Were the Stories of Jesus Corrupted Before they were Written Down? (Mike Licona Response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2020
- When it comes to the Bible, it may be the most attested piece of ancient literature, but that doesn't mean that the text is true." Stories of Jesus were passed along like a game of telephone, so the stories themselves got amplified and corrupted before they were committed to writing.
This is what theologian Dr. Mike Licona said in his opening statement on a One Minute Apologist video question segment. I agree, and I'll tell you why.
Wasn't The Bible Transmitted Like A Game of Telephone?
• Wasn't The Bible Trans...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
It's wild that some people think the truth could have withstood decades of retellings when we struggle get to the truth nowadays with cameras in our phones and the ability to tweet something the moment it happens.
right?!?
The feeding of the 5000 is a story I think got corrupted before being written down, because the alternative understanding makes so much more sense. I think Jesus DIDN'T miracle the loaves and fishes to feed everybody, but instead asked the boy if he could maybe spare a portion of his lunch to add to the basket. He then asked everyone in the crowd if they had brought along any food to consider whether they could share a small portion of it to go into the basket, so that anyone who had nothing could take food from the basket and not go hungry. And after everyone had shared what they could, and taken what they needed, there were several baskets of scraps left over.
It's a story about generosity, and us all helping each other. That is such a more moral story than "hey, just sit back and watch me do a miracle for ya".
A biographer of George Washington included the famous story of him chopping down a cherry tree and owning up to it to his father in a book published less than 10 years after his death. Far from being corrected and squashed by the many people who knew Washington who were undoubtedly still alive at the time, the story was already widely accepted as a true account by the time another ten years had passed, and was republished in other works.
Mike. . 1 week ago. . A biographer of George Washington included the famous story of him chopping down a cherry tree and owning up to it to his father in a book published less than 10 years after his death. Far from being corrected and squashed by the many people who knew Washington who were undoubtedly still alive at the time, the story was already widely accepted as a true account by the time another ten years had passed, and was republished in other works.. . 8 likes.
that story never went through a strict canon process which would weeded it out very early
@@raysalmon6566 And neither did the Bible.
Legends are strong.
Al Gore's full quote: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
Al Gore was the first politician to recognize the internet as something to be protected (from the government), without his legislation the internet as a whole would have been government controlled. Sites like youtube would have to exist on a dark web, out of government hands (and illegal to use).
He is one of the most important figures in the history of the Internet, but he will go down in history as "the guy who said he invented the internet".
This is all while he is still alive.
It's a pity that the first page in the original first written text is lost to the ravages of time.
I imagine it would read-
"The following is a work of fiction any resemblance to places or individuals is purely coincidental"
"Not to be read by small children, as content contained inside is for a mature audience"
Maybe it started once upon a time
"To my darling Candy,
"The following is a ...."
(Red Dwarf)
@@archapmangcmg Hah, I knew somebody would bring up that one!
"A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away.."
A good t-shirt perhaps --> "Whenever my mom tells me to pray, I secretly watch a Paulogia UA-cam video!"
awesome
I don’t know if you’ll ever understand how helpful videos such as these are, Paul. Thank you.
S Gloobal why are you here? Just curious.
@S Gloobal Welcome back troll! We didn't miss you.
The *goober-troll* is baaaaack! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
S Gloobal, I’m an atheist and do hold other events to the same amount of scrutiny, so maybe if you abandoned your generalization, you’d be better off
Steve M, I think he’s sincere, just abrasive
I heard it from a friend, who
Heard it from a friend, who
Heard it from a friend that you've been messing around...
It's like the game telephone..
But I know the neighborhood
And talk is cheap when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line
@@JamesQMurphy "I don't believe it, not for a minute" always seemed to me totally contradictory. I'm probably not taking it in context.
For fuck's sake! That was 3 decades ago and I had merely designed a round mess hall for a school project! When will this ever end?
Take on the run baby
I don't often comment on your videos, but I want to thank you for your consistently clear and reasoned style.
I appreciate that. Thank you
2:06 -- Even though absent from Bible accounts, let's assume for discussion that the original apostles went off on some ministry work. OK. The gospels tell us they didn't even fully comprehend the teachings of Jesus while he was alive. Why would they suddenly become grand orators who not only remembered his teachings more or less verbatim, but could impart understanding when they didn't seem to understand it, themselves? Then we have the fact that Paul and others became preachers after the fact. Much like modern day ministers who hear the gospel, take on their own understanding of it, and form a new church with their own doctrines. Paul's letters make it clear there were competing traveling preachers with different teachings because he warns his own congregations to ignore the other guys as heretics. So even in the few years after the supposed death of Christ, we have different messages being taught and accepted regardless of whether the apostles had their own ministries or not. People taught other people. Those people put their own understanding and spin on it. They passed that version on. And so on, and so on. Given the limitations of travel and communications at the time, any original apostle would have had a difficult time keeping up with the changes, let alone monitoring and correcting them.
By the time Irenaeus appears on the scene, the various home churches were many and varied, often in opposition to one another (Which led to his sometimes violent push for orthodoxy). What we have in the Bible are the most circulated of faith stories that arose among these church communities because the bishops deciding the Bible canon saw "most circulated" as one criteria for "closer to true."
This is a great comment. I actually just finished Licona’s resurrection book, and two of the questions I wrote down in my notes were, even if we grant him everything, why do we trust the disciples had the correct theology after Jesus’s death when it’s noted they misunderstood it when he was alive? As well as why do we trust Paul’s interpretation when he got his theology after the fact from a vision? Not to mention, like you said, he admitted there were competing teachings, potentially from the actual apostles themselves. I think this is an objection that is hard to overcome when you are clinging to the arguments that Licona does. I haven’t actually seen it addressed.
Like the monk who went back to the original draft, "No... NO! It says celeBRATE!'
What still baffles me is that those making these arguments somehow have this idea that the people of the bronze age were somehow 'better' than people today. They paint this picture of them being hard-line focused on only having the most accurate stories and re-telling of histories and that they care the utmost about everything being perfectly correct, as if they're some 'higher beings' incapable of falling into the traps we'd expect people to, of exaggeration or flawed memory, etc.
I don't buy that. I think the people of the bronze age were just as susceptible to incorrect or superfluous writing as people are today. I see no basis in these claims of perfectly-minded bronze-age writers.
It would actually be the opposite and the proof is in the text. They had no problem modifying historical data for theological reasons. Symbolism was far more important than literalism. He is arguing that the text never changed, which isn't correct, but even if it were the real argument should be is the text reliable and the answer is an absolute no.
People exaggerate and make up stories even today when literalism IS important and communication is at it's peak with the internet. Rewind to a time where communication is limited to who you can talk to and symbolism is more important than accuracy? We could have an unbroken chain of documents that are identical to the first written and it still wouldn't be trustworthy.
*Cellidor* They probably lacked the concept of accuracy that is so prominent today - it was probably more important to tell a story than it was to ensure fidelity with the version that you heard ; in fact there would have been an incentive to make it better. Certainly if you couldn't remember quite how the story went, you had to leave your audience with the impression that you knew what you were talking about !
We gotta remember we're talking about people who had no knowledge of science, no formal education and were completely illiterate.
All very important points. So often I keep hearing the authors of the past described as if they were studious scientifically-minded people, recording everything perfectly, making sure it's as accurate as it can possibly be but...yes, they were more accurately just story tellers. People make up stories, tell them to others, then tell those stories to their children. If they don't bother to clarify to their children "This is all speculation" or "No one knows if this is true or not" (why would they?) Those children grow up believing the stories actually happened. Thus a chain begins of more and more people thinking that a made-up story is actual truth. Just like people today believe in Christianity because "The bible said so and that's that", people in the past did the exact same thing. No scrutiny, no exhaustive testing to make sure what's written down is true....nope, 'the book says it and therefore it happened' was all they needed.
The 1st century is way after the bronze age.
"Heads I win, tails you lose", never heard that before, but it's exactly how Christians describe their god.
*God
@@Hhjhfu247 'God' is not a proper name, and as it is one of many gods invented by humans, I can spell it in lowercase
“What we have in writings is what was written...”
Ya think?
And what we have in evidence is what tells us the writers had no idea what they were talking about.
"What did Jesus say?" "I think he said 'blessed are the cheese-makers' although that probably refers to all merchants of dairy and dairy derived products." - Life of Brian
Nyssa Lynn. . 1 week ago. . I don’t know if you’ll ever understand how helpful videos such as these are, Paul. Thank you.. 128 replies. 185 likes.
paul is not a critical thinker
blessed is just about everyone with a vested interest in the status quo, as far as I can tell, Reg..
@@raysalmon6566 Yes. None of the writings of Paul in the New Testament demonstrate critical thinking.
@@sigmaoctantis1892
so you must have some examples
1 Corinthians 13
English Standard Version
The Way of Love
13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
@@raysalmon6566 These are all opinion pieces. Do you actually have examples of critical thinking?
*Outstanding!* You have outdone yourself once again!
Thank you Paul.
Can't thank you enough for these videos. Of all the skeptics with youtube channels you are BY FAR my favorite for 2 reasons 1) the clear way you break things down and sum up at the end (so helpful for my learning style) and 2) your kindness. Keep up the great work!
“Here’s a story. 🎶”
Ha ha. Brill. 😂
Not only is it questionable to assert the authors of the gospels were compelled to record events in a historical, and truthful way, but how do we establish that they had the capability of finding out what the truth was?
I hear some Christians go on about martyrs, or people who sincerely believe being more likely to be truthful. I have not found sincere religious belief to be good at inspiring an unbiased and factual narrative.
*Steve Webber* That's right, we're bias at the best of times even when we're trying really hard - add an ideology and you can say tatty-bye and adieu to any objectivity.
+Steve Webber, writes _"I have not found sincere religious belief to be good at inspiring an unbiased and factual narrative."_
That's brilliant. That should be on a t-shirt.
You often get xtians saying that eyewitnesses would have complained if the gospels were incorrect... but complain to who? Write to the Jerusalem Times?
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 Perhaps there were many complaints but were disregarded just like critical comments to many xtian websites are today .
I would go so far as to suggest that such complaints are well-established fact, given the number of verified competing sects and apocryphal writings, which often went in very different directions from the sects/writings that eventually won, despite a basic common origin.
Simple answer: no I am not convinced. Long answer: no I definitely am not convinced.
Call me petty, but I've had a very hard time taking anything Licona has to say seriously after the "floating trashcan lids and ouija boards" incident with Dillahunty...even when he is saying things that run counter to common apologist talking points. But I guess my bias against him isn't completely irrelevant here, since it goes to show the sort of "evidence" he finds acceptable to believe claims, including the dreaded "extraordinary claims."
If memory serves and that was the debate I'm thinking of, his introductory tactic of citing ooga-booga anecdotes was just jaw-droppingly inane.
Or the "practice black magic".to find out about the supernatural. I don't know how he knows black magic works. Did he at one time practice blah magic? What happened? Where would one research black magic? I have A LOT of questions Mike.
@@LS-zu4oy He probably knows it the same way ghostie-hunters know that dead people drain batteries and jump around radio frequencies saying totally irrelevant things.
Still laughing about the trash can lid.
_"But I guess my bias against him isn't completely irrelevant here, since it goes to show the sort of "evidence" he finds acceptable to believe claims, including the dreaded "extraordinary claims.""_
I guess that about 24 people agree with that. Every word that comes out of his mouth is horseshit. There's an unbroken pattern of wrongness, dishonesty and straight up lying. It seems that he has no limits to manipulate people into believing his horseshit narrative and horseshit assumptions. He makes me wish there was a god because too many people fail to see how vile and wrong he is and are more than willing to learn his manipulative tactics for their own personal use. It creates a culture that no person with integrity wants to find themselves in but too many still do.
Aren't Paul's writings almost entirely about correcting the churches? Because all these groups were teaching different things. And the famous creed is evidence that all those ideas were controversial as well.
Yes but obviously the correct church wrote the gospels because of... reasons
Not to mention, the gospel of John was supposedly written in such a way to counter the ideas of the Gnostics, who believed Jesus was all spirit and no flesh. Just goes to show how fast the story can change, even within the gospel writers' lifetimes.
@@JohnSmith-xf1zu The Roman guards is also a likely apologetic against the stolen body objection. The Christians resurrection ideas were under attack from the beginning and probably not just from traditional Jews but other Christians as well.
The first four verses of Luke also suggest that there were multiple conflicting accounts. Hence, Luke undertook his own investigation and wrote the results of this to record the truth--rather than simply referring to one of the other existing sources as the right one.
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Tanakah scripture s.
There are over 30,000 different sects of Churches all argue who is "correct" or the "true " Christian and had wars between themselves killing millions of people in over centuries.
one must pause...
Well, the stories were corrupted AFTER they got into writing, so yes, yes it was.
@S Gloobal Matthew 17:21 is missing from the oldest copies. Matthew 18:11 is missing everywhere before the 5th century.
There are others, but these point to either additions afterwards or deletions before that were restored later.
There are more that scholars know of. How many remain undiscovered?
If these were additions, how many more were there?
If they were corrections, how many more remain?
@S Gloobal Prove it was not, and if you can't that means my made up excuses about the corruption of the stories are clearly more rational than your default postion.
And if you think my argument from ignorance is dishonest that only show that you are aware your creatardism is completely trash.
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing - my favourite corruption of the New Testament text is the addition of the story of Jesus and the adultress - the _pericope adulterae_ - which is the source of one of the most famous Jesus- quotes of all time:
_"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."_
This corruption occurred in the 5th century, because the story is not present in any earlier manuscript, especially the two earliest Bible manuscripts: *Codex Vaticanus* and *Codex Sinaiticus* from the mid-4th century.
Modern Christians will cling to that story as true despite the fact it is demonstrably something added to the New Testament nearly half a millennium after Jesus died.
Just another example of Christian dishonesty.
@Skeptic Psychologist I know. The only reason I reply to him is for people who might learn something.
Perhaps because morals improved? Though after all, God's ways are unchanging and never alter... right?
I'm no expert just a very interested amateur and atheist.
I always enjoy watching your videos because unlike "scholars" like Mike Licona, the arguments are always well researched and presented both historically, factually and clearly delivered without the need to use supposition, inference and suggestion which a great deal of Christian apologists seem to have to use. And primarily I would guess that's because it's the only way they can twist it to mean anything at all when there is in fact no inherent truth or factual substance to any of it.
But they just can't seem to let go like a dog worrying at an old bone that lost it's marrow and flavour a long time ago.
I'm not just unconvinced, as you put it, of the narrative; I'm questioning the honesty of people who will bend the evidence to fit what they want to believe (as these Christians have).
I got a brand new word; "MIKELY" as in probably NOT. "It's mikely that happened." LOL. RockOn, Paul.
I also think it needs to be pointed out that, even assuming the original 12 continued to proselytize, they probably couldn't make corrections to every version of the story of Jesus. It's not like they had access to the internet, radio, TV, or even newspapers (as we understand them today). It was all word-of-mouth, or the occasional written letter/scroll. And that mouth traveled by either foot (its own, or the feet of a domesticated animal) or by sea/river. 60 miles today is nothing, but back then it was at least a full day's travel, one-way; and let's be frank, the apostles would not have had ready access to horses, camels, or even donkeys, so it would have been by foot for all of it.
A trip from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to Sderot Ben Gurion, Netanya on the coast of modern Israel is just under 60 miles (96.4 km to be precise), and using a walking calculator, that puts it at a 24 hour walk, with no breaks, one-way and on modern roads.
Those 5 points at the end is pure gold
Paul, you are critically under appreciated, with an intellectually honest take on the gospels, you are the most refreshing thing about Christianity since the first version was adapted from Zoroastrianism/Judaism❤️
Oh this was charming! Thanks for the amazing amount of research that went into it, as well as the calm humor of the delivery style.
I’m am incredibly impressed with your knowledge of early scripture, much more so than your expert believers
Bonus points if you watched this video on your phone
I watch most of UA-cam videos on my phones
Er, yeh. Am I missing something?
What are the points worth
Wha? On my phone?!
Thanks for filling in for Dan, I like your delivery and material- Subscribed.
Appreciate that! Thanks
Love your videos! Informative and helpful. Also love when you pop in things like the Brady Bunch theme! : )
New sub here. From scimandan member. Nice concept sir.
Thank you! Welcome
Here from sciman dan! Great video! I subscribed to you because of it! :)
I’m not surprised that Licona didn’t respond to your question. He’s just pulling things out of his ass, surprise, surprise!
But hey, I will cut Licona some slack, considering that he doesn’t believe in Biblical inerrancy. Perhaps some information from Bart Ehrman rubbed off on him in their debates over the years?
If only his ass could talk, just like in the Bable.
Mike doesn't believe in inerrancy anymore? That's a step in the right direction I guess. I remember being very impressed with him being able to admit he didn't have an answer for the blatant contradictions Ehrman pointed out in their debate. It was refreshing intellectual honesty.
@@coliostro1006 so rare
And he seems just as convinced by tales of flying dustbin lids.
@@coliostro1006 Don't be too hopeful. From what I can gather, Licona will argue that the only "errors" in the Bible are inconsequential to its central message of salvation -- i.e. that you can still trust the Bible as the inspired word of God even if it was written down by fallible human beings. A sort of qualified inerrancy, I guess.
FANTASTIC video mate!
I love when dan goes on vaca! I always gets 2-3 new channels to watch. Thanks for your work!
Welcome!
Great vid bro, keep up the good work
Awesome video. Well done, Paul.
I really like this channel. Well done.
New sub here from Dan's channel. I can already tell I'm going to be spending a lot of time here. 😂
Welcome!
I love your breakdowns
Your channel is very inspiring to me and excellent
Nice work on this video Paul. Mike Licona does lots of debates but no one calls him out on his spin like you do. Precise and clear rebuttal sir.
Hi Paul. Just found your channel and yep, I subscribed. I'm wondering what you think of Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah theory? Thanks. Keep up the good work.
In his book Deciphering the Gospels, R. G. Price, very effectively argues that the gospel of Mark is a symbolic allegory with narratives built almost entirely from Old Testament allusions and the gospel author's creativity. (It has also been argued by others that Mark made intentional allusions to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.) That the first gospel was an original literary creation, and not a product of eyewitness testimony nor oral traditions is readily apparent from comparing the gospel to the Old Testament passages it derives nearly all its story elements from. And, all the other gospels derive their "information" about Jesus simply from Mark's gospel, from the Old Testament passages Mark referenced, or from mere fancy.
I will add that references to Jesus in Paul are problematic for a different reason. In ancient times, the letters of "Paul" existed in two versions. The short version was preserved and used by the Marcionites. The "orthodox" or proto-Catholic church used longer versions. We now have much reason to believe the shorter version is the more original. The shorter version only ever refers to Jesus as a supernatural being who was yet to reveal himself on earth. Those few Pauline passages that maybe seem to reference a human Jesus who actually walked the earth are all only found in the longer version. The longer versions originated in the later half of the second century, after misunderstanding of the gospel of Mark was already widespread.
If the authors of the New Testament, and all the apologists since, are known for anything, it’s absolute honesty and accuracy. Happy Opposite Day!
May I please get your source on there being no attribution of the name Mark to the gospel until the time frame you mentioned? I would like to use it in the future. Fascinating.
Great content.
"So...to sum up...Superb!" :)
Almost certainly exaggerated before, added to and changed while being written down, often modified in translation and regularly bent and twisted when preached.
"essentially what was originally written" except for the 400,000 textual variants, fraudulent books, etc.
It's about time to rewrite the Bible again.. Christian mythology doesn't fit the narrative anymore..
SixOfOne science caught up with it.
Hi Paul. Could you provide some links to the information about Pappas and Eusebius please?
I mean, we went from reformist preacher to son of god, so yes, I think the stories were a tad inacurrate
I would be very interested to see a video about your views on the talks, debates and books by Dr. Bart Ehrman
The mental gymnastics required to believe in accuracy, historicity, and inerrancy is simply mind numbing.
I was hoping for a clip from "The Jerk" when you brought up "his purpose."
Done well. Thanks 😊
spellcheck/grammar check - at around 17:43 for point 5 the background text says "..who might know they guy who wrote things down..." but that does not line up with your spoken script "..who might know [the] guy who wrote things down..."
That said, thank you for the video and sorry for the nitpick.
"bring three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"
Hey Paul, I was curious if there is any scholarly work that you know of that questions the historical validity of the gospels, even with the assumption that many of them are eyewitness testimony, given our current understanding of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony in the first place?
It's hard to believe that an otherwise intelligent and well educated man could mouth that rubbish with a straight face. I see BIG $ signs at play.
I like Alex Malpass’ term “motivated reasoning”. Could be Motivated by heaven, motived by fear of hell, motivated by money.
@@JerryPenna I coming to think Christianity like most religions is motivated by death anxiety. ua-cam.com/video/SS0mwd9cR24/v-deo.html This would explain the extreme intellectual contortions necessary to preserve their narrative.
@@JerryPenna Most likely it's the fear of losing everything you have worked for your entire life. Paul (of this channel) can attest just how devastating losing his faith was in his life -- he lost everything, his marriage, his friends, and his work, simply by declaring his non-belief. Mike simply cannot countenance the idea that he might be wrong about everything, especially since he's devoted his whole career to defending Christianity.
So while I vehemently disagree with apologists like Mike, I have to accept they are too locked into their livelihood to ever change significantly.
Organized religion is the greatest grift in the history of humanity.
@@rickb2432 You're being facetious, right?
Good to hear from a guy that seems to be spot on when it comes to the prophets! The truth of that damn book called the "bible"
Thanks paul and that discussion with hovind was great. So thats how i heard of you so i look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Aussie Chrisso 🤔😎
"the stories of Jesus didn't change" would seem to imply that the crucifixion actually featured bizarre events such as soldiers casting lots to divide up his garments and other events straight out of the Old Testament, which seems something that would not convince anyone other than biblical literalists
Hey Paul, on the podcast version of this episode the audio starts fading out about 10 minutes from the end and it becomes impossible to hear what is being said.
I envision a time when people of the region traveled from one place to another, but not as frequently as we do today. Most of these people could not read or write, but some of them would have heard the stories of religions. They may have been religious people, or encountered other religious people and ended up in a temple where 'god' was being worshiped, or where they were speaking of the Messiah. If they already had been told that that the Messiah was Jesus, and heard new stories of 'the messiah' without explanations of which messiah the preacher was specifically referring to, they could ~and probably would~ incorporate those stories into their personal doctrine. As these stories get passed along through word of mouth, they get embellished, and altered. After a few decades of this, you end up with the most amazing compilations of dissimilar stories about the same deity and messiah. Eventually the church itself has to decide which of these book that they will include and exclude from their doctrine... Ta da = The Bible. A book of overdeveloped fables, traditions, and lore.
Eg: A traveler goes to a city which is experiencing 'red tide' where eating shellfish can make you very ill. While in the Church they hear from the rabbi that they should not eat shellfish while in town. They return home and translate the story poorly, which gets interpreted as "God says don't eat shellfish".
I love the SpaceBalls insert.
"Then what does that make us?"
"Absolutely nothing!"
Ya he cut right before the punchline! It would have been perfect for Papias too 😭
💚 *quality content* 💚
Well done, brother.
Well true believers using the time-honoured technique of circular reasoning, make the case for inerrancy mitigation as the Holy Spirit oversaw the whole enterprise. They also add if pressed that the bible is inerrant in its original form only (but the gist is still on point). While my heart and soul wants to accept spiritual truth from written words, my head just won’t allow me. I’m now a pariah to my parish friends. And as American politics this past few years have shown us, it’s the best story that wins (not the facts). And regrettably after decades in various congregations I can no longer assert that Christian’s aren’t culpable of complete veracity. The end always justifies the means.
When I'm convinced that God exists, I'll consider the possibility at this god had a book published. Then and only then will I spend time worrying about the accuracy of the stories in that book. But hey, that's just me.
There's a world of difference between considering the possibility that a God had a book published, and considering the possibility that the Bible is that book.
@@Ponera-Sama To be honest, I plan to ask God for a video, books are so 20th Century, don't you think?
Why waste time reading books that take forever to actually make a point when you can listen to a short n' sweet video on the go?
Yes thank you
The 5 point conclusion is priceless. No, still not convinced neither. It always feels good to have Paulogia dig deep and confirm it's all wanna-believe malarkey.
I think not only were they corrupted, but in some stages it was done purposefully.
Philip was mentioned briefly in Acts 8:26-40.
Growing up Southern Baptist, i was taught that “disciple” refers to the 12, and “apostle” refers to students who carried on the teachings of the 12 (…and Paul).
Am i alone here?
14:21 love space ball’s
Well to be fair what Papias was describing about Judas was what happens to bodies that are left hanging. Which is what Acts is actually referring to when it said he "burst asunder".
JUDAS WAS MURDERED!!!!!!
Hi thank you so much for your work fellow ape.
I read The Gospel of Mark again yesterday and I was suprised by two things
a) Except I think two miracles, all the extraordinal actions credited to Jesus are pure exorcism
b) It is very consistent with mishnah's word view including reincarnation. Very interesting is, that both resurrection and reincarnation are called "rising from dead" in Mark...
Very interesting Video Paul.
On a side note. Personally, I wonder how much of what was written down was also a series of Lost in Translation from Peter or Paul whose original language was Hebrew, not Greek or Latin. For example, English is not my first language and I have lived in the U.S. for over 20 years now but, even now when all I do is speak English for over 80 percent of the time, I still make mistakes, some Engish words just do not translate and Idioms are even worst and on top of all that, not every state in the Union seems to speak the same English, at least not to me. so, how well did Paul and/or Peter could have really done in their translations? And for the Record, *I AM NOT Saying* that they didn't know how to speak Greek or Latin, I am only asking how well did they speak these languages in actuality when translating their message to a Greek audience or a Latin speaking audience.
It was supposed to go into the fiction genre of the Dewey Decimal system.
Still should
A man did NOT live inside the belly of a whale for 3 days. Fiction.
@@LosChongo - it's a *troll.*
Nothing _reasonable_ can be discussed with them because *trolls* are fundamentally _dishonest._
@S Gloobal Prove it did happen. That's how burden of proof works. Unless you want to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, Mazda, Osiris, etc. don't exist. Care to prove Hercules _didn't_ ask a river nymph to redirect water to clean out the stables of carnivorous horses? Or maybe come to your senses and realize that's not how burden of proof works, that a good epistemology doesn't assume things are true until proven false.
@S Gloobal The plagues of Egypt never happened, and if they did happen then the god of the bible is a monster for killing babies because the pharaoh pissed him off.
India never noticed the global flood. The pyramids don't show water damage. The cultures that have flood myths don't agree on when the floods happened. Many more have no flood myths at all. If the flood did happen then the god of the flood is a monster for killing infants and animals because a perfect being made things in his own image and fucked it up.
@S Gloobal And thanks for showing your ignorance again by completely straw-manning the discussion on origins of the universe. Still never did get back to me on how I completely dismantled your Cosmological argument for God.
Great examples of published falsehoods not being corrected! Even in the internet age when the correct information is widely and instantly available, crap is not corrected. Licona take note.
I thought I'd die with the Spaceball's clip
I recently watched se 08 ep 14 of Expedition Unknown. I would love to hear your thoughts about the book and interview about half way through the show. The book is Zealot by Reza Aslan, along with an interview.
Cheers 🍻
Anyone know the CW show clip Paul uses around the 14:16 mark?
90210
@@Paulogia Thanks.
Who is acruatly who is mentioned at 2:10?
I imagine Paul constantly going to court in order to have things corrected that others wrote about him... 😇👹
I wonder how much oral stories would change over time in a society where oral communication was far more common than written ones. Some New Testament passages are quoted hymns, which would mean they could be resistant to change over time. St. Thomas, by tradition, made it to India, and Catholics in India maintain he did.
Evil ones have no authority or jurisdiction to correct anybody but they think they do
Poor mike licona, I've never seen anyone destroyed in the comments on their own UA-cam videos worse than him🤭🤣
Oh, don't worry. He has no ability for self reflection or self correction. His bias is on the same level of that of a narcissist or psychopath. Nothing will shake his confidence, ever; only strengthen it.
Roedy Green. . 1 week ago. . Paul never met Jesus. All he imagines he knows he got from hallucinations. There is no reason to give this material any validity.. 1 reply. 15 likes.
how do you really know
Paul was is in Jerusalem the same years Jesus taught frequently in the temple and most certainly would not of carried out persecution if he did not know what Jesus said beside the disciples John and Peter and others traveled with Paul
so why are you just parroting misquided information because you won't look into things yourself
ray salmon Paul never claimed to have met Jesus. We have lots of writings from Paul about Jesus. The notion that he would leave out a detail as major as “Oh yeah, I met Jesus” is ludicrous.
If you want to suggest Paul did meet Jesus, despite there being no evidence of this, on what basis are you doing so? You may as well be suggesting that Donald Trump used to date Marilyn Monroe when he was 16 and she was 34, and Trump just decided to use his discretion to keep this to himself.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih
John Smith. . 35 minutes ago. . ray salmon Paul never claimed to have met Jesus. We have lots of writings from Paul about Jesus. The notion that he would leave out a detail as major as “Oh yeah, I met Jesus” is ludicrous.
If you want to suggest Paul did meet Jesus, despite there being no evidence of this, on what basis are you doing so? You may as well be suggesting that Donald Trump used to date Marilyn Monroe when he was 16 and she was 34, and Trump just decided to use his discretion to keep this to himself.. . .
that is a very common parrot for atheists to repeat without really doing any real thinking about it
first why would Paul actually have to personally met Jesus to know what he said, Paul was in Jerusalem the same time Jesus commonly taught in the temple he most certainly went there and heard what he said. besides the teachings of Jesus were well known and wide spread. In addition to this Paul spent several years with Jesus' disciples before he started his missionary journeys
certainly Paul letters would have never been in canon representing 1/4 of the new Testament. if he didn't know what Jesus said
besides lots of people are authorities on what people said whom they never met.
you assertion simply has too many large holes in it
@@raysalmon6566 *that is a very common parrot for atheists to repeat without really doing any real thinking about it*
You either have an adequate answer to this valid question or you don't. Poisoning the well not needed.
*first why would Paul actually have to personally met Jesus to know what he said...*
My response was only about whether Paul met Jesus. But to answer your question, is it possible that Paul accurately wrote down things Jesus said? Yes. Is it likely? I can't see how anyone could possibly have that level of confidence. Paul wrote years after Jesus died. Paul does not claim to have heard anything Jesus said while he was alive. He is relying on years of hearsay and verbal message-passing to know what Jesus said while he was alive. So while it's not impossible, the chances that the stories Paul heard years after the fact, having been passed from person-to-person with no fact-checking are incredibly unlikely to be accurate.
*Paul was in Jerusalem the same time Jesus commonly taught in the temple he most certainly went there and heard what he said.*
That's wishful thinking and pure speculation. As already mentioned, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus and it's laughable to suggest Paul wouldn't have noted this in any of his writings. As I have already asked, please let me know what you are basing this off? If it's only your stated reason of "Well, they were in the same area around the same time so perhaps they ran into each other" clearly isn't enough to outweigh the fact that Paul never claims this happened.
*certainly Paul letters would have never been in canon representing 1/4 of the new Testament. if he didn't know what Jesus said *
That's also wishful thinking. What possible reason can you have for thinking this? The books weren't canonised until centuries later. What possible method could have been used to determine if Paul's writings were an accurate reflection of what Jesus said centuries after the fact? There wasn't even a method of confirming this at the time Paul was writing. There is no accurate transcript of what Jesus said that could be compared to. This is, again, baseless speculation that would require a super-human level of accurate story-telling in order for it to be true. Anyone that's played the game Telephone knows this speculation isn't based in reality.
*besides lots of people are authorities on what people said whom they never met.*
It's not entirely clear what you mean by this, but the truth of this statement is tied to the accuracy of records. If there are lots of written records of what was said, and we can have high confidence in the veracity of those transcriptions (no signs of later fabrication, other independent sources that corroborate etc) then yes, someone can research these records and become an expert on the writings of a person they never met, and can possibly even claim a high degree of confidence that what was recorded in writings was what was actually said. This is all totally unrelated to Paul and Jesus. There is no accurate, corroborated transcription of what Jesus said. The first things to be written down were decades after the fact, having been passed around verbally in the mean time. We have no clue how exaggerated the stories became before they were committed to paper. We have no idea if the stories are somewhat close to what Jesus said, or if they were a complete departure from reality by they were written down. To say someone could be an authority of what was actually said based on "I heard stories years later" is again baseless speculation that flies in the face of reality.
*you assertion simply has too many large holes in it*
My only assertion was that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus while he was alive. This is true.
I then asked "If you want to suggest Paul did meet Jesus, despite there being no evidence of this, on what basis are you doing so?". This isn't an assertion by me. This is a request for you to back up what you want to suggest with something other than speculation that flies in the face of what Paul actually said. Just like your poisoning of the well tactic wasn't useful, neither is your attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm sorry that you have nothing better than baseless speculation to back up what you believe, but that's a problem with your decision to believe something which doesn't have evidential warrant.
I got a ad for a Israelis religious book at the start of this.....
I would love to see Mike try to respond to this.
I like Mike Licona, he is an exception to most Evangelical Apologists. He is a good hearted fellow. He is from time to time considered and reasonable. Having said that, to be sure, he is blinded by his faith, just like most of us..........
Hhha that closing is wonderful
I'm not convinced either. Thanks for breaking that one down.
I read "The Andromeda Strain" for fun in college, and I swear I thought it was nonfiction for at least five years. I wasn't even aware that Crichton was a famous novelist. I even told people we had discovered microscopic alien life, etc! (I don't remember much about the novel, but I think it was written in a very dry, straightforward, reportorial way, with "documents", etc. Edit: I just looked it up online, and it indeed has a "Forward" that frames the story as true, which is probably why I thought it was true, lol. Whitley Strieber did something similar with "Communion" and his alien abduction story, but claims it is true to this day.)
" and it indeed has a "Forward" that frames the story as true,
Chrichton did that sort of thing and in some his novels he did use real sources, such as the 13th Warrior and The Great Robbery, but in both cases he made most of it up.
The fact that there are "apocryphal" gospels, implies the church thought they gospel writers eventually didn't have the ability to sift out the obvious legend growth coming from later "gospels."
Is it true that the copies of the gospel of Mark that we have are dated to around 70 ce but that there could have been writings of the gospel that didn't survive antiquity? So what I'm saying is the oldest copy is from 70 ce ish but could've been written earlier?
The oldest gospels we have are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (simply "a book from Sinai" and "a book from Vatican). They date to the begining of the 4th century, and don't have all the books the modern NT has. Earlier, we have some fragments of texts, the oldest of which is dated betwee 125 and 175 AD. From that time we have fragments of other gospel that didn't make it into the bible, like gospel of Thomas and gospel of Judas, that picture Jesus in totally diferent fashion.
*There are no copies of anything at all in the New Testament dated to the first century.*
There are only tiny fragments amounting to merely hundreds of words dated to the *second century.*
The *third century* has some complete books of the New Testament ...
... and (almost) complete Bibles do not appear in the historical record until Sinaiticus and Vaticanis in the *fourth century.*
And both those two oldest Bibles contradict each other and all modern Bibles.
Those are the facts. Christians should just deal with facts instead of their vivid imaginations.
One example of Bible nonsense that Christians today believe is the very famous story with the quote:
_let he who is without sin cast the first stone._
Neither Sainaiticus or Vaticanus have that story. In fact it doesn't appear in _any_ Bible manuscript until the fifth century, yet all modern Bibles include it, even though it is demonstrably a story added many centuries after the events supposedly described in the New Testament narratives.
That's blatant Christian dishonesty right there.
Wow...great replies. Thank you very much for the time. I love this stuff lol
@@zoranocokoljic8927 - the Codex Sinaiticus includes a book called *"The Shepherd of Hermas"* that was deleted from the New Testament canon in the 7th or 8th centuries. It was considered true scripture by famous Christians of antiquity such as Bishop Origen.
Now it is virtually unknown to modern Christians, despite its ancient status as true scripture. No modern Bibles include The Shepherd, and it's highly unlikely to make a comeback.
Modern Bibles are definitely _not_ accurate representations of what ancient Christians actually believed.