What was the early Jesus Movement About? | Prof. Dennis R. MacDonald
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 гру 2022
- / gnosticinformant
Please Consider joining my Patreon to help finding scholars to bring on. Any amount helps me. Thank you existing Patrons.
Professor Dennis R. MacDonald:
www.dennisrmacdonald.org/
Dennis R. MacDonald received his PhD from Harvard University in 1978 and taught New Testament and Christian origins at Goshen College, the Iliff School of Theology, and the Claremont School of Theology. From 1999-2010 he served as the director of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont Graduate University. He also has been a visiting professor at the Harvard Divinity School, Union Theological Seminary, Florida State University, and Yonsei University (South Korea).
Dr. MacDonald retired from teaching in 2015 and during his career and retirement has written several books documenting the widespread influence of ancient Greek literature on the composition of the New Testament. He proposes that this mimetic approach should serve as a paradigm shift in New Testament studies because it shifts the focus from the New Testament authors as mere editors to ones who were creative imitators of the Greek epic literature.
Moses Course:
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
gnosticinformant--ehrman.thri...
⬆⬆⬆LINK FOR COURSE ⬆⬆⬆
💥💥💥💥🚨💥🚨💥🚨💥💥💥 (Click either one)
⬇⬇⬇LINK FOR COURSE ⬇⬇⬇
gnosticinformant--ehrman.thri...
Mystery Cults Course:
Dr. M David Litwa
gnosticinformant--pursuit4kno...
The Course for Mystery Cults by Professor Litwa is NOW AVAILABLE!!! Click the Link for more Details! (Link)
gnosticinformant--pursuit4kno...
#gnosticinformant - Розваги
www.patreon.com/GnosticInformant
Please Consider joining my Patreon to help finding scholars to bring on. Any amount helps me. Thank you existing Patrons.
What I noticed, even as a kid, that the Gospel of Matthew sounded a lot like the stories of Greco-Roman heroes. The dying/rising god motif is a transitional analogy. The transition for the Jews were from a nation and church. After the Jewish-Roman Wars they are left to transition to a people without nation or a temple. Their new sense of identity became that of a holy people without a country or temple but whose God is still with them.
So disappointed I missed this live! Prof MacDonald is a favorite scholar.
Thank you both so much for the excellent show!
Neal, enjoyed the conversation with Dr. MacDonald. Always a pleasure.
On the topic of mythicism, the first proponent I can remember coming across was a Christian. We tend to think of it as an atheist thing, but there are plenty of liberal or new age-type Christians who are interested in mythicism as well.
Same, ive met several christian mythicists.
So, a Christian Mythicist would be akin to a Gnostic Christian, which means that they don't take the Gospels literally but still find important moral, spiritual, and theological ideas within them?
@@SaintFort That's one possibility. One of the main strains of soteriology, mainly found among liberal protestants, is the idea that the main purpose of Jesus' life and death was to demonstrate the nature and disposition of God. A related theory claims that Jesus' main purpose was to establish a moral example. In either case, neither actually require a physical Jesus. A similar take would be the perennialist one, according to which (as I understand it) all of the major religions are pathways to the same universal truth, which are expressed in various cultures through continuously developing narratives and rituals.
As a sidenote, I'm not sure "literal" is the best word here. Isn't Carrier's theory that the first Christians believed that Jesus was a celestial figure who lived and died in Heaven? This would make them mythicists in a sense, but they would also believe that the gospel stories literally happened - just not materially.
Excellent. Love Dr. Macdonald.
Good stream ! Dr MacDonald is a boss
Dr. MacDonald is an amazing man. Got his book- love it ❤
Thank you
57:14 - Amen! Very important right? "Mythology is the way people create their ethical figures." Mythology is *part of how human beings think*.
Congratulations!
Good stream
I see two Jesus movements in the gospels, that represent the two messiahs talked about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. You have a peaceful priestly movement and a militant movement. The militants are defeated, but the peaceful one continues even after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The resurrection is the continuation of the people after the defeat and destruction of the nation. The people continue and rabbinical worship continues. A new way of life is the new kingdom.
*Luke 1:1: many people have undertaken…*
And? We can see that Luke is sometimes just writing what he wants us to believe. This passage by itself is weak evidence for many documents, but MacDonald takes it as proof. I don’t understand why.
He has a lot of faith.
MacDonald’s mimesis work is great. I do not think Q was necessary as the writing of the gospels was coordinated.
But I am listening to learn more about the beginning of the christian ideology and I am hoping to find a new perspective and an actual truth and hope I also seek more knowledge about Judaism ❤️
Please look up " a rood awakening " here on youtube. Best single source for teachings on Jewdaism , and biblical truth. Good luck! Shalom.
Love you dude, just venting :P
We can never repay the scholars for all of the hard work that they have done to give us our freedoms from Religions. By helping us from continuing to be lied to about all of the man-written, Man-ipulated, emotionally spiritually enslaving superstitious myths and legends pantheons of different types of superstitious pagan myths and legends religious idols, temples, rituals, practices, symbols, meanings that have been used to control us by using our own emotions against us.
I feel this so deeply. I am so grateful for these scholars. 💙
Interesting how they can try to reconstruct a lot about Q.
Why would taking your cross daily be in Q? And that of course implies that even Q is rewritten or written after Jesus' life?
56:00 excellent question, and a surprisingly excellent answer. Did Dennis R Macdonald suddenly turn into a mythicist? He even admits here that early Christians are "creating" their hero as a replacement for Moses. There is definitely plenty of evidence for this position.
Q is probably a diverse collection of Jesus sayings whose composition varied over time. That gospel authors might have used slightly different versions is not that controversial
I've softened on historicism recently thanks to hearing more plausible explanations.
However 4 big things keep me skeptical: 1. I don't see any notion of a historical Jesus in Paul 2. The extremely high christology of Paul seems to be something that should have developed way later (Philippians hymn) 3. The Book of Hebrews seems to be completely mythical as well.
4. Mathew seems to be the one who Introduced all these Jewish sayings to mark, simply as a redaction to make it less Pauline and Luke seems to just be a compromise.
Nothing seems to be a smoking gun for HJ. the stuff in Josephus is not clear for / against.
Personally I think Paul stole the historical Jesus's identity and around it invented a Christ for himself and his -marks- flock.
@@edwardmiessner6502 I agree that this could account for the wild differences. Paul could have just been a huckster/ grifter. It would have been nice to have at least 1 reliable autograph by one of the other pillars...peter/James .
The Gospels are using a play on names when creating a character. Joshua was the one who ushered in a new era for the Israelites, one of a people with a nation and temple. Jesus (Joshua) does the same thing. Jesus wasn’t created out of thin air, it’s still the same character in a slightly different tale of transition from one stage to another.
Does he have a hypothesis for what Q might have been? I’m a FIRM believer in Q, I suspect it might not even be fully “lost” but actually hidden in the Vatican Archives, but I digress; does he have a favorite potential author?
The way he says “it’s my legacy Neil!” Makes me wish he was my grandpa.
11:00 there shouldn’t be.
Every single expert on the subject agrees. The people on social media want to “trust the experts” but only when the experts agree with their preconceived worldview.
13:36 this has been my hypothesis from the beginning; that Q is THE source of the entire New Testament that isn’t the story of Paul the Usurper.
26:42 just when I thought I couldn’t love this guy anymore he defends Socrates. No “bum” talk here (and I do love the Prometheism guest, I subscribed to him right away, but his disrespect for the man who his idol held in very high regard really burned my noodles. Like that guy has clearly never been in a fight and he’s casting aspersions on a man who fought three of the bloodiest battles of the Peloponnesian War? Like have some sympathy for a man who clearly had PTSD and still made himself so legendary that we know his name 2,500 years later) just respect for a giant of his and ALL time.
28:44 contemporaneously he’s quite similar to Arminius the man I lovingly refer to as “Germanic Jesus.”
What does Q mean? I keep hearing y’all refer to Q and that being the possible source of the writings but I don’t understand what Q is…
It's a presumed source document which consisted mostly if not exclusively of sayings of Jesus. Its presumed that this was used by the later gospel writers to pepper their narrative with the preestablished "popular/known" sayings of Jesus.
It's just a way of saying all the material in common between GMatt and GLuke, but which does not appear in GMark.
The hypothesis is that the authors of GLuke and GMatt both used GMark and Q as a source, this explaining the common material not to be found in GMark.
Thank y’all for the knowledge!
But @@integrationalpolytheism , why do you say GMark and GLuke? Is the G short for Gospel? If so sorry for the dumb question 😂
@@clevermrwright not at all. Yes, it's short for gospel. It's a convention I saw in a book, however not one I've seen used widely.
I tend to avoid using terms which imply that a historical Mark wrote GMark or a historical John wrote GJohn since that's misleading.
By the way, there was a typo in my reply above, now fixed.
I meant that GMark and the hypothetical Q document were both used as sources by the authors of GMatt and GLuke, and Q is basically a way of saying "everything in common between GMatt and GLuke which isn't in GMark".
I've never heard a justification for why Luke couldn't have just copied some sayings of Matthew and Matthew just copied some sayings from Mark.
I'm open to the Q hypothesis, but it seems overly complicated.
Agreed. The so called q material seems to be all from Mathew
Just wanting to be helpful here ; the four gospels are different accounts about the messiah, with each telling the account from a different perspective of him.( suffering servant, priest,king,etc.)The actual ministry of messiah was 70 weeks long, and not 3.5 years. All four have only one event in common, the feeding of the five thousand. You can refer to " a rood awakening ministries " here on UA-cam for source materials and as much details as you care for. Shalom. ( peace )
@@tonysurber9111 None of that had any relevance to my comment. Thanks
The sayings attributed to Q in Luke are scattered all over the place and chronologically very disorganized, while in Matthew they are organized into very specific events (like the Sermon on the Mount) so it doesn't make sense for Luke to be copying them from Matthew then scrambling them, especially because Matthew put extra effort to make them seem seamlessly integrated into his narrative. If we didn't have Mark it would be impossible to separate the two sets of sayings in Matthew.
More importantly, Luke's versions of the "Q" sayings are more harsh than Matthew's and don't show indications of Matthew's "polishing" to fit into Matthew's message. This indicates that Luke had access to a source for the same sayings before Matthew cleaned them up to fit his agenda. This is why scholars believe there must have been a pre-Matthew source for the sayings.
@@andrewsuryali8540 This is a great explanation. Thank you. I wrote a response. It's long. Feel free to ignore. You're under no obligation to placate me. Cheers.
This doesn't really demonstrate Q for me. It shows some of the justification but it doesn't clearly show that there has to be a Q document. Hear me out.
The sayings attributed to Q in Luke being scattered could be the work of Luke scattering quotes taken from Matthew and Mark and inventing his own.
The sayings attributed to Q in Matthew being organized could be the work of Matthew ordering quotes invented by Mark and inventing his own.
"it doesn't make sense for Luke to be copying them from Matthew then scrambling them" Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable that the author of Luke would have their own agenda, and as part of that they want to sprinkle in some sayings, and that' hypothesis appears to match what we see. It's just as valid to say "it makes perfect sense for Luke to be copying them from Matthew then scrambling them". One statement isn't more sound than the other.
"especially because Matthew put extra effort to make them seem seamlessly integrated into his narrative". Why does Luke care how much effort Matthew put into including sayings? Or even that they make a good narrative. It seems likely that Luke just took what he read in Matthew and moved it around. No Q is necessary.
"If we didn't have Mark it would be impossible to separate the two sets of sayings in Matthew." This is what annoys me most about this hypothesis. Scholars are more than willing to admit that Matthew copied from Mark and added his own writings to create Matthew. But then we are to believe that Matthew couldn't have created sayings of Jesus and had to have copied it from another source. One author jumbles up another authors sayings? That doesn't seem like enough evidence for me.
In many ways Luke appears to be a polemic against Matthew. Why then is it difficult to believe that the changes made in Luke reflect that? Lukes sayings are harsher, their placement is changed, they no longer support Matthews message. That's all in-line with Lukes effort to write a polemic version of the gospel.
"This indicates that Luke had access to a source for the same sayings before Matthew cleaned them up to fit his agenda." Here we go!!! This is what I was looking for. So according to this conclusion there are elements that exist within Luke that appear to be unpolished sayings. And there are elements within Matthew that appear to be polished versions of the same sayings. So it appears that Luke and Matthew were written independent of each other one including crude versions of the sayings while the other takes those crude sayings and polishes them? But the problem with this is there's other evidence that Luke had access to Matthew and was writing his gospel as a polemic. That's where I struggle. There are conflicting pieces of evidence and neither seems to be that conclusive. Like I said earlier, Luke could have just jumbled up Matthews sayings.
For the record I think it's entirely possible that there were books circulating that claimed to be the sayings of Jesus. Fan fiction in the first century (and going back even further) was popular. The pesher literary tradition, all the apocryphal books, all the forged letters, the book of Daniel and other anachronistic texts. It was quite popular to just make stuff up and pass it off as being written by or spoken by someone else. But that doesn't mean we should accept the Q hypothesis as a given. It still needs to be demonstrated. Furthermore, because there were so many extant disparate texts I think it's more likely that there were many Q documents, which could further explain why the sayings in Luke and Matthew appear more or less polished.
Wow. Will get Dr McDonald's books. He prices a lot cheaper than RFW.
52:44 - and do we have Papias? You're very confident on your dating of him, and yet doesn't he only survive in Eusebius and Iraneus? Honest question. I'm not a scholar, just interested.
I notice you assume the questioner refers to Markus Vinzent's very interesting work, and it's good to see your dismissive comments at least avoid being insulting, unlike your uncalled for remarks about Carrier and Lataster earlier.
Whoa
Man im really unimpressed with Mcdonald in his disrespect for mythicism. If the Obvious and I mean OBVIOUS story about Jesus as a mythology in the Gospels and its ahistoricity based upon logical exclusion alone (the contradictions cannot be rectified) is so bloody self-evident, but then the epistle writers cannot say anything of any material foundation of the Christ. But as well as this there is absolutely NO evidence contemporary or near contemporary of an historical Jesus. Why is it so hard to believe the Mythicisms aren't actually bang on the money here? Ralph Ellis actually has waaaaay more to say about a historical Jesus (in actual history) then this guy does. Mcdonald's whole hypothesis exists entirely on weak speculation.
I don’t know Ralph Ellis, but so far my favorite scholar for historical Jesus is James Tabor. What are Ellis’ arguments? Because James’ arguments are pretty compelling. I’m not a Christian and I tend to believe Jesus did exist. Yeshua was a pretty common name in late second temple Israel, there were a ton of crucifixions there, there are at least five other Jewish men leading sectarian apocalyptic messianic groups from second century BC-the end of the first century AD. He left family alive that continued the movement after his death (James and then Simon, his brothers) and then there’s all the scholars from right after his time that have no doubts he was real, even the ones criticizing him and his movement are criticizing his ideas and not the notion that he walked the earth. I do think Mythicism played a big role in what we now know as Christianity, but when it was still an exclusively Jewish movement it was quite different. Once it gets to Alexandria and the Greek scholars start to utilize it as a vehicle for their philosophy it starts to become what we know today.
For those with eyes to see…
why couldn't Q be , the Celestial Cody of Scripture?
What is the evidence for the existence of the Q document?
0
Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
Who’s truth?
@@davidkeller6156 The truth of Jesus Christ therefore his truth.
@@davidkeller6156
Ha, good question .
And we see the typical
" truth" of tradition.
" If you dont agree with
my truth ,than you haven't found the truth."
@@bellezavudd Exactly!
The story of the birth of Jesus in a stable is mythology,
it's a mythological story, it never happened.
and then I always pause after saying something like that because I have to give people time to think about what I just said.
That the story of the birth of Jesus in a stable is mythology, it never occurred. There never was a child born to a virgin in a stable with shepherds and wise men and a star. it never happened.
But the wonder of that, after you initially hear a statement like that and start to put up your defenses...
the wonder of it all is that as mythology, it speaks not of what happened, but of what happens.
Because there truly is a child who is born of a virgin among the animal instincts of all of us.
1 Timothy 1:4
“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”
Dennis dismisses Mythicism like Bart Ehrman by ridiculing the idea, yet when a question is asked 'is there anything in Paul that is historical about Jesus he said nothing except the crucifixion. But Paul only got the idea of the crucifixion from dreams of Jesus telling him and not as he said himself from any man. Nobody would accept someone's dream as historical information. Paul is the only person writing about the character at that time but from his imagination. So is Jesus historical if we don't have historical evidence?And since there is precedent of many mythical gods who came to earth or were half human half gods (and clearly made up) his ridiculing of the man made mythical Jesus idea is unjustified.
Also he dismisses any notion that there was no Q document when nobody mentioned earlier documents at the time (as far as I read) and we know the writers borrowed from each other and maybe there were many other sources not just one Q document. Of course he studied this more than almost anybody but belief in a historical Jesus and a Q but not much real evidence for either needs to be critiqued more.
What if Rabbi Gamiliel, who had taught Paul, was the source of the Q "documents"?
Or, the source is another patriarch or rabbi from the early church helmed by Jesus's brother James?
Dr. Robert M. Price sees a similarity between the Q sayings and the sayings of the cynics!
I like the Cynic school of philosophy
Are there gods that descend from heaven and get earth girls pregnant producing demigods? Of course not, that is mythology. Do people ascend to heaven to live with the gods? Of course not, that is also mythology. The bible begins and ends with mythology, which implies everything within the covers is mythology. "Bible Codec/ YHVH meaning"
I am not a *mythicist,* but when I was, it had nothing to do with anger or any emotions.
Dr MacDonald and everyone, including mythicists, just deal with the *evidence.* You drag yourself down by pretending to read other people’s minds.
Q: "Was there a pre-existing Jewish angel named Jesus?" A: "I wouldn't be surprised."
Defently now abaddon
There is some what old jewish text/prayer talking about "yeshua sar ha pnim"
Why couldn't Q be an arrest record
I am so grateful to learn something from this video what did I learn? I learned that YESHU was a man who posed a political threat and was executed by the Roman authority and the stories that were written about YESHU truly inspired a world religion ☯️
You must have not watch this video past the 28th minute mark my man.
@@jarjarabraham7079 don't think he watched any, just hear to post his belief
Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef made the TWO ONE he was Ascended Master level 9 I believe 10 being perfection Ascended Masters are Angels.
no Q document has ever been found or even mentioned.
but we just have to accept there was one?
imo this is a ridiculous view.
those sayings could have come from any other or several rabbi's in the 1 century.
more primitive sayings in Luke?
not at all, he has a different more symplistic writing style.
I have experience with people who saw Yeshu as a deity to be worshipped and I spent my whole life with the ramifications of such an upbringing and I had an experience which led me to do actual research on the world religions and since I have learned a little more about Judaism and the beginning of the christian ideology I have decided that perhaps the Jewish faith has a clearer vision of the journey towards fulfillment of each person's purpose
Jesus Christ is the deification of a real man. In fact there are good depictions of him in paintings and sculptures. He was a well known and popular Jewish sage known as 'Rabbi Yehoshua'.
It is only those that exsperience the pleroma in a form based in thier own individual realty, and does not give time for the ancient shadow tto freeze in the fight or flight. These are the individuals that seek that that GGGs us on
Any ideas where the Q gospel is today?
According to the Quran, the Q gospel is the Injeel. This is the book that Yeshua was given.
Injil is just a Syriac luke that is 3rd century
@@yacuvitzraim301 Can you explain more? What is the linguistic and historical connection between those two?
Injil refers to what Jesus preached. The first jewish Christians only had 1 gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. But it doesn't exist anymore. We just know what jewish christians believed. E.g. to keep the law, that Jesus didn't die for their sins, that Jesus was not God, being saved by deeds, not faith alone. Basically Jews+ believing in Jesus.
29:05 - great question, Neal. You better watch you don't get mistaken for one of those vile troglodytic abusive barbarian mythicists you are always ranting about!
Disappointing answer and discussion though. Just like Jacob from History Valley and certain others, you completely strawman the mythicist position.
Personally I wouldn't say they made up a fictional Jesus anymore than I think they made up Robin Hood or King Arthur, but those characters are all made up, from bits and pieces of real history, that refer to many different historical people. We know the late bronze age in Judea had a load of travelling rabbis and that a number of messianic movements had been springing up for a while, by the time of Jesus' supposed lifetime. The idea that people just made up a guy is not a reasonable claim, so know cling it down achieves nothing in your angry anti-mythicist crusade.
At least Jacob can hold his opinions in check, which he did admirably on a recent interview with Dr Price (who also questions the existence of historical Jesus). I don't think there's much point in a channel such as yours is shaping up into, where you just use the guest as a way to bang this drum.
There's no evidence to support a historical Jesus, and this chat about whether it is "attractive" has no bearing on that, anymore than your recent angry scattergun accusations do.
How does Matthew have more primitive versions of sayings from Mark even though it came later?
Matthew's author opposes Paul. Mark's author supports Paul.
Paul being a convert means he likely picked up the sayings from the Peter and crew lead Jesus cult.
The sayings originated with Peter's Jesus cult. So Paul who, supposedly, is a bit more educated took the sayings and filtered them through his own erudition.
The author of Matthew follows Peter and crew so Matthew puts down the original more primitive formulations while Mark puts down Paul's reformulations.
You don't need a secondary source for any of this.
The sayings as formulated by Peter and crew were likely drilled into Paul's head as a convert. When he splits from the Peter cult he takes the sayings in order to promote his own version of christianity and alters them either stylistically or ideologically to suit his needs.
Paul goes on his crazy Mediterranean evangelizing tour which leaves Peter and crew playing catch up.
Paul's group accumulates enough money to put together a book thanks to Paul's efforts. At some point, Mark is created.
Peter's crew lags behind in evangelizing and is encountering Paul groups. So they come up with their own book which is both a formulation of the Peter cult beliefs but also an apologetic against Paul.
Peter's crew continues to lose ground (likely because they just weren't as appealing) then at some point Luke's author comes along trying to harmonize the opposing views (while still being largely pro-Paul) and borrows from and alters and adds to any source necessary in order to square the circle of these competing factions. Likely as a means to achieve some kind of power consolidation or else as a means to do some counter counter apologetics against Peter's crew.
The new testament is a story of intragroup conflict leading to sectarianism and eventual consolidation as one group wins out ideologically over the other... and whatever the hell John is about...
Mark was written first but borrowed from the original Jesus cult lead by Peter and crew and written by someone with their own goals in mind. Matthew was eventually written to oppose Mark/Paul.
If there ever was a Q document, a little pamphlet of sayings, I struggle to imagine where it came from and why it existed at all.
The Peter cult would have originated this material. But they wouldn't have had a need for it as they weren't really evangelizing beyond their own limited territory, seemingly. They thought the kingdom of YooHoo was coming any minute. What's the point in evangelizing?
If there was a Q document, it was written by Paul and seemingly used exclusively by Paul. So it's not so much a book of sayings as it is a memo. Which doesn't make sense because writing materials were not cheap and you didn't just jot down some sayings for the hell of it. Especially not when you're a part of a group that keeps talking about casting off earthly possessions.
Memorizing a bunch of sayings is not that challenging. Anybody who can recite hundreds of songs off the top of their head can demonstrate that this isn't some superhuman feat. India has a tradition of passing down their religious texts orally that has been going on since before judaism.
Q doesn't make any sense and only confuses the matter.
Perfectly said, Academia just can't deal with the fact that Not everything comes from a manuscript
Totally agreed
You're simply proposing a new even less evidential source. 1st the "Sayings of Jesus" in the time of the early Jesus movement isn't remotely comparable to traditional religious poems/psalms which have hundreds of years of community ritual practice. These would be new sayings with no such preexisting traditions and was small in adherents early on.
And historical examples exist that demonstrate that even in predominantly oral cultures (which Judaism, Hellenic and Roman were not they were already highly textual cultures) such as pre-Islamic arabian culture within a generation or so of the passing of Mohammed found it necessary to seek and document the Quran and still required a editorial review process, yet today after the Quran is written and finalized you can find many people who could recite word for word line for line page for page front to back the entire document.
@@TheEvolver311 Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was likening the sayings to poems? You can use rote repetition to memorize anything. This is not a practice exclusive to poems or holy texts. That was the point.
I would be careful of mistaking the culture for the individual.
Ancient Israel may have had relatively high rates of literacy but that rate is still estimated to be less than 3%. A "highly textual" culture in the ancient world is still a culture predominantly driven by oral traditions.
In this particular context we are talking about a small group of cultists, said to have come from humble backgrounds, who apparently espoused the abandoning of worldly goods and whose appeal was largely to the poor and down trodden.
This is a fringe group who were incredibly unlikely to have been educated to any meaningful degree.
Assuming what we are told of Paul is remotely true, Paul was probably the first literate person to join the group.
"yet today after the Quran is written and finalized you can find many people who could recite word for word line for line page for page front to back the entire document"
And this is possible because they have a written document to return to for error correction and memory reinforcement.
Hindus have been claiming to have passed down various holy texts unaltered for thousands of years purely via oral transmission and repetition.
We know that this is untrue though because we have early fragments which point to inconsistencies.
Our brains are garbage for this kind of task. This is why we invented writing.
@@rainbowkrampus traditionally orally memorized liturgy are poetic it is actually far easier but still difficult to memorize a poetic language. Prose is far harder to actually memorize.
My broader point was that the cultures in which christianity arose were already textual not oral and that pointing to a oral tradition stretching back towards a pre-literate time isn't valid.
Now, like then, or any of my incarnations, I was always choosing a select few who impressed me to show the power of God to. If you want to carry on the tradition of becoming my disciples, by all means, get over here. You have not achieved gnosis until you find out there's a guy who can rise from the dead. I'm the annointed one. That annointing means I can't die until this logos, the soul of Ra, is moved on into another flesh.
I can do nothing to bring the positive change to humanity and the world unless there are those who have the courage to believe there's more than what they're being shown. The whole point to the logos is chain of command. My god is not a God of division but unity. The truth I bring is so profound though, it causes division. Because when you see I'm the rising son, you'll know who to obey to receive eternal life. Fact
I'm also known as the word made flesh. Meaning guy in charge God chose to be in charge. All that remains is for the people to realize he's the help sent to them by the loving God they're failing to believe in. Failing to understand.
Amun means THE SO BE IT. Aka the WORD MADE FLESH
It's sad so many of you will refuse to believe and you'll go where the unbelieving go. Not because God is heartless. But because refusing to BELIEVE the logos is demonic. So you go where the demonic go. It's angelic to believe me. Demonic not to. Because I'm the living truth. If you didn't recognize the Veritas, you will be held below. Where your worm does not die.
@@Son-Of-Righteousness spiritual ego inflation is a scary thing. It makes me cringe when people like you type up some narcisstically deluded jargon as if it's some divine revelation or novel in an attempt sound spiritually woke when you're obviously not and far from it... please don't profane these sacred mysteries with such a low tier understanding of Transcedence.
What I'm experiencing in trying to get through to you who seem to be searching for the truth. Is that you don't recognize it when faced with it. In so doing, you'll be left with no excuse. You'll be dangled over the precipice and you'll say why? Why am I fit for the pit? And the answer will be because the king of kings tried to recruit you and you chose to stand against him. Standing against him is standing against the one who sent him. You will have no excuse. You will have denied your own Lord not realizing he was sent to gather you and teach you. But you chose to be his adversary. Thus why I used to say, "Satan get behind me!" I'm saying you're my adversary. Stop being against me and get behind me. They've deceived you all into thinking I'm evil because following and believing me, overcomes THEM. The pedos and vile who rule over you that none of you will unite against fully to overcome. I watch people daily being good for evil in peaceful protests. When those they're being good for are activity murdering them. They're euthenizing because the 1% are scared of losing control. If they succeed in this, they've proved you all belonged in the pit. Fact. If faith overcomes, as I'm proof positive it does, then if you are beaten by these 1%, they proved you had none. If you have none, you go in the bottomless pit and do not get to be born again into life.
prove a soul
@@epicurusstan3223 I prove who I am by rising from the dead.
@@Son-Of-Righteousness you prove who you are by trolling. Good for you.
@@epicurusstan3223 REPENT!
This may be stupid but why does mythtism exclude historical Jesus? Could it not be these myths Carrier talks about were laid onto this wise teacher guy who was executed? Later followers wanted him to be a god so bad they wrote gospels. But the myths probably came from somewhere. Just like the style came from Homeric influence
That's possible and Carrier gives it a one in three chance of being right, on the most generous reading of the evidence. The mythicist thesis is that there was no such wise teacher guy at the start. The start was a belief in a heavenly Jesus who was later given a story set on Earth in Judea.
The current mythicist position requires that there be no historical Jesus. The idea you're talking about is the mainstream scholarly consensus. It's in fact what McDonald is espousing, and he's very anti-mythicist.
Hesus Krishna Sanskrit for Christ was a Divine Roman deity made up by Constantine the great,his name was Yeshua Bar Yosef he was a Rabbi shocking right?our creator is not a deity they are man made Constantine made him self one haha 😆 🤣 😂
To me, it doesn’t matter if there was a guy or not. If there was a guy, he was not a supernatural being, did not rise from the dead. That is all a myth. One can think the gospels are great literature, maybe, but they have done far more harm to humanity than good.
Man this dude really hates Jesus lol
He doesn't think mythicism is possible because it ignores evidence, but he totally believes in Q, for which there is zero evidence? His logic is flawed.
Indeed. I'm also wary of these so-called "scholars".
@@rembrandtdavinci6410 Well they have books to sell, and they've spent a lot of time studying this stuff and it's difficult to admit it could be just a fairytale.
@@lapatossu5976 Not the fairy tale part. Already know the "gospels" are simply allegorical fables. What I object about these "scholars" is that they fancy themselves as authority figures on these subjects when they're not.
If you don't trust the scholars I assume you trust the barn yard preachers?
@@rembrandtdavinci6410 Yeah, i get it.. but it's just human nature so why worry about it? If you find some value in what they have to say then take that and leave the rest :)
As a messianic Jew, I know all of the information attempted to be answered here. But I wonder if any of the persons coming here to watch this video are really looking for answers, or just like most people in life who simply look for ways to justify what they want. That said, bluntly , but honestly ...Christianity is a mixture of the true teachings of our mutual creator , and of man made baloney, aka gnostic religious teachings which have their beginnings at the tower of babel.
Jesus is the name of the Greek version of the son of the one Supreme being whose name is YEHOVAH( the English translation is "i am,i was, i will be" ). YEHOVAH's one and only begotten son is YESHUAH ( the English translation is "salvation" ). In an attempt at controlling people through both secular government, and religion, the Roman Catholic ( Catholic means "universal") church began blending truth with human made up lies, aka religion . For clarity , all religions are sets of man made rules regarding how to find the gods . What is often referred to as the bible , are sets of writings inspired by YEHOVAH, and so , are different in numerous ways from gnosticism aka paganism. All facts. Even Orthodox Jewdaism is in reality a religion as those rabbis have added commandments to the life instructions ( torah ). Also fact. A person could accurately say that the Bible is literally the operator's manual for the product that YEHOVAH made. No one else has done this. Oh how I could just sit here and write an astounding book, but perhaps this is not the time or place , so I simply bid you my warmest regards. Shalom ( peace ).
Stow your liberal politics, Dr. MacDonald.
What political statement did he even make?
@@TheEvolver311 around the 35 minute mark he refers to the 'supreme court suppressing abortion rights, or voting rights...' This is a popular but misleading/inaccurate politically biased jab.
@@Robert_L_Peters it wasn't a misleading or inaccurate statement at all.
@@TheEvolver311 for a large number of people, abortion is murder, and has been considered such for thousands of years. For another group of people, the 'right' to abortion was created unconstitutionally by the supreme court 50 years ago. The current court agreed with this when they overturned the previous decision. Now, thankfully, people have the opportunity to vote on the issue rather than 9 unelected judges deciding for them.
I'm actually not familiar with the supreme court having anything to say about voting rights recently. I do know that the same people complaining about voter suppression are the same people who continue to win elections...
@@Robert_L_Peters stopped reading your a-historical bs. God in the bible actual causes women to have miscarriages (aka abortions) as punishment and if a individual causes a woman to miscarry it is punished with a minor fine.
It's ridiculously sad to me that you'll listen to a professor talk about the logo's different followings through time but you'll refuse to listen to the actual logos. Your Lord the King. The annointed. It's also sad that your logos is the light bearer and you've turned your own saving grace into the devil. Proving you belong under my feet. This is my everlasting kingdom. My paradise. Yeah, we aren't experiencing golden age enlightened civilizations. That's because the annointed isn't being put back on top when he returns. You've all been deceived into a false reality. He's born out of a womb. He's flesh and blood. He does not fly in on the clouds.
Whoa