Has anyone read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” by DS WAGGONER? The free “sample” pages look like a pot of gold! Just curious
I haven't been following this podcast for several episodes. It's good Bart goes straight to the topic instead of long chit chat on both of their personal lives
There's some compelling theories. The most likely ones are that 1. it wasn't considered relevant to the goal of Acts as a text and 2. that it was more dramatically compelling to end with Paul on trial than his death and execution
@@GameTimeWhy firstly its not me who picked the dates secondly why Paul's companion and author of the Acts book haven't wrote about his book's two main figures deaths (Saint Peter and Saint Paul) "according to bart ehrman 16:46 " who bart himself claimed that they died by the 60's. i think i have an argument what is yours or are you just a regular atheist parrot
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi i don't know and neither do you but at least Bart is an expert and doesn't need to backup his arguments with bad apologetics or church tradition.
Sounds like it's a commissioned work for some wealthy benefactor. If you don't have a copy of Mark and you don't have a copy of Matthew, but you know all the stories, you just retell them and get paid. There weren't any Barnes & Nobles. If you wanted a book, someone had to copy it, and if you didn't have the original book to copy, someone had to retell the story. It just sounds like Sturges doing Kurosawa.
I've never understood why people believe that the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke also wrote Acts. I believe Acts was written pseudonymously. In Acts 1 the writer says "The former treatise have I made" only to give the new treatise an authority, in order for it to be taken seriously or to be considered. Apparently that was quite common in ancient times. But how can the same writer say at the end of the gospel of Luke that Jesus ascended to Heaven the very day of his resurrection when in Acts he says that Jesus remained on earth for forty days?
Another great episode! I'm left with one big question though: if Luke wanted to mimick Jesus' life in the stories of Paul and Peter, isn't it really strange that their deaths aren' recorded in Acts? Is it the "Luke didn't want to upset the Roman authorities"-argument?
I gather that the teachings of Paul and the early church were significantly different from the core teachings of Jesus. But these inconsistencies appear not to have been a problem for the author of Luke and Acts. How can we understand that?
I was rather taken aback by his statement that he was raised Episcopalian but didn't seem to know much about the Bible. Every service there are prescribed readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and Psalms. Over several years through these readings you are exposed to most of the Bible. I've heard a lot more of the Bible read in my Episcopal church than I ever did in the southern Baptist "Bible believing" congregation where I grew up.
I attended an Episcopal Church until either just a bit before or just a bit after I turned thirteen. At first we would miss the minister’s sermon because we would taken into Sunday School. Sunday School was a hodgepodge of activities and discussions, some of which having little or nothing to do with religion. When we got older, we would sit through the sermon, and the sermon would often quote from the Bible, but not in any methodical, chronological manner. I first learned the story of Jesus as a cohesive narrative, rather than isolated bits, from Jesus Christ Superstar, in fact.
How does the portrayal of Jesus in Luke and Acts align with the role of a prophet, particularly in guiding and instructing his followers, especially considering that He never explicitly claims to be God and is clearly defined as a man approved of God in Acts 2:22? As a two-work set, how do the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles complement one another? What message is this continuity being used to convey?
Thanks for this enlightening episode, especially for pointing out the emphasis on the Holy Spirit's central place in both volumes. Acts 19: 1-7 seems to be a bit of an outlier/misfit in this regard. Who are these "disciples" who have absolutely no knowledge of a Holy Spirit. Were they not true early Christians? John's disciples perhaps? Did one have to believe in a Holy Spirit in order to become a Christian? It seems that up to the time of the writing of Acts the Spirit was not considered to have personhood. It was more like a force of another kind. What do you think?
Question for next week: many of the first century Chrestians were highly ranking Flavians in Rome, as you mentioned, have you read Creating Christ and Caesar's Messiah? What are your thoughts regarding the creation of Serapis, Rabbinical (Pharisaic) Judaism's claim that Titus is the Son of Man, and if they had tried various ways to bring the Apocalyptic Messianic Jews to heel, why would Christianity be different from these examples?
What about Luke 16 that should be a whole critical text program right there? The Rich man and Lazarus is that an Apocryphal interpolation I heard it was?
The message of Early Christianity and especially Paul included rules of conduct and morality that stressed loving and trusted relationships among the previously pagan gentiles. Fellowship, trust and agape love replaced pagan religions with little if any morality that would bind people together. Basically a safe "family" atmosphere where people looked out for each other's welfare. The rigid religion of Temple based Judaism (Sadducees and Pharisees) was indeed a "heavy yolk to bear". The Temple rituals rather than fellowship and sense of community certainly was not an attractive inducement to get circumcised! People are attracted to kindness and caring where none exists. The early Christians were often at the bottom of the food chain for power and wealth.
People didn’t need religion for morality. Their basic humanity bound them together, and their morality was a combination of tradition and philosophy. The Christians eventually realised that their resources were inadequate, and adopted Stoic morals and tried to find theological justification for them.
You mentioned the transition of Christianity to the Gentile world. Perhaps you could devote an interview to that subject? If Paul did indeed go to Rome 3 times, could it be that Christianity first spread among the Jewish community there? I've read that there may have been as many as 50,000 Jews in Rome at that time. That may be an exaggeration, but due to Pompey taking Jews as slaves to Rome in the 1st Century BCE, there was no doubt a significant community. How well would Jews in Rome have followed Jewish law? Is it possible that Paul relaxed the requirements for circumcision and diet to accommodate Romanized Jews? Just some wild thoughts.
Thank you. But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician". The name "Luke" itself is the Greco-Roman Loukas or Loukios, but both from latin "lux" for light, and meaning "light-giving" or luminous or "bright one" or "one born at dawn...", just another invented name like Theosophus you mentioned? Or a real person? In a world of illiteracy, a physician trained in probably a Hippocratic Greek school of medicine, or indicating from the area of "Lucania" in southern Italy, it's proposed the Greek medical school at TARSUS (where perhaps he met Paul) said to be equal to the schools at Athens or Alexandria, but being a physician at that time (where autopsies of the human body were illegal & 100 years later, late 2nd century, the infamous Greek physician GALEN would serve as physician to the gladitorial games, where such wounds & death there, gave him access to human anatomy, but was altogether distasteful, the injuries & deaths for sports entertainment... Yet a medical man would be, could we say, more "objective", educated, not a priestly cast, but a trained physician, lends some weight to his "observations" & beliefs and message of SALVATION in a world of violence, war, death, poverty, & unbearable pain! In those times, medicine was beginning to become a science, at least in Greek-speaking areas, and it MUST be said, the middle east was difficult to rule, zealots murdering soldiers, etc. The Greek world & gods, were stronger, the reason folks often changed gods, after conquest! The winner's god is stronger! (Exceptions include the Roman conquest of GREECE, where the GREEK culture was taken in wholesale by the Romans); HERE was a more sophisticated culture where philosophy, medicine, democracy, debate, trial-by-jury, free speech, and theatre, were amongst their creations . . . The Foundations of Western Civilization, passing to Rome, the Arab world, Byzantium, and throughout Europe, these new concepts of thinking & organizing society, GREEK ideas were passed on through surviving texts, plato, aristotle, euclid, galen,et al. (The only problem is that ARISTOTLE the biologist & GALEN the physician, became the "biblical word" on medicine for the next 1200 years! And Galen had much so, so wrong, lol. But on a positive note, the Palestinian Christian minister in the Bethlehem Church, is inspiring as he watches a genocide of his people (one of the oldest christian churches was bombed in gaza), last December his manger scence included huge blocks of stone & cement... Now, that's a "living" religion, as the world struggles to live in peace! Which brings me to "Ceasar's Messiah", a theory that since judea was a hotbed of uncontrollable jews, the empire CREATED the Christ story... That the actual journey of jesus & the disciples, copies exactly the route Roman generals took to conquer Judea, and out of anger toward the murderous zealots, destroyed the temple in retrobution, & marching the goodies back to Rome, the winners. Josephus was used in this plot... ua-cam.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/v-deo.htmlsi=QtoOnUgUVWjYwqAB CEASAR'S MESSIAH. Can this be my question for open mic? Thank you again!
"But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician"."
Idk.. wether a roman official would want to read or not read a two volume book (which in all honesty is not that large in size compared to how many pages an average book has today), would not take away from the author (as an individual or group) of Luke-Acts to plead or explain to this roman official that christians or christianity is not a threat. Or indeed.. maybe this roman official may have been interested in Jesus before having been informed by the accounts of Luke-Acts... To write it off as "theophilus" being a target group of people can work, but considering the tension that arose around christians (during the last days and right after Jesus death), it may as well have been a roman official instead for all I can see. Even the choice of the name itself may have been a "sweettalking" address to soften the approach to a roman official? I mean.. there's this other side of the story outside the narrative of the Bible, where Rome has an approach to this newly formed "sect" called christians. If Pilate did order Jesus death, the reason was most likely in the interest of Rome, who have different interests than the Jews/Sanhedrin. They may have seen the extent of Jesus (christians) as a potential threat as well and a persecution did happen if I'm not mistaken. Pleading with Roman officials or having friends/trusties/benefactor to give information (hence the more bureaucratic approach), may have been valuable to these roman officials. Why bother spending money and time on persecution if it is not necessary. Who knows... the accounts may have sparked more reason for persecution eventually... ? I'd love to hear Bart's response to this..
I think Bart gets it wrong when he says it’s easier for Gentiles to convert based on his reasoning that they have a two step process and have to give up the Pantheon of Gods. The Greeks and Romans believed in a Pantheon where one God, Zeus/Jupiter is the most powerful deity. In Xtianity they believe that Jehovah is the most powerful of the deities. But they also have the Holy Spirit and Jesus (Son of God), along with the chief angels/demons.
Scholars are confident that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author based on several lines of evidence, despite the overall difficulty of identifying ancient authors with precision. These texts are traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul, though this attribution is not universally accepted by all scholars. Here’s why scholars conclude the same author wrote both texts: 1. Language and Style: The writing style of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts is quite similar. The Greek used in these texts is considered more sophisticated than that of other New Testament writings. Additionally, both texts exhibit a similar vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structures, suggesting they were composed by the same person. 2. Prologues and Structural Parallels: Both Luke and Acts open with a formal prologue, addressed to a certain “Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2). This is a unique feature not found in the other Gospels or New Testament books. The prologue in Acts directly references the “former book” (the Gospel of Luke), implying continuity between the two. 3. Theological Consistency: The theological outlook and themes across Luke and Acts are consistent. Both texts emphasize particular themes such as concern for the marginalized (women, the poor, outcasts), the role of the Holy Spirit, and salvation history that moves from Israel to the Gentiles. Acts can be seen as the unfolding of the mission of Jesus as narrated in Luke, providing a coherent theological narrative across both books. 4. Narrative Continuity: The Gospel of Luke ends with Jesus' resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:50-53), while Acts begins with a retelling of the ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and the subsequent actions of the apostles, showing a clear continuity in the story. Acts picks up almost exactly where Luke leaves off, creating a seamless transition between the two volumes. 5. Historical Context: In terms of historical context, both Luke and Acts reflect a similar understanding of Roman governance and Jewish customs, suggesting they come from the same social and intellectual world. The author displays an interest in situating the events of Jesus' life and the spread of early Christianity within the broader Greco-Roman world, which is distinctive of these two works. Who Was the Author? Traditionally, these works have been attributed to Luke, believed to be a physician and a companion of Paul (as mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24). This attribution is largely based on early Christian tradition, particularly from the 2nd century onwards (e.g., Irenaeus). However, there is no internal claim of authorship, and scholars debate the historical accuracy of this tradition. It is possible that the author had some connection to the Pauline mission, given the prominence of Paul in Acts, but beyond that, nothing can be stated with certainty about the author. Why Two Books Instead of One? There are a few theories as to why the author chose to write two books rather than one: Scroll Length: Ancient books were written on scrolls, and there were practical limitations to how much could be included in a single scroll. The Gospel of Luke, as one of the longest books in the New Testament, may have already filled a scroll. Acts, which is also lengthy, likely required its own scroll. Literary and Theological Separation: The Gospel of Luke focuses primarily on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Acts, on the other hand, shifts focus to the spread of the Christian message after Jesus' ascension, primarily through the actions of the apostles. Thematically, they cover different periods and aspects of the Christian story, which may have encouraged the author to create two distinct volumes. Narrative Structure: The two-volume set allows for a more organized narrative structure. The first volume (Luke) tells the story of Jesus, while the second (Acts) tells the story of the early church. This division might have allowed the author to focus more clearly on the progression of events and the expansion of the Christian faith in a clear, structured way. In sum, the Gospel of Luke and Acts are seen as a cohesive narrative written by the same author due to their stylistic, theological, and narrative continuity. The choice to create two volumes rather than one likely arose from practical considerations and a desire to structure the story of early Christianity in a way that highlighted both the life of Jesus and the growth of the early church.
Bart's whole view point of things seems to come from Mark being dated 70 CE that there is really no proof for. Gospels mostly as we know them 35 - 180 CE with parts of John ~125 CE and always allowing for some editing of anything that passed through Eusebius. Does Bart thing Mark was John Mark?
@@KarlKarsnark I was just giving the shortest and longest time possible with not really anything but assumptions to determine when. The earliest might be the Gospel of Thomas since it does not even say Jesus is dead.
The reference to the Temple being destroyed is taken as a reason for dating Mark to post-70 CE, but I don’t know why it is dated as early as 70 -80? Why can’t it be later? (And for once, I agree with the apologists who complain about the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted it. Mind you, I think that Mark was using Josephus’ story about Jesus Ben Ananias.)
@@robinharwood5044 The Temple had been destroyed before and the Romans were the most powerful enemy the Jews had so the temple being destroyed again is not that hard of a prediction to make.
You mean his former fanaticism? He thinks (as I understand him) that he gradually came to realize he had erred. When I was a teenager I read Ayn Rand enthusiastically, and as I got older I gradually came to realize Ayn Rand’s ideology, at least her economic ideology, is glaringly wrong. (I’m the same age as Ehrman, actually). It’s a fairly normal thing to happen to an impressionable teenager-unfortunately.
Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: Luke and Acts DO have the same author, which was Lucius, a nephew of Luke. It's nice knowing stuff! You can too. Presumption be damned.
While there was a REGION of Palestine in the first century CE, I don't know of a "province of Palestine" in Ancient Rome in the first century CE. It's only 135 CE that a province called Syria Palestina was established by Rome, to take the place of the formerly called province Judaea. You know... where plenty of jews lived. I'm aware there are Palestinians who think Jews never lived in the area of Palestine/Israel before Palestine was created, so it makes me wonder why you would say what you're saying. It's almost af you're making claim to a geographical area for some reason... Has it got anything to do with what is going on in the Israel-Gaza conflict? And I will never understand the "smileys" people like to add as in an added attempt to mockery, when the idea is presumably to come across as a serious person, because it doesn't have that effect at all. As a matter a fact, quite the contrary is true. In Bart's defense, he did not say that in the first century CE there was an area called Israel, but the way I understand it is that he refers to the one of today, to make it easier for the listener at that moment in time. Most of us will know where Israel is about much better than 1th century CE Judea, or Galilee, or Syria, or Nabatea, or Perea, or Decapolis, etc
When you change the spelling to make it look similar to the -polis ending (meaning city), maybe. But it's definitely a u quality vowel, making that the better transliteration. Wait, you changed the i to a o AND the u to an i. No, just no
@@hive_indicator318 _it's not an interpretation._ *The entire nonsense comment about changing the spelling, polis meaning city and transliteration was not your interpretation of something?* _It's what was written, Theophilus_ *The vocative Θεοφιλε is written in Luke/Acts.* _For the record:_ The question _"Do we know anything about Theopholis?"_ was copied/pasted directly from the video description.
I think Luke was written to usurp Mathew. Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus and his story fulfills them. Luke makes no mention of those prophecies but nevertheless fulfills them but in a completely different way. Mathew found some important prophecies but just made up stories to fulfill them. Luke, the historian, did the research and found the true story and it did fulfill the prophecies. Luke, therefore, is more reliable. I believe Luke had access to Mathew but in the story that came with Luke, he was not aware of Mathew.
@@TheDanEdwards Yes. I think the Mathew was the source of the virgin birth and Luke just copied the idea. The prevailing view among Bible scholars is that Luke was totally unaware of Mathew. That would mean that Luke independently came up with the virgin birth and accidentally fulfilled the prophecies of Mathew or they both were drawing from the same traditions. I don't think the gospel authors are given enough credit for being able to make stuff up.
@@TheDanEdwards Also, the author of Matthew was likely using the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which is how "young woman" got translated into "virgin."
100% of the NT is written in Koine Greek. Bart can't read Greek. Bart has never actually read the NT, which makes any sort of "literary" or linguistic analysis irrelevant. It's like a 'Shakespeare Scholar" that can't read English, which Bart apparently struggled with, as well. We don't "know" anything about "Luke", or any of the other authors. This is all just typical assumption-based, narrative-pushing "Biblical scholarship" with no basis in physical evidence, the Scientific Method, or proper critical analysis. Bart is a nice guy, but he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
Mr. Ehrmann studied Koine Greek extensively and has been engaging with those text thoroughly for years. You may not agree with his points, but the man is an accomplished scholar and has all the necessary qualifications to give a well-informed perspective and opinion. Why do you think he doesn’t know what he is talking about?
@@Jan-Dehning No, he knows "Biblical Greek". He cannot read Koine and has admitted it on many occasions. Go ahead, give him a pop quiz ;) He's only "well-informed" in Protestant, English-speaking "Christianity" (i.e. Anglican Church/Evangelical). He admits he became a "Believer" BEFORE he read the Bible, and even then KJV was too hard. LOL! He literally had to read the "Dumb American's Bible for Dumb Americans". He's a hack and huckster. Nothing more. It's literally his JOB to peddle the "Modern Jesus Narrative" for profit. He has no interest in objective research or criticism.
Paul was 100% a false apostle. All of Asia Minor rejected Paul. They complained to James about Paul that he was trying to make them end the Laws. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James questions Paul in Acts 21:21 about this complaint which the people of Asia Minor made. James made Paul do a nazarite vow in Acts 21:26, which included shaving his head and animal sacrifice. So they were still sacrificing animals long after Jesus. The people of Asia Minor came back to Jerusalem and seen Paul. They dragged him out of the temple and beat him up and nearly killed him in Acts 21:27-32 for preaching against the Law of Moses. The Roman guards came and took Paul away and jailed him. Paul then writes to Timothy and says all of those in Asia Minor had rejected him in 2 Timothy 2:15. After Paul dies, Jesus is speaking to the people of Asia Minor. The very people who rejected Paul. Jesus is praising them for rejecting false apostles in Revelation 1:20 and Revelation 2:1-2. The argument which no Christian can answer to is, why was Jesus praising the enemies of Paul who nearly killed him? If Paul was a true apostle, then Jesus would have rebuked them. But he was praising the very people who rejected Paul, proving Paul could never have been a true apostle. Jesus never mentioned Paul even once to them. Even Barnabas completely fell out with Paul. The church is hiding this as they know most Christians don't read Bible and are just blindfollowers.
Paul was definitely a selfproclaimed apostle. But again, checking the title of the video... "Why Should We Think Luke and Acts Have the Same Author?" Hm.. it's not about Paul. There is no reason to assume that Luke and Acts are written by Paul, on the contrary actually. Did you watch the whole video? Having read this comment and the other one you posted, I wonder if you are a racist muslim with a vendetta. I'm only speculating ofcourse, but there seems to be a lot of hate/animosity lol
Did you read Acts 15 (the council of Jerusalem) where James and Peter concluded that the Gentile Christians were NOT supposed to follow certain laws like circumcision and the Jewish festivals? Paul’s argument was not Jews not following the law (the Jews didn’t even follow all the laws). Paul’s argument was that the Gentile Christians did not have to follow the Jewish laws (the laws which became a cultural practice for the Jewish people) and both Peter and James agreed with Paul. This was why the Jewish Christians wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians commanding them to follow only a few of the Mosaic law, like obtaining from sexual immorality which Paul also preached about. Your false book, the Quran states that your Jesus (Isa) came to change some of the laws by permitting certain things which were not permitted for the Jews. I guess Muhammed was a false prophet then. Irrespective of your answer, he was a false prophet.
Paul never said in 2 Timothy that all those in Asia Minor has rejected him, ABDUL the stone kisser. Paul didn’t even talk about the law in that context. Paul mentioned two people who were false teachers because they were preaching that the resurrection had already happened.
@edward1412 You're a liar just like them that evil pope. Paul was rejected by Asia Minor and he admitted it. They threw him out of the temple because he was preaching against God's Laws. Anyone who speaks against God's Laws is from the devil. Jesus praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostle. The only person in Bible who was rejected by them we know was Paul. Not Barnabas, not James, etc. It was Paul who was rejected.
@edward1412 James questioned Paul at the council. Jesus never said the Law was done away with. This is why he praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostles. Answer me one single question, why didn't Jesus rebuked Asia Minor for rejecting Paul? 🤣
First, he criticized the book of Hebrews for not having a known author, now he's questioning the validity of a claim made by an author who decided to make himself known. His inconsistencies are just too alarming. James white was right about this man all along.
I'm not sure what you mean with "he criticized the book of Hebrews for not having a known author, now he's questioning the validity of a claim made by an author who decided to make himself known.", but to seek confirmation in the saying of a man like James White is making me think that what you are saying needs much more clarification and an in depth look at the quotations. With only having to work with what you're saying, I see no reason to not be able to assume a possible scenario where there's nothing wrong with what was actually said. Do you have sources that I could have a look into where Bart "says" these exact things? My curiosity has been sparked. James White being an apologist first before anything else, is not something that would instil trust in me. The talents of apologetics are selective analysis, circular reasoning and confirmation bias. The methodology is to start with the religion with the goal to end with the religion. Nothing in there aligns with striving towards honesty. And it so happen to be that it is exactly by embracing 100% honesty without bias, that made my faith vanish like snow in the sun, after decades of harsh winter. The psychology of apologetics is not one I wish to give credit any longer. It's false.
This podcast is such a great part of my week! :)
Has anyone read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” by DS WAGGONER? The free “sample” pages look like a pot of gold! Just curious
I haven't been following this podcast for several episodes. It's good Bart goes straight to the topic instead of long chit chat on both of their personal lives
Barts knowledge is expressed so well through his calming voice 👍👍
This is the most educational show on you tube. Love your show
Great look today, Megan!
Omg, Megan - those earrings are so cool!!!!
Awesome stuff, as always!
Acts was my favorite book when I was a teenager.
Thanks for the talk, both!
The promo for Bart's new course has weird panning on the sound
What's Bart opinion on why Acts does not tell about the final fates of the apostles, including Paul, despite being written well after Paul's death?
no you will not find that as he presupposed that acts was written 80AD because he presupposed that Mark was written 70AD (instead of 35-50AD)
There's some compelling theories. The most likely ones are that 1. it wasn't considered relevant to the goal of Acts as a text and 2. that it was more dramatically compelling to end with Paul on trial than his death and execution
You presuppose they were written earlier based on nothing. @@CopticPrince-hh2yi
@@GameTimeWhy firstly its not me who picked the dates secondly why Paul's companion and author of the Acts book haven't wrote about his book's two main figures deaths (Saint Peter and Saint Paul) "according to bart ehrman 16:46 " who bart himself claimed that they died by the 60's.
i think i have an argument what is yours or are you just a regular atheist parrot
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi i don't know and neither do you but at least Bart is an expert and doesn't need to backup his arguments with bad apologetics or church tradition.
Both books mention going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters
But detail nothing of the Kessel Run. Terrible author!
Sounds like it's a commissioned work for some wealthy benefactor. If you don't have a copy of Mark and you don't have a copy of Matthew, but you know all the stories, you just retell them and get paid. There weren't any Barnes & Nobles. If you wanted a book, someone had to copy it, and if you didn't have the original book to copy, someone had to retell the story. It just sounds like Sturges doing Kurosawa.
Good thoughts.
I've never understood why people believe that the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke also wrote Acts. I believe Acts was written pseudonymously. In Acts 1 the writer says "The former treatise have I made" only to give the new treatise an authority, in order for it to be taken seriously or to be considered. Apparently that was quite common in ancient times. But how can the same writer say at the end of the gospel of Luke that Jesus ascended to Heaven the very day of his resurrection when in Acts he says that Jesus remained on earth for forty days?
Jesus obviously forgot to shut down the stove.
Like and Acts were written on the same scroll
@@Andy_Pandy2000Or is it that we have copies of Luke and Acts written on the same scroll?
@@Andy_Pandy2000Is that your opinion? Or is that fact you are able to support with irrefutable evidence?
@@Andy_Pandy2000I was trying to get you to admit that you’re a liar. Or just a troll. We have no originals so only a troll would make that assertion.
So why do scholars believe luke and Acts have the same author? Answer: 4:50+
Everyone complimenting Megan on her looks...Bart you lookin great too! Don't let anyone tell you you're just a brilliant mind 😅
Yeah. Bart looks like he could be on the cover of GQ magazine like Conor McGregor.
Wow. Good News for Modern Man was my grammar school New Testament.
There is a comedic undertone suggesting Abbot & Costello on or about the antiquities.
Another great episode! I'm left with one big question though: if Luke wanted to mimick Jesus' life in the stories of Paul and Peter, isn't it really strange that their deaths aren' recorded in Acts? Is it the "Luke didn't want to upset the Roman authorities"-argument?
Well, Josephus wrote General History, fine. But he also wrote his own Autobiography, which you'll admit is technically a biography.
Yes.
I gather that the teachings of Paul and the early church were significantly different from the core teachings of Jesus. But these inconsistencies appear not to have been a problem for the author of Luke and Acts. How can we understand that?
Most of All…There’s a big sale at Macy’s this week!
aw man i liked the little chats about their life before they got to the topic of the episode 😞
I was rather taken aback by his statement that he was raised Episcopalian but didn't seem to know much about the Bible. Every service there are prescribed readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and Psalms. Over several years through these readings you are exposed to most of the Bible. I've heard a lot more of the Bible read in my Episcopal church than I ever did in the southern Baptist "Bible believing" congregation where I grew up.
I attended an Episcopal Church until either just a bit before or just a bit after I turned thirteen. At first we would miss the minister’s sermon because we would taken into Sunday School. Sunday School was a hodgepodge of activities and discussions, some of which having little or nothing to do with religion. When we got older, we would sit through the sermon, and the sermon would often quote from the Bible, but not in any methodical, chronological manner. I first learned the story of Jesus as a cohesive narrative, rather than isolated bits, from Jesus Christ Superstar, in fact.
How does the portrayal of Jesus in Luke and Acts align with the role of a prophet, particularly in guiding and instructing his followers, especially considering that He never explicitly claims to be God and is clearly defined as a man approved of God in Acts 2:22? As a two-work set, how do the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles complement one another? What message is this continuity being used to convey?
Thanks for this enlightening episode, especially for pointing out the emphasis on the Holy Spirit's central place in both volumes. Acts 19: 1-7 seems to be a bit of an outlier/misfit in this regard. Who are these "disciples" who have absolutely no knowledge of a Holy Spirit. Were they not true early Christians? John's disciples perhaps? Did one have to believe in a Holy Spirit in order to become a Christian? It seems that up to the time of the writing of Acts the Spirit was not considered to have personhood. It was more like a force of another kind. What do you think?
Question for next week: many of the first century Chrestians were highly ranking Flavians in Rome, as you mentioned, have you read Creating Christ and Caesar's Messiah? What are your thoughts regarding the creation of Serapis, Rabbinical (Pharisaic) Judaism's claim that Titus is the Son of Man, and if they had tried various ways to bring the Apocalyptic Messianic Jews to heel, why would Christianity be different from these examples?
I think that Meagan is looking the best she's ever looked.
I think she's been replaced by A.I.
she always looks like she has a SnapChat filter on! what a gem. I love it
I know it's weird to talk about strangers' appearance
Yes. Will she be on television after this?
@@jmatrixrenegade1971 Does television exist?
What about Luke 16 that should be a whole critical text program right there? The Rich man and Lazarus is that an Apocryphal interpolation I heard it was?
The message of Early Christianity and especially Paul included rules of conduct and morality that stressed loving and trusted relationships among the previously pagan gentiles. Fellowship, trust and agape love replaced pagan religions with little if any morality that would bind people together. Basically a safe "family" atmosphere where people looked out for each other's welfare. The rigid religion of Temple based Judaism (Sadducees and Pharisees) was indeed a "heavy yolk to bear". The Temple rituals rather than fellowship and sense of community certainly was not an attractive inducement to get circumcised! People are attracted to kindness and caring where none exists. The early Christians were often at the bottom of the food chain for power and wealth.
aka a cult! 😂 Interesting reflections tho, thanks for sharing them
@@gibbano101A cult but not in the modern sense of Scientology. They lacked a “leader”. Even the local bishop was just some guy early on.
@philsphan4414 true, l Ron went on for longer and was 100 charlatan. But the shortlived J.C. was the cult leader.
People didn’t need religion for morality. Their basic humanity bound them together, and their morality was a combination of tradition and philosophy. The Christians eventually realised that their resources were inadequate, and adopted Stoic morals and tried to find theological justification for them.
They don't really cover the whole Darth Vader thing.
It’s a shame. But I get it. Things get too political these days and they don’t want to divide the audience
How did the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman’s effect who was writing and how the Jews were perceived?
You mentioned the transition of Christianity to the Gentile world. Perhaps you could devote an interview to that subject? If Paul did indeed go to Rome 3 times, could it be that Christianity first spread among the Jewish community there? I've read that there may have been as many as 50,000 Jews in Rome at that time. That may be an exaggeration, but due to Pompey taking Jews as slaves to Rome in the 1st Century BCE, there was no doubt a significant community.
How well would Jews in Rome have followed Jewish law? Is it possible that Paul relaxed the requirements for circumcision and diet to accommodate Romanized Jews?
Just some wild thoughts.
We all are #1 !
Who does #2 work for?
@@jttj742 "That would be telling."
Thank you. But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician".
The name "Luke" itself is the Greco-Roman Loukas or Loukios, but both from latin "lux" for light, and meaning "light-giving" or luminous or "bright one" or "one born at dawn...", just another invented name like Theosophus you mentioned? Or a real person?
In a world of illiteracy, a physician trained in probably a Hippocratic Greek school of medicine, or indicating from the area of "Lucania" in southern Italy, it's proposed the Greek medical school at TARSUS (where perhaps he met Paul) said to be equal to the schools at Athens or Alexandria, but being a physician at that time (where autopsies of the human body were illegal & 100 years later, late 2nd century, the infamous Greek physician GALEN would serve as physician to the gladitorial games, where such wounds & death there, gave him access to human anatomy, but was altogether distasteful, the injuries & deaths for sports entertainment...
Yet a medical man would be, could we say, more "objective", educated, not a priestly cast, but a trained physician, lends some weight to his "observations" & beliefs and message of SALVATION in a world of violence, war, death, poverty, & unbearable pain!
In those times, medicine was beginning to become a science, at least in Greek-speaking areas, and it MUST be said, the middle east was difficult to rule, zealots murdering soldiers, etc. The Greek world & gods, were stronger, the reason folks often changed gods, after conquest! The winner's god is stronger! (Exceptions include the Roman conquest of GREECE, where the GREEK culture was taken in wholesale by the Romans); HERE was a more sophisticated culture where philosophy, medicine, democracy, debate, trial-by-jury, free speech, and theatre, were amongst their creations . . . The Foundations of Western Civilization, passing to Rome, the Arab world, Byzantium, and throughout Europe, these new concepts of thinking & organizing society, GREEK ideas were passed on through surviving texts, plato, aristotle, euclid, galen,et al.
(The only problem is that ARISTOTLE the biologist & GALEN the physician, became the "biblical word" on medicine for the next 1200 years! And Galen had much so, so wrong, lol.
But on a positive note, the Palestinian Christian minister in the Bethlehem Church, is inspiring as he watches a genocide of his people (one of the oldest christian churches was bombed in gaza), last December his manger scence included huge blocks of stone & cement...
Now, that's a "living" religion, as the world struggles to live in peace!
Which brings me to "Ceasar's Messiah", a theory that since judea was a hotbed of uncontrollable jews, the empire CREATED the Christ story... That the actual journey of jesus & the disciples, copies exactly the route Roman generals took to conquer Judea, and out of anger toward the murderous zealots, destroyed the temple in retrobution, & marching the goodies back to Rome, the winners. Josephus was used in this plot...
ua-cam.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/v-deo.htmlsi=QtoOnUgUVWjYwqAB
CEASAR'S MESSIAH.
Can this be my question for open mic?
Thank you again!
"But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician"."
Idk.. wether a roman official would want to read or not read a two volume book (which in all honesty is not that large in size compared to how many pages an average book has today), would not take away from the author (as an individual or group) of Luke-Acts to plead or explain to this roman official that christians or christianity is not a threat. Or indeed.. maybe this roman official may have been interested in Jesus before having been informed by the accounts of Luke-Acts...
To write it off as "theophilus" being a target group of people can work, but considering the tension that arose around christians (during the last days and right after Jesus death), it may as well have been a roman official instead for all I can see. Even the choice of the name itself may have been a "sweettalking" address to soften the approach to a roman official?
I mean.. there's this other side of the story outside the narrative of the Bible, where Rome has an approach to this newly formed "sect" called christians. If Pilate did order Jesus death, the reason was most likely in the interest of Rome, who have different interests than the Jews/Sanhedrin. They may have seen the extent of Jesus (christians) as a potential threat as well and a persecution did happen if I'm not mistaken. Pleading with Roman officials or having friends/trusties/benefactor to give information (hence the more bureaucratic approach), may have been valuable to these roman officials. Why bother spending money and time on persecution if it is not necessary. Who knows... the accounts may have sparked more reason for persecution eventually... ?
I'd love to hear Bart's response to this..
I can see my old Jehovah's Witness congregation freaking out if anyone said anything from this video
makes a change from watching the slow end of the American Republic.
Do not despair...vote! I just wrote 40 letters to Pennsylvania urging people to go to the polls. Do something!
@@erichodge567And Vote Red so we won’t be dead.
Canonical Luke and Acts are from the same author but there's a proto Luke probably Marcion Luke that precedes both
Saluditos como puedo escucharlo en español Saluditos
I think Bart gets it wrong when he says it’s easier for Gentiles to convert based on his reasoning that they have a two step process and have to give up the Pantheon of Gods. The Greeks and Romans believed in a Pantheon where one God, Zeus/Jupiter is the most powerful deity. In Xtianity they believe that Jehovah is the most powerful of the deities. But they also have the Holy Spirit and Jesus (Son of God), along with the chief angels/demons.
Don't forget the saints! They're both pantheons.
Scholars are confident that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author based on several lines of evidence, despite the overall difficulty of identifying ancient authors with precision. These texts are traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul, though this attribution is not universally accepted by all scholars.
Here’s why scholars conclude the same author wrote both texts:
1. Language and Style:
The writing style of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts is quite similar. The Greek used in these texts is considered more sophisticated than that of other New Testament writings. Additionally, both texts exhibit a similar vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structures, suggesting they were composed by the same person.
2. Prologues and Structural Parallels:
Both Luke and Acts open with a formal prologue, addressed to a certain “Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2). This is a unique feature not found in the other Gospels or New Testament books. The prologue in Acts directly references the “former book” (the Gospel of Luke), implying continuity between the two.
3. Theological Consistency:
The theological outlook and themes across Luke and Acts are consistent. Both texts emphasize particular themes such as concern for the marginalized (women, the poor, outcasts), the role of the Holy Spirit, and salvation history that moves from Israel to the Gentiles. Acts can be seen as the unfolding of the mission of Jesus as narrated in Luke, providing a coherent theological narrative across both books.
4. Narrative Continuity:
The Gospel of Luke ends with Jesus' resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:50-53), while Acts begins with a retelling of the ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and the subsequent actions of the apostles, showing a clear continuity in the story. Acts picks up almost exactly where Luke leaves off, creating a seamless transition between the two volumes.
5. Historical Context:
In terms of historical context, both Luke and Acts reflect a similar understanding of Roman governance and Jewish customs, suggesting they come from the same social and intellectual world. The author displays an interest in situating the events of Jesus' life and the spread of early Christianity within the broader Greco-Roman world, which is distinctive of these two works.
Who Was the Author?
Traditionally, these works have been attributed to Luke, believed to be a physician and a companion of Paul (as mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24). This attribution is largely based on early Christian tradition, particularly from the 2nd century onwards (e.g., Irenaeus). However, there is no internal claim of authorship, and scholars debate the historical accuracy of this tradition. It is possible that the author had some connection to the Pauline mission, given the prominence of Paul in Acts, but beyond that, nothing can be stated with certainty about the author.
Why Two Books Instead of One?
There are a few theories as to why the author chose to write two books rather than one:
Scroll Length: Ancient books were written on scrolls, and there were practical limitations to how much could be included in a single scroll. The Gospel of Luke, as one of the longest books in the New Testament, may have already filled a scroll. Acts, which is also lengthy, likely required its own scroll.
Literary and Theological Separation: The Gospel of Luke focuses primarily on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Acts, on the other hand, shifts focus to the spread of the Christian message after Jesus' ascension, primarily through the actions of the apostles. Thematically, they cover different periods and aspects of the Christian story, which may have encouraged the author to create two distinct volumes.
Narrative Structure: The two-volume set allows for a more organized narrative structure. The first volume (Luke) tells the story of Jesus, while the second (Acts) tells the story of the early church. This division might have allowed the author to focus more clearly on the progression of events and the expansion of the Christian faith in a clear, structured way.
In sum, the Gospel of Luke and Acts are seen as a cohesive narrative written by the same author due to their stylistic, theological, and narrative continuity. The choice to create two volumes rather than one likely arose from practical considerations and a desire to structure the story of early Christianity in a way that highlighted both the life of Jesus and the growth of the early church.
Cutting and pasting long passages into UA-cam comments is a bit silly.
@@TheDanEdwards Looks more like AI generated text. (They always end with "In sum," "In conclusion," "In a nutshell")
Bart's whole view point of things seems to come from Mark being dated 70 CE that there is really no proof for. Gospels mostly as we know them 35 - 180 CE with parts of John ~125 CE and always allowing for some editing of anything that passed through Eusebius. Does Bart thing Mark was John Mark?
Show me a "Gospel" from 35 AD. LOL!
@@KarlKarsnark I was just giving the shortest and longest time possible with not really anything but assumptions to determine when. The earliest might be the Gospel of Thomas since it does not even say Jesus is dead.
The reference to the Temple being destroyed is taken as a reason for dating Mark to post-70 CE, but I don’t know why it is dated as early as 70 -80? Why can’t it be later?
(And for once, I agree with the apologists who complain about the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted it. Mind you, I think that Mark was using Josephus’ story about Jesus Ben Ananias.)
@@robinharwood5044 The Temple had been destroyed before and the Romans were the most powerful enemy the Jews had so the temple being destroyed again is not that hard of a prediction to make.
@@marksolum1794 Indeed. Supernatural powers not needed.
Meagan is stunningly beautiful in this episode.
Stay on track!
She def has the "cross"-factor.
I wonder what Bart thinks of his awakening/reborn experience now that he’s agnostic. That it was just some brain (mal?)function?
You mean his former fanaticism? He thinks (as I understand him) that he gradually came to realize he had erred. When I was a teenager I read Ayn Rand enthusiastically, and as I got older I gradually came to realize Ayn Rand’s ideology, at least her economic ideology, is glaringly wrong. (I’m the same age as Ehrman, actually). It’s a fairly normal thing to happen to an impressionable teenager-unfortunately.
Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: Luke and Acts DO have the same author, which was Lucius, a nephew of Luke. It's nice knowing stuff! You can too. Presumption be damned.
I miss the opening banter.
11:00 there was no israel at that time. it was roman province of Palestine..please correct your own historical accuracy first..😂
While there was a REGION of Palestine in the first century CE, I don't know of a "province of Palestine" in Ancient Rome in the first century CE. It's only 135 CE that a province called Syria Palestina was established by Rome, to take the place of the formerly called province Judaea. You know... where plenty of jews lived.
I'm aware there are Palestinians who think Jews never lived in the area of Palestine/Israel before Palestine was created, so it makes me wonder why you would say what you're saying. It's almost af you're making claim to a geographical area for some reason... Has it got anything to do with what is going on in the Israel-Gaza conflict?
And I will never understand the "smileys" people like to add as in an added attempt to mockery, when the idea is presumably to come across as a serious person, because it doesn't have that effect at all. As a matter a fact, quite the contrary is true.
In Bart's defense, he did not say that in the first century CE there was an area called Israel, but the way I understand it is that he refers to the one of today, to make it easier for the listener at that moment in time. Most of us will know where Israel is about much better than 1th century CE Judea, or Galilee, or Syria, or Nabatea, or Perea, or Decapolis, etc
_Do we know anything about Theopholis?_
Theopholis was a group/community of Greek speaking Gentiles who worshiped YHWH, without converting to Judaism.
When you change the spelling to make it look similar to the -polis ending (meaning city), maybe. But it's definitely a u quality vowel, making that the better transliteration.
Wait, you changed the i to a o AND the u to an i. No, just no
@@hive_indicator318 That is quite an interesting interpretation of what was written.
God-lover
_NOT_
God-city
@@John.Flower.Productions it's not an interpretation. It's what was written, Theophilus
@@hive_indicator318 _it's not an interpretation._
*The entire nonsense comment about changing the spelling, polis meaning city and transliteration was not your interpretation of something?*
_It's what was written, Theophilus_
*The vocative Θεοφιλε is written in Luke/Acts.*
_For the record:_
The question _"Do we know anything about Theopholis?"_ was copied/pasted directly from the video description.
I think Luke was written to usurp Mathew. Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus and his story fulfills them. Luke makes no mention of those prophecies but nevertheless fulfills them but in a completely different way. Mathew found some important prophecies but just made up stories to fulfill them. Luke, the historian, did the research and found the true story and it did fulfill the prophecies. Luke, therefore, is more reliable. I believe Luke had access to Mathew but in the story that came with Luke, he was not aware of Mathew.
The "true" story, including many things that were not in Mark, and almost certainly did not happen
"Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus"
@@TheDanEdwards Yes. I think the Mathew was the source of the virgin birth and Luke just copied the idea. The prevailing view among Bible scholars is that Luke was totally unaware of Mathew. That would mean that Luke independently came up with the virgin birth and accidentally fulfilled the prophecies of Mathew or they both were drawing from the same traditions. I don't think the gospel authors are given enough credit for being able to make stuff up.
@@TheDanEdwards Also, the author of Matthew was likely using the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which is how "young woman" got translated into "virgin."
It wasn't just because he was a more powerful God, it was because he was willing to sacrifice for us.
What did he "sacrifice?"
@@kev868 his only begotten son.
100% of the NT is written in Koine Greek. Bart can't read Greek. Bart has never actually read the NT, which makes any sort of "literary" or linguistic analysis irrelevant. It's like a 'Shakespeare Scholar" that can't read English, which Bart apparently struggled with, as well. We don't "know" anything about "Luke", or any of the other authors. This is all just typical assumption-based, narrative-pushing "Biblical scholarship" with no basis in physical evidence, the Scientific Method, or proper critical analysis. Bart is a nice guy, but he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
Mr. Ehrmann studied Koine Greek extensively and has been engaging with those text thoroughly for years. You may not agree with his points, but the man is an accomplished scholar and has all the necessary qualifications to give a well-informed perspective and opinion.
Why do you think he doesn’t know what he is talking about?
@@Jan-Dehning No, he knows "Biblical Greek". He cannot read Koine and has admitted it on many occasions. Go ahead, give him a pop quiz ;)
He's only "well-informed" in Protestant, English-speaking "Christianity" (i.e. Anglican Church/Evangelical). He admits he became a "Believer" BEFORE he read the Bible, and even then KJV was too hard. LOL! He literally had to read the "Dumb American's Bible for Dumb Americans".
He's a hack and huckster. Nothing more. It's literally his JOB to peddle the "Modern Jesus Narrative" for profit. He has no interest in objective research or criticism.
@@Jan-Dehning Hiding my replies. LOL! More of that impeccable, entirely unbiased "Modern Biblical Scholarship". LOL!
@@KarlKarsnark “Hiding your replies”? What are you talking about?
Luckily we have internet-experts like you trumping decades of research experience and university education.
Paul was 100% a false apostle.
All of Asia Minor rejected Paul. They complained to James about Paul that he was trying to make them end the Laws. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James questions Paul in Acts 21:21 about this complaint which the people of Asia Minor made. James made Paul do a nazarite vow in Acts 21:26, which included shaving his head and animal sacrifice. So they were still sacrificing animals long after Jesus.
The people of Asia Minor came back to Jerusalem and seen Paul. They dragged him out of the temple and beat him up and nearly killed him in Acts 21:27-32 for preaching against the Law of Moses.
The Roman guards came and took Paul away and jailed him. Paul then writes to Timothy and says all of those in Asia Minor had rejected him in 2 Timothy 2:15.
After Paul dies, Jesus is speaking to the people of Asia Minor. The very people who rejected Paul. Jesus is praising them for rejecting false apostles in Revelation 1:20 and Revelation 2:1-2.
The argument which no Christian can answer to is, why was Jesus praising the enemies of Paul who nearly killed him? If Paul was a true apostle, then Jesus would have rebuked them. But he was praising the very people who rejected Paul, proving Paul could never have been a true apostle. Jesus never mentioned Paul even once to them. Even Barnabas completely fell out with Paul. The church is hiding this as they know most Christians don't read Bible and are just blindfollowers.
Paul was definitely a selfproclaimed apostle.
But again, checking the title of the video...
"Why Should We Think Luke and Acts Have the Same Author?"
Hm.. it's not about Paul. There is no reason to assume that Luke and Acts are written by Paul, on the contrary actually.
Did you watch the whole video?
Having read this comment and the other one you posted, I wonder if you are a racist muslim with a vendetta. I'm only speculating ofcourse, but there seems to be a lot of hate/animosity lol
Did you read Acts 15 (the council of Jerusalem) where James and Peter concluded that the Gentile Christians were NOT supposed to follow certain laws like circumcision and the Jewish festivals?
Paul’s argument was not Jews not following the law (the Jews didn’t even follow all the laws). Paul’s argument was that the Gentile Christians did not have to follow the Jewish laws (the laws which became a cultural practice for the Jewish people) and both Peter and James agreed with Paul.
This was why the Jewish Christians wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians commanding them to follow only a few of the Mosaic law, like obtaining from sexual immorality which Paul also preached about.
Your false book, the Quran states that your Jesus (Isa) came to change some of the laws by permitting certain things which were not permitted for the Jews. I guess Muhammed was a false prophet then. Irrespective of your answer, he was a false prophet.
Paul never said in 2 Timothy that all those in Asia Minor has rejected him, ABDUL the stone kisser.
Paul didn’t even talk about the law in that context.
Paul mentioned two people who were false teachers because they were preaching that the resurrection had already happened.
@edward1412
You're a liar just like them that evil pope. Paul was rejected by Asia Minor and he admitted it. They threw him out of the temple because he was preaching against God's Laws. Anyone who speaks against God's Laws is from the devil. Jesus praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostle. The only person in Bible who was rejected by them we know was Paul. Not Barnabas, not James, etc. It was Paul who was rejected.
@edward1412
James questioned Paul at the council. Jesus never said the Law was done away with. This is why he praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostles. Answer me one single question, why didn't Jesus rebuked Asia Minor for rejecting Paul? 🤣
First, he criticized the book of Hebrews for not having a known author, now he's questioning the validity of a claim made by an author who decided to make himself known.
His inconsistencies are just too alarming.
James white was right about this man all along.
I'm not sure what you mean with "he criticized the book of Hebrews for not having a known author, now he's questioning the validity of a claim made by an author who decided to make himself known.", but to seek confirmation in the saying of a man like James White is making me think that what you are saying needs much more clarification and an in depth look at the quotations.
With only having to work with what you're saying, I see no reason to not be able to assume a possible scenario where there's nothing wrong with what was actually said. Do you have sources that I could have a look into where Bart "says" these exact things? My curiosity has been sparked.
James White being an apologist first before anything else, is not something that would instil trust in me. The talents of apologetics are selective analysis, circular reasoning and confirmation bias. The methodology is to start with the religion with the goal to end with the religion. Nothing in there aligns with striving towards honesty. And it so happen to be that it is exactly by embracing 100% honesty without bias, that made my faith vanish like snow in the sun, after decades of harsh winter. The psychology of apologetics is not one I wish to give credit any longer. It's false.
go Bart @@Rain-Dirt