Видео

Many Christian faith traditions have different nomenclature for the "elder" that provides the sermon on Sunday mornings at a specific local church. Some refer to this leader as a "bishop," others as a pastor, lead pastor, or teaching pastor if the church has multiple staff. Some refer to that leader as "elder" or simply "brother" if they wish to avoid titles that other churches use. In some traditions, not all bishops lead specific local churches, while other do. Because I'm not sure of your background, I'm hesitant to say that is what I meant. In some denominations, a bishop is the leader over several churches, each of which has its own teaching pastor. In my videos, I generally use common North American evangelical terminology, but I do recognize that at times my vocabulary may be confusing or unfamiliar. Many independent churches in America don't use the term "bishop." I hope this answer provides some clarity. Thanks for asking and thanks for watching.

Glad to know you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.

Glad that you found it helpful, thanks for watching.

Glad that you found the video helpful and thanks for watching. I would only review the seminary's statement on the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. It's important that if you are going to attend, that you will attend a good seminary that teaches and affirms the truthfulness of the Bible, and that they will work hard at helping you successfully complete what ever program that you decide to pursue. God bless.

Glad that you benefited from it, thanks for watching.

Glad you found it helpful, thanks for watching and blessings.

Yes, I recommend all 3 of the ST that I mentioned in the video. That is not to say that I agree with everything that they all assert (which is impossible since at times they disagree with one another). Those STs should be viewed as representing main stream Evangelical theology. Thanks for asking and thanks for watching.

I abbreviated that footnote because it is rather larger. Here is the link for it on Amazon, just cut and paste it into your web browser: www.amazon.com/Cradle-Cross-Crown-Introduction-Testament/dp/0805443657. My preferred introduction to the NT is by Carson and Moo. Thanks for watching.

@@askabibleprof7099 Thanks! I have that resource already. And I too like the one by Carson and Moo. Both are excellent and have their unique strengths

I'm not sure how intentional it has been. I have a different channel about fishing and hunting, so when I do those videos I have to change my "studio," lol. I started that channel so I would learn what not to do with this channel, lol. But thanks for noticing.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean? A shorter video or a shorter Bible?

I'll assume that "boom" is a good thing, lol. Thanks for watching.

Wow, that would provide a lot of content for sure. It's a idea that I should think about. The thought behind this channel was to involve other professors on key issues on the Bible and Christianity. But I started just before the pandemic hit and therefore the capacity to travel changed everything. But thanks for the idea, I will have to give it some serious thought. Blessings.

Glad to hear you found the video helpful. It was one of the first that I posted, so it's rougher than the others, lol. Thanks for watching.

That's funny, lol.

Thanks for asking. The concept behind the channel is to focus on issues involving interpretation of the Bible and the Christian faith and not specific theologians or pastors. Some are mentioned only with respect to relevancy, but they are never the focus. If a person becomes a focus, then it may appear that they are being targeted or promoted, which is something that the channel wants to avoid. We want to focus on issues and not people. I do know that Wright is well known for his defense of the resurrection as a real event, and for that he is to be commended. Thanks for watching.

Thank you so much, Sir, for responding to this message. My sincere apologies About the direct question about Wright. My reason for asking the question was, I really wanted to personally know the difference between justification by the new perspective and the old perspective. I know your video covers the topic to some extent. However, the country I come from, just preaching the gospel as justification by faith alone is not enough as there is a lot of emphasis on character building through the Spriit, which Wright highly advocates and the reformed position not much. However, you rightly said that the historical analysis on which the scripture is interpreted by the new perspective , can confuse a person regarding certain passages. Thanks once again, and greatly, appreciate your work

@@davidpoonnoose No apologies necessary, I understand completely. I do know that there are many videos of Wright speaking for himself. You might want to listen to those in order to learn more about him. Some are long, so just know that ahead of time. We try to keep our videos under the free content maximum, which is 15 minutes.

Glad to hear that you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.

I appreciate the interaction, but the assassination attempt of the former president and the death if bystanders was not what the the video addressed. Consequently, discussing current political events is not the focus of this video or of the channel in general. Thanks for watching.

So it is your position that if you met someone that had risen from the dead, that you would begin to forget the facts decades later? While you may forget the facts about impact events in your life, the apostles did not. More importantly, as the video explained, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would enable the apostle to remember what Jesus did and taught. Be careful to assume your own personal experiences are the universal norm for everyone else. The Gospels were not suddenly composed of new material decades later, they contain the teachings of the apostles from the very beginning of the birth of Christianity. They document what the apostles repeatedly told as the shared the message of salvation across the Roman empire. They were not written in a vacuum decades after the resurrection.

So it is your position that the Gospel authors wrote "allegories," about which the eyewitnesses understood them in that way. And knowing that the crucifixion and resurrection did not occur, they still chose to dies horrific deaths for something that didn't actually happen? They died for an object lesson?

@askabibleprof7099 don't be dumb. The deaths of the disciples were also made up. The gospel stories are bases on the war of the jews. Not the life of Jesus. Jesus was made up. Intentionally parallels the flavian army in the war. Like, how would they be able to write and publish books if their lives were in constant danger?? And how would those books get published in Rome if people were killing any pro Jesus disciples?? It's like theists don't even think before they speak.

@askabibleprof7099 to be clear, both versions of simon, in the war and the Gospel were girded to where they didn't belong and killed. The REAL Simon or Simon peter wasn't a martyr for Jesus, he was killed by the roman army when he was caught during the war. All the "martyrs" weren't disciples in real life, they were jewish rebels. Simon, john, eleazar, mary, etc..

@@iamkyle42 I'm not sure where you found that information. Nevertheless, it does not square with the historical record. For example, the apostle John lived into his mid to late 90s, he was one of the few apostles that was not martyred, instead he died of old age. This historical information is documented by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Eusebius.

@@askabibleprof7099 plenty of scholarship on the subject.. any scholar that talks about Of The Wars can tell you. And if John lived into his 90s, it was probably john of gischala, the rebel leader caught in the war that parallels the john imprisoned in the gospel. IF they let him live. and just because you say "historical information" doesn't make it so.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. Are you referring to the Gospels found in the New Testament?

And what is your proof?

@askabibleprof7099 I like that you reply to your comment section! Engaging. Nice to meet you! The Koran, the book of Mormon, the Agamas, and yes, the Old and the New Testament. These are written by people, and contain the stories, traditions, and culture of ancestors. That is literally the definition of mythology. It is really that simple. But to expand... each mythology has its ideas on creation of the earth, supernatural beings, and values that leaves the believer a dubious task of proving it true. Since these are often very different between faiths and are taught since a young age they become staunchly ingrained based on location and society, where the stories themselves are the proof of their own correctness. Which is not actual proof. If there was substantial proof, then other religions without would fade away, (though not completely) and every scientist would join the religion of proof, and reject those of myth. As proof is easy to differentiate from faith. Not to overdo the point, but you have the onus reversed. It is not up to me to disprove the truth of stories. It is up to the stories to have clear supporting evidence. An important distinction. All the best to you.

@@VariousIdeas-f2q First, the video is about how the Gospels portray themselves in their day. It's not about the origins of creation. It's about the truth concerning who Jesus of Nazareth is. Second, it reflects modern bias to take a present day definition of myth and apply them to the Gospels as well as the area in which they were written. Myths in the first century were viewed very differently than our modern definition of myth today. Consequently, I'm not sure that this crucial point has been understood.

In your talk, you speak about other people moving goalposts. Then you go on to say the stories in the Bible are biographical and not myths, and then when it's pointed out that the Bible fits the definition of myth, you say our modern language and definitions can't be used. Talk about moving goalposts. You say the stories of Jesus are biographical in nature. And he was born of parents? You mean of one parent, because of the virgin birth? Is that a story, or biography that he doesn't need two sets of genes? Myth or fact? Because if it's a fact, then you should prove that. You've missed the point of circular reasoning, where you're citing the bible to prove it's true. Which is what the Koran does too. Which is why you can't prove Jesus is the son of God, and a Muslim can't prove to you Muhammed is who he claims. You said accounts of Jesus are biographical, but confirmed by who? Written 30 years after? Compiled 100 years after? Eyewitness accounts are sketchy at best... now add in a wish to cannonize someone? This isn't the least bit suspect? Just because they reference real people, doesn't mean Jesus walked on water. Joseph Smith was real. People witnessed him. He wrote his account of events. So Mormonism is real? I used the descriptions of mythology to shoew the common links between them. There are historical points to all myths, which shows the thoughts and ideas of their time.

​@askabibleprof7099 "people need to believe in things that are real. If they're not real, than they're not worthy of trust." You speak of bias. I have no horse in this race. What is the bias foe someone who must believe a book is true in order to maintain their entire life view? Loss of their faith might include losing their friend group, family, their job, sense of self. Beliefs are tightly woven to identity. If you're going to point fingers about bias... I suggest you start there. Most believers spend their time reinforcing their own beliefs, not researching others. Not studying the contrary. They want to argue a point, not change their point of view. That is bias. And it's even more effective when they don't realize it.

So if God loves humans and created way in order to reach all humans (e.g., what we call a religion), and humans perform scientific experiments, then where does that leave you?

It's hard to take anyone serious that likens the Gospels to comic books. I regret that you didn't find the video helpful. Blessings.

@@askabibleprof7099 they really are, as all mythology is, comics

@@Alice-the-seal Your assertion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what myths were in the era in which the Gospels were written.

@@Alice-the-seal Regrettably, I don't believe that you have competence in understanding what ancient myths were.

@askabibleprof7099 yes, I fear this will have a dreadful impact on my life, until I embrace what sort of narratives ancient people developed for themselves to sleep better in the shadows of their centipede laden dwellings. No hope for me.

Interesting! You know when the titles were "added" to the canonical Gospels? You know for a fact that the original Gospels had not titles? What is your evidence? Please enlighten us, but be brief.

@@askabibleprof7099 Simple, there is no mention of the traditional names in any writings before the end of the second century. The time to believe that the names were added earlier is when there is evidence that they were added earlier.

@@askabibleprof7099 I agree with downeout. How unfortunate and misleading to adopt anonymous books because you like the stories inside them? In 2024 when you write a book, do you start by this book is written by xy. Are we supposed to follow anonymous sources??? That could well be Satan product. I mean, what does it take for Mark to say: I am Mark from Alexandria this year 70 .....

@@downenout8705 That is an assumption or conjecture on your part. In order to prove what you assert you have to produce a full manuscript without a title. So, can you prove a full manuscript without a title? If so which one is it. I would like to investigate it.

@@askabibleprof7099 This has just become surreal, I say that there are no manuscript evidence before the end of the second century and you ask me to present something that I say doesn't exist.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. So it is your opinion that a book that promotes God's love for the world, and that teaches everyone to love others as they would love themselves, that book should be "banned"? In other words, Governments should restrict a persons freedom to seek God?

I regret that you did not fully understand what the video documented, but thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching, and regrettably your demonstration is unconvincing.

@@askabibleprof7099 I should have mentioned. It will only be understood by the few chosen. The invite stands for any who wish to seek and knock for righteousness sake.

Regretfully, I have to disagree, the Gospels don't present themselves as proving myths but historical facts concerning the resurrection Lord Jesus Christ. But thanks for watching the video.

Thanks for the interaction. I don't think the video discussed the actual authorship of the Gospels. However, I agree that Matthew was at least bilingual (Aramaic and Greek). Also, being from the tribe of Levi, then he would have had a functional knowledge of Hebrew (for OT studies in the original language). And finally, I would expect that he was also functional with speaking Latin, but he may not have since Greek was the lingua franca of that time period. But it is certainly possible. Nevertheless, I don't think we are in conflict. Was there something that you disagreed with?

@@askabibleprof7099 Good points, I submit, however, if he was working with Romans (probably not versed in either Hebrew nor Aramaic, he needed to know Latin to be able interact with the dominating, foreign power. (How many American servicemen in Iraq or Afghanistan were versed in Pashtun or Arabic? Not many, right? I'm going for at LEAST four... for business purposes. I'm no good at grammar, but I can give you the time of day in three OTHER languages besides my own, as well as snatches, phrases and words of a few others. I can do numbers, dates and write a report. Also Matthews extensive genealogies could demonstrate working knowledge and understanding of Hebrew. He added critical comments to those genealogies as well. Wasn't it he who wrote, "...of her who had been the wife of Uriah". Mark and Luke were "after the fact" documenters; he was present: on the spot!

@@reyhudson563 It's certainly possible. Thanks for watching.

The Matthew gospel, contains no eye witness testimony, just read it. It copies extensively from Mark, is written in the third person and the author doesn't identify themselves within the text.

@@downenout8705 Why should providing a history from a third person perspective demand that it is not from an eyewitness? That Matthew's Greek gospel also relies heavily upon Mark's Gospel is not evidence that Matthew didn't witness what Mark or his Gospel documents. Matthew is not the central focus of his Gospel, Jesus Christ is. Consequently, writing from a third person perspective means nothing. Lastly, please don't imply that I have read the Gospels. I have read them and I have done so in the original Greek. There is no need to insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about. Lastly, Mark is written from a third person perspective precisely because his Gospel relies solely upon Peter's testimonies and sermons. Mark didn't follow Jesus during his earthly ministry. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that his Gospel would be from a third person perspective. Afterwards, Matthew relied upon Mark's Gospel and expanded upon it by providing additional material from his personal experiences from being a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the comment. Yes, to date there are over 20 videos on varying topics. I have one on Form Criticism and one on Source Criticism as well. Thanks for watching, blessings.

You can accuse me of being wrong, but of being ignorant or lying is beyond the pale of what is expected of a respectable dialogue. The fact of the matter is that the videos often contain direct quotes from ancient historical sources. You are welcome to challenge them, but to suggest that the data does not support the assertions in the videos demonstrates that you have not read those sources for yourself.

You do realize that is the question of the existence of spiritual reality is fundamental to the Bible's message. You may doubt that angels and demons exist, but the biblical authors and Jesus believed that they do exist, which is part of the point of the video, and which means that the Gospel authors didn't believe that they were writing "myths."

Regrettably, you are a conflating modern literary category (e.g., Comic books) with ancient literature. It's typical for modern students to assume that modern literary categories and practices also existed 2000 years ago. But thanks for watching.

I appreciate the interaction. However, you should understand that whatever dictionary you are using is a product of modernity (and modern English at that). Thus, it is an example of "modern bias." The question you should be asking is what was the definition for "mythology" at the time the Gospels authors wrote their works. The point of the video is that they did not create "mythology," instead, they documented the historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Thanks for watching.

@@askabibleprof7099Since Christian denominations disagree about how to interpret the bible or which sections to follow which denomination of Christianity do you assert to be the truth? Would you consider the other denominations to be myths or do you reserve that distinction for every non Christian religion?

@@GoriusMaximus If I understand the question correctly I will attempt to respond, but if not, then please excuse my misunderstanding. Hardly ever can a denomination speak for all its members. It is more accurate to say "Christians" interpret the Bible different. Meaning, they have different approaches and presuppositions that influence their interpretations. The correct approach, however, is a historical grammatical literary approach (there are other ways to call it, but this is the term that I use). This designation means that the proper way to interpret any part of the Bible is to first understand its historical context and the grammatical rules that applied within that context, as well as understanding the literary genre that was being used by the biblical author. Consequently, denominations are not "myths," but many people within them approach the scriptures incorrectly, which leads to erroneous interpretations, which then leads to incorrect applications.

@@askabibleprof7099 I think my question was poorly worded. Perhaps a better way to put it would be which denomination would you say correctly teaches the bible? You already answered that none of them are myths because they worship the god you believe is true, just some of them do it wrong. You didn’t say it, but it seemed implied that you think every other religion is myth.

@@GoriusMaximus Okay, I don't believe "every other" religion is based upon myths. Some religions are just simply fraudulent (don't ask for examples, please). Others are based upon myths, while others are more philosophical in nature (e.g., Buddhism). And others are simply focused on spiritualism and completely reject the importance of the physical world. I personally attend churches that are generally classified as baptistic (also known as "Anabaptist" or Baptist). At times I have belonged to independent Bible churches. Does this answer your question? Nevertheless, knowing God is not an issue of being a member of a denomination, it's an issue of whether you have received the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior and Lord.

Thanks for watching. If you had heard or watched some of the propaganda promoted by ardent skeptics that I have had to endure, then they would make perfect sense--trust me. Thanks for the interaction.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. First, I was not raised by Christians, those who raised me had nothing to do with Christianity. Second, the video is not about other faith systems. However, it is true that the Lord Jesus Christ is willing to forgive and or all of the most vilest sins. Everyone is a sinner, therefore everyone needs a savior. Jesus would be a very powerful savior of he could only forgive little sins, that would mean that he could not save anyone.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. Regrettably, you have greatly misconstrued the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. The universe with its symmetry and intricate design proclaims the existence of God. It pours forth a revelation of Him. It surrounds you every day, and the rain that comes down and enables our food sources to flourish speaks of His love for you. If you want to ignore this evidence simply because you demand a miracle, then that is your decision. History documents that God uses miracles very infrequently, that is why we call them miracles and not "normalities." If you think you have the authority to demand something from God, then you misunderstand what it means to be God."

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. And which God are you referring to?

I just got notified of his reply to your old comments, (which were here over a week ago when I was) so they were not held. You got 14 likes on a dead channel. It's been posted. Make of that what you will. I have pretty much all material from antiquity tagged as mono myth but only people who can figure out verbal puzzles can read it. I can't post an invite or YT won't post my comment. But if interested, the invitation to reality stands. No need to listen to people who only offer logical fallacies.

@@danielpaulson8838 The channel is not meant for entertainment, it's educational. It's not my job, I have to work for a living, which is why some comments don't receive replies right away. It takes time to produce these videos because they present evidence, their content is not filled with subjective opinions. It's regrettably that you can't see the difference. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by an "invite."

@@askabibleprof7099 My reply was to the person who made the comment above. Replies directly to you will your name in front of it like this one.

Naw, Just the Abrahamic mental dregs.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. So all religions are about money, is that you position? Jesus died a pauper, and then raised from the dead to offer eternal life to all who would believe in him. Additionally, it's seems tragic that you have not notice that secular governments around the world demand more from you in taxes in order to make politicians and leaders wealthy beyond anyone's imagination. At lease with Christianity, if you give, it is of your choosing. When the government wants your money, it takes it or throws you in prison.

@@askabibleprof7099 This hit my feed because I liked his comment a week and a half ago. You may have originally ignored or didn't see his comment, but it was not held. Now based on his comment and your slippery reply, are you suggesting we need to die a pauper? I won't even address the rest of the comment which is canned bs.

@@danielpaulson8838 My point was to address your comment about "all religions." It seems difficult to think that Christianity began by others who took someone that wasn't ever wealthy and created a religion in order to get wealthy. Now that takes real faith.

Sorry for the late reply, this comment must have been held for review. Magic had nothing to do with Jesus' resurrection from the dead, nor his offer of eternal life for those who will place their faith in Him.

Your point is at the heart of all historical research and study, regardless of what subject one is researching. Whether it involves Christianity, Alexander the Great, the Medieval period, King Arthur, Attila the Hun, the Ming dynasty, and the Aztec dynasty. All researchers of pre-modern history must engage in critical thinking while also taking a step of faith.

@@askabibleprof7099 You can't honestly be arguing that this leap of faith in regards to the likely existence of Alexander is comparable to a claim of Resurrection and Divinity. The gospels are all borrowed stories of hearsay and not first hand accounts of anything that can be supported extra-biblically. They were copied down from oral works or each other at best, decades after the events themselves actually could have taken place. And you can't even decide if there were guards at this unknown tomb or who they worked for... but you sure as hell know the resurrection happened? GTFO. Make your money in a more honest way please... And no, I don't care that you translated anything yourself because that then forces us to place our faith on you specifically. And we aren't going to do that anymore than we would any other false prophet or con-man.

You are correct. Christians worship myth they don't recognize as myth. They also don't care. It just makes them feel better. Truth isn't important.