinitarian middle eastern sects.
The Pauline Christianity is solely responsible for the recklessness in the lives of believer's who look to forsake the law, thus the pervasion and unrighteousness in the church. It gave rise to high level of immorality and unguided living.
The Pauline church later became mainstream Christianity, instead of the righteous/law/faith base church of James and Peter founded in jerusalem. Jesus specifically appointed Peter to head his church not Paul. Early Jewish Christianity is clearly Peter based or based of faith and Torah.
@ashichiroma1183 There is only one God, one faith, one baptism and one body of believers - the church
You clearly don't know what you are talking about if you think being saved by grace through the blood of Jesus is a license to live lawlessly.
Maybe you're coming from a catholic background, as Jesus never 'chose' any one person head his body, in fact contrary to what you understand, at least by your comment, Jesus is the head of his body, the church, leading today by his Spirit, the Spirit of God
Jesus called Paul to preach this message predominantly to those who were not Jews by birth, those from the worlds nations.
@@MRFITTA too much nonsense in such a short statement! Only those blinded by indoctrination and ignorance can be so wrong in so many ways. Look around you.
@@vtblda How am I wrong, points please, so I can address them.
It looks you are in Hebrew root movement. Paul knew the new covenant. Torah law is for Israel kingdom which failed miserably. We are after a man Israel, Jesus. Not after a nation go corrupt.
Waldenses descended from Apostles survived in the European mountains
I don't think Paul ever thought that his ministry could it had been superseded by Peter's. Otherwise, he wouldn't had written to his assistant Timothy stating that he has fought a good fight and had finished the race when his mission was culminating (2 Tim 4:7). He further wrote that "a crown of righteousness was waiting for him". That is a thought of knowing that his work was a great climax and successful at best. The conflict that arose between the two was relating to issues of jews laws and customs which was not the gospel the Lord revealed to Paul for the gentiles.
Excellent presentation. Thank you John
Glad you enjoyed it
Christianity didn't "Come later" as the Way is mentioned along with Christianity in Acts, the King even mentioned Christianity in court with Paul saying that Paul "Almost convinced him of Christianity" which was My Gospel according to Paul.
Jesus reformed Judaism and paved the way for Christianity that was spread by Paul. It was a movement inspired by the Holy Spirit among the gentiles to proclaim the gospel to them.
He did no such thing. Christianity was founded by people who deviated from the Judaism he taught
The Rabbis reformed Judaism and some of Matthew’s sayings of Jesus could fall into the rabbinic tradition. However, Paul could not have cared less about Jesus’ teaching. The reason Paul went to the gentiles was because he thought the world was ending and gentiles needed to be reconciled to YHWH.
@@user-qq6rr2je4q who? Jesus or Paul. Paul deviated from Judaism and if you were a first century Jew, Christianity would be a heretical sect of Judaism and this is why Paul was persecuted by the Jews. But that was where the wind of the Spirit blew, for when Christ's teachings were taken to the gentiles, the Message was adapted to their situation. This was how the Spirit of God worked among them and so we are beneficiaries of this inclusive outlook. Divine revelation adapts to human culture just as God's grace does to human nature to perfect it in a process that is gradual. Revelation came as a gradual unfolding from the OT to the NT to the age of the Church.
@@winstonbarquez3373 that’s very assumptive and Christian-centric on your part. How do you know that the Holy Spirit ( or Ruach Ha-kodesh as they call it) was not with the Pharisees instead of the early Christian church?
@@Waxican because Yeshua Mashiach predicted this in His Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Mark 12:1-12.
Excellent lecture. Simply put yet very clarified and informative.. Thank you.🤍 As student of religious studies that lives in Thessaloniki city, in the region of Macedonia in Greece ,can I ask you to please refrain from repeating that "Macedonia AND Greece " ? . Because Greece and Macedonia were never two separate countries /states /regions /nations. Not in the 1st century AD not in the middle ages not now..We are one. Excluding macedonia from Greece is like excluding Crete from Greece , or Peloponnese from Greece..sounds pretty off. The newly formed state of north Macedonia aka ex FYROM (former Yugoslavia) has nothing to do with macedonia the greek region and as far as i know Paul never visited there. Forgive my intervention, but that name dispute it's just a very delicate matter for the modern hellenic republic..Just to avoid confusion.
Repent and believe the Gospel of the Grace of God 🙏
How can one trust Saul? A former critic of Christianity who later asserts himself the leader and rule maker? Sounds like the perfect infiltration.
Well he lies a lot, soooo.😊
yes, I have believed that for the last 10 years. Something wrong happened when the "church" started its Canon in the 3rd century [ by then, the Catholic church that constructed the new testament bible ]. Too much Paul. Its almost as if they wanted people to be suspicious and not believe the big claims of the bible, because most of the original sources were GONE or dead or not allowed to have their writings and stories in the constructed first bible.
As one of its most profound persecutors and critics of the faith, if Saul's intention to subvert Christianity was to infiltrate it by masquerading as its biggest supporter...seems like he would have burned the whole thing to the ground once he was regarded as an authority. That just doesn't make logical sense to suggest he infiltrated anything.
@@mallen1045 but he did burn it to the ground, you just cant see it for some reason.
@@mallen1045 he did burn it to the ground by allowing everyone in 🤷 There’s not a single verse in the Old Testament for a gentile
Good presentation, many truths to it in terms of historical context, many non christian can come to the same faith by hearing this divine works of God.
I would highly suggest you read something on Jesus according to Islam. Paul clearly corrupted Jesus's original teachings. Please. Thank you ✌️
@@uncledan2uwhich teachings?
I find Revelation 2:2 extremely interesting. Ephesus was one of Paul’s churches, and they are commended for testing those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be liars. To the Romans, Paul says, “If by my LIE God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” Rom. 3:7.
Since it is Paul who rejects the authority of the apostles Jesus himself chose, and taught different doctrines, perhaps believers would do well to question the authority of Paul.
God allowed a serpent in the Garden to test Adam and Eve; perhaps Paul was allowed to influence the early church to test who would follow Jesus.
You ripped Romans 3:7 straight out of its context
Romans 3:5-8
“But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?-as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.”
This is Paul condemning the line of thinking in Romans 3:7 -_-
Not supporting it
Good reflexion, jesus came to correct the gad corrupted Law by jews , afrer him, suddenly je became god ( Trinity) so god sent the last prophet " Muhammad" to correct both of them we have that in the Coran, Read it and judge by yourself
Is this some guy standing in a room with a backdrop?
If you think "St. Paul's churches won," or that he led a significantly different movement than the rest of earliest Christianity, then you are confused about Christian origins. This probably comes from looking at early Christianity through the lens of a modern European, particularly Protestant, bias.
I absolutely agree with your statement; you can look for my similar comments. the dude is total clickbait ; he's been doing this for quite a few years. I used to listen to him cause I like the historical interpretations; but now he's apostate.
Not Protestant. People actually read only half of Paul. Insult the rest as fake and form funny opinions as St Peter said. To understand Paul you have to understand the other Apostles.
Jewish Law was rejected by Jesus Christ not Paul. It is not to be confused with the Law.
@@hesedagape6122 Jesus rejected the Talmud not the Torah, He said that, He came to fulfill
@@happycamper848 same thing I said. Only used familiar terms
I am pretty sure "we" is 1st person, just plural. 2nd person would be "you" (both plural and singular), just as "he, she, it" are singular 3rd, and "they" is plural 3rd person.
Then you for the deep dive on Paul, his letters speak to me most. His story and his dreading of the word is one of the best histories to me!!
What about the other saviour God stories that are identical to the Jesus Christ story?
Paul's teachings bore little relation to what Jesus said.
Why did Paul immediately go to Arabia after his conversion? And why stay there for three years?