Thanks, we wanted to do something a bit more meaningful for the Christmas season and we're glad that we're able to use our limited platform to support those suffering in Gaza and across Palestine
It is the greatest of ironies that an empire of Christ killers, which the gospels clearly hate, should become the most important instrument in it’s spread and survival. And that the capital of these heathens should now be one of Christianity’s greatest centers.
I like how you weaved the barbaric strictures, and upheavals due to an occupation and martial "law" of the Then and Now. You are more correct than maybe even YOU think. 🙂
Love the lengthy disclaimer at the onset. There are so many people who will base arguments to support a belief that the “Bible” is flawless by quoting another source in their bible. Flawed, obviously, but don’t bother trying to tell them that.
Thank you so much, I truly feel that is the highest compliment we can receive because the project here is first and foremost a moral one designed to use the past to help inspire change in the present. Much appreciated
Glad you liked this one - it didn’t really seem to find its audience but it hits in so many of the core themes of the channel (imperialism, early spread of Christianity and the intersection of ancient power structures with modern politics) that it’s all material we will come back to again.
Both genealogies indicate he was descended from David, but one states he was descended from Solomon, the other says he was from Davids other son, Nathan. Which is an interesting difference, although Im not sure what that indicates.
Jesus was in my opinion a Communist but He deliberately avoiding being specifically "Anti-Roman",. when "He said to Love Your Enemies" and "Pray for Those who Persecute You" it was contextually mainly Romans He was referring to, He defined a Gay Roman Solider as having greater Faith then any of the Children of Israel. Also the word translated "Tax Collector" should in my view being more accurately translated Collaborator. That continued throughout the book of Acts when Roman officials are always more tolerant of the early Christians then the local mobs. And NOT the Nativity Narratives do NTO depict Jesus as being born Poor in back of a Stable, He was Born into the house of David, in the Upper Room of a house Joseph owned in the City of David. I also am highly skeptical of the claim that Herod's family was Idumean, if such a thing was in anyway a part of Matthew's political commentary it would have bene alluded to, instead Matthew Gospel doesn't even mention the existence of the Idumeans. In The Hebrew Bible being Hung on a Tree was an execution for Tyrants and Oppressors, the significance of that being how Jesus died is to show he Dies for the Sins of all even the Sinners most difficult to sympathize with.
Going back and watching this one after your lastest video, I am still amused how I saw a comment there accusing Christianity as being "Pro-Roman propoganda" as s reason for Jesus's mythical nature...
The "...culmination of the Gospels..." is not "...the Crucifixion". The culmination is the Resurrection of Christ, the Commissioning of the Apostles to preach the "Good News" to the whole world, and Christ's Ascension into Heaven, which ain't too far from here.
Luke is highly pro-Roman and anti-Jewwish.Luke is probably the most pro-Roman author in the New Testament. Acts is filled with pro-Roman apologetics. There is no political intent in Luke's Nativity (which was probably not originally part of the Gospels but added by a later hand. There is a great deal of evidence that Marcion's Gospel was an earlier version of Luke and that canonical Luke was added onto later, probably by the same person who composed most of Acts and possibly the Pastoral Epistles as well (statistical analysis shows stylistic affinities with Polycarp, who would have been in a position to be able to do so and who knew a Bishop named Theophilus). This entire Eccelesiastical corpus of an edited version of Marcion's Gospel, along with the pseudopigraphical letters of Paul and what is essentially a romance novel in Acts (albeit a romance which may incorporate fragments of "journal" purporting to have been composed by an unnamed traveling companion of Paul) did not come about until well into the 2nd Century, possibly as late as 150 and its entire purpose is as a response to Marcionism. It's anti-Jewish and pro-Rpoman. Acts has Paul saved repeatedly by Romans from Jews who want to kill him. Luke-Acts does not have a single Roman character who is negatively portrayed. These books were probably written after the Bar Kochba revolt during which Bar Kochba murdered Christian Jews who would not acknowledge him as the Messiah. By the time Luke-Acts was written, most Christians were Gentiles. They did not see Romans as the bad guys, they WERE the Romans. Jewish Christians didn't last very long. The original, Torah observant Christian sects in Palestine basically vanished from history during the Jewish Revolts. We have no information about a single disciple outside the New Testament. Christianity was never an anti-Roman movement, although it was arguably anti-Imperialist in covert ways.
This was more insightful read than the entire video I just watched. 9 mins of milquetoast analysis that’s pretty well known, while your comment offers a significantly new insight
Thanks for your comment - I appreciate the length and thoroughness of your reply, however I feel that your position is reductive and out of step with modern scholarship. I don't want to get bogged down on the question of authorship and dating since that is immaterial to my perspective on the validity of Luke as anti-imperial but I believe that you significantly overstate your case and the evidence you've marshaled in support is fringe at best and misleading at worst. For example, the consensus is that Luke was composed between c. 80-110 and I fail to understand how the later noncanonical work of Marcion being based on Luke would affect this - someone writing fanfiction later doesn't cast doubt on the original text. The other authors and redactors you postulate are also rejected by scholarship On the more salient point of empire within the text, a reading informed by postcolonial theory draws out the negative implications of Roman rule that are by necessity subtextual. This comes further into view when we compare Luke with the writing of Josephus - here we have work in the genre of hellenistic history from a similar time period and cultural background that is vocally pro-roman and indeed contains passages that can be read as more virulently anti-Jewish than anything in Luke. We know what Pro-Roman histories looked like - Luke does not fit the bill. And contrary to your assertion, there are negative portrayals of Roman officials - Herod "that fox" is openly vilified for killing John the Baptist, Jesus predicts Roman armies will destroy Jerusalem and Pilate is also cast as a weak, vacillating ruler. Finally (though this has less purchase if we revise dating to the scholarly consensus) I dispute the idea that even gentile christians would have seen themselves as "Roman". In this era citizenship was highly limited and though many cities in the east where Christianity first resonated were not engaged in active rebellion they were far from identifying as Roman themselves. They were ruled by Rome and resigned to that fact but they identified with their local community far more than a city they had never seen. I do agree with your final assertion that Christianity was not primarily an anti-imperial movement. It was drawn into conflict with Rome but the goal of the first Christians was not directed at destroying Roman dominion
@@tribunateSPQR There does not seem to be a single substantive response here to anything I've said. It IS mainstream scholarship and everything you're saying is factually wrong. You cited nothing yo support your own assertionsand nothing to address a single point I've made. Most Christians were not Jews and most Jews were pro-Roman. Luke-Acts is only pro-Roman and only anti-Jewish. This is not "fringe." Read the Acts Seminar report or any current scholarship on Luke-Acts.
I agree, but feel like the point of the video is that whether or not the Christmas story is literally true or not, we must consider how it was constructed by the authors. In fact, including elements that didn't actually happen would have only been done so for a specific purpose since it wasn't strictly necessary to include them
I know that is the consensus of most modern scholars, but the point of the video is to treat the narrative as a text which expresses the political aims of its authors. The Bethlehem setting was included for a specific reason, one we argue was couched in a critique of Rome
the Gospels dont perfectly relay historical facts? do name one example. there were plenty of non-Christian roman and jewish historians who corroborated several facts from the Gospels. also the Gospels were written merely a few decades after Jesus' death, and by people who either came into contact with Him directly, or people who knew the Apostles. unless you want to throw out most of ancient history, the Gospel accounts fit into historiographic standards of relaying events. the fact that you leave out such crucial info makes me think you have subversive ulteriour motives. idk why you'd advertise your video to Christian audiences or for persecuted Christians in gaza. I will have to unsubscribe, be well!
He never said that the Gospels don't perfectly relay historical facts, his whole opening disclaimer just says that he is taking a neutral stance on how historical the Christmas story is.
@@FlyingAlfredoSaucer he is just biased in trying to portray the roman empire as LE BAD for political purposes while disavowing the very same religion. there are 0 passages in the Bible saying the romans wanted to kill Jesus, while there are dozens that blame jews and the pharisees.
How do you think the Gospels could relay "perfectly historical facts" when there are literally 37 miracles described across all four of them? For non-religious people, those alone are, by definition, not historical facts.
The Gospels have the same events happening at different times in different ways. The harmonization of that takes high level mental gymnastics. The geography is really bad in places, the genealogies are different. You could literally write a book about it, because people have and do.
@@tribunateSPQR Not gonna happen sorry. Even if Israel goes down they will take a lot of arabs with them. There is a reason why they have amassed nuclear weapons.
Merry Christmas, and prayers for peace on earth.
Loved this! Kudos for remembering our Christian brothers in the Holy land and their oppression under the zionist tyranny.
Thanks, we wanted to do something a bit more meaningful for the Christmas season and we're glad that we're able to use our limited platform to support those suffering in Gaza and across Palestine
Sad that this channel allows and actually promotes Hamas anti Isreali propaganda. Have you no shame?
@@tribunateSPQRhey, can you like delete that antisemitic comment, instead of, idk, HEARTING IT?!?
@@tribunateSPQRoh you guys are antisemitic huh? Okay, bye!!!
@@Shmuel420
Still here?
Great message, and thanks for fundraising a worthy cause
thanks!
why would i read that as crusade?
@@gamnaishel ??????
It is the greatest of ironies that an empire of Christ killers, which the gospels clearly hate, should become the most important instrument in it’s spread and survival. And that the capital of these heathens should now be one of Christianity’s greatest centers.
Great video, merry christmas
Same to you
I think Nietzsche perfectly embodied these different psychological attitudes with his ‘Master-Slave’ morality distinction
thanks for sharing this - great Christmas video
Thank you
God bless the children of Gaza 🙏
I like how you weaved the barbaric strictures, and upheavals due to an occupation and martial "law" of the Then and Now. You are more correct than maybe even YOU think. 🙂
Incredible video and solidarity ❤
Glad you enjoyed it!
Solidarity forever
Great video - thanks for sharing
Glad you enjoyed it
Love the lengthy disclaimer at the onset. There are so many people who will base arguments to support a belief that the “Bible” is flawless by quoting another source in their bible. Flawed, obviously, but don’t bother trying to tell them that.
Wow the more content from this channel I consume the more I am taken aback by its depth of consciousness
God bless you guys
Thank you so much, I truly feel that is the highest compliment we can receive because the project here is first and foremost a moral one designed to use the past to help inspire change in the present. Much appreciated
nice perspective
Thanks so much!
love this
Thank you!
All eyes on Gaza ❤
Love and solidarity to Gaza, now and always
Amen 🙏🏻
Glad you liked this one - it didn’t really seem to find its audience but it hits in so many of the core themes of the channel (imperialism, early spread of Christianity and the intersection of ancient power structures with modern politics) that it’s all material we will come back to again.
Both genealogies indicate he was descended from David, but one states he was descended from Solomon, the other says he was from Davids other son, Nathan.
Which is an interesting difference, although Im not sure what that indicates.
Jesus was in my opinion a Communist but He deliberately avoiding being specifically "Anti-Roman",. when "He said to Love Your Enemies" and "Pray for Those who Persecute You" it was contextually mainly Romans He was referring to, He defined a Gay Roman Solider as having greater Faith then any of the Children of Israel. Also the word translated "Tax Collector" should in my view being more accurately translated Collaborator. That continued throughout the book of Acts when Roman officials are always more tolerant of the early Christians then the local mobs.
And NOT the Nativity Narratives do NTO depict Jesus as being born Poor in back of a Stable, He was Born into the house of David, in the Upper Room of a house Joseph owned in the City of David.
I also am highly skeptical of the claim that Herod's family was Idumean, if such a thing was in anyway a part of Matthew's political commentary it would have bene alluded to, instead Matthew Gospel doesn't even mention the existence of the Idumeans.
In The Hebrew Bible being Hung on a Tree was an execution for Tyrants and Oppressors, the significance of that being how Jesus died is to show he Dies for the Sins of all even the Sinners most difficult to sympathize with.
Going back and watching this one after your lastest video, I am still amused how I saw a comment there accusing Christianity as being "Pro-Roman propoganda" as s reason for Jesus's mythical nature...
It is
The "...culmination of the Gospels..." is not "...the Crucifixion". The culmination is the Resurrection of Christ, the Commissioning of the Apostles to preach the "Good News" to the whole world, and Christ's Ascension into Heaven, which ain't too far from here.
Luke is highly pro-Roman and anti-Jewwish.Luke is probably the most pro-Roman author in the New Testament. Acts is filled with pro-Roman apologetics.
There is no political intent in Luke's Nativity (which was probably not originally part of the Gospels but added by a later hand. There is a great deal of evidence that Marcion's Gospel was an earlier version of Luke and that canonical Luke was added onto later, probably by the same person who composed most of Acts and possibly the Pastoral Epistles as well (statistical analysis shows stylistic affinities with Polycarp, who would have been in a position to be able to do so and who knew a Bishop named Theophilus). This entire Eccelesiastical corpus of an edited version of Marcion's Gospel, along with the pseudopigraphical letters of Paul and what is essentially a romance novel in Acts (albeit a romance which may incorporate fragments of "journal" purporting to have been composed by an unnamed traveling companion of Paul) did not come about until well into the 2nd Century, possibly as late as 150 and its entire purpose is as a response to Marcionism. It's anti-Jewish and pro-Rpoman. Acts has Paul saved repeatedly by Romans from Jews who want to kill him. Luke-Acts does not have a single Roman character who is negatively portrayed. These books were probably written after the Bar Kochba revolt during which Bar Kochba murdered Christian Jews who would not acknowledge him as the Messiah. By the time Luke-Acts was written, most Christians were Gentiles. They did not see Romans as the bad guys, they WERE the Romans. Jewish Christians didn't last very long. The original, Torah observant Christian sects in Palestine basically vanished from history during the Jewish Revolts. We have no information about a single disciple outside the New Testament. Christianity was never an anti-Roman movement, although it was arguably anti-Imperialist in covert ways.
This was more insightful read than the entire video I just watched. 9 mins of milquetoast analysis that’s pretty well known, while your comment offers a significantly new insight
Thanks for your comment - I appreciate the length and thoroughness of your reply, however I feel that your position is reductive and out of step with modern scholarship. I don't want to get bogged down on the question of authorship and dating since that is immaterial to my perspective on the validity of Luke as anti-imperial but I believe that you significantly overstate your case and the evidence you've marshaled in support is fringe at best and misleading at worst. For example, the consensus is that Luke was composed between c. 80-110 and I fail to understand how the later noncanonical work of Marcion being based on Luke would affect this - someone writing fanfiction later doesn't cast doubt on the original text. The other authors and redactors you postulate are also rejected by scholarship
On the more salient point of empire within the text, a reading informed by postcolonial theory draws out the negative implications of Roman rule that are by necessity subtextual. This comes further into view when we compare Luke with the writing of Josephus - here we have work in the genre of hellenistic history from a similar time period and cultural background that is vocally pro-roman and indeed contains passages that can be read as more virulently anti-Jewish than anything in Luke. We know what Pro-Roman histories looked like - Luke does not fit the bill. And contrary to your assertion, there are negative portrayals of Roman officials - Herod "that fox" is openly vilified for killing John the Baptist, Jesus predicts Roman armies will destroy Jerusalem and Pilate is also cast as a weak, vacillating ruler.
Finally (though this has less purchase if we revise dating to the scholarly consensus) I dispute the idea that even gentile christians would have seen themselves as "Roman". In this era citizenship was highly limited and though many cities in the east where Christianity first resonated were not engaged in active rebellion they were far from identifying as Roman themselves. They were ruled by Rome and resigned to that fact but they identified with their local community far more than a city they had never seen.
I do agree with your final assertion that Christianity was not primarily an anti-imperial movement. It was drawn into conflict with Rome but the goal of the first Christians was not directed at destroying Roman dominion
@@tribunateSPQR There does not seem to be a single substantive response here to anything I've said. It IS mainstream scholarship and everything you're saying is factually wrong. You cited nothing yo support your own assertionsand nothing to address a single point I've made. Most Christians were not Jews and most Jews were pro-Roman. Luke-Acts is only pro-Roman and only anti-Jewish. This is not "fringe." Read the Acts Seminar report or any current scholarship on Luke-Acts.
Bethlehem, the place where jesus almost certainly was not born.
I agree, but feel like the point of the video is that whether or not the Christmas story is literally true or not, we must consider how it was constructed by the authors. In fact, including elements that didn't actually happen would have only been done so for a specific purpose since it wasn't strictly necessary to include them
Ahh the conspiracist is here
Oh please
I know that is the consensus of most modern scholars, but the point of the video is to treat the narrative as a text which expresses the political aims of its authors. The Bethlehem setting was included for a specific reason, one we argue was couched in a critique of Rome
the Gospels dont perfectly relay historical facts? do name one example. there were plenty of non-Christian roman and jewish historians who corroborated several facts from the Gospels. also the Gospels were written merely a few decades after Jesus' death, and by people who either came into contact with Him directly, or people who knew the Apostles. unless you want to throw out most of ancient history, the Gospel accounts fit into historiographic standards of relaying events.
the fact that you leave out such crucial info makes me think you have subversive ulteriour motives. idk why you'd advertise your video to Christian audiences or for persecuted Christians in gaza. I will have to unsubscribe, be well!
He never said that the Gospels don't perfectly relay historical facts, his whole opening disclaimer just says that he is taking a neutral stance on how historical the Christmas story is.
@@FlyingAlfredoSaucer he is just biased in trying to portray the roman empire as LE BAD for political purposes while disavowing the very same religion.
there are 0 passages in the Bible saying the romans wanted to kill Jesus, while there are dozens that blame jews and the pharisees.
How do you think the Gospels could relay "perfectly historical facts" when there are literally 37 miracles described across all four of them? For non-religious people, those alone are, by definition, not historical facts.
The Gospels have the same events happening at different times in different ways. The harmonization of that takes high level mental gymnastics. The geography is really bad in places, the genealogies are different. You could literally write a book about it, because people have and do.
Free Palestine!
Great and amazing video as always brother.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free ❤️🇵🇸
@@tribunateSPQR Not gonna happen sorry. Even if Israel goes down they will take a lot of arabs with them. There is a reason why they have amassed nuclear weapons.
Comment for the algorithm
🫡