I love your channel, but I think you should’ve pushed back a little more in this interview. He seems to take all the gospel accounts at face value and as independent sources. I’m left wondering how he came up with a lot of his ideas, or if it really is just that it fits a narrative he has in his head, “therefore it’s likely true.” But great content nonetheless, and a lot to think about!
My entire family (23 people) rejected me because I said my son could not heal the sick, and cast out demons. It is lonely not being a believer. I just could not go down that stupid road. I have a family of idiots. It's awful having few to talk to. I wish my healer son actually did heal something. He could prove it so quickly if he did. Nope never.
I am so sorry to read that your family rejects you. It hurts. When I left church (had been in a Christian High Control Group) everyone immediately shunned me. This was painful. I imagine it must be very hard, when even family rejects you. There are many people who deconstructed from faith. So I hope you will find good friends who will unconditionally be at your side. All the best to you!
Have the 23 people in your family healed the sick & cast out demons? Maybe the burden of proof for these things among those family members is very low but I guarantee the secular world would see through their delusions. Regardless, so sad they place their religion above family ties - I cannot imagine such a situation.
Maybe you can find some sympathy for the idiot you see in other people by investigating your own fallibility. 🤔 That might even bring some healing - embrace the irony❣😆
I asked Christians to prove the Resurrection actually happened. What did I get as "proof" in a thread 500 comments long? a variation of " The Disciples said so and they would not lie." and " The Disciples would not have died for something they knew was not true."
@@bluester7177, Not only that. But what the Christians in the thread are doing is asserting the Disciples would never lie. The fate of 2 are mentioned in the Bible and when it comes to Judas there are 2 different versions how he died. One has him hanging himself and the other says he swan dived off a cliff. In order for the Christians saying the Disciples would never lie, they have to know the mind set of the Disciples, which is impossible to know.
I don't get the second argument. People die for things that they know aren't true all the time. Also a lot the disciple martyred stories are made up stories from centuries later.
@@julietfischer5056, They ask what would the Disciples gain by lying. Well how about food, clothing, shelter, money. Acts goes on about how followers gave all their money to the Disciples.Paul's letters argue that pastors should be provided for by the congregation. I pointed that out and as expected Christians ignored it.
@@baaldiablo8459 If religion is forced on people with fear mongering and threat of violence, as is still happening in islam, then it’s no wonder the superstition survives.
@@baaldiablo8459mmm it was a cultural thing and still is. You have to be Christian in public and in culture in order to avoid Christian negative halo effect and to avoid violence. Christians empower themselves to dehumanize other human beings by looking at people like good and evil and morality plays instead of appreciating complex intelligent nuanced messy life... be a Christwashed Gooner instead Specially if you're in politics or popular entertainment
Arguing about whether Jesus rose from the dead is, to me, a bit like arguing about what color Santa Claus' socks are. And using the bible to prove the bible doesn't count!
The bible has been erroneously copied, misinterpreted, changed, and added to many times. The original story was that the women went to the tomb and found some guy there who told them Jesus went to the afterlife. That's it, no further story, much later the story was changed and added to. How can you believe in a religion that we know was cobbled together from older religions and reinterpreted and changed over the years.
Something we need to keep in mind with regard to the earliest Christians is that there was no Bible as we know it now, no canon. That came 200 years later. There were loads more texts floating around among the various groups and the 4 gospels we know today were just 4 among the many texts and oral histories.
As the saying goes, “History was written by the winners”. The numerous gospels circulating among early christians were of radically diverse beliefs which led to the convening of the councils to establish orthodoxy. The gospels chosen were those that accorded with a preconceived naively anthropomorphic notion of ‘god’, after which the ‘winners’ attempted to eradicate the more esoteric writings, along with their adherents.
I’m a Christian and I appreciate the critical work you give. It’s refreshing to get an understanding of the Bible form people not pushing a fundamentalist viewpoint
Just out of curiosity, assuming you don't take the Bible as literally historical, how do you consider yourself a Christian? I have heard people use the term 'Cultural Christian'. Is that what you would consider yourself?
@@travisjazzbo3490 Many Christians, including even the earliest patristics, didn't take everything literally. There are many expressions of faith, but the argumentative apologists are defending a certain brand of faith in fundamentalism.
@travisjazzbo3490 Let me answer. I take the gospels as historical because they are of the genre of greco roman biography Just like many works around that time are the same genre and are treated as historical . So let's not special plead
@@travisjazzbo3490 thank you for your question, I’m agnostic as to I don’t know for sure that Jesus really did rise. I think nothing happens when you die but I knowledge that I don’t under neuroscience and there is a the body problem so I know I might be wrong about that. I go to church and my faith is an on and off thing, one day I might think absolutely no god exist, next day I’m full “praise be to the lord” all I know for sure is that Jesus was real, made a failed prophecy’s about the end of the world, his followers said he came back fro, the dead, Paul eventually said he saw Jesus and converted, Christianity has been part of my family and culture, and that progressive, non fundamental Christianity fits me and fells very right, plus when I think on how unlikely my own existence is in terms of the cosmos there bring a God makes more sense then completely random chance. That being said I don’t know for sure and im not going to printed that the existence of God is as obvious as 1+1=2. Sorry if this response is long, my faith is a complicated thing
@@ramadadiver7810 I see. Thank you. I believe they have some actual history in them such as was extremely common with the extremely popular myth writing of the time.
As an Atheist, I don’t really care what the bible says. I was expecting more critical historical facts than theology. However, Dr. Tabor’s knowledge and presentations are fascinating. I appreciate his expertise.
@@Jessi-44Christianity and the Bible have had a voice/pulpit for thousands of years like the argument against it hasn’t. The Bible makes tremendous claims without tremendous proof.
What you have to realize is that Paul was a priest that was thrown out due to him being a drunk. He went out to persecute Christians as a way of getting his position back. He soon realizes that this new religion is ripe for the taking. Paul becomes the first false prophet. He is no better than the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Crflo Dollar, and all of the rest. Paul's Christianity was so off base that the disciples would not have anything to do with him. I would love to hear James explain this and why we should believe anything that Paul wrote.
I don't know the details that you do, but my take on Paul is that he was obviously educated, very passionate, likely very charismatic, and he wanted in on the action and he had his own version he wanted to 'sell', and he knew what it took to 'sell' like his conversion and the stories of his visions of talking to Jesus etc. When you are charismatic, just like in the modern day, people will buy what you are selling, just like not long ago with Joseph Smith and so many others
@@AdventureswithJack453 thanks for that idea. I know enough now to understand why Judaism doesn't accept Jesus but I don't know Judaism's stance on Paul.
Just because Paul said something doesn't mean he was either telling the truth or being genuine,in Acts Paul gives three different versions of his conversion hardly a credible source of anything.
90% of his authentic letters (the ones that agree highly in theology and writing style and contextualizations) highly stress that he is expecting to collect a great sum of money from the letter recipient soon.
Marcions apostelos throws another wrench into the debate of whether the canonical Pauline corpus was legitimately written by Paul, and not a later redaction.
Wait, wasn’t Paul long dead by the time Acts was written? Who says *anything* in there has to correlate to anything that Paul did or said? Maybe it might have, maybe it’s complete fiction. You’re just getting whatever the author of Luke wanted to say 30 years later.
@@StripedCheeseBread "Always" seems like very often. You have never experienced scientists or atheists describe data from a range of experiments and large-scale studies? Such as death tolls for the COVID-19 pandemic, the approximately spherical shape of the earth, or the idea that ancient Egyptians, not Atlantians from Mars may actually have built the pyramids? So "consensus" and "a great number of people" may not be the exact same thing. Just saying.
@@carlosa4852 true, they indeed do. Which means scientists and atheists generally are no better than a bunch of cult members. They oust those who dare to publish certain questions just like a bad church.
I am impressed with Dr. Tabor’s steady, consistent, logical flow of thought. Some of this feels so obvious, and yet it is constantly overlooked or under-appreciated in the Christian community. Constructing an outline starting with earliest source and only operating in the scope of what is said in that source was very interesting, especially coming from a background where all of the sources “agree” and are “eyewitness written”. Really changes the understanding. I think all of this makes so much more sense when you approach it from a scholarly, archeological perspective instead of assuming the words are all “literal” in their meaning. Thanks for your work as always Thomas!
well it feels "Obvious" as it's designed to embrace as much of the bible content as possible, while trying to keep a skeptical distance from the superantural implications nad interpretations of the text. Thus it sounds very familiar to anybody who has read the bible in their life and now recognizes how the elements are woven into this new narrative that tries to bring more realism into the romantizised writing of the actual book. I'm not sure if it's fair to call this a better take on the possible "backstory" of the bible though than many others which do not cling so closely to the finalized text... To me it feels as if Dr Tambor makes too mane compromises to retain elements of the bible story where that would not be necessary or advisable. Pilate was quite a ruthless bastard for example, other historical attempts to reconstruct "real life history" from the bible texts do not grant him empathy with the jewish burial traditions just to fit it into the narrative as it is...
he wasn't a witness of the crucifixion or resurrection, true. BUT he was a witness of early church history nontheless. Assuming Joseph Smith did never meet Miller in Person he would not be a wtiness of "the big disappointment", but his lucrative con game built up on the following schisms of the believers into dozens of competing sects that all believed THEY would correct Miller's bad calculations and not fall to the same traps as his prediction. And then he founded his own church and based it on what he had personally witnessed of that chaotic reorientation period after the original church broke down over the failed prophecy... The parallels to Paul (and Mohammed) are pretty clear.
@@PeteOtton Am I right.? We are talking about Saint Paul the Impossil. Saint Thomas-no doubting-of Holykoolaid would not do that. You can investigate how much Youtubulators make on Social Blade. The god industry can be a lucrative career because the victims are easily guilt-tripped into paying to get into their imaginary heaven.
I owe so much of my intellectual honesty and pursuit for objective truth to Dr. Tabor. Growing up in an evangelical, Southern Baptist environment in rural North Carolina, I took Dr. Tabor's New Testament course my first semester in college in Fall 1999 at UNC-Charlotte for a religion credit. I distinctly remember Dr. Tabor saying this course would be taught from a rigorous academic perspective, not a devotional one. LOL, at the time, I didn't even know that such a difference could exist... I was an engineering major, so I didn't take anymore religion classes, but I did continue studying the history of Judaism & Christianity, and eventually other religions. Opening my mind to challenge the beliefs I was taught growing up, I also learned how to critically think about all subjects, which has helped me immensely personally & professionally. I have also followed Dr. Tabor's website and on UA-cam for years. I am happy he has such an audience to share his wealth of knowledge. I was sorry to hear about the tragic loss of Dr. Tabor's son several years back. I enjoy seeing the tributes to him to keep his memory alive.
It's a poison to have that forced onto you at the young development stage of life. Can't imagine having to deal with that. Its all about power and control just like medieval europe.
I am an atheist.😊 I don't believe in the existence of God. There is insufficient evidence or rational justification to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and do not find compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of god.The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject the idea of God. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. There is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between faith and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility.
We have none of the original scribblings, not even Paul's. It's all Monty Python's Life of Brian, over two millennia, endlessly edited and rewritten. The most classic cult "thinking" ever.
Cannabis existed then. I'm sure the writers of the Bible were on some badass creative psychoactive substances. They discourage the use of psychoactive substances in modern urban churches so.... Christ is for lames now. Back then Christians smoked weed and washed feet whatever feet was a euphemism for
They are useful for hypocritical highly useless parents to manipulate children quickly and more easily. That’s why they push it on children and do not like holding it for debate between adults so children can clearly and critically consider all options in completeness.
Man, this comment right here….. Like why are we entertaining fairy tales as if they are real. LOL This is pure fiction man……. I older I get the more I realize people have lost their minds….
The governments are not going to stop brainwashing out children with this crap to keep them ignorant and easily inslaved it's all about the false promises of immortality as a god in a imaginary afterlife
The problem is, corrupt and/or self-serving people use those fairy tales to control many, many other people who then think it's okay to help enslave the rest of us. That's why we need to pay attention to who believes those stories and why. 😮💨
18:00 "not making a judgment" - We can assume Paul was not lying, was describing his experience as he experienced it. But I don't see how we can build from his words and draw conclusions from them without acknowledging that if we accept Paul's words as an accurate description of reality (different from an accurate description of his experience) then we are explicitly accepting the supernatural as real. We don't really have a choice. We have to decide up front, are we going to accept seemingly supernatural experiences as actual supernatural experiences (without evidence, i.e. on faith) or are we going to draw a line and work within the realms of known reality, which presents to us NO evidence of supernatural forces at work in the world. We can't pretend we don't have to face this choice. Either we attempt to understand history based on natural evidence, physical, historical facts. Or we accept the supernatural, faith, and everything that comes with it, i.e. religion. Personally, I want to know the history, what actually happened. I'm not interested in taking things on faith, in the face of an utter lack of evidence for supernatural intervention in Paul's and our lives.
If you want proof of the supernatural study duping delight. Whatever has people lying so they can kill people or get away with pushing people to kill people the grin is the same. I am demon possessed and it is like they want you to laugh about evil things I assume because they can tickle your brain about those things and then you have no conscientious concerns. Humor replacing empathy. They hollow your nervous system out to make you not care then control you by emotions it seems.
I started watching this video expecting biblical history. It's not biblical history. It's theology. That becomes clear in the first 10-15 minutes. Nonetheless, it's a very interesting video worth watching. Dr. Tabor offers some interesting views on how to read the various gospels and what they imply theologically. It's not history though, for those of you interested in physical facts.
I agree. I had the same feeling and I was expecting something different from the title of this video. I appreciate Dr. Tabor’s knowledge but this is just more critical theology…
Really interesting stuff. I admire your approach to an interview: Ask the question, and then let the person answer. Occasional interjections, to direct the conversation, or clarify a point, but mostly just listening to the interviewee's response.
You guys are talking about something that was written 15 years to 20 years after the Pauline letters. Start with the fact that Paul's theology was never about a physical raising of the dead. Start with that. For 15 years, the first 15 years - a physical resurrection was not in the public understanding of Christianity - Just ask Paul. John was written in 100 to 110. So his eye witness of a physical Resurrection doesn't help.
As someone who used to be a Christian, and then converted to Orthodox Judaism and lived as a Jew for almost as long as I'd been a Christian, I followed Dr. Tabor's explanation of what the story actually is perfectly. It made perfect sense that they would see resurrection this way rather than zombie Jesus, from a Jewish perspective. If this is how the resurrection story was taught to me it would probably be way easier to wrap my head around then the haphazard and confusing fanfic Christianity has today. Christians really are sleeping on the best (and probably most accurate, if you believe it at all) version of their own story.
You need to remember that Christianity went through some DEEP Crises following the tme which can be found written about in the bible... First of all it was a messianic cult in a jewish tradition.... so why would the messiah DIE? He was supposed to bring Judah back to glorious times with independence or ruling over others as the superior nation... and the Messiah was definitely predicted to have children and die in an old age... nothing of that fit the Jesus we now can read about in the gospels and epistles... so there was some explanation needed why this happend and how it was even possible. With the explantions halfarsedly formed it represented basically the total break with Judaism as the "we now the Meshach already was on Earth" belief is incompatible with the otherweise held belief of a still missing Messiah. Then that changed doctrine met other challenges like the conflict between jesus as part of god and the first commandment . Blood has been spilled over the Unitarian/Trinitarian Dispute... the disagreement between annihilationists (that is those who believe almost all dead people will stay dead/cease to exist with "the judgment") and those believing in heaven or hell for everybody... and so on. every big argument created both a schism between the opposing sides (often with the losing one almost eradicated by the angry majority) and a slew of ad hoc rationalisations of the winning argument It's a sail with a thousand patches, looking a mess and no longer like a coherent whole. and it's never more obvious how much badly reasoned excuses were made up for the inconsistencies of the story without any respect for the narrative staying consistent...) as when somebody like Dr Tabor tries to smoothen out that rough edged mess of repairs and seams to look more like a proper sail.
When you moved from Christianity to Judaism, you got closer to Jesus, but not close enough. Jesus was Muslim. So if you want to get so close to Jesus, you need to embrace his religion.
'I don't think the Romans would [not allow Jesus's burial] do that at that point. Under Pontius Pilate I think things are so heated. Things can erupt any time. Pilate has already had other incidents in which the emperor has not been very happy about disturbances. Some of this depends upon whether you think Jesus had lots of followers and really was a major presence that week. I personally go, generally, with the idea that he was very popular, that he did shut down the temple for part of the day, in terms of people carrying things in and out and was a major presence as a charismatic, messianic figure of that time. If you just think he's some minor person that had 100 followers, then the Romans might not worry about it.' My question about this is: if the argument for why the Romans would allow Jesus's followers to bury him was that it might cause an eruption, how does that square with them not causing a disruption about Jesus being sentenced to death by a demeaning method? If Pilate had that worry, why was it not worry enough to not crucify him in the first place? From what I currently know, that doesn't make sense to me.
Here's my understanding: The Jewish priests would be on board for Pilate executing Jesus for what they perceived as heresy. However, Jesus's followers would have to bury/entomb him before evening, as leaving the dead unburied overnight is against Torah if I heard correctly. Plus, sundown Friday is the start of sabbath, so unless Christ's followers or family buried him right then, the Romans would likely throw him in a pile of corpses or leave him to rot in the open, both unacceptable to Jewish tradition and law.
There is only one source for Joseph of Arimathea and that's Mark. Everybody else gets it from mark. It's clearly a literary character. Arimathea is not a place but is a pun on "Best Disciple Town" in Greek (Ari[stos]Math[etes]ea). I personally think that might be a coded way to say "Jerusalem." The idea of a crucifixion victim being given up for an honorable burial is something that never happened. Paul knows nothing about an empty tomb. There is no attestation or claim of a tomb before Mark's Gospel or independent of Mark's Gospel. Everyone else gets it from mark, and Mark, by the way, says the women ran away from the tomb without telling anybody meaning that the author of Mark himself did not expect his audience to know about this claim and was revealing it as a secret. I would highly recommend Richard C. Miller's *Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity* where he shows that disappearing bodies, including from tombs, was a standard trope in the Hellenistic world for characters real, legendary and mythical. Whatever original visions may have happened probably happened in Galilee weeks. months or even years after the crucifixion and Mark, who was trying to discredit Peter and the disciples, moved the "resurrection" to Jerusalem. Note that in Mark, Peter and the disciples deny Jesus and run away after he is arrested. They are given no redemption and no witness of the resurrection. The Acts Seminar report concluded that Christianity probably began in Galilee, not Jerusalem and that the empty tomb narrative was an evolving attempt to move it to Jerusalem. It looks like Matthew (who is the only pro-Jewish evangelist) tried to simply finish the narrative by having the women tell the disciples, who then go back to Galilee as instructed and see Jesus on an unnamed mountain (although it doesn't actually say he ascended afterwards. Only Luke has an ascension), However it looks like a later author clumsily inserted an interpolation claiming that Jesus appeared to the women as they were running to tell the disciples. It's obviously inserted, probably to move the first witness of the resurrection to Jerusalem, but it did have the unintended consequence of making a woman (a fictional woman there was no Mary Magdalene. At best she is a version of Jesus' mother split off into secondary character) the first witness of the resurrection. In reality Jesus' body probably stayed on the cross until it rotted. There is zero external evidence that Romans took bodies down from crosses on the Sabbath. That custom is s much a Markan invention as his claim that Pilate released terrorists at Passover. I agree with Dom Crossan's assessment that the disciples probably fled when Jesus was arrested and that they never actually knew what happened to his body. I do have one crackpot hypothesis about Joseph of Arimathea. If I am right that "Best Disciple Town" is Jerusalem, then J of A could conceivably be a way to refer to Caiphas the High Priest. His name was Joseph, after all. They found his ossuary. It says "Joseph BEN Caiphas." "Joseph SON OF Caiphas." The High Priest is perhaps the only person who might have had a chance to get Pilate to give up a body. I'm not going to bet my last dollar on that hypothesis but it's interesting to kick around. It's at least more plausible than a random member of the Sanhedrin. Speaking of the Sanhedrin, it seems pretty weird that a member of the Sanhedrin would vote to execute Jesus one night and then suddenly be a full blown Christian the next day. the story is silly. You see those exact instant conversions or convenient secret Christians all the time in the apocryphal literature.
In college in the '70's I was always hearing from the various Evangelical student groups about how we "had to get back to what the first Christians believed, the unity, the love blah blah blah" Even then I was skeptical and then later being educated in the milieu (aka chaos) of Early Christianity all I can oi is laugh! 🤣
Publius Cornelius Tacitus wrote Annals (not original title) around 116 CE. He makes no mention of anyone named Jesus, but refers to Chrestians (not Christians) as having got their name from someone called Chrestus, who had been killed under Pontius Pilate. We have zero first century, first hand secular accounts of anyone named Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate other than Flavius Josephus who wrote all but his first draft of the "Jewish War" in Greek. Josephus, was born circa AD 37, participating in Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene Jewish sects eventually becoming a member of the Pharisee sect. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, Josephus went to Rome with Titus and took up residence in Vespasian's house and was issued a Roman citizenship with an annual pension. Josephus wrote from within a Roman environment for a Roman environment. His birth year excludes him from being a first hand witness. His statement in Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII that Jesus had interactions with many gentiles is not supported by New Testament text. His claims that a man named Jesus was called the Christ are an artifact of stories told during his lifetime and have zero credibility. Having been a Pharisee and then a Roman citizen raises questions of his allegiance to the Christian movement, if it was even referred to Christianity during his lifetime because a specific year for the establishment of Christianity cannot be determined.
To all accounts NOT found in the gospels, the early Christians weren’t even that but rather gnostic mystery cult initiates who believed that everyone was the son of God. The best explanation of this viewpoint is probably THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Freke & Gandy who describe the process of retooling pagan mythology into something more appealing to Jews. An alternative viewpoint which admits of an historical Christ as opposed to a mythological Christ was laid out in a BBC documentary which claimed that Jesus spent suspiciously little time on the cross, was drugged to simulate death, and then taken down to be revived soon thereafter, and that moreover his grave has been discovered in Central Asia, since he was in reality a misunderstood Buddhist monk. So there you have it. Take your pick. In other words, nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Even to this day we have a hard time defining at what point something is dead. Even if the story happened at all. He suffered trauma and fell asleep for 3 days.
I've listened a lot to Dr. Tabor and read his books. I consider him a very objective scholar. I agree with his rendition of what led to the crucifixion of Jesus, and his explanation of the empty tomb. This is the most plausible explanation. And like he said, except you're a fundamental list who believe the Bible is inerrant, it is possible to believe his body was buried in another tomb but he was still raised from the dead.
Dr. Tabor has the best explanation for the empty tomb I have ever heard. My only question: If Jesus' body was moved after the Sabbath, couldn't his followers have found out about that? I would note that some resurrection experiences, even per the Bible, are often explainable without even positing hallucinations. That mysterious stranger you met- he was really Jesus! (Stranger on the Road to Emmaus, Gardener near the tomb, etc).
Maybe they did. We do not have any of their writings. But Paul said he was telling what he received. The question would be from who, as he claims to have his gospel from Jesus. But if he received that from the apostles, then it means Jesus was buried but rose on the 3rd day. If it was bodily he would have said so. But that was not what he received.
Such an interesting discussion! The thing that makes the most sense is rather different than anything I've heard from any denomination about the crucifixion
I cant for the life of me understand why we keep using the name Jesus to begin with. His name wasnt Jesus, it was Joshua or Yeshua (or in late Hebrew Yehoshua) the name Jesus is Greek origin and has no place in Hebrew at all, thus making me doubt the entire Jesus story because it was written by greeks to begin with. I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not even Hebrew names. I believe Luke and Mark are more Greek in origin Marcos and Leukos, but Mattityahu (Matthew) and Yokhanan (John) are Aramaic. I am so sick of western translations, how many things got mistranslated pver the years to where the original writing isnt even close to what it was back in the 1st century.
This was such a fascinating video, I can't wait to share it with my father who enjoys learning more about the history of his faith! I'm ethnically Jewish, so hearing about the culture and customs of ancient Hebrews is always something that peaks my personal interest. I'd also like to mention that it brings me a lot of joy to hear such a clearly intelligent scholar choose to still be empathetic and affirming to those who follow the belief systems he studies. I'm not personally a christian, in fact, I'm actually a survivor of childhood religious abuse, but it still breaks my heart to see so many scholars being condescending and trying to humiliate people who hold specific beliefs as if they are somehow less human for being religious. This was genuinely such a breath of fresh air.
I think part of the problem is that it will never be reasonable to conclude that an impossible event or detail is the most likely to be true. The more impossible details somebody insists on being true, the less it seems they care about what most likely happened historically. The most miraculous interpretations are the least likely, and the most mundane are the most likely, and anyone who refuses to accept that this paradigm is reasonable is someone that is almost impossible to have a productive conversation with about true history. Otherwise we have to accept that Athena intervened in the battle of Troy, and Julius Caesar ascended as a deity after death, and Herakles built the strait of Gibraltar with his super strength, and all sorts of impossible things still claimed as historical.
My comment was not about whether Christianity and its followers are perfectly grounded in reality, or how well they take criticism on the grounds of historical accuracy, but about the general sense of distaste some folks have simply because they do not adhere to the same beliefs. Your comment is actually a perfect example of what I was referring to, specifically people refusing to put down their own ego to extend empathy to another person because they do or do not believe in something. You entirely missed the purpose of my comment because you were too busy treating my genuine joy as an opportunity to win a debate. I'm not here to debate you, in fact, I agree with your assertions about organized religion and natural phenomena, but there is absolutely no reason to take a positive moment and sully it by screaming into the void about something I never mentioned. The constant need to be correct or "prove" that people of different faiths are wrong already puts a sour taste in my mouth, regardless of who it's coming from, but it's truly insufferable coming from those I would normally agree with.
@thinecuprunnethoverwithblood I was explaining why an academic methodology can seem divisive and alienating to believers in miracles. If someone is using an unreasonable methodology but still demands their conclusions be respected... then yeah, they're not going to do well in academia. Sorry if that seems harsh, but there's not really any effective alternative approach to figuring out what is true.
Once again, my comment wasn't about the truth, it was about EMPATHY, extending understanding even to people we think are wrong. I don't care what the truth is when it comes to not being a dick to people, simply don't be a dick to anyone. Such a strange compulsion to constantly tell people why they are wrong in situations where it's not appropriate. I'm certainly glad you are not someone I come into contact with on the daily, you seem like a truly miserable person to interact with.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Once again, my comment wasn't about the truth, it was about EMPATHY, extending understanding even to people we think are wrong. I don't care what the truth is when it comes to not being a dick to people, simply don't be a dick to anyone. Such a strange compulsion to constantly tell people why they are wrong in situations where it's not appropriate. I'm certainly glad you are not someone I come into contact with on the daily, you seem like a truly miserable person to interact with.
I think that writing after 20 to 30 years after an event of claims that he saw and spoke to people that he claimed to have conversations who saw said event is not proof enough of crucifixion and or resurrection. Please get Bart Ehrman on your podcast.
Its so interesting how much the body itself determines about who we are and yet somehow christianity believes it to be unimportant. Somehow the spirit realm supersedes (or copies) the body.
I've made a hobby of studying the subject for about 20 years. I appreciate a number of the serious non-apologetic scholars. I like Bart a lot. But I think Tabor has the best read on the subject of any I have encountered.
At what point does someone believing to have met a deceased/resurrected person qualify as an Eye Witness and not someone of questionable mental health?
This is an excellent interview from Professor Tabor...this helped me with so many things on my understanding of Paul. ...really looking at Paul is new for me.
Why has an almighty God chosen crucifixion as a symbol, especially when you think of all the poor people who later have been crucified because of that stupid choice? We live in a world, where good and bad "eat" each other, and because there is some goodness, it does not mean that there necessarily is a god God.
Hey there Brother, good to see you getting back into the swing of things again. I'm not an atheist myself, as I have shared in many of your other videos, but I do, very much, enjoy watching your content, and feel you do, along with others, have an important work in the world, and you do seem like a very, loving, caring, person, overall. Warmest Wishes and My Best from Canada. Out.
I grew up JW. Ehrman and Tabor say the JWs actually got a lot right. Except for thinking they're the restoration of the first century church and administer the church exactly as they did then.
It sounds ridiculous to me to think that Pilate allowed Joseph of Arimathea to have the body due to concerns about the feelings of Yeshua's followers regarding the handling of the corpse of a man he'd tortured to death. The outside agitator could have been arrested, treated humanely in detention, and released after things had died down. No muss, no fuss.
This was a very interesting video, interview. Since “you”, Thomas are going, will you be able to share any highlights or anything from what you learned or would that be not allowed since the conference has a pay wall?
Hi Thomas. I really enjoyed this interview. I’m a huge fan of both you and Prof. Tabor. I’m not sure if I’m just not tracking this convo right but I really struggled with Tabor’s thought process on his argument. As best as I could follow it while I was driving, it sounded like he was jumping back and forth from his sources and document references to make a coherent Christology. I wasn’t sure how taking different pieces from different docs written at different times with different ideologies and butting them together makes a valid case for his argument. I think it’s a fascinating argument and just based on Paul alone I’d agree and say it’s likely. I just don’t get tying in all the other different documents in a way that felt uncomfortably close to how pastors jump around and cherry pick all sorts of things from the Bible to make arguments for their own ideologies.
Thank God for the Book of a Mormon that clarifies and verifies that Jesus did actually rise again and that we will, too. It's a true ancient text (first temple period through 400 AD, along with an included record that is from the time is the tower of babel. However, the LDS church is in apostasy, do unless God tells you otherwise, don't join that false religion. Brigham was an imposter, much as I'm learning perhaps Paul likely also was.
How do we know that Paul met Peter and James? Oh yes, he said he met them. Did he say that he met them? How do we know that he said this. Oh yes, because the letter says that he wrote this. Who else says this to confirm that this is possible? Do we have anyone testifying to confirm this? No So how can we say that we know that Paul met Peter and James, when all we know is that he claims that he did. Then to jump to the conclusion that Paul is someone we can trust to be honest by only looking at what he wrote is ridiculous. Paul can be a big fat lier, a lunatic that was traumatized by religion, a narcissist that wanted attention, ext, ext, ext. All we know is that someone wrote these letters and claims in them that there name is Paul and that who ever wrote these letters have a story that we have no way to confirm to be true or not. We don’t even have the original letters, we have copies of copies that may or may not be the same as the originals. I think that historians presuppose to much in order to construct a “ maybe this is what is happening “ and use the words “ we know” to make it look like we really know when we don’t. The fact is that we don’t know and we will never know because we can not travel to the past. Unless we have verifiable data from independent sources that can confirm this data, affirming that we know is dishonest. And even with independent sources it can be a planed scam. How can we know it’s not a scam? We can’t and this is the issue.
You may be confusing biblical scholars with historians. When they’re talking about historiography, *historians* talk about probability, not knowledge. Otherwise wise (biblical scholars* say they know things about history.
If you look at the reconstructions of Marcion’s Pauline letters (120 CE), (there is a lot that is changed between this “earliest witness” and the canon version(s). There is really good scholarship strongly suggesting the versions we have are absolutely edited.
Ari-Mathea “super studia” Ari being used in Ancient Greek poems to mean “super/very/stronger” coming from Aristos. Mathetes meaning student. To think Arimathea was the Greek way of saying either Ramleh or Ramathaim-Zophim but adding a Greek way of trying to say “Ha”as “A” which “ha” was the Hebrew way to say “the” is really a stretch since it never occurs in other areas.
I mean, how does it make sense that the god of the universe who could not only put to rest all of this division of who he or it is and or what actually happened 2000 years ago but still needs someone on earth to go tell other people that he or it exists and their salvation absolutely depends on if the believer does their job or not lol
It is not that we don't believe the Bible or Jesus, we just need to find out the true and address many uncertainties. Thanks for your good works but be fair minded and don't take side.
Anyone else think Tabor makes major leaps in his ideas? Such as we fight over evidence for the historical Jesus but he confidently asserts claims about James and John the Baptist with only a few verses.
while the Bible states that all believers will be born into a new permanent body like Jesus... it also says that they will go on to do greater works than he, too. (John 14:12) and that Jesus will be back within his followers' lifetimes (Matthew 16:28) I believe the Bible is usually pretty accurate about mundane claims that happened well before the author wrote of them. And yes, that is carefully measured to damn with faint praise.
It's a story that could have had credence back in those provincial desert days. A guy floated up past a cloud ☁️ on his way to heaven. Sure, it's possible 😮 After all at night, all that can be seen are stars, comets, and such, so there could be heaven up in the mysterious beyond. Just like the Bible spoke of a crystal firmament surrounding earth 🌎 holding up the heavens, stars hanging on rods. Then came knowledge of cosmology up to rocket travel, penetrating the crystal dome (not there, a fable) and out into space where it's -454° ( -270°C), and there's rock, gases and bits of dust. No heaven. So, okay, it's just another provincial small-time desert story. 🎉
I can listen to Dr. Tabor all day, he’s like the cool ass uncle who will tell it like it is. It’s crazy to see how Christianity evolved into what we see it today. The gospel writers writing fiction to improve on the previous gospel was amusing…
@@HolyKoolaid Apparently, his house was shot at by an attacker. "The sheriff’s office confirmed Locke’s home was hit by between 30-50 bullets during the shooting. Damage was found to the exterior of the home, to the vehicles parked outside, and some damage inside the home."
Saul of Tarsus had a psychotic break after having helped commit murders of various other followers of a new Jewish cult. We understand much better today than at any point in the past the nature and mechanism of this.
I’ve often thought of Saul’s conversion as being like David Petraeus joining the Islamic State. It does seem Peter and the other apostles were wary of him and probably told him to go off and do his own thing. “The Incident at Antioch” if it happened, might have been that Peter learned Paul was embellishing the story of Jesus and tried to confront him.
All a fanciful story...added to, made to fit... Do people take apart and put back together star wars, harry potter, star trek, gone with the wind, the wozard of oz...its all elaborate, rediculous bs. And we talk about the story tellers like their worthy of actual validation. Anybody can make up this crap...it just got soooo far out of hand
Check out the upcoming NINT conference. Use code: "20OFF" at checkout to save $20.
holykoolaid--ehrman.thrivecart.com/nint-2024-standard/
Thank You Dude.
You're doing good work.
Dude
Already booked in 🎉
What do you, Thomas Kool-Aid, or Dr. Tabor think of Kenneth Humphreys positing that Paul was just a literary character?
I love your channel, but I think you should’ve pushed back a little more in this interview. He seems to take all the gospel accounts at face value and as independent sources.
I’m left wondering how he came up with a lot of his ideas, or if it really is just that it fits a narrative he has in his head, “therefore it’s likely true.”
But great content nonetheless, and a lot to think about!
My entire family (23 people) rejected me because I said my son could
not heal the sick, and cast out demons. It is lonely not being a believer.
I just could not go down that stupid road. I have a family of idiots.
It's awful having few to talk to. I wish my healer son actually did heal something.
He could prove it so quickly if he did. Nope never.
I am so sorry to read that your family rejects you. It hurts. When I left church (had been in a Christian High Control Group) everyone immediately shunned me. This was painful. I imagine it must be very hard, when even family rejects you.
There are many people who deconstructed from faith. So I hope you will find good friends who will unconditionally be at your side. All the best to you!
Have the 23 people in your family healed the sick & cast out demons? Maybe the burden of proof for these things among those family members is very low but I guarantee the secular world would see through their delusions. Regardless, so sad they place their religion above family ties - I cannot imagine such a situation.
Wow this is super interesting, very unique situation that this is literally your very own son. I’m sorry for what you are dealing with.
Maybe you can find some sympathy for the idiot you see in other people by investigating your own fallibility. 🤔
That might even bring some healing - embrace the irony❣😆
Finding out your son turned into a scam artist is never easy.
I asked Christians to prove the Resurrection actually happened. What did I get as "proof" in a thread 500 comments long? a variation of " The Disciples said so and they would not lie." and " The Disciples would not have died for something they knew was not true."
The last argument is so crazy, because people die for things which aren't true all the time, because something doesn't need to be true to be believed.
@@bluester7177, Not only that. But what the Christians in the thread are doing is asserting the Disciples would never lie. The fate of 2 are mentioned in the Bible and when it comes to Judas there are 2 different versions how he died. One has him hanging himself and the other says he swan dived off a cliff.
In order for the Christians saying the Disciples would never lie, they have to know the mind set of the Disciples, which is impossible to know.
I don't get the second argument. People die for things that they know aren't true all the time. Also a lot the disciple martyred stories are made up stories from centuries later.
Never considering that someone can lie about what the Disciples said because they can't conceive of anybody doing so.
@@julietfischer5056, They ask what would the Disciples gain by lying. Well how about food, clothing, shelter, money.
Acts goes on about how followers gave all their money to the Disciples.Paul's letters argue that pastors should be provided for by the congregation. I pointed that out and as expected Christians ignored it.
The more I learn about religion, regardless of sect, the more it just looks like fanfic that some people took way too seriously
Yep all fiction of the day, 100%
But the more you look at history, it’s the ones that took the fanfic seriously that survived :S
@@baaldiablo8459 If religion is forced on people with fear mongering and threat of violence, as is still happening in islam, then it’s no wonder the superstition survives.
@@baaldiablo8459mmm it was a cultural thing and still is. You have to be Christian in public and in culture in order to avoid Christian negative halo effect and to avoid violence. Christians empower themselves to dehumanize other human beings by looking at people like good and evil and morality plays instead of appreciating complex intelligent nuanced messy life... be a Christwashed Gooner instead Specially if you're in politics or popular entertainment
That's exactly what it seems like.
How any sane person could conclude from the minimal facts that a dead person has miraculously come back to life, is beyond me.
Like Fox Mulder, they WANT to believe.
I suppose it has to do with how one defines ”facts”. Are people alive today less trustworthy than those who lived 2000 years ago?
Arguing about whether Jesus rose from the dead is, to me, a bit like arguing about what color Santa Claus' socks are. And using the bible to prove the bible doesn't count!
@@JustWasted3HoursHere
Yes it does because even atheist historians use the bible to make conclusions about jesus
@holmavik6756 Ancient people were more superstitious than modern people it seems.
The bible has been erroneously copied, misinterpreted, changed, and added to many times. The original story was that the women went to the tomb and found some guy there who told them Jesus went to the afterlife. That's it, no further story, much later the story was changed and added to. How can you believe in a religion that we know was cobbled together from older religions and reinterpreted and changed over the years.
Good comment.
Preyz Gord for your wisdom and discernment
Source?
We're here to listen to the scholars.
Is this true?
Something we need to keep in mind with regard to the earliest Christians is that there was no Bible as we know it now, no canon. That came 200 years later. There were loads more texts floating around among the various groups and the 4 gospels we know today were just 4 among the many texts and oral histories.
Very good point. So many gospels at the time floating around.
This is such a good point that I don't see pointed out very often, thank you for bringing it up!
As the saying goes, “History was written by the winners”. The numerous gospels circulating among early christians were of radically diverse beliefs which led to the convening of the councils to establish orthodoxy. The gospels chosen were those that accorded with a preconceived naively anthropomorphic notion of ‘god’, after which the ‘winners’ attempted to eradicate the more esoteric writings, along with their adherents.
The Septuagint of the time was their canon for the most part
Earlier Christian sects were fighting and burning each other's "heretical" texts.
I’m a Christian and I appreciate the critical work you give. It’s refreshing to get an understanding of the Bible form people not pushing a fundamentalist viewpoint
Just out of curiosity, assuming you don't take the Bible as literally historical, how do you consider yourself a Christian? I have heard people use the term 'Cultural Christian'. Is that what you would consider yourself?
@@travisjazzbo3490 Many Christians, including even the earliest patristics, didn't take everything literally. There are many expressions of faith, but the argumentative apologists are defending a certain brand of faith in fundamentalism.
@travisjazzbo3490
Let me answer. I take the gospels as historical because they are of the genre of greco roman biography
Just like many works around that time are the same genre and are treated as historical .
So let's not special plead
@@travisjazzbo3490 thank you for your question, I’m agnostic as to I don’t know for sure that Jesus really did rise. I think nothing happens when you die but I knowledge that I don’t under neuroscience and there is a the body problem so I know I might be wrong about that. I go to church and my faith is an on and off thing, one day I might think absolutely no god exist, next day I’m full “praise be to the lord” all I know for sure is that Jesus was real, made a failed prophecy’s about the end of the world, his followers said he came back fro, the dead, Paul eventually said he saw Jesus and converted, Christianity has been part of my family and culture, and that progressive, non fundamental Christianity fits me and fells very right, plus when I think on how unlikely my own existence is in terms of the cosmos there bring a God makes more sense then completely random chance. That being said I don’t know for sure and im not going to printed that the existence of God is as obvious as 1+1=2. Sorry if this response is long, my faith is a complicated thing
@@ramadadiver7810 I see. Thank you. I believe they have some actual history in them such as was extremely common with the extremely popular myth writing of the time.
As an Atheist, I don’t really care what the bible says. I was expecting more critical historical facts than theology. However, Dr. Tabor’s knowledge and presentations are fascinating. I appreciate his expertise.
Tbh, I don’t understand wanting to know the historical facts without wanting the added context of biblical texts…
@@Jessi-44Christianity and the Bible have had a voice/pulpit for thousands of years like the argument against it hasn’t. The Bible makes tremendous claims without tremendous proof.
What you have to realize is that Paul was a priest that was thrown out due to him being a drunk. He went out to persecute Christians as a way of getting his position back. He soon realizes that this new religion is ripe for the taking. Paul becomes the first false prophet. He is no better than the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Crflo Dollar, and all of the rest. Paul's Christianity was so off base that the disciples would not have anything to do with him. I would love to hear James explain this and why we should believe anything that Paul wrote.
I don't know the details that you do, but my take on Paul is that he was obviously educated, very passionate, likely very charismatic, and he wanted in on the action and he had his own version he wanted to 'sell', and he knew what it took to 'sell' like his conversion and the stories of his visions of talking to Jesus etc. When you are charismatic, just like in the modern day, people will buy what you are selling, just like not long ago with Joseph Smith and so many others
@@travisjazzbo3490 Yep
My initial thoughts on Paul is that he was a cult leader. I've not tapped into this information yet but I'm going to look into this.
@@Sological That's a good way to describe him. If you want more information on Paul, go talk to a Rabi.
@@AdventureswithJack453 thanks for that idea. I know enough now to understand why Judaism doesn't accept Jesus but I don't know Judaism's stance on Paul.
Just because Paul said something doesn't mean he was either telling the truth or being genuine,in Acts Paul gives three different versions of his conversion hardly a credible source of anything.
90% of his authentic letters (the ones that agree highly in theology and writing style and contextualizations) highly stress that he is expecting to collect a great sum of money from the letter recipient soon.
Marcions apostelos throws another wrench into the debate of whether the canonical Pauline corpus was legitimately written by Paul, and not a later redaction.
@@letsomethingshine yes I'm sure if he was around today he would have his own TV channel and jet too.
@@suuupsuuup1111swgoh it doesn't surprise me to read that and it seems there's a concerto of many that worked towards the final editions for sure.
Wait, wasn’t Paul long dead by the time Acts was written? Who says *anything* in there has to correlate to anything that Paul did or said? Maybe it might have, maybe it’s complete fiction. You’re just getting whatever the author of Luke wanted to say 30 years later.
How many scientists or atheists said, "Because a great number of people believe something does not make it true."
Βut these scientists always rely on consensus when they have an agenda to push and they make no bones about shoving it in faces.
@@StripedCheeseBread "Always" seems like very often. You have never experienced scientists or atheists describe data from a range of experiments and large-scale studies?
Such as death tolls for the COVID-19 pandemic, the approximately spherical shape of the earth, or the idea that ancient Egyptians, not Atlantians from Mars may actually have built the pyramids? So "consensus" and "a great number of people" may not be the exact same thing. Just saying.
Theists say that too, luv, and they're all correct.
@@carlosa4852 true, they indeed do. Which means scientists and atheists generally are no better than a bunch of cult members. They oust those who dare to publish certain questions just like a bad church.
The truth is not a democracy
I am impressed with Dr. Tabor’s steady, consistent, logical flow of thought. Some of this feels so obvious, and yet it is constantly overlooked or under-appreciated in the Christian community. Constructing an outline starting with earliest source and only operating in the scope of what is said in that source was very interesting, especially coming from a background where all of the sources “agree” and are “eyewitness written”. Really changes the understanding. I think all of this makes so much more sense when you approach it from a scholarly, archeological perspective instead of assuming the words are all “literal” in their meaning.
Thanks for your work as always Thomas!
well it feels "Obvious" as it's designed to embrace as much of the bible content as possible, while trying to keep a skeptical distance from the superantural implications nad interpretations of the text. Thus it sounds very familiar to anybody who has read the bible in their life and now recognizes how the elements are woven into this new narrative that tries to bring more realism into the romantizised writing of the actual book.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call this a better take on the possible "backstory" of the bible though than many others which do not cling so closely to the finalized text... To me it feels as if Dr Tambor makes too mane compromises to retain elements of the bible story where that would not be necessary or advisable. Pilate was quite a ruthless bastard for example, other historical attempts to reconstruct "real life history" from the bible texts do not grant him empathy with the jewish burial traditions just to fit it into the narrative as it is...
Children view everything their parents say literally so it makes sense that these things would start to be taken literally over many generations.
Paul wasn't a witness. He saw a vision. He didn't ever claim to see Jesus in flesh and blood.
We don't even know if he really saw a vision or just made it up.
Cult leaders tend to lie a lot, it seems.
he wasn't a witness of the crucifixion or resurrection, true.
BUT he was a witness of early church history nontheless.
Assuming Joseph Smith did never meet Miller in Person he would not be a wtiness of "the big disappointment", but his lucrative con game built up on the following schisms of the believers into dozens of competing sects that all believed THEY would correct Miller's bad calculations and not fall to the same traps as his prediction. And then he founded his own church and based it on what he had personally witnessed of that chaotic reorientation period after the original church broke down over the failed prophecy... The parallels to Paul (and Mohammed) are pretty clear.
Epileptic fit sunstroke or too many late nights gaming or watching TV are possibilities.
@@VaughanMcCue As I get older, I wouldn't put it past him to be in it for a money/power grab.
@@PeteOtton
Am I right.? We are talking about Saint Paul the Impossil.
Saint Thomas-no doubting-of Holykoolaid would not do that. You can investigate how much Youtubulators make on Social Blade.
The god industry can be a lucrative career because the victims are easily guilt-tripped into paying to get into their imaginary heaven.
I owe so much of my intellectual honesty and pursuit for objective truth to Dr. Tabor. Growing up in an evangelical, Southern Baptist environment in rural North Carolina, I took Dr. Tabor's New Testament course my first semester in college in Fall 1999 at UNC-Charlotte for a religion credit. I distinctly remember Dr. Tabor saying this course would be taught from a rigorous academic perspective, not a devotional one. LOL, at the time, I didn't even know that such a difference could exist... I was an engineering major, so I didn't take anymore religion classes, but I did continue studying the history of Judaism & Christianity, and eventually other religions. Opening my mind to challenge the beliefs I was taught growing up, I also learned how to critically think about all subjects, which has helped me immensely personally & professionally. I have also followed Dr. Tabor's website and on UA-cam for years. I am happy he has such an audience to share his wealth of knowledge. I was sorry to hear about the tragic loss of Dr. Tabor's son several years back. I enjoy seeing the tributes to him to keep his memory alive.
It's a poison to have that forced onto you at the young development stage of life. Can't imagine having to deal with that. Its all about power and control just like medieval europe.
I am an atheist.😊
I don't believe in the existence of God. There is insufficient evidence or rational justification to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and do not find compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of god.The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject the idea of God. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. There is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between faith and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility.
I pray you will be compelled to Gods drawing to Himself
That when He taps you on the shoulder that you will repent
@@beppiekplease stop harassing people with your flying spaghetti monster, people in this space clearly are not interested in your fiction
Well said and I couldn’t agree more!!
@@Fakantor
Karen I can share and say what I like
You have a choice to get worked up and comment or just carry on
Ha ha
@@beppiek so do you my brother in the flying spaghetti monster :)
We have none of the original scribblings, not even Paul's. It's all Monty Python's Life of Brian, over two millennia, endlessly edited and rewritten. The most classic cult "thinking" ever.
yes -
How could anyone believe Saul/Paul? Every single story of his conversion experience is contridicting!
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy expired unfulfilled.
None of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
Cannabis existed then. I'm sure the writers of the Bible were on some badass creative psychoactive substances. They discourage the use of psychoactive substances in modern urban churches so.... Christ is for lames now. Back then Christians smoked weed and washed feet whatever feet was a euphemism for
How?
There are gospel authors who witnessed Jesus, but the Church reject their books because they teach the Islamic creed. Jesus taught the core of Islam.
@@sinan_islam
_"There are gospel authors who witnessed Jesus..."_
Name one.
I like Dr. Tabor. He presents with a honest scholarship.
The older I get, the less I give a rat's ass about these stupid fairy tales...
They are useful for hypocritical highly useless parents to manipulate children quickly and more easily. That’s why they push it on children and do not like holding it for debate between adults so children can clearly and critically consider all options in completeness.
Man, this comment right here….. Like why are we entertaining fairy tales as if they are real. LOL
This is pure fiction man……. I older I get the more I realize people have lost their minds….
The governments are not going to stop brainwashing out children with this crap to keep them ignorant and easily inslaved it's all about the false promises of immortality as a god in a imaginary afterlife
Fair enough, but these fairy tales influence elections, which in turn influence your life.
The problem is, corrupt and/or self-serving people use those fairy tales to control many, many other people who then think it's okay to help enslave the rest of us. That's why we need to pay attention to who believes those stories and why. 😮💨
18:00 "not making a judgment" - We can assume Paul was not lying, was describing his experience as he experienced it. But I don't see how we can build from his words and draw conclusions from them without acknowledging that if we accept Paul's words as an accurate description of reality (different from an accurate description of his experience) then we are explicitly accepting the supernatural as real.
We don't really have a choice. We have to decide up front, are we going to accept seemingly supernatural experiences as actual supernatural experiences (without evidence, i.e. on faith) or are we going to draw a line and work within the realms of known reality, which presents to us NO evidence of supernatural forces at work in the world.
We can't pretend we don't have to face this choice. Either we attempt to understand history based on natural evidence, physical, historical facts. Or we accept the supernatural, faith, and everything that comes with it, i.e. religion.
Personally, I want to know the history, what actually happened. I'm not interested in taking things on faith, in the face of an utter lack of evidence for supernatural intervention in Paul's and our lives.
If you want proof of the supernatural study duping delight. Whatever has people lying so they can kill people or get away with pushing people to kill people the grin is the same. I am demon possessed and it is like they want you to laugh about evil things I assume because they can tickle your brain about those things and then you have no conscientious concerns. Humor replacing empathy. They hollow your nervous system out to make you not care then control you by emotions it seems.
paul is fictional - the letters were written in the 4th century to make it appear chsitians existed in the first century
I started watching this video expecting biblical history. It's not biblical history. It's theology. That becomes clear in the first 10-15 minutes.
Nonetheless, it's a very interesting video worth watching. Dr. Tabor offers some interesting views on how to read the various gospels and what they imply theologically.
It's not history though, for those of you interested in physical facts.
I agree. I had the same feeling and I was expecting something different from the title of this video. I appreciate Dr. Tabor’s knowledge but this is just more critical theology…
Most of Bart Ehrman’s work seems based as theology. You can find other videos of Dr Tabor which are more objective and informative
Really interesting stuff.
I admire your approach to an interview: Ask the question, and then let the person answer. Occasional interjections, to direct the conversation, or clarify a point, but mostly just listening to the interviewee's response.
This was a fantastic presentation by Dr. Tabor; helped me develop my own thoughts surrounding the issues. Thank you Thomas for hosting Dr. Tabor!👍🏼🤝🏼
Hey there, love watching your videos.
*The Bible: **_Gods Big Book Of Multiple Choice Answers_** ;*
As evidenced by thousands of versions/denominations of Christianity.
You guys are talking about something that was written 15 years to 20 years after the Pauline letters. Start with the fact that Paul's theology was never about a physical raising of the dead. Start with that. For 15 years, the first 15 years - a physical resurrection was not in the public understanding of Christianity - Just ask Paul. John was written in 100 to 110. So his eye witness of a physical Resurrection doesn't help.
As someone who used to be a Christian, and then converted to Orthodox Judaism and lived as a Jew for almost as long as I'd been a Christian, I followed Dr. Tabor's explanation of what the story actually is perfectly. It made perfect sense that they would see resurrection this way rather than zombie Jesus, from a Jewish perspective. If this is how the resurrection story was taught to me it would probably be way easier to wrap my head around then the haphazard and confusing fanfic Christianity has today. Christians really are sleeping on the best (and probably most accurate, if you believe it at all) version of their own story.
You're correct: IT'S ALL JUST A STORY.
You need to remember that Christianity went through some DEEP Crises following the tme which can be found written about in the bible... First of all it was a messianic cult in a jewish tradition.... so why would the messiah DIE? He was supposed to bring Judah back to glorious times with independence or ruling over others as the superior nation... and the Messiah was definitely predicted to have children and die in an old age... nothing of that fit the Jesus we now can read about in the gospels and epistles... so there was some explanation needed why this happend and how it was even possible. With the explantions halfarsedly formed it represented basically the total break with Judaism as the "we now the Meshach already was on Earth" belief is incompatible with the otherweise held belief of a still missing Messiah.
Then that changed doctrine met other challenges like the conflict between jesus as part of god and the first commandment . Blood has been spilled over the Unitarian/Trinitarian Dispute... the disagreement between annihilationists (that is those who believe almost all dead people will stay dead/cease to exist with "the judgment") and those believing in heaven or hell for everybody... and so on. every big argument created both a schism between the opposing sides (often with the losing one almost eradicated by the angry majority) and a slew of ad hoc rationalisations of the winning argument
It's a sail with a thousand patches, looking a mess and no longer like a coherent whole. and it's never more obvious how much badly reasoned excuses were made up for the inconsistencies of the story without any respect for the narrative staying consistent...) as when somebody like Dr Tabor tries to smoothen out that rough edged mess of repairs and seams to look more like a proper sail.
When you moved from Christianity to Judaism, you got closer to Jesus, but not close enough. Jesus was Muslim. So if you want to get so close to Jesus, you need to embrace his religion.
@@sinan_islam I'm an atheist now my dude, you have no chance of enticing me to Islam. Good try though.
@@melanyebaggins So who is the God you worship now? You worship Probability Theory now? The Universe was created by a chance?
'I don't think the Romans would [not allow Jesus's burial] do that at that point. Under Pontius Pilate I think things are so heated. Things can erupt any time. Pilate has already had other incidents in which the emperor has not been very happy about disturbances. Some of this depends upon whether you think Jesus had lots of followers and really was a major presence that week. I personally go, generally, with the idea that he was very popular, that he did shut down the temple for part of the day, in terms of people carrying things in and out and was a major presence as a charismatic, messianic figure of that time. If you just think he's some minor person that had 100 followers, then the Romans might not worry about it.'
My question about this is: if the argument for why the Romans would allow Jesus's followers to bury him was that it might cause an eruption, how does that square with them not causing a disruption about Jesus being sentenced to death by a demeaning method? If Pilate had that worry, why was it not worry enough to not crucify him in the first place? From what I currently know, that doesn't make sense to me.
He didn't need to be well known to get executed. He came into town and raised a big ruckus. Caused agitation among the people and got himself killed.
Here's my understanding: The Jewish priests would be on board for Pilate executing Jesus for what they perceived as heresy. However, Jesus's followers would have to bury/entomb him before evening, as leaving the dead unburied overnight is against Torah if I heard correctly. Plus, sundown Friday is the start of sabbath, so unless Christ's followers or family buried him right then, the Romans would likely throw him in a pile of corpses or leave him to rot in the open, both unacceptable to Jewish tradition and law.
bs
@@ConanTheEmployer the gospel stories are fictional none of this ever happened - there is no historical jesus - problem solved -
There is only one source for Joseph of Arimathea and that's Mark. Everybody else gets it from mark. It's clearly a literary character. Arimathea is not a place but is a pun on "Best Disciple Town" in Greek (Ari[stos]Math[etes]ea). I personally think that might be a coded way to say "Jerusalem." The idea of a crucifixion victim being given up for an honorable burial is something that never happened. Paul knows nothing about an empty tomb. There is no attestation or claim of a tomb before Mark's Gospel or independent of Mark's Gospel. Everyone else gets it from mark, and Mark, by the way, says the women ran away from the tomb without telling anybody meaning that the author of Mark himself did not expect his audience to know about this claim and was revealing it as a secret. I would highly recommend Richard C. Miller's *Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity* where he shows that disappearing bodies, including from tombs, was a standard trope in the Hellenistic world for characters real, legendary and mythical. Whatever original visions may have happened probably happened in Galilee weeks. months or even years after the crucifixion and Mark, who was trying to discredit Peter and the disciples, moved the "resurrection" to Jerusalem. Note that in Mark, Peter and the disciples deny Jesus and run away after he is arrested. They are given no redemption and no witness of the resurrection.
The Acts Seminar report concluded that Christianity probably began in Galilee, not Jerusalem and that the empty tomb narrative was an evolving attempt to move it to Jerusalem. It looks like Matthew (who is the only pro-Jewish evangelist) tried to simply finish the narrative by having the women tell the disciples, who then go back to Galilee as instructed and see Jesus on an unnamed mountain (although it doesn't actually say he ascended afterwards. Only Luke has an ascension), However it looks like a later author clumsily inserted an interpolation claiming that Jesus appeared to the women as they were running to tell the disciples. It's obviously inserted, probably to move the first witness of the resurrection to Jerusalem, but it did have the unintended consequence of making a woman (a fictional woman there was no Mary Magdalene. At best she is a version of Jesus' mother split off into secondary character) the first witness of the resurrection.
In reality Jesus' body probably stayed on the cross until it rotted. There is zero external evidence that Romans took bodies down from crosses on the Sabbath. That custom is s much a Markan invention as his claim that Pilate released terrorists at Passover. I agree with Dom Crossan's assessment that the disciples probably fled when Jesus was arrested and that they never actually knew what happened to his body.
I do have one crackpot hypothesis about Joseph of Arimathea. If I am right that "Best Disciple Town" is Jerusalem, then J of A could conceivably be a way to refer to Caiphas the High Priest. His name was Joseph, after all. They found his ossuary. It says "Joseph BEN Caiphas." "Joseph SON OF Caiphas." The High Priest is perhaps the only person who might have had a chance to get Pilate to give up a body. I'm not going to bet my last dollar on that hypothesis but it's interesting to kick around. It's at least more plausible than a random member of the Sanhedrin. Speaking of the Sanhedrin, it seems pretty weird that a member of the Sanhedrin would vote to execute Jesus one night and then suddenly be a full blown Christian the next day. the story is silly. You see those exact instant conversions or convenient secret Christians all the time in the apocryphal literature.
We have archaeological evidence of crucified people being buried .
In college in the '70's I was always hearing from the various Evangelical student groups about how we "had to get back to what the first Christians believed, the unity, the love blah blah blah" Even then I was skeptical and then later being educated in the milieu (aka chaos) of Early Christianity all I can oi is laugh! 🤣
and now they worship the trump - and spread hatred
*I'm glad you made this video,* it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $89k biweekly and a good daughter full of love..
Please how ?
Am a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 😭 of myself because of low finance but I still believe God😞
It's Maria Angelina Alexander doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.
$356K monthly is something you should feel differently about....
Lovely! I enjoyed it like I enjoy a $100k monthly around the turn!!!
Thank god you are consistently uploading :)
god? Surely you mean the flying spaghetti monster!
@@someonesilence3731sky daddy?
Toss his some cash, maybe a couple bucks so he can keep doing this at this pace or more.
@@someonesilence3731 how dare you speak to the flying spaghetti like that
Publius Cornelius Tacitus wrote Annals (not original title) around 116 CE. He makes no mention of anyone named Jesus, but refers to Chrestians (not Christians) as having got their name from someone called Chrestus, who had been killed under Pontius Pilate. We have zero first century, first hand secular accounts of anyone named Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate other than Flavius Josephus who wrote all but his first draft of the "Jewish War" in Greek. Josephus, was born circa AD 37, participating in Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene Jewish sects eventually becoming a member of the Pharisee sect. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, Josephus went to Rome with Titus and took up residence in Vespasian's house and was issued a Roman citizenship with an annual pension. Josephus wrote from within a Roman environment for a Roman environment. His birth year excludes him from being a first hand witness. His statement in Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII that Jesus had interactions with many gentiles is not supported by New Testament text. His claims that a man named Jesus was called the Christ are an artifact of stories told during his lifetime and have zero credibility. Having been a Pharisee and then a Roman citizen raises questions of his allegiance to the Christian movement, if it was even referred to Christianity during his lifetime because a specific year for the establishment of Christianity cannot be determined.
great post
To all accounts NOT found in the gospels, the early Christians weren’t even that but rather gnostic mystery cult initiates who believed that everyone was the son of God. The best explanation of this viewpoint is probably THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Freke & Gandy who describe the process of retooling pagan mythology into something more appealing to Jews. An alternative viewpoint which admits of an historical Christ as opposed to a mythological Christ was laid out in a BBC documentary which claimed that Jesus spent suspiciously little time on the cross, was drugged to simulate death, and then taken down to be revived soon thereafter, and that moreover his grave has been discovered in Central Asia, since he was in reality a misunderstood Buddhist monk. So there you have it. Take your pick. In other words, nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Even to this day we have a hard time defining at what point something is dead. Even if the story happened at all. He suffered trauma and fell asleep for 3 days.
What a waste of the Easter holiday. The most likely explanation was he OD'd on chocolate and went into hyperglycemic shock.
I've listened a lot to Dr. Tabor and read his books. I consider him a very objective scholar. I agree with his rendition of what led to the crucifixion of Jesus, and his explanation of the empty tomb. This is the most plausible explanation. And like he said, except you're a fundamental list who believe the Bible is inerrant, it is possible to believe his body was buried in another tomb but he was still raised from the dead.
I would love to see a collaboration and debate between you InspiringPhilosophy about the changes and alterations made to the Bible.
Dr. Tabor is fantastic. Reasoned and reasonable. Lucid and precise.
Dude you need to talk to Ammon Hillman, and Carl Ruck
This video is very long for just an analysis of a storybook that has been edited to the point of total nonsense.
Well that was remarkable, I got an hour long church ad 😂
I dug Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's takes on a bunch of these passages, but Tabor makes some very good points as well.
Dr. Tabor has the best explanation for the empty tomb I have ever heard. My only question: If Jesus' body was moved after the Sabbath, couldn't his followers have found out about that?
I would note that some resurrection experiences, even per the Bible, are often explainable without even positing hallucinations. That mysterious stranger you met- he was really Jesus! (Stranger on the Road to Emmaus, Gardener near the tomb, etc).
Maybe they did. We do not have any of their writings. But Paul said he was telling what he received. The question would be from who, as he claims to have his gospel from Jesus. But if he received that from the apostles, then it means Jesus was buried but rose on the 3rd day. If it was bodily he would have said so. But that was not what he received.
Such an interesting discussion! The thing that makes the most sense is rather different than anything I've heard from any denomination about the crucifixion
South Park - "well who was right, who gets in to heaven? I'm afraid it was the Mormons, yes the Mormons was the correct answer"
Excellent video man! Thank you for all your research and pertinent questions. Appreciate you!
I cant for the life of me understand why we keep using the name Jesus to begin with. His name wasnt Jesus, it was Joshua or Yeshua (or in late Hebrew Yehoshua) the name Jesus is Greek origin and has no place in Hebrew at all, thus making me doubt the entire Jesus story because it was written by greeks to begin with. I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not even Hebrew names. I believe Luke and Mark are more Greek in origin Marcos and Leukos, but Mattityahu (Matthew) and Yokhanan (John) are Aramaic. I am so sick of western translations, how many things got mistranslated pver the years to where the original writing isnt even close to what it was back in the 1st century.
This was such a fascinating video, I can't wait to share it with my father who enjoys learning more about the history of his faith! I'm ethnically Jewish, so hearing about the culture and customs of ancient Hebrews is always something that peaks my personal interest. I'd also like to mention that it brings me a lot of joy to hear such a clearly intelligent scholar choose to still be empathetic and affirming to those who follow the belief systems he studies. I'm not personally a christian, in fact, I'm actually a survivor of childhood religious abuse, but it still breaks my heart to see so many scholars being condescending and trying to humiliate people who hold specific beliefs as if they are somehow less human for being religious. This was genuinely such a breath of fresh air.
I think part of the problem is that it will never be reasonable to conclude that an impossible event or detail is the most likely to be true. The more impossible details somebody insists on being true, the less it seems they care about what most likely happened historically. The most miraculous interpretations are the least likely, and the most mundane are the most likely, and anyone who refuses to accept that this paradigm is reasonable is someone that is almost impossible to have a productive conversation with about true history. Otherwise we have to accept that Athena intervened in the battle of Troy, and Julius Caesar ascended as a deity after death, and Herakles built the strait of Gibraltar with his super strength, and all sorts of impossible things still claimed as historical.
My comment was not about whether Christianity and its followers are perfectly grounded in reality, or how well they take criticism on the grounds of historical accuracy, but about the general sense of distaste some folks have simply because they do not adhere to the same beliefs. Your comment is actually a perfect example of what I was referring to, specifically people refusing to put down their own ego to extend empathy to another person because they do or do not believe in something. You entirely missed the purpose of my comment because you were too busy treating my genuine joy as an opportunity to win a debate. I'm not here to debate you, in fact, I agree with your assertions about organized religion and natural phenomena, but there is absolutely no reason to take a positive moment and sully it by screaming into the void about something I never mentioned.
The constant need to be correct or "prove" that people of different faiths are wrong already puts a sour taste in my mouth, regardless of who it's coming from, but it's truly insufferable coming from those I would normally agree with.
@thinecuprunnethoverwithblood I was explaining why an academic methodology can seem divisive and alienating to believers in miracles. If someone is using an unreasonable methodology but still demands their conclusions be respected... then yeah, they're not going to do well in academia. Sorry if that seems harsh, but there's not really any effective alternative approach to figuring out what is true.
Once again, my comment wasn't about the truth, it was about EMPATHY, extending understanding even to people we think are wrong. I don't care what the truth is when it comes to not being a dick to people, simply don't be a dick to anyone.
Such a strange compulsion to constantly tell people why they are wrong in situations where it's not appropriate. I'm certainly glad you are not someone I come into contact with on the daily, you seem like a truly miserable person to interact with.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Once again, my comment wasn't about the truth, it was about EMPATHY, extending understanding even to people we think are wrong. I don't care what the truth is when it comes to not being a dick to people, simply don't be a dick to anyone.
Such a strange compulsion to constantly tell people why they are wrong in situations where it's not appropriate. I'm certainly glad you are not someone I come into contact with on the daily, you seem like a truly miserable person to interact with.
I think that writing after 20 to 30 years after an event of claims that he saw and spoke to people that he claimed to have conversations who saw said event is not proof enough of crucifixion and or resurrection. Please get Bart Ehrman on your podcast.
Bart was already on two years ago, though I do think he definitely should bring him back.
Its so interesting how much the body itself determines about who we are and yet somehow christianity believes it to be unimportant. Somehow the spirit realm supersedes (or copies) the body.
Love your videos dude
So Paul visited a tomb and said "Wow!" but never wrote that he had done so?
James Tabor is ALWAYS awesome! 👍 Good move having him on your show
Great interview!!
I've made a hobby of studying the subject for about 20 years. I appreciate a number of the serious non-apologetic scholars. I like Bart a lot. But I think Tabor has the best read on the subject of any I have encountered.
At what point does someone believing to have met a deceased/resurrected person qualify as an Eye Witness and not someone of questionable mental health?
Top tier. Like always.
Tier.
@@williamwilson6499 Thanks. My fingers and brain don't always cooperate. 😅
This is an excellent interview from Professor Tabor...this helped me with so many things on my understanding of Paul.
...really looking at Paul is new for me.
Why has an almighty God chosen crucifixion as a symbol, especially when you think of all the poor people who later have been crucified because of that stupid choice? We live in a world, where good and bad "eat" each other, and because there is some goodness, it does not mean that there necessarily is a god God.
Hey there Brother, good to see you getting back into the swing of things again. I'm not an atheist myself, as I have shared in many of your other videos, but I do, very much, enjoy watching your content, and feel you do, along with others, have an important work in the world, and you do seem like a very, loving, caring, person, overall.
Warmest Wishes and My Best from Canada. Out.
I grew up JW. Ehrman and Tabor say the JWs actually got a lot right. Except for thinking they're the restoration of the first century church and administer the church exactly as they did then.
Wow! Thanks Dr. Tabor! This is a super interesting take.
You give me hope, that, someday there will be a reckoning regarding truth and fiction, when it comes down to religion .Your passion rocks,
Thx
Glad to see my favorite deconstruction channel uploading regularly again.
I'm loving this videos' frequency. TYSM, Thomas.
It sounds ridiculous to me to think that Pilate allowed Joseph of Arimathea to have the body due to concerns about the feelings of Yeshua's followers regarding the handling of the corpse of a man he'd tortured to death.
The outside agitator could have been arrested, treated humanely in detention, and released after things had died down.
No muss, no fuss.
I like the Kashmir Jesus story. It is more realistic.
This was a very interesting video, interview. Since “you”, Thomas are going, will you be able to share any highlights or anything from what you learned or would that be not allowed since the conference has a pay wall?
Hi Thomas. I really enjoyed this interview. I’m a huge fan of both you and Prof. Tabor.
I’m not sure if I’m just not tracking this convo right but I really struggled with Tabor’s thought process on his argument. As best as I could follow it while I was driving, it sounded like he was jumping back and forth from his sources and document references to make a coherent Christology. I wasn’t sure how taking different pieces from different docs written at different times with different ideologies and butting them together makes a valid case for his argument.
I think it’s a fascinating argument and just based on Paul alone I’d agree and say it’s likely. I just don’t get tying in all the other different documents in a way that felt uncomfortably close to how pastors jump around and cherry pick all sorts of things from the Bible to make arguments for their own ideologies.
Thank God for the Book of a Mormon that clarifies and verifies that Jesus did actually rise again and that we will, too. It's a true ancient text (first temple period through 400 AD, along with an included record that is from the time is the tower of babel. However, the LDS church is in apostasy, do unless God tells you otherwise, don't join that false religion. Brigham was an imposter, much as I'm learning perhaps Paul likely also was.
How do we know that Paul met Peter and James? Oh yes, he said he met them.
Did he say that he met them?
How do we know that he said this. Oh yes, because the letter says that he wrote this.
Who else says this to confirm that this is possible? Do we have anyone testifying to confirm this? No
So how can we say that we know that Paul met Peter and James, when all we know is that he claims that he did.
Then to jump to the conclusion that Paul is someone we can trust to be honest by only looking at what he wrote is ridiculous.
Paul can be a big fat lier, a lunatic that was traumatized by religion, a narcissist that wanted attention, ext, ext, ext.
All we know is that someone wrote these letters and claims in them that there name is Paul and that who ever wrote these letters have a story that we have no way to confirm to be true or not. We don’t even have the original letters, we have copies of copies that may or may not be the same as the originals.
I think that historians presuppose to much in order to construct a “ maybe this is what is happening “ and use the words “ we know” to make it look like we really know when we don’t.
The fact is that we don’t know and we will never know because we can not travel to the past. Unless we have verifiable data from independent sources that can confirm this data, affirming that we know is dishonest. And even with independent sources it can be a planed scam.
How can we know it’s not a scam? We can’t and this is the issue.
You may be confusing biblical scholars with historians. When they’re talking about historiography, *historians* talk about probability, not knowledge. Otherwise wise (biblical scholars* say they know things about history.
If you look at the reconstructions of Marcion’s Pauline letters (120 CE), (there is a lot that is changed between this “earliest witness” and the canon version(s). There is really good scholarship strongly suggesting the versions we have are absolutely edited.
Early Christianity was a split from Judaism. Same god but with the addition of a body named Jesus scheduled to be a human sacrifice.
Hi all.👋
I feel your passion for the truth ! Thx !
Ari-Mathea “super studia” Ari being used in Ancient Greek poems to mean “super/very/stronger” coming from Aristos. Mathetes meaning student. To think Arimathea was the Greek way of saying either Ramleh or Ramathaim-Zophim but adding a Greek way of trying to say “Ha”as “A” which “ha” was the Hebrew way to say “the” is really a stretch since it never occurs in other areas.
Great conversation!
I mean, how does it make sense that the god of the universe who could not only put to rest all of this division of who he or it is and or what actually happened 2000 years ago but still needs someone on earth to go tell other people that he or it exists and their salvation absolutely depends on if the believer does their job or not lol
It doesn’t make sense yet millions ignore their instincts in a desperate search for “meaning.”
It is not that we don't believe the Bible or Jesus, we just need to find out the true and address many uncertainties. Thanks for your good works but be fair minded and don't take side.
Anyone else think Tabor makes major leaps in his ideas? Such as we fight over evidence for the historical Jesus but he confidently asserts claims about James and John the Baptist with only a few verses.
Yes, but he makes a lot of good contributions, too
while the Bible states that all believers will be born into a new permanent body like Jesus... it also says that they will go on to do greater works than he, too. (John 14:12) and that Jesus will be back within his followers' lifetimes (Matthew 16:28) I believe the Bible is usually pretty accurate about mundane claims that happened well before the author wrote of them. And yes, that is carefully measured to damn with faint praise.
Please tie all this in with the history of how Christianity became law under Constantine and why Rome and the catholic church created the religion
Paul was high. lol He never met a Jesus, but swears a Jesus knocks him off a donkey. But then there's no witnesses.
It's a story that could have had credence back in those provincial desert days. A guy floated up past a cloud ☁️ on his way to heaven. Sure, it's possible 😮
After all at night, all that can be seen are stars, comets, and such, so there could be heaven up in the mysterious beyond. Just like the Bible spoke of a crystal firmament surrounding earth 🌎 holding up the heavens, stars hanging on rods.
Then came knowledge of cosmology up to rocket travel, penetrating the crystal dome (not there, a fable) and out into space where it's -454° ( -270°C), and there's rock, gases and bits of dust. No heaven.
So, okay, it's just another provincial small-time desert story. 🎉
What about the evidence that Jesus of the Bible never existed
I can listen to Dr. Tabor all day, he’s like the cool ass uncle who will tell it like it is.
It’s crazy to see how Christianity evolved into what we see it today. The gospel writers writing fiction to improve on the previous gospel was amusing…
Good vid. Thx.
Dude, are you on Rationality Rules' set or did he borrow yours?
"Spiritual is more real than the physical "?
Sorry, but this fool is only slightly less absurd than the average apologist.
I'm going to enjoy this.
Thanks for another good video. I'm hoping there'll be another psychic fraud one next. They're your funniest and most rewatchable videos.
I do plan to make more psychic content. We'll see. So much to make videos about. :)
@@HolyKoolaid fantastic, I'm glad to hear. 🙂
That's messed up news about Greg locke....😮
What did I miss?
What did he do this time?
@@HolyKoolaid Apparently, his house was shot at by an attacker. "The sheriff’s office confirmed Locke’s home was hit by between 30-50 bullets during the shooting. Damage was found to the exterior of the home, to the vehicles parked outside, and some damage inside the home."
Saul of Tarsus had a psychotic break after having helped commit murders of various other followers of a new Jewish cult.
We understand much better today than at any point in the past the nature and mechanism of this.
I’ve often thought of Saul’s conversion as being like David Petraeus joining the Islamic State. It does seem Peter and the other apostles were wary of him and probably told him to go off and do his own thing. “The Incident at Antioch” if it happened, might have been that Peter learned Paul was embellishing the story of Jesus and tried to confront him.
All a fanciful story...added to, made to fit...
Do people take apart and put back together star wars, harry potter, star trek, gone with the wind, the wozard of oz...its all elaborate, rediculous bs. And we talk about the story tellers like their worthy of actual validation. Anybody can make up this crap...it just got soooo far out of hand
When a professor uses the word "believe" as in "I dont believe", sounds a bit a bit non-factual and arbitrary...
How come?
Or...
or...
"Paul" made it up.
Where is there any evidence for any of this actually having taken place.
Evidence for Jesus to believers is like homeopathy: the less evidence there is, the more potent they believe it to be.
Great video
The Bible really is junk, if the God of the Bible was real, why did it take so long and continued editing of the Bible lol 😂❤❤❤❤