Your passion for teaching your beloved topic is no more apparent than in this latest video of yours and I am so grateful for what you make available to the public for self-education. I have purchased both of these books, have finished Paul and Jesus, and am about to start Paul's Ascent. Thank you for this wonderful gift of knowledge. Be Blessed.
Awesome presentation. I am currently leading an adult Bible study on the Letter to the Romans. I chose that topic in part because that letter challenges many of the conventions people mistakenly call “Christianity “. Thank you Dr Tabor.
I was a college student who took classes from Bob Grant and JZ Smith in the late 70s. I was way out of my depth, to be truthful. But years later as an Episcopal priest there is no doubt that, especially JZ Smith, has profoundly affected the way I approach scripture. It is refreshing to hear someone else read it very much as I do.
Your lectures are brilliant. I feel like I’ve listened to Paul himself after you have lectured about him. “Pauls Gospel” is different than what is taught by Sunday bible study. Every day, especially Sabbath (in school) is new. ⭐️
Thank you for talking to me❣️ And I am ordering the 1st book you recommended. Recently I heard a couple messages directed toward youth, of course for all of us. Creation and Noah's Ark story. I was reminded of why the narrator would speak so fast and every thing on the subjects would move so quickly. Evidently youth can't be still enough to take time to think before wanting to leave the subject. They are being trained that way. That's what the pastor said. I am from your generation. I love the care and thoughtfulness put into the spoken word. I love time spent with me and for me. I watched this last night when I went to bed and woke up twice to retrieve where I left off. It was not boring, maybe for me soothing. I woke up this morning and went back a couple more times fully awake to capture the meanings of what I haven't heard and didn't know. It has taken me many years of being afraid to ask questions and look deeply for myself into what the Bible is saying beyond what I have been told. For me I finally said to God one day, "I can't do it any more." I am always seeking the Truth, but I have been met recently with negativity toward speaking from the heart. Even though I am doing what Christ says to do, "Become as little children." By the way the 1st question I ever remember asking about God in church at @ 8 years old when I met our pastor at the foyer was, "Where did God come from?" He said, " We don't ask those questions."
Dr. Tabor, your videos contrasting the Hebrew vs. Hellenistic worldviews have helped me immensely as a tool for understanding biblical theology. I am massively grateful!
Wow!!! This was powerful ! I’m watching for the second time. This cosmology is universal. The revelation of many others coming to prophesy and be choosen by ones inter metaphoric alchemical transformation from being of dirt to that of Spirit. Dr. This is wonderful ! 💕🙏🏼🎊💫🧚🏼♂️💥✨
Thank you, Dr. Tabor. I watched this whole lecture. I am not a student of this subject but find it interesting. I love what you said but here I am. I know how you, and so many, enjoy all of these ideas. As I remarked, the ideas are wonderfully interesting. I don't know which Beatle wrote this phrase but I will just quote it as the only comment - "All you need is love". I do find it amazing how much thought, and possibly inspiration, has gone into religious writings. With all the division and ugliness in the world, I really wish that it was all much more simple. Thanks again.
Very informative information Dr. Tabor for those with ears to hear. During much of your informative lecture I could not help but revert back to what most of what you were teaching to Herbert W. Armstrong's little booklet "Just What Do You Mean... BORN AGAIN?" Alot of similarity between them both. He to wrote of the creation of the God family... "that which is born of spirit IS spirit."
Yes, I think he got the idea from Charles Taz Russell...but the Eastern Christian church, although Trinitarians, is not far off from this modified "deification" idea. Howeve,r it is heresy in the West.
@@JamesTaborVideosYes, as a catechumen in the Orthodox church (OCA), this is the idea we are being taught. Is this because the eastern church was able to better preserve the original meaning of Paul’s Greek? This is so interesting. Thank you for putting this out for everyone.
@18:40 “The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul” is indeed insightful. Somitimes old is gold - I appreciate Albert Schweitzer’s insight into the effortless continuity between the Kingdom announced by Jesus and the Kingdom of the son of God announced by Paul as inaugurated and participatory eschatology. The mystical participation in the pattern of Jesus is at the center of the gospel-life Paul was teaching.
Almost everything you explore in this lecture is contextualized in the mainstream presentation of the Orthodox Christian world including iconography, the texts of the services, the church calendar and hymnography. Check out the services of Holy Saturday, iconography of the Transfiguration (metamorphosis), burial service for a priest, baptismal rite, etc. If one starts from the perspective of American Protestant sects, very basic stuff can seem revolutionary.
I was tearing my hair out at this! I know Prof. Tabor has joked about not knowing much theology past AD 100 but I felt crazy listening to him present this as an alien metaphysics when he might as well be reading straight from St. Gregory of Nyssa or Maximus the Confessor
Here's a critique of a few of his key arguments: 1. Paul as the True Founder of Christianity Tabor argues that Paul, not Jesus, was the true founder of Christianity, framing Paul as having developed a fundamentally different theology from the original teachings of Jesus. While Paul did play a significant role in spreading Christianity and shaping its theology, this claim minimizes the continuity between Paul’s teachings and those of the early followers of Jesus. Many scholars argue that Paul's writings show evidence of him preserving and interpreting Jesus’ teachings for a Gentile audience, not inventing an entirely new religion. Counterpoint: Paul's letters constantly reference Jesus as the central figure of faith, reflecting on his life, death, and resurrection. Paul’s concept of salvation through Jesus is rooted in what was already being taught by Jesus' earliest followers. While his interpretation and expansion of those teachings may have influenced Christianity's growth, calling him the "founder" undercuts the collective work of early Christian communities. 2. The Existence of a Different Historical Jesus Tabor often emphasizes a distinction between the historical Jesus (a Jewish apocalyptic prophet) and the Christ of faith (the divine figure worshiped in Christianity). While this distinction is a common scholarly approach, Tabor tends to focus heavily on separating Jesus' teachings from their later theological interpretations. He suggests that Jesus never intended to start a new religion or be seen as divine in the way Christians understand him today. Counterpoint: While it's true that historical and theological views of Jesus differ, Tabor’s stance overlooks the fact that early Jewish followers of Jesus, many of whom knew him personally, quickly began to ascribe divine status to him and worship him in ways that suggest Jesus' own teachings contained more than just apocalyptic prophecy. The development of Christology appears early in Christian texts, not just with Paul or later generations, suggesting a more integrated development than Tabor allows for. 3. The Family of Jesus and the Role of James Tabor emphasizes the leadership role of James, the brother of Jesus, within the early Christian movement and suggests that James’ influence was marginalized by later, Pauline Christianity. He argues that the original Jerusalem church, led by James, had a more Jewish-oriented, Torah-observant version of Christianity, which was overshadowed by Paul’s universalizing, Gentile-friendly approach. Counterpoint: While it’s true that James was a prominent figure in the early church, and that there were tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians, Tabor overstates the divide. The New Testament, particularly the Book of Acts, shows efforts to reconcile the teachings of both James and Paul, suggesting that the early church sought unity despite theological differences. Furthermore, Tabor tends to portray Paul as having hijacked the movement, but early Christians accepted Paul's letters as scripture alongside other writings. This acceptance implies a broader consensus on the legitimacy of Paul's teachings, even among those with differing views like James. 4. The Ossuary of James and Jesus' Family Tomb Tabor gained attention for his involvement in controversial archaeological claims, such as the Talpiot Tomb and the James Ossuary, which purportedly contained the bones of Jesus and his family. He argues that these discoveries point to Jesus being buried in a family tomb, contrary to the resurrection narrative central to Christian belief. Counterpoint: These claims have been widely disputed by both archaeologists and biblical scholars. The identification of the Talpiot Tomb with Jesus’ family remains speculative and circumstantial. Many experts argue that the names inscribed on the ossuaries were common in 1st-century Judea, and there is insufficient evidence to definitively link the tomb to Jesus of Nazareth. The resurrection narrative, which is foundational to Christian belief, is supported by numerous early sources, making Tabor’s claims about the tomb problematic for historical consensus. 5. Minimization of the Resurrection Tabor often treats the resurrection as a later theological invention rather than a historical event. He suggests that Jesus’ followers experienced visions or spiritual experiences after his death, leading them to develop the belief in the resurrection. Counterpoint:The resurrection is one of the earliest and most widespread claims of the early Christian movement, appearing in multiple, independent sources within the New Testament (e.g., the Gospels, Pauline letters). This early and rapid dissemination of resurrection belief makes it hard to dismiss as merely a later theological development. Many scholars argue that something significant-whether historical or experiential-happened that led Jesus’ followers to fervently believe and proclaim his resurrection. In sum, while Tabor raises interesting and challenging points, many of his arguments rely on speculative interpretations of historical and archaeological evidence, often pushing beyond what mainstream scholarship supports. He tends to overstate the discontinuities between Jesus, Paul, and early Christianity, while minimizing the broader and more complex development of Christian thought.
I would agree. I would just disagree that the earliest followers of Jesus or paul thought that Jesus was divine i.e. a God all part of a Trinity. This is the result of misinterpreting both the letters of Paul also the entirety of the new Testament. We also have a problem with the sanitisation of the new Testament letters particularly in terms of language which makes it very difficult to understand some of Paul discussion regards to the law.
I will stick with Paul and the Holy Spirit as they gave us this truth in Colossians 1, "16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Amen
I was born into the church of Christ and got disfellowshiped and I joined the Orthodox and the Catholic church but now am in the original gospel of the Leader which is Tantra Samana Aaseevagam tradition..... Yeshua did go and learn about how to be be reborn in the Virgin Mother....
Love this glad I found you. I've been obsessed with classics and specifically the bible and Christianity as a product of the classical Hellenistic world. Thanks. Peace.
We have a similar background, except you are smarter, better educated, and have more hair. I keep hearing you express some matters I grew up with. I don’t think you have abandoned it as much as you think. I can certainly can agree that “I knew a lot and I knew almost nothing.” But I feel it is wrong to diminish our background. I would never return, but I am forever grateful for what I learned early.
I totally agree...I did not mean to disparage my teachers and never would...but Malherbe, Ferguson, Lemoine Lewis, Jack Lewis, etc. were exceptions who changed the entire Church...over time.
I just finished watching your video, Dr. Tabor. It gave me so much to think about. I'm not in the mood to write an essay to express my many thoughts your video has generated for me. But I do thank you for this presentation. At the present moment, all I can say with a sly smile upon my lips is that I can understand now as to why Greeks in Acts 17 regarded Paul as somewhat of a crackpot.
After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence, the return of Jesus will happen in the"twinkling of an eye,we will all be changed,in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,at the last trumpet..Paul is talking about one’s own individual death not a literal apocalypse 🙏
Great presentation. I followed a similar path myself from believer to academic, but ended up dropping out of a PhD program in classics. Academia wasn't for me, but I learned a lot and cherish those classes, the relationships with professors and the intellectual pursuits we engaged in. Still enjoy this stuff as I listen tonight in my vehicle on the way home from work .
Wonderful presentation on Paul's thinking. Thank you dr Tabor. As a JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) this is what we were tought in their schools. I do believe mainstream Christianity has been hijacked by orthodoxy today. Thank you for speaking direct to us, your work means so much to us.. Agape ♥️. 🙋
As a JW do you believe this spiritual body Paul is talking about that is not 'of flesh and blood' refers only to the 144000 anointed? Or to the humans that will inherit the earth too?
@dystopian-future Hi! They are the same. We are, who aspire to receive the Kingdom from Heaven, the same who he said shall inherit the land, God's earth. We shall be one. And He, Son of Man, is the Coming One. He shall be with mankind, for them to be healed (see Isaiah, Revelation) and become nations, peoples of God. Paul of Tarsus wrote: for the creation to become free and children of the One who has valued us and will reside with us. Do you know the Prophets? Do you know they say these things? In the Book of a Revelation to an old man, John: He heard a son of God, an angel speaking: the tribes of Israel and their number. After that he saw: from all nations and peoples and from the tribes and they are speaking all kinds of languages, and God is being with them. The Gods is counting us, He sends his angels forth as mighty winds and like flames of fire. Hear, my Israel! He who is and will be your God, He will be one [אחד έν one, the same one as he spoke of the first human, man and woman to be, and of Jerusalem, new City of a Great King, Israel of the Nations, its peace and prosperity extending over all God's creation. Thank you for your kindness asking.
Love your stuff Dr Tabor. I got a BA from Lipscomb University in history in the early 90s. True about a lot of the academic rigor of the CoC colleges. Plus not being part of the broader evangelical culture, you got more beatitudes, less culture wars.
I think one of the places I'm having a hard time is on the one hand to accept that I Corinthians 15 is an authentically early historical account that Paul is writing honestly and that Paul sincerely believes to be true, while on the other hand trying to ignore that Paul was not writing about trance-like visions or heavenly body* - * i.e. a body merely heavenly without it being the physical body of Christ that he used on earth - appearances of Jesus when he talked about Jesus appearing to Peter, the Twelve, the 500, and James. It seems that if we are to think that this non-physical resurrection of Jesus is what Paul had in mind, and the only thing Paul had in mind, that Paul would then imagine all the other appearances to be post-ascension visions like the ones Paul had, instead of the way the Gospels and Acts record the physical body appearances of the risen Christ. It is much easier to believe that Paul and Peter and the Twelve and James and the 500 were all on the same page: that Jesus appeared bodily in a resurrected yet physical body - simultaneously supernatural and physical, somewhat in the way that Jesus walked on water - over a forty-day period prior to the ascension, and then only appeared in dreams and visions type experiences after that, in the same ways that Jesus appears in dreams and visions to people in the modern day. If we said that Paul was ignorant of the pre-ascension bodily appearances or that I Cor 15 wasn't an authentic early hymn that Paul was repeating, then we could say that perhaps Paul thought Jesus was only risen as this heavenly body type. If we base Paul's belief in the heavenly body resurrection on I Cor. 15, then we should also accept Paul's belief in the very real and physical bodily resurrection type of Jesus that the others witnessed alive pre-ascension. One could postulate that Paul was only writing about the others having seen Jesus in the same way Paul had, and that Paul's visible sighting of Jesus refers to a vision he had after the Damascus road experience, but I am more prone to believe that Paul's account of the other disciples was as the Gospels record, and that Paul is referring to experiencing Jesus firsthand on the road to Damascus where he was not seeing a vision and did not see any bodily form of Jesus, but only the bright light that everyone could see and a voice that only Paul could hear audibly, or at least if others heard the voice, they did not understand it. I will note here that even though many Evangelicals think that what made Paul an authentic Apostle was that he saw the risen Christ, I hold that Paul did not see the risen Christ in a physical sense, and was an authentic Apostle because he was sent by Jesus to the Gentiles, via a voice, more than by any sighting in a vision. An Apostle is one who is sent by Jesus, not one who has seen Jesus. A lower-case "a" apostle can be one sent by the Holy Spirit or by church elders/leaders. There is more nuance, but I'll stop here.
I have always had the tendency to blame Paul for the 'teachings of Paul' that The Church gives to us; but you have opened my mind to the possibility that history has only preserved and interpreted to us a certain view of those teachings, apparently at variance with the teachings of the 'Jerusalem Church' and the Druids and rational science, which we should perhaps not lay at the door of Paul, as we only see him through the veil of what we are given. Maybe Paul's 'teachings' may have been interpreted differently by Paul, but, as always, translation to a different language and culture without us having personal knowledge of the original language and culture, leaves us with misunderstandings. Thankyou for the clarity, as always, and enthusiasm for understanding.
As someone who was listening in the car with no visual, it would be nice if you read the text first, then analyzed it! Of course, this is your channel, but that's my "would be nice" wish! I enjoyed the talk anyway!
thank you for this excellent lecture Dr Tabor. i was familiar with many of the general points from my study of Eastern Orthodox scholars. but this lecture really helped me to grasp pauls message. mind blowing stuff, and i personally found it very edifying to my faith. i hope this comment will help to boost this video in the UA-cam algorithm 🙏
The chart at 1:14:00 has Paul saying "humans belong on earth". Yet James Tabor seems to think that Paul's view is that the resurrected body leaves earth. I think Paul's view was that the resurrected body will be more at home on earth than our current body is. Not only will the body be immortal and glorious, but the earth will have been redeemed! All things will have become new, and it will be entirely for the better!
Dr. Tabor. Great video. I have watched it more than once. As the Pauline version of Christianity ascended, why did the church fathers repudiate and reject what Paul was saying?
This was very interesting. I watched the whole thing, but there are certainly many who will not due to the length. I think you could make a cut down version that fits in 10 minutes, and reference the longer version for people who want the full experience.
All this makes sense… but it seems there are so many theologians, apologists, creeds which affirm Jesus Christ is a part of the trinity and see Paul as affirming this too. This is my problem with Christians - they have so many conflicting views on major theological positions it’s exasperating. And each camp calls the other heretics ! This fine thinker would be burned at the stake for expressing these views in medieval times - and given half a chance evangelicals would set him alight too.
We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, believe in a resurrection of flesh and bones. The spirit will replace the blood in the body. When Christ ascended back to heaven, he took his physical body with him to sit at the right hand of the Father. Both God the Father and Jesus Christ are gods with resurrected bodies.
I see how this idea (pasted in from the video summary) was held by Paul yet rejected by the later church: "Paul’s greatest idea has to do with God actually 'Saving' the entire Cosmos-birthing it into its perfected spiritual destiny. " But I don't think at all that that idea was original to Paul, but rather that it originated with the revelations to and writings of the OT prophets whom Paul had been reading. ... But then the summary extends the idea saying "He is creating a new 'genus' of spirit beings in the universe-that is human beings made of dust who are transformed into spiritual bodies-Jesus being the first of many ..." well, that extension of the idea was not rejected by the church, right? Unless of course we only mean that the church rejected the timing of that idea, placing it as something that happens immediately upon the death of the believer instead of waiting for it to happen when Christ comes again. I write this paragraph, because I am trying to summarize the video the way the title frames it, and am having trouble connecting the dots in any straightforward way. "Paul's Greatest Idea and Why the Church Rejected It!": I'm still not sure I could boil it down to one idea that James Tabor thinks was Paul's greatest and that was rejected by the church. The video seems more nuanced and complex; we get several ideas of Paul's which were rejected by, adapted by, and adopted by the church to varying degrees. Personally, I am on board with the way The Bible Project frames these matters of the resurrection and the new cosmos, not only for understanding Paul but also for understanding huge parts of the Bible and for understanding its overall story line and message. If only the church on the whole would recover that view and make it mainstream Christianity, I think we'd all be in a much better place!
We can't say that Paul's expectations of the coming Christ failed, but perhaps we can say that Paul's expectations of the timing of the coming Christ did fail. I am referring of course to the second coming of the Christ, not the first. Paul's advice about how to live on earth in the meantime has been relevant for 2000 years, and will remain relevant until Jesus comes again. The appointed time is short, regardless of how long it turns out to be, and Peter does a good job of explaining that.
This video was a wonderful eye-opening experience for me. Yes, indeed, I found this"meaningful, helpful and stimulating." I am going right away to kindle to get the 2 books you mentioned. There is a third possibility For why Paul's idea got discarded. And that is That at some point in the hellenistic era Consciousness and language became distanced and separated from real-life real life experience. Before that time language was deeply connected to bodily-felt experiencing. After that time both language and how we experience the world split into a material historical mode (historicism) and a mystical fantasy mode (essentialism.) These correspond to the 2 views Of Christianity that you mention that came after Paul. You go back and try to recover The ancient mode of consciousness and language, You might find that Paul is referring to an entirely new and different mode Of of experiencing the world and self That is an entirely higher stage of Psychological and cognitive development simular to all the previous stages that we all go through from infancy to adulthood. This higher stage pretty much has direct correspondence to Higher states of consciousness that are attained By various eastern meditational practices, especially the attainment of Higher powers called siddhis. A person who attains these levels of consciousness simply experiences and acts in the world in a completely different way than He did on lower levels. The brain synthesizes completely different experiences of both self and world. In this context Jesus would be what is called a "Siddha Guru" - a person who has attained this higher level and is able to transmit it to others. Being able to transmit this to others Explains The attribution of "Guru is God." Jesus would be God In that same way, not in some special pre-existent way. And attainment of god realization through such means would be a fulfillment of the apocalyptic prophecy of a new a new heaven, a new earth, and a new self, not as a historical material event or a mystical other-worldly transport, What is a total transformation of all the functioning of consciousness and experiencing that is totally discontinuous with lower levels for the person who experiences that. For the person experiencing that this IS a total transformation of the world. It does not have to be something that happens to anyone else to be a true transformation of the world. I have no idea whatsiever if this applies to Paul's Idea or not, but it does seem to open up new possibilities for how to Look at the situation. I wrote my doctoral dissertation in 1987 using this perspective to go deeper into the practicalities of Plato's method of Dialectic, and it allowed me to find an effective experiential approach to that method that wouldn't be possible using the perspectives of the modern-wotld schizoid consciousness. Because of that, I intend to look into applying this insight to Paul's idea as you present it here. I believe that that could open up the possibility of actually experiencing what Paul was talking about rather than just speculating about what he meant.
Fascinating video. Would you consider zoroastrianism to be in this hellenisitc, dualistic framework? I know it pre-dates hellenism, so however, it also seems to fit the later world centric idea.
There were a lot of interesting concepts (Cosmic existence). However, the entire presentation is laced with a denial of Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence. Jesus said, “Before Avraham I AM”. Also, Paul in his letter to the Philippians states that Jesus is the very nature of God. Furthermore, during Jesus’ final appearance in front of Caiaphas in his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quotes Daniel, prompting Caiaphas to accuse Jesus of blasphemy, admitting He is God.
Philipians: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
He became human like us. He is the Word, the Logos, that came into our world, God's world, to make all things new, heaven and earth, ΙΝΑ Η Ο ΘΕΟΣ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΕΝ ΠΑΣΙΝ for God to be all in every one.
Or, more likely, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher-like many before him and many after him-most who, like Jesus, ended up being executed by the Romans for treason. Paul made Jesus’ message into a new thing infused with various religious and philosophical thinking and beliefs circulating in the Greek influenced Roman world and culture at that time.
@longcastle4863 Not so very likely. Paul - whatever Tabor wants to make of him - was by no means the first. He came after others and was on one with his Messiah and alm who had spoken for God before and after. Paul was demanding and difficult. As his Rabbi was (and is). Narrow path. Not easy Torah or church gnosticism. (Tabor essentially advocates for the latter. He keeps creating strawmen: the naive believer that never exists. Everyone is smart in his own eyes. Followers He - God's son - does not have many.
I often get the feeling that Tabor equates Christianity with Protestantism, particularly American Protestantism. This video's subject reveals this potential narrowness. In Orthodox Christianity, salvation is often characterized as theosis, becoming godlike and this godlike being is of a humble servant (publican). Salvation is absolutely participation through mystical union. And the salvation is frequently referred to in hymnography and theology as of the entire cosmos, first as a Church Militant and then a Church Triumphant. And of course the end of the Nicene Creed: "I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."
from the 70s, we were outcasts from churches for this revelation. We did not name a named denomination but people called us "the manifested sons of God" amongst other names. I have a lot to do with "the local church" movement that Watchman Nee started, they preach on the "God-Men", a hybrid of God and man that Jesus was the first of. but it's not "equality with God", it's God IN you by His Spirit who lives IN you! read what Jesus said about the Spirit...All of it! We Lived in Christian communities, all over the world. My family was in one in South Africa, a multiracial community in a country where that was illegal, so we had our own schools.
Dr. Tabor, there's a world/universe affirming Buddhism, too. The same thing happened to Buddhism as happened to Paul's Christianity. It's found, incidentally, in Mahayana Buddhism, Lotus (Sutra) School.
@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388Thank you for the question. Death is just the breathing in (death) and out (birth) of the Natural Order. It's like light and dark or hot and cold. There's nothing unnatural or "dark" about it. it just is. The fundamental character of Life itself is cause and effect. You might say that cause and effect (karma) is the personality or character of Life. Suffering is the result of destructive, dishonorable, evil, or just unwise/bad causes. Every cause is manifested in various effects. Life at each moment encompasses both body and spirit and both self and environment of all sentient beings in every condition of life, as well as insentient beings -- plants, sky and earth, on down to the most minute particles of dust. Life at each moment permeates the universe and is revealed in all phenomena. One awakened to this truth him or herself embodies this relationship. Buddhism is something like that.
@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 IT is such so that nothing made or produced or become of the other causes and conditions etc. is not permanent. Human beings are such, and therefore mortals. There is no such as sin as a cause for that. In Buddhism is not even such a concept as sin. What is permanent? Our original mind, our Buddha-mind, our Buddha-nature. Why is that permanent? It is not mortal because it has no beginning, therefore neither end.
@@KiviK-d7w who creates one to be mortal? Everything in nature from plants , animals mankind is fighting mortality and striving to preserve life which proves mortality was not our original state Only the Bible tells us, God, Life Himself created mankind for eternal fellowship with Him. But when man ate of the tree of death, sin suffering death etc entered creation Nothing we do can defeat death to return immortality and that’s why Jesus, Life Himself. Came to defeat death for us to give us His Life for eternity
The account of Luke is accurate, the position of the other letters should be reevaluated and better translated, too (not as titles but in predicative descriptive terms: one who teaches, one who looks after others, a mature man, one who ministers (to others), one who is being sent forth (αποστολοσ) All Scripture is important and of value. Only the few added (Rev 20:5a, Mt 28:19) and wrong things (interpretations of GeHinnom, basanos, etc.) are not.
“Weeping and gnashing of teeth” line of reflection, and ABC of knowing, to liberate oneself from the darkness of confusions including the Sorting-Out (Judgment) Criterion: (A) Mat 25:26-29 is crystal clear that “wicked-lazy-worthless/useless” servants will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In contrast, the “good-faithful” servants will share the joy of their master (God/Jesus). • “Wicked” vs “faithful-wise” servants (Mat 24:45-50), • “Evil” vs “good” (Mat 22:10-14), • Mat 13 is all about clarification of “weeds”: “children of evil” vs “children of kingdom”--- where “evildoers and “those who cause others to sin” will be thrown into the fiery furnace … wailing and grinding of teeth, while the “Righteous” will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father (Mat 13:40-43), • As good fishes will be separated, at the end of the world the Angels will separate the “wicked” from “righteous” and throw them into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat 13:47-50). (B) Who are “good-righteous-fruitful-faithful” servants? DOERS ποιέω (poieō) of WORDS λόγος (logos). • Believing is not enough, “If you (purposefully) commit to my WORDS (obey/do words) you are my true disciples” (John 8:31), • If you love me follow my WORDS that are God’s WORD who sent me (not my own words) (John 14:23-24) (John 8:51), • If you obey my commandments (WORDS) I will keep loving you just as father keeps loving me for obeying his commandments (WORDS) (John 15:10), • A wise build one’s house on the rock --- DOING the WORDS (Mat 7:24-26), and not on the sand (including fluff lies of bluffing mouths!!!), • In order to bear multifold fruit, a good soil hear and understand WORDS (Mat 13:23), • My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s WORD and DO it (Luke 8:21), (also Luke 6:47). (C) Eternal Punishment or Eternal Life is only possible in Eternal Realm. Heaven and earth will pass away (solar system), but Jesus’ WORDS --- that are God’s WORDS --- will not. Nobody knows the day or hour including Jesus (Mat 24:35-36). Keep committed to the WORDS purposefully and contribute to the process of increased peace and prosperity for everyone by DOING the WORDS --- making this world (earth) comparable to the Eternal Realm: Your WILL be DONE on earth as it is in Heaven! Do not miss the opportunity as everyone is subject to two impending random events: I) natural death or II) the sun death. Enjoy every moment of life purposefully. The gate is narrow (Mat 7:13-14) and on that Day Jesus might say I do not know you… depart from me all “evildoers” (Mat 7:23; Mat 25:41; Luke 13:27)! Those who mislead others from the way of life-Life are “evildoers” too!!!
Just came across Job 19.25-26 again and thought it relevant to Paul's idea and what Paul probably believed about the spiritual resurrected body. Not a resuscitation, for sure, but not fleshless either.
Editorial additions to Daniel 7. First, in Daniel 2-6, the term ‘holy’ (קַדִּישׁ /qadîš ) is exclusively used for the celestial/heavenly beings (God, gods, and angels) who are not earthly/ flesh. The editor of Dan 7 uses the term ‘holy’ as an attribute for human beings (flesh), often translated as “holy ones/saints”. • Second, the editor uses the term עֶלְיוֹן (ʿelyôn) for the Most High against עִלַּי (ʿillay) in Dan 2-6 and non-edited Dan 7. So, the related phrases or clauses can be picked easily: - Dan 7:18, 22, 25 and 27 with עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין קַדִּישֵׁ֖י (holy ones/saints of the Most High). - Dan 7:21 from the word קַדִּישֵׁ֖י. • The third argument is based on the structural analysis of Daniel 7. - The fate of the beasts and the interpretation of the vision episodes occurs after Daniel seeks to know and thereupon to learn exactly about the fourth beast, the most dangerous one and its successive horns which are the author's concern (Dan 7:19-20). (the author knows that Beasts 1, 2, 3 are currently non-existent but historical entities!) - The response of the interpreter starts at Dan 7:23. - Besides its structure problem, Daniel 7:11-12 prose breaks the rhyme of poetic section Dan 7:4-14 and also the editor's confusion/lack of knowledge such that he does not know the difference between a "beast" and a "horn". • Therefore, these are editorial additions to Daniel 7 for the promotion of saints (Hasmoneans) and their “holy war”: - Dan 7:11-12 - Dan 7: 16b-18 - Dan 7:21-22 - Dan 25b: “and oppress the saints of " - In Dan 27, the editor deleted any word of reference to the person who was authorized by the Ancient of Days (7:14) and instead inserted the clause: “the holy people of the Most High”. So, according to Daniel 2-6, and non-edited Dan 7 there are two realms and for two different kinds of beings: (A) Heaven (skies/heavens) and its celestial beings, made of non-flesh, who are inherently ‘holy’ including Most High God, gods, watchers, and angels. (B) Earth and its living creatures made of ‘flesh’ including humans and animals. There are many gods (nations’ gods) in Heaven, but the Most High (the upper level) God is the Sovereign who rules over all gods. Other celestial beings including watchers /angels are under the control of and serve Most High God by nature. There are many local rulers on the earth who rule over their own nation. But there is a “King of kings” --- endorsed by Most High God --- who has the authority to reign over all inhabitants of the earth. This person could be a low-level ordinary person and not necessarily from the seed of a local king or an ethnic group. Whoever Most High picks, all the population of the world (nations, communities, and languages) are supposed to obey him as the King of kings. But if any King of kings does not satisfy God’s demands (ethics of reigning) he will be punished or will be removed by God and without human hand. According to Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7, a King of kings was endorsed by the Ancient of days (Most High God) and his document was issued by Divine heavenly officials/court. Then the divine court removed the current King of Kings, and his position was filled by a newly endorsed King of kings who is apparently from Daniel ethnicity. According to Dan 2-6, the authorization issued by Most High God is just only for the King of kings --- and not for any ethnicity or a group of people (e.g. saints) to reign. No god has authority to appoint a “King of kings”.
The focus on becoming holy, pure, etc is a misstep in human thought, imo. The focus should not be on the human individual living for ever in sone afterlife, which is very unlikely to be a possible thing, but on improving ourselves as species and thereby improving our chances of living forever as a species. Which is something that may very well be possible.
Oh, my, this last week I have been brought to the character of Gilgamesh four times. He is a character that in my 77 years I basically have not known about; just the name sounded familiar.
Around minute 39 in the video ... Peter and Isaiah likewise had spoken of a new heavens and a new earth, where the former things would be remembered no more. It's not just a Pauline idea. "It will all be changed like a garment!" The Apostle John also speaks quite frequently of the glory and glorification of Christ; it's not a specifically Pauline Gospel.
Paul was the most honest in his conversion to follow Yeshua, and did not place rituals over Gentiles. He earnestly and humbly brought the good news and hoped both jews and Gentiles would love one another and serve loving Yeshua. His future views of all becoming one under Jesus Christ/ Yeshua Hamachiach and singing a new song. Having relationship with the living GOD through Jesus Christ/ Yeshua Hamachiach.
Regarding the term mystery in I Corinthians 2, you've really got to check out the book Hidden but now Revealed, by Gladd and Beale. Paul is not the only one to whom the mystery was revealed: the mystery has been revealed publically and openly. But Paul is emphasizing that he is sent by Jesus to unpack and proclaim the revelation so that Gentiles may understand it - Gentiles like the Corinthians. The big idea here is that the Corinthians neither disparage nor elevate Paul as an Apostle, but that they latch on to the message and attitude of Christ, Christ whom Paul and any right apostle aims to proclaim and elevate. They shouldn't get proud or puffed up, shouldn't boast about any one Apostle. They should revel and boast in what God has done through Christ! This is confirmed because it is the next step in what God had been purposing and partially revealing since times past, involving the Jewish people.
at 1:22:30 James Tabor talks about Paul's very Hebraic view. Yes, yes and yes! So if it gets "flipped up" to a Hellenistic view, that is not Paul's fault; it is the fault of the later church in the west, the Gentile-led church.
A big part of the mystery that had been revealed was that the Messiah would have two comings, rather than just one. Another is that the Messiah would have to suffer and die, that he would be rejected. There are places where the prophets had hinted at these things, but it was hidden how all that could possibly come to pass. Once Christ came, was rejected, crucified, and raised, then God's plan for that phase was revealed. It's not that Paul had some secret insight on what the future would look like in terms of what kind of body would be raised. What kind of body will be raised is still mostly a mystery to even Paul, judging from I Cor. 15; In I Cor 15 Paul says that God gives the after-death body just as he determines. The body of the seed is not the same as the body of the plant that springs out of the seed once the seed dies, and there is no way to humanly guess what the plant will look like - be it a flower or a tree, and what kind of flower or what kind of tree - just looking at the seed; we'll need to wait and find out. But the principle that there are different kinds of glories and different kinds of bodies, and that the seed must die first before the second body can be seen ... the principle that there are earthly bodies and heavenly ones, ... these are all principles that we can gather from what God has established, such that we should not object to the idea that such things can happen.
I often feel frustrated that we have only, so far as I am aware, access, or discovered Greek writing in Paul's name. Should we have found any if his teachings transmitted in Hebrew, we very well may have had a clearer understanding of him. Even as someone who knew Greek and who likely had someone write out his dictations too, we none-the-less have the problem of translating terms steeped in Hebraic conotations, and double meanings, and ancient encodations of solid, meaningful symbolism, and metaphors into a language which has none of these threads running through. Or, at least, not in the same way, nor with the same underlaying lingual functions and mechanism systems running through it. we, recently have discovered such a loss in transaltion since the verification that there are some snippets of Hebrew originals of, for example, Mathew. And in one verse we discovered that the counter-intuitive instruction concerning the problem of the corrupt form of Pharisaic Judaism (generally Pharisees were well resopected. And for good reason. But some belonged too differing factions, and political agendas), we seemed to have been encouraged to read Jesus' 'Do as they say. That just made no sense: Do what the pharisim/hypocrits say? . However, when an original Hebrew version is read, we get a perspective the Greek just could not give. Jesus had been pointing to the 'Seat of Moses' in the place of worship He was talking within. And He did not say, meaning the Pharisees, ''Do what THEY say'', but, rather was saying, as He pointed to that seat (of Moses) 'DO WHAT HE SAYS'!.. That is, do what MOSES says: TORAH. Not the Pharisees. For in sayng this, Jesus did not contravene any Pharisaic custom, nor offend God nor the people, and yet still remain full of Truth and Integrity. But, in the Greek? It is a nonsense story with the moral: obey hypocrits. (Most of the Phrarisim were not hypocrits. we need to know that. Most were simply devout, if out of touch with the commoners as most well-off educated people always are mostly) Do take care if you choose to access Hebrew Gospels etc. Some are not authentic. That is, are just the normal Greek translations (which went behind NIV and KJV versions etc) translated BACK into Hebrew. So miss out the actual Hewbrew nuances altogether, and likely get a double whammy having been translated twice over. Authentic Hebrew Gospels, if we ever find any or have found any, must be originals, and not copies of Greek. And we can tell by the words, and symbolisms and double meanings used which would only emanate from Hebrew writers steeped in Torah and the Prophets. Much of the terms they used just didn't translate into Greek. Or didn't translate well enough. Am just saying basic obvious stuff. But I had to begin to learn from reading basic obvious stuff. So maybe it'll trigger some thinking in someone else some day.
Dr. Tabor: "Satan said if you take it and eat it you will live forever." A scribal slip. Satan (the Serpent) said "You will not surely die." If in fact the tree of Wisdom was effectively the same as the tree of Life (Prov 3:18), then yes that would be the logical conclusion. Either way, taking and eating from the tree of wisdom or the tree of life was an attempt to become like God; as was building the tower of Babel to storm the gate of heaven (God) (cf. Matthew 11:12). This is a great video by Dr. Tabor.
Unless I missed the point, the transcript and the last image at 1:18:05 seem to imply that it was Paul's desire to make "Jesus not just the first, but the one and only begotten of the Father." In essence, supporting Trinitarianism. One of the reasons I left Mainstream Christianity was the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also misread the graphic and misunderstood the point there, it is worded poorly. What he’s saying is: Paul’s Adam Christology (Jesus as a new Adam: the first, but not only, begotten of the father) was abandoned not by Paul, but by the proto-orthodox, replacing his view with what Tabor calls “full trinitarianism” (Jesus as God: the first and only begotten of the father).
The illustration at 1:11:11 does not take into account that the people and the cosmos are a temple-construct meeting/uniting/merging of heaven and earth. It is not a going away from earth and a going to heaven. Jesus for a time, yes, is in a heaven that is away from earth, but when he comes again, he is bringing heaven with him to earth. The people, likewise, do not entirely lose the earthly element, nor does the heavenly element of the resurrected people require them to leave the earth.
Question- Assuming Dr. Tabor is correct about Paul's views here, are there any current Christian denominations, sects, groups who believe and teach what Paul believed about this?
![How James [Yaaqov] Beloved Brother of Jesus Was Written out of Early Christianity](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2n5Qg_ekQ_E/mqdefault.jpg)
![How James [Yaaqov] Beloved Brother of Jesus Was Written out of Early Christianity](/img/tr.png)
Your passion for teaching your beloved topic is no more apparent than in this latest video of yours and I am so grateful for what you make available to the public for self-education. I have purchased both of these books, have finished Paul and Jesus, and am about to start Paul's Ascent. Thank you for this wonderful gift of knowledge. Be Blessed.
Awesome presentation. I am currently leading an adult Bible study on the Letter to the Romans. I chose that topic in part because that letter challenges many of the conventions people mistakenly call “Christianity “. Thank you Dr Tabor.
I was a college student who took classes from Bob Grant and JZ Smith in the late 70s. I was way out of my depth, to be truthful. But years later as an Episcopal priest there is no doubt that, especially JZ Smith, has profoundly affected the way I approach scripture. It is refreshing to hear someone else read it very much as I do.
Your lectures are brilliant. I feel like I’ve listened to Paul himself after you have lectured about him.
“Pauls Gospel” is different than what is taught by Sunday bible study. Every day, especially Sabbath (in school) is new. ⭐️
I’m so grateful that you’re out here doing what you’re doing James. Please keep up the great work
Thank you for talking to me❣️ And I am ordering the 1st book you recommended. Recently I heard a couple messages directed toward youth, of course for all of us. Creation and Noah's Ark story. I was reminded of why the narrator would speak so fast and every thing on the subjects would move so quickly. Evidently youth can't be still enough to take time to think before wanting to leave the subject. They are being trained that way. That's what the pastor said. I am from your generation. I love the care and thoughtfulness put into the spoken word. I love time spent with me and for me. I watched this last night when I went to bed and woke up twice to retrieve where I left off. It was not boring, maybe for me soothing. I woke up this morning and went back a couple more times fully awake to capture the meanings of what I haven't heard and didn't know. It has taken me many years of being afraid to ask questions and look deeply for myself into what the Bible is saying beyond what I have been told. For me I finally said to God one day, "I can't do it any more." I am always seeking the Truth, but I have been met recently with negativity toward speaking from the heart. Even though I am doing what Christ says to do, "Become as little children." By the way the 1st question I ever remember asking about God in church at @ 8 years old when I met our pastor at the foyer was, "Where did God come from?" He said, " We don't ask those questions."
Thank-you. I love longer videos, really enjoyed and learned a lot from this presentation.
I watched to the end! Thank you! Very informative. I plan to watch again.
As a follower of Jesus I loved this understanding of the teachings of Paul!!
Dr. Tabor, your videos contrasting the Hebrew vs. Hellenistic worldviews have helped me immensely as a tool for understanding biblical theology. I am massively grateful!
Wow!!! This was powerful ! I’m watching for the second time. This cosmology is universal. The revelation of many others coming to prophesy and be choosen by ones inter metaphoric alchemical transformation from being of dirt to that of Spirit.
Dr. This is wonderful ! 💕🙏🏼🎊💫🧚🏼♂️💥✨
Thank you, Dr. Tabor! I watched your presentation in Bart Ehrman's NINT conference, and I very much appreciate this expanded presentation.
Wow. I had to stop and come up for air every few minutes. Great lecture. Thank you.
Thank you James, for another thoroughly enjoyable lecture.
21:18 - I don’t have much desire to learn this material, but I am fond of Tabor’s presentation style and find his approach soothing.
Thank you, Dr. Tabor. I watched this whole lecture. I am not a student of this subject but find it interesting. I love what you said but here I am.
I know how you, and so many, enjoy all of these ideas. As I remarked, the ideas are wonderfully interesting. I don't know which Beatle wrote this phrase but I will just quote it as the only comment - "All you need is love". I do find it amazing how much thought, and possibly inspiration, has gone into religious writings. With all the division and ugliness in the world, I really wish that it was all much more simple. Thanks again.
Very informative information Dr. Tabor for those with ears to hear. During much of your informative lecture I could not help but revert back to what most of what you were teaching to Herbert W. Armstrong's little booklet "Just What Do You Mean... BORN AGAIN?" Alot of similarity between them both. He to wrote of the creation of the God family... "that which is born of spirit IS spirit."
Yes, I think he got the idea from Charles Taz Russell...but the Eastern Christian church, although Trinitarians, is not far off from this modified "deification" idea. Howeve,r it is heresy in the West.
@@JamesTaborVideosYes, as a catechumen in the Orthodox church (OCA), this is the idea we are being taught. Is this because the eastern church was able to better preserve the original meaning of Paul’s Greek? This is so interesting. Thank you for putting this out for everyone.
@JamesTaborVideos Theosis is not heresy in the west. It is Catholic doctrine.
Outstanding presentation.
Thank you Dr. Tabor!
Eye opening with outstanding insight to Paul’s thinking. Well worth the time. Thank you!
thank you. you have helped to set me free
@18:40 “The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul” is indeed insightful. Somitimes old is gold - I appreciate Albert Schweitzer’s insight into the effortless continuity between the Kingdom announced by Jesus and the Kingdom of the son of God announced by Paul as inaugurated and participatory eschatology. The mystical participation in the pattern of Jesus is at the center of the gospel-life Paul was teaching.
Almost everything you explore in this lecture is contextualized in the mainstream presentation of the Orthodox Christian world including iconography, the texts of the services, the church calendar and hymnography. Check out the services of Holy Saturday, iconography of the Transfiguration (metamorphosis), burial service for a priest, baptismal rite, etc. If one starts from the perspective of American Protestant sects, very basic stuff can seem revolutionary.
I was tearing my hair out at this! I know Prof. Tabor has joked about not knowing much theology past AD 100 but I felt crazy listening to him present this as an alien metaphysics when he might as well be reading straight from St. Gregory of Nyssa or Maximus the Confessor
Here's a critique of a few of his key arguments:
1. Paul as the True Founder of Christianity
Tabor argues that Paul, not Jesus, was the true founder of Christianity, framing Paul as having developed a fundamentally different theology from the original teachings of Jesus. While Paul did play a significant role in spreading Christianity and shaping its theology, this claim minimizes the continuity between Paul’s teachings and those of the early followers of Jesus. Many scholars argue that Paul's writings show evidence of him preserving and interpreting Jesus’ teachings for a Gentile audience, not inventing an entirely new religion.
Counterpoint: Paul's letters constantly reference Jesus as the central figure of faith, reflecting on his life, death, and resurrection. Paul’s concept of salvation through Jesus is rooted in what was already being taught by Jesus' earliest followers. While his interpretation and expansion of those teachings may have influenced Christianity's growth, calling him the "founder" undercuts the collective work of early Christian communities.
2. The Existence of a Different Historical Jesus
Tabor often emphasizes a distinction between the historical Jesus (a Jewish apocalyptic prophet) and the Christ of faith (the divine figure worshiped in Christianity). While this distinction is a common scholarly approach, Tabor tends to focus heavily on separating Jesus' teachings from their later theological interpretations. He suggests that Jesus never intended to start a new religion or be seen as divine in the way Christians understand him today.
Counterpoint: While it's true that historical and theological views of Jesus differ, Tabor’s stance overlooks the fact that early Jewish followers of Jesus, many of whom knew him personally, quickly began to ascribe divine status to him and worship him in ways that suggest Jesus' own teachings contained more than just apocalyptic prophecy. The development of Christology appears early in Christian texts, not just with Paul or later generations, suggesting a more integrated development than Tabor allows for.
3. The Family of Jesus and the Role of James
Tabor emphasizes the leadership role of James, the brother of Jesus, within the early Christian movement and suggests that James’ influence was marginalized by later, Pauline Christianity. He argues that the original Jerusalem church, led by James, had a more Jewish-oriented, Torah-observant version of Christianity, which was overshadowed by Paul’s universalizing, Gentile-friendly approach.
Counterpoint: While it’s true that James was a prominent figure in the early church, and that there were tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians, Tabor overstates the divide. The New Testament, particularly the Book of Acts, shows efforts to reconcile the teachings of both James and Paul, suggesting that the early church sought unity despite theological differences. Furthermore, Tabor tends to portray Paul as having hijacked the movement, but early Christians accepted Paul's letters as scripture alongside other writings. This acceptance implies a broader consensus on the legitimacy of Paul's teachings, even among those with differing views like James.
4. The Ossuary of James and Jesus' Family Tomb
Tabor gained attention for his involvement in controversial archaeological claims, such as the Talpiot Tomb and the James Ossuary, which purportedly contained the bones of Jesus and his family. He argues that these discoveries point to Jesus being buried in a family tomb, contrary to the resurrection narrative central to Christian belief.
Counterpoint: These claims have been widely disputed by both archaeologists and biblical scholars. The identification of the Talpiot Tomb with Jesus’ family remains speculative and circumstantial. Many experts argue that the names inscribed on the ossuaries were common in 1st-century Judea, and there is insufficient evidence to definitively link the tomb to Jesus of Nazareth. The resurrection narrative, which is foundational to Christian belief, is supported by numerous early sources, making Tabor’s claims about the tomb problematic for historical consensus.
5. Minimization of the Resurrection
Tabor often treats the resurrection as a later theological invention rather than a historical event. He suggests that Jesus’ followers experienced visions or spiritual experiences after his death, leading them to develop the belief in the resurrection.
Counterpoint:The resurrection is one of the earliest and most widespread claims of the early Christian movement, appearing in multiple, independent sources within the New Testament (e.g., the Gospels, Pauline letters). This early and rapid dissemination of resurrection belief makes it hard to dismiss as merely a later theological development. Many scholars argue that something significant-whether historical or experiential-happened that led Jesus’ followers to fervently believe and proclaim his resurrection.
In sum, while Tabor raises interesting and challenging points, many of his arguments rely on speculative interpretations of historical and archaeological evidence, often pushing beyond what mainstream scholarship supports. He tends to overstate the discontinuities between Jesus, Paul, and early Christianity, while minimizing the broader and more complex development of Christian thought.
Can you point to any specific writings that support your counterpoint arguments AND predate the writings of Paul and Mark?
Claiming that the Gospels are independent sources is laughable
I would agree. I would just disagree that the earliest followers of Jesus or paul thought that Jesus was divine i.e. a God all part of a Trinity. This is the result of misinterpreting both the letters of Paul also the entirety of the new Testament. We also have a problem with the sanitisation of the new Testament letters particularly in terms of language which makes it very difficult to understand some of Paul discussion regards to the law.
@@theethanatorem well it’s not really that laughable is it set within the historical context of documents and records of events?
I will stick with Paul and the Holy Spirit as they gave us this truth in Colossians 1, "16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Amen
I was born into the church of Christ and got disfellowshiped and I joined the Orthodox and the Catholic church but now am in the original gospel of the Leader which is Tantra Samana Aaseevagam tradition..... Yeshua did go and learn about how to be be reborn in the Virgin Mother....
Thank you James! Excellent presentation!
wonderful tribute to your friend and mentor, thank you.
Love this glad I found you. I've been obsessed with classics and specifically the bible and Christianity as a product of the classical Hellenistic world. Thanks. Peace.
One of your best lectures... ever. Toda raba
We have a similar background, except you are smarter, better educated, and have more hair. I keep hearing you express some matters I grew up with. I don’t think you have abandoned it as much as you think. I can certainly can agree that “I knew a lot and I knew almost nothing.” But I feel it is wrong to diminish our background. I would never return, but I am forever grateful for what I learned early.
I totally agree...I did not mean to disparage my teachers and never would...but Malherbe, Ferguson, Lemoine Lewis, Jack Lewis, etc. were exceptions who changed the entire Church...over time.
I just finished watching your video, Dr. Tabor. It gave me so much to think about. I'm not in the mood to write an essay to express my many thoughts your video has generated for me. But I do thank you for this presentation. At the present moment, all I can say with a sly smile upon my lips is that I can understand now as to why Greeks in Acts 17 regarded Paul as somewhat of a crackpot.
Grateful for JamesTabor
Dr. Tabor, this is one of your best!
After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence, the return of Jesus will happen in the"twinkling of an eye,we will all be changed,in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,at the last trumpet..Paul is talking about one’s own individual death not a literal apocalypse 🙏
Great presentation. I followed a similar path myself from believer to academic, but ended up dropping out of a PhD program in classics. Academia wasn't for me, but I learned a lot and cherish those classes, the relationships with professors and the intellectual pursuits we engaged in. Still enjoy this stuff as I listen tonight in my vehicle on the way home from work .
Thanks for sharing!
Wonderful presentation on Paul's thinking. Thank you dr Tabor. As a JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) this is what we were tought in their schools. I do believe mainstream Christianity has been hijacked by orthodoxy today.
Thank you for speaking direct to us, your work means so much to us..
Agape ♥️. 🙋
You're a betholite?
Yes. What gave it away. It's spelled bethelite
Only James Tabor sees not yet how He, the Logos, became human like us. He is the first and he existed before David and before Avraham.
As a JW do you believe this spiritual body Paul is talking about that is not 'of flesh and blood' refers only to the 144000 anointed? Or to the humans that will inherit the earth too?
@dystopian-future
Hi! They are the same. We are, who aspire to receive the Kingdom from Heaven, the same who he said shall inherit the land, God's earth. We shall be one. And He, Son of Man, is the Coming One.
He shall be with mankind, for them to be healed (see Isaiah, Revelation) and become nations, peoples of God. Paul of Tarsus wrote: for the creation to become free and children of the One who has valued us and will reside with us.
Do you know the Prophets? Do you know they say these things?
In the Book of a Revelation to an old man, John:
He heard a son of God, an angel speaking: the tribes of Israel and their number.
After that he saw: from all nations and peoples and from the tribes and they are speaking all kinds of languages, and God is being with them.
The Gods is counting us, He sends his angels forth as mighty winds and like flames of fire.
Hear, my Israel! He who is and will be your God, He will be one [אחד έν one, the same one as he spoke of the first human, man and woman to be, and of Jerusalem, new City of a Great King, Israel of the Nations, its peace and prosperity extending over all God's creation.
Thank you for your kindness asking.
Love your stuff Dr Tabor. I got a BA from Lipscomb University in history in the early 90s. True about a lot of the academic rigor of the CoC colleges. Plus not being part of the broader evangelical culture, you got more beatitudes, less culture wars.
BTW, fantastic and ENLIGHTENING presentation.
I think one of the places I'm having a hard time is on the one hand to accept that I Corinthians 15 is an authentically early historical account that Paul is writing honestly and that Paul sincerely believes to be true, while on the other hand trying to ignore that Paul was not writing about trance-like visions or heavenly body* - * i.e. a body merely heavenly without it being the physical body of Christ that he used on earth - appearances of Jesus when he talked about Jesus appearing to Peter, the Twelve, the 500, and James. It seems that if we are to think that this non-physical resurrection of Jesus is what Paul had in mind, and the only thing Paul had in mind, that Paul would then imagine all the other appearances to be post-ascension visions like the ones Paul had, instead of the way the Gospels and Acts record the physical body appearances of the risen Christ. It is much easier to believe that Paul and Peter and the Twelve and James and the 500 were all on the same page: that Jesus appeared bodily in a resurrected yet physical body - simultaneously supernatural and physical, somewhat in the way that Jesus walked on water - over a forty-day period prior to the ascension, and then only appeared in dreams and visions type experiences after that, in the same ways that Jesus appears in dreams and visions to people in the modern day. If we said that Paul was ignorant of the pre-ascension bodily appearances or that I Cor 15 wasn't an authentic early hymn that Paul was repeating, then we could say that perhaps Paul thought Jesus was only risen as this heavenly body type. If we base Paul's belief in the heavenly body resurrection on I Cor. 15, then we should also accept Paul's belief in the very real and physical bodily resurrection type of Jesus that the others witnessed alive pre-ascension. One could postulate that Paul was only writing about the others having seen Jesus in the same way Paul had, and that Paul's visible sighting of Jesus refers to a vision he had after the Damascus road experience, but I am more prone to believe that Paul's account of the other disciples was as the Gospels record, and that Paul is referring to experiencing Jesus firsthand on the road to Damascus where he was not seeing a vision and did not see any bodily form of Jesus, but only the bright light that everyone could see and a voice that only Paul could hear audibly, or at least if others heard the voice, they did not understand it. I will note here that even though many Evangelicals think that what made Paul an authentic Apostle was that he saw the risen Christ, I hold that Paul did not see the risen Christ in a physical sense, and was an authentic Apostle because he was sent by Jesus to the Gentiles, via a voice, more than by any sighting in a vision. An Apostle is one who is sent by Jesus, not one who has seen Jesus. A lower-case "a" apostle can be one sent by the Holy Spirit or by church elders/leaders. There is more nuance, but I'll stop here.
That is very tough, but I worked my way through it slowly.
Forty years after grad school, I'm pulling an all-nighter!
Food for thought. Thanks for your lecture. It's good to think back to the original cultures and get a grounded understanding.
I have always had the tendency to blame Paul for the 'teachings of Paul' that The Church gives to us; but you have opened my mind to the possibility that history has only preserved and interpreted to us a certain view of those teachings, apparently at variance with the teachings of the 'Jerusalem Church' and the Druids and rational science, which we should perhaps not lay at the door of Paul, as we only see him through the veil of what we are given. Maybe Paul's 'teachings' may have been interpreted differently by Paul, but, as always, translation to a different language and culture without us having personal knowledge of the original language and culture, leaves us with misunderstandings. Thankyou for the clarity, as always, and enthusiasm for understanding.
As someone who was listening in the car with no visual, it would be nice if you read the text first, then analyzed it! Of course, this is your channel, but that's my "would be nice" wish! I enjoyed the talk anyway!
thank you for this excellent lecture Dr Tabor.
i was familiar with many of the general points from my study of Eastern Orthodox scholars. but this lecture really helped me to grasp pauls message. mind blowing stuff, and i personally found it very edifying to my faith.
i hope this comment will help to boost this video in the UA-cam algorithm 🙏
This as excellent! What a quality lecture.
Awesome. Awesome awesome
The chart at 1:14:00 has Paul saying "humans belong on earth". Yet James Tabor seems to think that Paul's view is that the resurrected body leaves earth. I think Paul's view was that the resurrected body will be more at home on earth than our current body is. Not only will the body be immortal and glorious, but the earth will have been redeemed! All things will have become new, and it will be entirely for the better!
Dr. Tabor. Great video. I have watched it more than once. As the Pauline version of Christianity ascended, why did the church fathers repudiate and reject what Paul was saying?
Some of what is said to have been said by Paul was added for control and personnel egoic demands.
Fascinating talk. Enjoyed the David Bowie reference!
This is exactly Kundalini awakening in the Virgin Mother of Seven stages...
This was very interesting. I watched the whole thing, but there are certainly many who will not due to the length. I think you could make a cut down version that fits in 10 minutes, and reference the longer version for people who want the full experience.
Awesome! That was a fantastic presentation on the originality of Paul and the novelty of primordial or primitive Christianity.
Thank you , wonderful lecture.
Thank you James
VERY THOUGHTFUL THANK YOU
Timing, Hellenistic just blew through town !
Thank you Dr. Habit
"Hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes."
I think you are right thanks for your input 😊
All this makes sense… but it seems there are so many theologians, apologists, creeds which affirm Jesus Christ is a part of the trinity and see Paul as affirming this too. This is my problem with Christians - they have so many conflicting views on major theological positions it’s exasperating. And each camp calls the other heretics ! This fine thinker would be burned at the stake for expressing these views in medieval times - and given half a chance evangelicals would set him alight too.
Paul was a monotheist.
Your last sentence - sad but true!
From what I’ve read of LDS theology, it seems they do take this idea seriously, perhaps uniquely among Christian denominations.
As do Jehovah's Witnesses, more or less
Eastern Orthodoxy is pretty consonant with much of this as well
We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, believe in a resurrection of flesh and bones.
The spirit will replace the blood in the body.
When Christ ascended back to heaven, he took his physical body with him to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Both God the Father and Jesus Christ are gods with resurrected bodies.
No Jesus! With out Jesus there would be no Paul get it straight ..
Superb, thank you
Mr smith is still blowing minds 😊😊😊
I will have to check out Jonathan. He's so late sixties funky cool. I was twelve in '68. He could have saved me from Catholic school
I see how this idea (pasted in from the video summary) was held by Paul yet rejected by the later church: "Paul’s greatest idea has to do with God actually 'Saving' the entire Cosmos-birthing it into its perfected spiritual destiny. " But I don't think at all that that idea was original to Paul, but rather that it originated with the revelations to and writings of the OT prophets whom Paul had been reading. ... But then the summary extends the idea saying "He is creating a new 'genus' of spirit beings in the universe-that is human beings made of dust who are transformed into spiritual bodies-Jesus being the first of many ..." well, that extension of the idea was not rejected by the church, right? Unless of course we only mean that the church rejected the timing of that idea, placing it as something that happens immediately upon the death of the believer instead of waiting for it to happen when Christ comes again. I write this paragraph, because I am trying to summarize the video the way the title frames it, and am having trouble connecting the dots in any straightforward way. "Paul's Greatest Idea and Why the Church Rejected It!": I'm still not sure I could boil it down to one idea that James Tabor thinks was Paul's greatest and that was rejected by the church. The video seems more nuanced and complex; we get several ideas of Paul's which were rejected by, adapted by, and adopted by the church to varying degrees. Personally, I am on board with the way The Bible Project frames these matters of the resurrection and the new cosmos, not only for understanding Paul but also for understanding huge parts of the Bible and for understanding its overall story line and message. If only the church on the whole would recover that view and make it mainstream Christianity, I think we'd all be in a much better place!
Fantastic deep dive
We can't say that Paul's expectations of the coming Christ failed, but perhaps we can say that Paul's expectations of the timing of the coming Christ did fail. I am referring of course to the second coming of the Christ, not the first. Paul's advice about how to live on earth in the meantime has been relevant for 2000 years, and will remain relevant until Jesus comes again. The appointed time is short, regardless of how long it turns out to be, and Peter does a good job of explaining that.
This video was a wonderful eye-opening experience for me. Yes, indeed, I found this"meaningful, helpful and stimulating." I am going right away to kindle to get the 2 books you mentioned.
There is a third possibility For why Paul's idea got discarded. And that is That at some point in the hellenistic era Consciousness and language became distanced and separated from real-life real life experience. Before that time language was deeply connected to bodily-felt experiencing. After that time both language and how we experience the world split into a material historical mode (historicism) and a mystical fantasy mode (essentialism.) These correspond to the 2 views Of Christianity that you mention that came after Paul.
You go back and try to recover The ancient mode of consciousness and language, You might find that Paul is referring to an entirely new and different mode Of of experiencing the world and self That is an entirely higher stage of Psychological and cognitive development simular to all the previous stages that we all go through from infancy to adulthood.
This higher stage pretty much has direct correspondence to Higher states of consciousness that are attained By various eastern meditational practices, especially the attainment of Higher powers called siddhis. A person who attains these levels of consciousness simply experiences and acts in the world in a completely different way than He did on lower levels. The brain synthesizes completely different experiences of both self and world.
In this context Jesus would be what is called a "Siddha Guru" - a person who has attained this higher level and is able to transmit it to others. Being able to transmit this to others Explains The attribution of "Guru is God."
Jesus would be God In that same way, not in some special pre-existent way.
And attainment of god realization through such means would be a fulfillment of the apocalyptic prophecy of a new a new heaven, a new earth, and a new self, not as a historical material event or a mystical other-worldly transport, What is a total transformation of all the functioning of consciousness and experiencing that is totally discontinuous with lower levels for the person who experiences that.
For the person experiencing that this IS a total transformation of the world. It does not have to be something that happens to anyone else to be a true transformation of the world.
I have no idea whatsiever if this applies to Paul's Idea or not, but it does seem to open up new possibilities for how to Look at the situation. I wrote my doctoral dissertation in 1987 using this perspective to go deeper into the practicalities of Plato's method of Dialectic, and it allowed me to find an effective experiential approach to that method that wouldn't be possible using the perspectives of the modern-wotld schizoid consciousness.
Because of that, I intend to look into applying this insight to Paul's idea as you present it here.
I believe that that could open up the possibility of actually experiencing what Paul was talking about rather than just speculating about what he meant.
Fascinating video. Would you consider zoroastrianism to be in this hellenisitc, dualistic framework? I know it pre-dates hellenism, so however, it also seems to fit the later world centric idea.
There were a lot of interesting concepts (Cosmic existence). However, the entire presentation is laced with a denial of Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence. Jesus said, “Before Avraham I AM”. Also, Paul in his letter to the Philippians states that Jesus is the very nature of God. Furthermore, during Jesus’ final appearance in front of Caiaphas in his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quotes Daniel, prompting Caiaphas to accuse Jesus of blasphemy, admitting He is God.
Philipians: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
He became human like us. He is the Word, the Logos, that came into our world, God's world, to make all things new, heaven and earth,
ΙΝΑ Η Ο ΘΕΟΣ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΕΝ ΠΑΣΙΝ
for God to be all in every one.
Or, more likely, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher-like many before him and many after him-most who, like Jesus, ended up being executed by the Romans for treason. Paul made Jesus’ message into a new thing infused with various religious and philosophical thinking and beliefs circulating in the Greek influenced Roman world and culture at that time.
@longcastle4863
Not so very likely. Paul - whatever Tabor wants to make of him - was by no means the first. He came after others and was on one with his Messiah and alm who had spoken for God before and after. Paul was demanding and difficult. As his Rabbi was (and is).
Narrow path. Not easy Torah or church gnosticism. (Tabor essentially advocates for the latter. He keeps creating strawmen: the naive believer that never exists. Everyone is smart in his own eyes.
Followers He - God's son - does not have many.
I often get the feeling that Tabor equates Christianity with Protestantism, particularly American Protestantism. This video's subject reveals this potential narrowness. In Orthodox Christianity, salvation is often characterized as theosis, becoming godlike and this godlike being is of a humble servant (publican). Salvation is absolutely participation through mystical union. And the salvation is frequently referred to in hymnography and theology as of the entire cosmos, first as a Church Militant and then a Church Triumphant. And of course the end of the Nicene Creed: "I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."
from the 70s, we were outcasts from churches for this revelation. We did not name a named denomination but people called us "the manifested sons of God" amongst other names. I have a lot to do with "the local church" movement that Watchman Nee started, they preach on the "God-Men", a hybrid of God and man that Jesus was the first of. but it's not "equality with God", it's God IN you by His Spirit who lives IN you! read what Jesus said about the Spirit...All of it!
We Lived in Christian communities, all over the world. My family was in one in South Africa, a multiracial community in a country where that was illegal, so we had our own schools.
wtf is bro yappin about 🗣️🗣️🗣️
Thanks for the analysis.
Dr. Tabor, there's a world/universe affirming Buddhism, too. The same thing happened to Buddhism as happened to Paul's Christianity. It's found, incidentally, in Mahayana Buddhism, Lotus (Sutra) School.
What’s the cause of sin suffering death according to Buddhism?
@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388Thank you for the question. Death is just the breathing in (death) and out (birth) of the Natural Order. It's like light and dark or hot and cold. There's nothing unnatural or "dark" about it. it just is. The fundamental character of Life itself is cause and effect. You might say that cause and effect (karma) is the personality or character of Life. Suffering is the result of destructive, dishonorable, evil, or just unwise/bad causes. Every cause is manifested in various effects. Life at each moment encompasses both body and spirit and both self and environment of all sentient beings in every condition of life, as well as insentient beings -- plants, sky and earth, on down to the most minute particles of dust. Life at each moment permeates the universe and is revealed in all phenomena. One awakened to this truth him or herself embodies this relationship. Buddhism is something like that.
@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 IT is such so that nothing made or produced or become of the other causes and conditions etc. is not permanent. Human beings are such, and therefore mortals. There is no such as sin as a cause for that. In Buddhism is not even such a concept as sin. What is permanent? Our original mind, our Buddha-mind, our Buddha-nature. Why is that permanent? It is not mortal because it has no beginning, therefore neither end.
@@KiviK-d7w who creates one to be mortal? Everything in nature from plants , animals mankind is fighting mortality and striving to preserve life which proves mortality was not our original state
Only the Bible tells us, God, Life Himself created mankind for eternal fellowship with Him. But when man ate of the tree of death, sin suffering death etc entered creation
Nothing we do can defeat death to return immortality and that’s why Jesus, Life Himself. Came to defeat death for us to give us His Life for eternity
What’s it all about Dr Tabor? 😂
Thanks for this episode …. And making me laugh too ⚔️⚔️🙏👍👏
Thank you!
The account of Luke is accurate, the position of the other letters should be reevaluated and better translated, too (not as titles but in predicative descriptive terms: one who teaches, one who looks after others, a mature man, one who ministers (to others), one who is being sent forth (αποστολοσ)
All Scripture is important and of value.
Only the few added (Rev 20:5a, Mt 28:19) and wrong things (interpretations of GeHinnom, basanos, etc.) are not.
“Weeping and gnashing of teeth” line of reflection, and ABC of knowing, to liberate oneself from the darkness of confusions including the Sorting-Out (Judgment) Criterion:
(A) Mat 25:26-29 is crystal clear that “wicked-lazy-worthless/useless” servants will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In contrast, the “good-faithful” servants will share the joy of their master (God/Jesus).
• “Wicked” vs “faithful-wise” servants (Mat 24:45-50),
• “Evil” vs “good” (Mat 22:10-14),
• Mat 13 is all about clarification of “weeds”: “children of evil” vs “children of kingdom”--- where “evildoers and “those who cause others to sin” will be thrown into the fiery furnace … wailing and grinding of teeth, while the “Righteous” will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father (Mat 13:40-43),
• As good fishes will be separated, at the end of the world the Angels will separate the “wicked” from “righteous” and throw them into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat 13:47-50).
(B) Who are “good-righteous-fruitful-faithful” servants? DOERS ποιέω (poieō) of WORDS λόγος (logos).
• Believing is not enough, “If you (purposefully) commit to my WORDS (obey/do words) you are my true disciples” (John 8:31),
• If you love me follow my WORDS that are God’s WORD who sent me (not my own words) (John 14:23-24) (John 8:51),
• If you obey my commandments (WORDS) I will keep loving you just as father keeps loving me for obeying his commandments (WORDS) (John 15:10),
• A wise build one’s house on the rock --- DOING the WORDS (Mat 7:24-26), and not on the sand (including fluff lies of bluffing mouths!!!),
• In order to bear multifold fruit, a good soil hear and understand WORDS (Mat 13:23),
• My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s WORD and DO it (Luke 8:21), (also Luke 6:47).
(C) Eternal Punishment or Eternal Life is only possible in Eternal Realm. Heaven and earth will pass away (solar system), but Jesus’ WORDS --- that are God’s WORDS --- will not. Nobody knows the day or hour including Jesus (Mat 24:35-36). Keep committed to the WORDS purposefully and contribute to the process of increased peace and prosperity for everyone by DOING the WORDS --- making this world (earth) comparable to the Eternal Realm: Your WILL be DONE on earth as it is in Heaven! Do not miss the opportunity as everyone is subject to two impending random events: I) natural death or II) the sun death. Enjoy every moment of life purposefully. The gate is narrow (Mat 7:13-14) and on that Day Jesus might say I do not know you… depart from me all “evildoers” (Mat 7:23; Mat 25:41; Luke 13:27)! Those who mislead others from the way of life-Life are “evildoers” too!!!
Just came across Job 19.25-26 again and thought it relevant to Paul's idea and what Paul probably believed about the spiritual resurrected body. Not a resuscitation, for sure, but not fleshless either.
Editorial additions to Daniel 7. First, in Daniel 2-6, the term ‘holy’ (קַדִּישׁ /qadîš ) is exclusively used for the celestial/heavenly beings (God, gods, and angels) who are not earthly/ flesh. The editor of Dan 7 uses the term ‘holy’ as an attribute for human beings (flesh), often translated as “holy ones/saints”.
• Second, the editor uses the term עֶלְיוֹן (ʿelyôn) for the Most High against עִלַּי (ʿillay) in Dan 2-6 and non-edited Dan 7. So, the related phrases or clauses can be picked easily:
- Dan 7:18, 22, 25 and 27 with עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין קַדִּישֵׁ֖י (holy ones/saints of the Most High).
- Dan 7:21 from the word קַדִּישֵׁ֖י.
• The third argument is based on the structural analysis of Daniel 7.
- The fate of the beasts and the interpretation of the vision episodes occurs after Daniel seeks to know and thereupon to learn exactly about the fourth beast, the most dangerous one and its successive horns which are the author's concern (Dan 7:19-20). (the author knows that Beasts 1, 2, 3 are currently non-existent but historical entities!)
- The response of the interpreter starts at Dan 7:23.
- Besides its structure problem, Daniel 7:11-12 prose breaks the rhyme of poetic section Dan 7:4-14 and also the editor's confusion/lack of knowledge such that he does not know the difference between a "beast" and a "horn".
• Therefore, these are editorial additions to Daniel 7 for the promotion of saints (Hasmoneans) and their “holy war”:
- Dan 7:11-12
- Dan 7: 16b-18
- Dan 7:21-22
- Dan 25b: “and oppress the saints of "
- In Dan 27, the editor deleted any word of reference to the person who was authorized by the Ancient of Days (7:14) and instead inserted the clause: “the holy people of the Most High”.
So, according to Daniel 2-6, and non-edited Dan 7 there are two realms and for two different kinds of beings:
(A) Heaven (skies/heavens) and its celestial beings, made of non-flesh, who are inherently ‘holy’ including Most High God, gods, watchers, and angels.
(B) Earth and its living creatures made of ‘flesh’ including humans and animals.
There are many gods (nations’ gods) in Heaven, but the Most High (the upper level) God is the Sovereign who rules over all gods. Other celestial beings including watchers /angels are under the control of and serve Most High God by nature.
There are many local rulers on the earth who rule over their own nation. But there is a “King of kings” --- endorsed by Most High God --- who has the authority to reign over all inhabitants of the earth. This person could be a low-level ordinary person and not necessarily from the seed of a local king or an ethnic group. Whoever Most High picks, all the population of the world (nations, communities, and languages) are supposed to obey him as the King of kings. But if any King of kings does not satisfy God’s demands (ethics of reigning) he will be punished or will be removed by God and without human hand.
According to Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7, a King of kings was endorsed by the Ancient of days (Most High God) and his document was issued by Divine heavenly officials/court. Then the divine court removed the current King of Kings, and his position was filled by a newly endorsed King of kings who is apparently from Daniel ethnicity.
According to Dan 2-6, the authorization issued by Most High God is just only for the King of kings --- and not for any ethnicity or a group of people (e.g. saints) to reign. No god has authority to appoint a “King of kings”.
The focus on becoming holy, pure, etc is a misstep in human thought, imo. The focus should not be on the human individual living for ever in sone afterlife, which is very unlikely to be a possible thing, but on improving ourselves as species and thereby improving our chances of living forever as a species. Which is something that may very well be possible.
Thank you Dr Tabor
Alexander Fleming is credited with discovering penicillin in 1928… that’s pretty cool too
Oh, my, this last week I have been brought to the character of Gilgamesh four times. He is a character that in my 77 years I basically have not known about; just the name sounded familiar.
Around minute 39 in the video ... Peter and Isaiah likewise had spoken of a new heavens and a new earth, where the former things would be remembered no more. It's not just a Pauline idea. "It will all be changed like a garment!" The Apostle John also speaks quite frequently of the glory and glorification of Christ; it's not a specifically Pauline Gospel.
Paul was the most honest in his conversion to follow Yeshua, and did not place rituals over Gentiles. He earnestly and humbly brought the good news and hoped both jews and Gentiles would love one another and serve loving Yeshua. His future views of all becoming one under Jesus Christ/ Yeshua Hamachiach and singing a new song. Having relationship with the living GOD through Jesus Christ/ Yeshua Hamachiach.
Regarding the term mystery in I Corinthians 2, you've really got to check out the book Hidden but now Revealed, by Gladd and Beale. Paul is not the only one to whom the mystery was revealed: the mystery has been revealed publically and openly. But Paul is emphasizing that he is sent by Jesus to unpack and proclaim the revelation so that Gentiles may understand it - Gentiles like the Corinthians. The big idea here is that the Corinthians neither disparage nor elevate Paul as an Apostle, but that they latch on to the message and attitude of Christ, Christ whom Paul and any right apostle aims to proclaim and elevate. They shouldn't get proud or puffed up, shouldn't boast about any one Apostle. They should revel and boast in what God has done through Christ! This is confirmed because it is the next step in what God had been purposing and partially revealing since times past, involving the Jewish people.
at 1:22:30 James Tabor talks about Paul's very Hebraic view. Yes, yes and yes! So if it gets "flipped up" to a Hellenistic view, that is not Paul's fault; it is the fault of the later church in the west, the Gentile-led church.
A big part of the mystery that had been revealed was that the Messiah would have two comings, rather than just one. Another is that the Messiah would have to suffer and die, that he would be rejected. There are places where the prophets had hinted at these things, but it was hidden how all that could possibly come to pass. Once Christ came, was rejected, crucified, and raised, then God's plan for that phase was revealed. It's not that Paul had some secret insight on what the future would look like in terms of what kind of body would be raised. What kind of body will be raised is still mostly a mystery to even Paul, judging from I Cor. 15; In I Cor 15 Paul says that God gives the after-death body just as he determines. The body of the seed is not the same as the body of the plant that springs out of the seed once the seed dies, and there is no way to humanly guess what the plant will look like - be it a flower or a tree, and what kind of flower or what kind of tree - just looking at the seed; we'll need to wait and find out. But the principle that there are different kinds of glories and different kinds of bodies, and that the seed must die first before the second body can be seen ... the principle that there are earthly bodies and heavenly ones, ... these are all principles that we can gather from what God has established, such that we should not object to the idea that such things can happen.
This sounds very much like the Mormon theology I was raised with
The Mormons and the JW have solid theology. It’s just different from the “orthodox” so they get scoffed at unfortunately in bad faith
@@tookie36They, in fact, do not.
@@blain20_ they, in fact, do.
@@tookie36 No. You don't know the Bible.
@@blain20_ what Bible are you referring to? Bc the Catholics, Greeks, ethopic, lds, and JW all have different bibles than you im guessing
Paul was he who gave God our Father honor ❤❤ for this reason his wrightings was used
I often feel frustrated that we have only, so far as I am aware, access, or discovered Greek writing in Paul's name.
Should we have found any if his teachings transmitted in Hebrew, we very well may have had a clearer understanding of him. Even as someone who knew Greek and who likely had someone write out his dictations too, we none-the-less have the problem of translating terms steeped in Hebraic conotations, and double meanings, and ancient encodations of solid, meaningful symbolism, and metaphors into a language which has none of these threads running through. Or, at least, not in the same way, nor with the same underlaying lingual functions and mechanism systems running through it.
we, recently have discovered such a loss in transaltion since the verification that there are some snippets of Hebrew originals of, for example, Mathew.
And in one verse we discovered that the counter-intuitive instruction concerning the problem of the corrupt form of Pharisaic Judaism (generally Pharisees were well resopected. And for good reason.
But some belonged too differing factions, and political agendas), we seemed to have been encouraged to read Jesus' 'Do as they say.
That just made no sense: Do what the pharisim/hypocrits say?
. However, when an original Hebrew version is read, we get a perspective the Greek just could not give. Jesus had been pointing to the 'Seat of Moses' in the place of worship He was talking within. And He did not say, meaning the Pharisees, ''Do what THEY say'', but, rather was saying, as He pointed to that seat (of Moses) 'DO WHAT HE SAYS'!.. That is, do what MOSES says: TORAH. Not the Pharisees.
For in sayng this, Jesus did not contravene any Pharisaic custom, nor offend God nor the people, and yet still remain full of Truth and Integrity.
But, in the Greek? It is a nonsense story with the moral: obey hypocrits. (Most of the Phrarisim were not hypocrits. we need to know that. Most were simply devout, if out of touch with the commoners as most well-off educated people always are mostly)
Do take care if you choose to access Hebrew Gospels etc. Some are not authentic. That is, are just the normal Greek translations (which went behind NIV and KJV versions etc) translated BACK into Hebrew. So miss out the actual Hewbrew nuances altogether, and likely get a double whammy having been translated twice over. Authentic Hebrew Gospels, if we ever find any or have found any, must be originals, and not copies of Greek. And we can tell by the words, and symbolisms and double meanings used which would only emanate from Hebrew writers steeped in Torah and the Prophets. Much of the terms they used just didn't translate into Greek. Or didn't translate well enough.
Am just saying basic obvious stuff. But I had to begin to learn from reading basic obvious stuff. So maybe it'll trigger some thinking in someone else some day.
What is love? HOW does one love God and HOW does one love one another?
36:26 What is "born again"? HOW is one "born again"?
Dr. Tabor: "Satan said if you take it and eat it you will live forever." A scribal slip. Satan (the Serpent) said "You will not surely die." If in fact the tree of Wisdom was effectively the same as the tree of Life (Prov 3:18), then yes that would be the logical conclusion. Either way, taking and eating from the tree of wisdom or the tree of life was an attempt to become like God; as was building the tower of Babel to storm the gate of heaven (God) (cf. Matthew 11:12). This is a great video by Dr. Tabor.
Unless I missed the point, the transcript and the last image at 1:18:05 seem to imply that it was Paul's desire to make "Jesus not just the first, but the one and only begotten of the Father." In essence, supporting Trinitarianism. One of the reasons I left Mainstream Christianity was the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also misread the graphic and misunderstood the point there, it is worded poorly. What he’s saying is: Paul’s Adam Christology (Jesus as a new Adam: the first, but not only, begotten of the father) was abandoned not by Paul, but by the proto-orthodox, replacing his view with what Tabor calls “full trinitarianism” (Jesus as God: the first and only begotten of the father).
The illustration at 1:11:11 does not take into account that the people and the cosmos are a temple-construct meeting/uniting/merging of heaven and earth. It is not a going away from earth and a going to heaven. Jesus for a time, yes, is in a heaven that is away from earth, but when he comes again, he is bringing heaven with him to earth. The people, likewise, do not entirely lose the earthly element, nor does the heavenly element of the resurrected people require them to leave the earth.
Bernadette Roberts explains clearly, based on her personal experience, how the Resurrection has nothing to do with revivication.
Question- Assuming Dr. Tabor is correct about Paul's views here, are there any current Christian denominations, sects, groups who believe and teach what Paul believed about this?