Isn't it strange that Jesus forgot to tell the Jerusalem people about Paul's Gospel? He forgot to tell them that their way would disappear and a different way would dominate.
@@GravityBoy72 _Jesus foretold and warned about false prophets to come. He warned what they would do and what they would say. Paul then does come and do these very things._ Matthew 7:15 *Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.* Matthew 7:16 *Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?* _Jesus says in Matt __7:16__;_ *“...Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”* _Paul said in;_ Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that *beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:* _It appears there was no greater among the thorns and thistles than Paul who persecuted the church of God “beyond measure” and “wasted it.”_ _Jesus says in Matt __7:16__;_ *“...Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”* _Paul said in;_ 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save *sinners; of whom I am chief.* _Paul confirmed that there was no greater among the thorns and thistles for he was the chief of sinners._ _Jesus says in_ Matthew 24:23 *Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.* Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:25 Behold, I have told you before. Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. _Regardless of what Jesus had said (“...if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ ...believe it not” in Matt __24:23__) Paul wants others to believe that Jesus meet with Paul._ Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Matthew 24:26 *Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.* _Furthermore the road to Damascus is said to have been a desert/wilderness place and may still be a desert/wilderness._ _Jesus says_ Matthew 24:24 *For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.* _Regardless of what Jesus' warns about signs and wonders in Matt __24:24__, Paul claims to be nothing behind the “very chiefest apostles” because of his signs, and wonders._ 2 Corinthians 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 2 Corinthians 12:12 *Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought* among you in all patience, *in signs, and wonders,* and mighty deeds. _Jesus foretold and warned about false prophets to come. He warned what they would do and what they would say. Paul comes and does these very things._
James Tabor raises many important points in this video regarding the split between Pauline & Nazorean Ebionite Christianities but (probably due to constraints of time) fail’d to do the deeper dive into other places in the Canonical Greek New Testament such as Revelation 2:9 & 3:9-10 (‘Pay no heed to those persons claiming to be Apostles but are nothing of the kind but Liars [& Deceivers] of the Synagogue of Satan...) and (‘Lo, I shall cause the men of the Synagogue of Satan to be brought before you groveling at your feet-those men who are claiming to have been Judean-born but are no such thing but rather are Liars belonging to the Synagogue of Satan-Behold, you will know that I have chosen you [over them]’ (see Targum of DeuteroIsaiah 45:14) Clearly these verses in Revelation seem to be conscious swipes at Saul of Tarsus (aka ‘Paul’, lit. ‘Tiny’) who claim’d over and over and over again in the letters bearing his name in the Canonical Greek New Testament that he was an ‘Apostolos’ of Jesus - i.e. one personally ‘sent’ by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (BCE 12-36 CE) -a man he never met in person at all but only in dreams & visions like my gardener-(see I Corinthians chapter 9, & 15:9, Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12; Romans 1:1 &c) Moreover Paul goes out of his way to insist that he is a ‘Judaean’ of the Tribe of Benjamin & a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5 &c) whereas he was certainly NOT born in Palestine but in Tarsus, the capital city of Cilicia in modern day Turkey -and moreover home of the Roman Worship of Mithras (via Cilician Pirates who introduc’d the cult from Persia c. 63 BCE) -so we can catch a glimpse (along with the whole of Galatians chapter 2 which no serious textual scholar doubts was the writing of Paul himself throughout) which shews the enmity that existed between the Ebionite Torah Abiding & Circumcision-loving Nazorean Christians out of Jerusalem under the auspices of Yakkov bar Yosef, haTzaddiq (James son of Joseph, the Righteous) who was Jesus’ blood brother & whose position as eventual head of the Jesus End of Days Community (despite his not being a disciple or one of the 12 or of the 70, but ran a distinct branch call’d ‘The Poor Ones’ (haEvionim, later call’d the Ebionites who splinter’d into factions after the 1st Fail’d Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) was soley bas’d on his Daviddic bloodline (in fact all Ebionite Bishops before the War were chosen from the Daviddic lineage bas’d on blood relation to Jesus himself) - Or as the Gospel of Thomas states in L. 9 - ‘Rabbi, if you are taken from us, to whom then shall we turn to follow?’ And he said to them, if the Bar Enasha (‘son of Man’ see AramDaniel 7:13ff) is taken from you, you are to go at once to my. brother Yakkov haTzaddiq (‘James the Just’) for whose sake Heaven & Earth had come into being !’ Anyone reading phrases like ‘those two so-call’d pillars’ when Paul was referring to ‘Kephah’ (Shimeon bar Yonah, HaKefah, aka ‘Peter’) & Yohanon bar Zavdai (two of the 3 inner circle members of the original Jesus Movement) in Galatians chapter 2 would see the obvious jealousy that ‘Paul’ felt about the original disciples whom he avoided (apparently rather shortly after meeting only the Top Brass of the movement) like the plague... Unfortunately Acts chapters 15 & 18 has signs of a later 2nd century style smooth’d over post Jewish War (post 72 CE) harmonisation of the original bitter friction between Paul’s antinomians and the Torah-Abiding Nazorean Evionim under James the Just -we can glean a trace of the vitriol which pass’d between the two hated groups in the early 50s from Paul’s own words in Galatians chapter 2 - what can only be describ’d as an accident of history occurred after the First Jewish War (66-72CE) when the Torah Abiding circumcising Nazorean Ebionites under James the Just were virtually wip’d out (along with most of the Daviddic descendants-Jesus’ brother Judah Ha Thomah (‘Thomas’ aka the Twin) had a daughter and 2 twin grandsons who manag’d to escape to Pella and survive into the reign of Domitian in 96 CE) whereas Paul’s gentile-Loving antiTorah antinomian antiCircumcision churches in the Diaspora (mainly in Macedonia, Greece & present-day Turkey) surviv’d to get far more press in the Canonical Greek New Testament (whereas ‘James the Just’ & ‘Jude’ and other representatives of the Nazorean Ebionite branches of the earliest Christianities barely got one letter each into the NT canon...) In the Book of Revelation’s 7 letters there are 7 calls to ‘shuvah’ (‘repentance’ which according to protoIsaiah chapter 8:20 means ‘return to obeying the Torah & the Testimony [of the prophets]’ to which was added in other places in Revelation 3 more calls to ‘Return’ reflecting the 10 Days of Repentance (‘Yomei Aseret Teshuvah’) Festival following the Feast of Trumpets- Rosh Hashannsh (Sept New Year) and sandwich’d in before Yom Kippur where the High Priest in Jerusalem call’d qol-Yisro’el to repentance back to obeying Torah and ‘sealing’ the House of Yisro’el for the coming year against Tribulation...sound familiar ? Several passages in chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation use terms like ‘repent & be zealous’ (Rev 3:18-20) meaning go back to the Kabbalah (‘traditions’) of the Abboth (‘the fathers’) meaning to obeying the Torah & ignoring those preachers of the Synagogue of Satan who claim Torah obedience even for Messianic Jews & Christians in the Diaspora was unnecessary and are saved ‘by faith alone’ -absolutely refuting & flying in the face of what is written in plain Koine Greek in canonical James’ letter (‘salvation by faith without ma’aseh ha Torah - works of the Law-is like a dead body in the gutter-a corpse without a soul to give life to it...’) see James 2:14-26 &c. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the phrase ‘be zealous for the Torah’ occurs several dozen times - a description which Paul claim’d he bragg’d was his habit ‘as a Pharisee Zealous in obeying Torah’) in the period before his conversion following what sounds like a ‘lightning strike’ with qolot & Orim (thunders & brilliant lights) which knock’d him out cold ‘carrying me into the 3rd Heaven, I suppose...’ So when we read in Revelation chapter 3:20ff ‘be therefore Zealous & Repent’ the writer of the 7 letters in Revelation (Part of the 7 heads & 10 horns of Daniel Typology) was clearly implying that the Yahad Messianic Synagogue e.g. at Philadelphia (in present-day Turkey) had stray’d from obeying the Torah of their fathers and needed to return to the Torah by being Zealous for the Law... One could make a case therefore that 99% of modern day ‘Christians’ are in fact ‘Pauline Christians’ bas’d on the warp’d theology of a 1st century ‘heretic’ and that the original ‘Christian Torah Abiding Circumcising Messianists’ that knew & follow’d Jesus ‘in the flesh’ have all but died out to-day...
Yes the Ebionites were the Jewish Christians Paul disputed with (and according to Epiphanius, they came after the Temple was destroyed) and after a disastrous prediction about the end of the world (the 'man of lawlessness' being Terentius Maximus) Paul was rejected in Asia as he says in Timothy. Hence the Revelation was written in Asia for the Asian churches disparaging Paul. You are right but note that it all happened during the reign of Titus or shortly after.
@@paulgeorge1144 - ‘sell all you have & give the proceeds to the Evionim’ = the church fathers didn’t want to dwell on this group of James the Just apparently - and only reference the later postWar splinter groups after James the Just had died (sometime around 62 CE) - but it is clear that James the Just was the Daviddic successor to Jesus & that he headed up a group call’d ‘the poor ones’ even whilst his brother was still alive and that before the war they only recruited Episcopoi (= meqqaberin, ‘over-seers’) from Daviddic branches - after James died & the War came (66-72CE) the group lost most of its Daviddic membership & splinter’d into factions and it is these factions that the Church Fathers call’d The Ebionites & didn’t even seem to know where they came from (some like the self-castrated Tertullian in the early 3rd century said ‘named after one Ebion a heretic’ displaying his compleat ignorance of the historical facts) So yes, there were splinter Ebionites during the time of Titus and into the early mediaeval period but the first ones seem to have originated with James the Just (or possibly even further back to John the Baptist)...
Fun fact did you realize that Revelation is a Christian gnostic text. It even goes so far as to call yahweh the beast of revelation by mentioning exodus 13:9 original Hebrew.
"Their paradigms are worlds apart." You must be joking. Jesus and 12 were preaching to the Jews who were under the Law of Moses, Paul was told by Jesus to preach to the gentiles - PAGANS, i.e. different laws, traditions, habits, sacrifices, millions of gods = different approach. That happened because Jews rejected Jesus and God Himself. That's why God opened His doors to the gentiles. God washed away our sins through Jesus' blood and faith in Him - NOT through works, because the Law (of Moses) proved salvation through works impossible - because people are corrupt to the core and NO deed can ever be perfect and good enough to match the standards of God - because, even when we do something good, we use it in vain to be great in our own eyes. Isaiah 64:6 (ESV) 6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. That's why we were saved through FAITH in Jesus - and it was by God's Grace (Grace is God giving us something we cannot earn or deserve). Our salvation was a gift from God - FOR FREE ... Because of Jesus' victim and sacrifice for ALL of us, there was no need for sacrifices that were obligatory under the Law of Moses ... for the circumcision, dividing of the fabrics and so on - anymore. Not even for the religious establishment - Matthew 18:20: 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” For, when Jesus died for our sins, we gained straight path to God. Matthew 27:51 says, "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And that's what Paul was preaching.
You must not worship God in truth and in spirit. Paul could perform miracles when he became a follower of Christ. Could he do that when he was a Judaist?
I feel like this channel has been mind blowing for the past year with the quality of interviewing and guests. It's shocking how few subscribers you have compared to what you're actually pouring out for us. Thanks for being persistent; you'll get there!
I can see a bit of an agenda at play working my way through Tabor’s book, Paul and Jesus”. I think all of us who find this stuff interesting need to sharpen our critical thinking skills whenever we read about early Christianity as there’s so little in the way of objective evidence of the veracity of authorship or untainted manipulation. For me, Tabor pushes me to dig deeper and deeper.
The way the Lambert of god is critical about the Bible, while maintaining a love for it at the same time actually inspires a whole new love for the book itself. Thank god for people like Derick , and , Dr. Tabor.
can see the qualitative difference - there are lots of opinions on the topic discussed here that Paul and the Jeresalem church leadership were at odds because of Paul obsoleting the Law, so to speak. But Dr. Tabor puts the crucial point on the matter that Paul truly beleived that the return of Christ was so eminent that so much of what we get caught up worrying about will soon pass away and in the new reality will no longer matter. He was just living that new reality that he soon saw to be at hand. There is much less soap opera drama in the point Dr. Tabor puts forth on the matter. But people do like their soap opera drama.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything strange on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
As I’m listening to this I’m thinking to myself…Paul was so close with Jesus, talking to him in spirit yet Jesus didn’t tell him that he isn’t coming anytime……. soon. 😂 poor Paul
jesus and paul both said that the end times would come within the lifetimes of those then living. It didn't happen. It's not gonna happen. It's a fable.
@@scambammer5940 Jesus said that some of those around will see the kingdom of heaven in their lifetime. In another instant he said that the kingdom of heaven is within. Ever considered that aside the historic chain of events there might also be an individual?
Don't you find strange that Paul never had another encounter with Jesus, yet he keeps modifying Christian church beliefs to attract gentiles and confuse Jews. Specially the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan Gods.
Exactly! "Refuse nothing that is sold in the shambles, not asking questions for conscience's sake" Paul clearly knows all the meat there was sacrificed unto idols, and inadvertently spills the beans! 😁
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything wierd on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
I loved Michael Goulder's book "St. Paul versus St. Peter", where he pretty vividly describes how he imagines some of these conflicts that occur in Paul's congregations when "other apostles" show up.
@@Stacyaj10 No, he wasn't. His passion proves it. The fierce with which he prosecuted Christians, was even stronger and bigger in defending Jesus, defending Christianity, preaching about Jesus and teaching people about Jesus - no matter how much suffer, jailing and beating it took, and he suffered A LOT. He just didn't like hypocrisy and BS. It seems that most people tend to forget that James, Jesus' brother, was mocking Jesus almost all his life, didn't believed Him, thought that Jesus lost it, during Jesus’ public ministry, his brothers rejected his message, criticized him, and refused to follow him - until he (James) saw him Resurrected, people forget that Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times at the night Jesus was captured even though he said he never would ... Paul's Gospel came from Jesus, NOT humans, that's why he wouldn't/couldn't debate other apostles, because he had clear instructions from Jesus Himself - that he was about to preach and convert the gentiles. He was chosen to preach to the gentiles because he was educated, spoke several languages, had Roman citizenship, travelled before, was witty and courageous, but before all - Jesus showed him who's the boss because of his prosecution of the Christians - or, as people would say - karma. He knew that we are under the Grace and no more under the Law (of Moses), that we are saved through FAITH alone - not deeds (as it is under the law), and gentiles were NEVER under the Law anyway, so how, and mostly WHY, would you insist on imposing something on people who have nothing to do with it, never had and the thing that you want to impose is not required anymore, anyway ... and James and Peter, at the end, agreed with it.
From all the scholars I know Prof. Tabor shows the least signs of any kind of personal agenda, no signs of ideology and also he is totally free in saying what he found out by thorough research. If more scholars, men were like him this world would look a lot different. My honest repect!❤🎉 Pls continue to enlighten us!
This is all great stuff. One of the things I'm curious about is why no mention of Robert Eisenman? He's the guy who made the Dead Sea Scrolls accessible to scholars of every stripe, wresting legal control of them from the Catholic Church. The Church had tried to control the scholarship on the scrolls until he challenged them. Eisenman wrote extensively about James, the Brother of Jesus, the Pseudo Clementine Recognitions, Acts, the Mandeans, Ebionites, the early Church fathers and Josephus. I know Eisenman is retired from teaching and research now, but he doesn't get nary a mention in your 'tubecasts.' All of the scholars you bring on owe at least a debt of gratitude to him, even if you might not agree with his findings.
I watched Robert Eisenman videos about Paul, the most eye opening revelations about a Biblical figure I've seen, completely changed everything I thought about the NT, so what I take from your statement is this, people will reveal who they are by what they say or don't say about a subject, it depends on the viewers knowledge to be able to see thru rhetoric..... you should've seen my eyes open wide when I saw his name in your comment 👀👌 were scholars talking about Paul like this before him? if so let me know...
@@adrian72300 well, I don't have names of scholars and researchers who came upon this view of Paul before Eisenman, but I can't help but feel this discussion has been around in academic circles for a long time. Eisenman had to have been inspired and challenged by his professors to think critically about the various texts, he's written about. I also wonder about those scholars in the apologist camp, particularly the Roman Catholic Church scholars. Eisenman had to wrest control of the Dead Sea Scroll scholarship from the Church through legal means. The question arises, why did the Church need to have control over the Scrolls in the first place? I can't help, but feel their scholars were already aware of these problems, even before the discovery of the scrolls, maybe centuries before. However, the Scrolls posed the problem of confirming the disagreements between Paul and James and Peter among other things and elucidating how deep those disagreements ran. So yeah there had to have been other scholars who were aware of that view of Paul before Eisenman articulated it.
@@adrian72300 Yeah, this is all new ground for sharing this kind of information. I read Bob Eisenman's book, "James, The Brother Of Jesus" when it was fairly new. It was about 1,000 pages long and written in a very complex academic style - very difficult reading, but there were some very interesting takeaways that I think shed light on early Christian history.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything strange on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything suspicious on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Hmmmmm......... something in me almost feels like tentatively agreeing with Dr Tabor's minority view that 2Corinthians was referring to characters like James over there in Jerusalem as "superapostles", instead of people based closerby to Corinth. The idea that Paul was hiding a bit of his secretly held views that didn't conform to his earlier agreement with them in Jerusalem which eventually led to a more bitter break.
Great interview. From your extensive time with Dr. Price, I was surprised you didn't say "I'm familiar with F.C. Baur" when Dr. Tabor brought him up :-).
Paul is about eschatology and a frustration with Judaiism resulting in the repudiation of it, always w his eschatology in mind, to the extent that he himself identifies as gentile. As soon as someone WRITES, and not just blurts out in conversation, that he is all things to all men bc he has a Moses-complex, then his entire schemata as a religious thinker becomes suspect. Scholars who unwittingly sentimentalize Paul, or conveniently set aside his vitriol and utter narcissism, are naive on purpose.
The Jews say Paul was a Greek that converted to Judaism to marry a Jewish woman. She did not want to marry him and he got frustrated with the Jewish faith and its strict rules. So he started his own version of Judaism minus the Abrahamic rules and open it to everybody. The Greek rules (no beard, no circumcision, no long hair, very few rights for women etc) shine through very clearly.
@@mver191 I think you mean the Mosaic rules bc Paul very much liked Abraham's cozy covenant. But, yeah, I don't see a problem w buying into that story. Paul was a very Hellenized Roman citizen, and practically every religious thought he had was formulated in Greek and quite un-Hebraic. Virtually every time he brings up Moses it is to either cunningly misread or just plain outright lie against a particular biblical text. Abraham, when god made all those promises to him, wasn't really asked to do very much in return, if you think about it, except, of course, to just believe. Paul liked that; he was kinda lazy and bubbling with all kinds of latent, unacknowledged emotional issues - hence his overwhelming appeal to modern xtians who occupy the centers of their own little universes wout really having done very much at all to get there. Cheers!
Yes, Paul was quite angry with those who corrected his errant teaching; and I never applied the word narcissist to him, but it fits: his bragging about more beatings, more times closer to death, more times in prison...and his claim that he was the "First Apostle," even before he was conceived.
I was wondering if I might ask this question. Please don't feel obligated to answer, since i may be asking out of ignorance. I see the law summed up in Abraham's part in the covenant between G_d and himself. The Hebrew word for circumcision defines how we should live. We are not to "offend" our neighbor. Offenses are fences between ourselves and others. Circumcision is the ever present reminder to cut off of-fence-ive behaviors. NOT that we should cut off a right hand or eye--but cut out the bad behavior. It seems that the men and women coming out of Egypt were so indoctrinated or affected by slavery that they needed Moses to spell out what their behavior should be. Exactly how were they to love their neighbors and how to love G_d. Moses was overwhelmed with the people coming to him to settle their conflicts. And it seems to me they were given the most important instruction. That the Lord is One, To love Him with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind and strength And to love my neighbor as my self. Then the 10 laws which spell it out. And that still wasn't enough. Paul has gone back to the basic tenents of faith. Gentiles will be drawn into the kingdom by cords of love. The benefactor offers to save, heal and deliver. He saves us through forgiveness. The healing of the soul will come after when, the gentile has questions about behavior. Paul seems to have been obedient to the essence of the law in trying not to offended either Jew or Greek. As a gentile, I understand that through the Word, i have the law written on my heart. When my behavior conflicts with the will of the father, i must either allow myself to be changed or refuse the gift of healing. The will of G_d does not change. I suppose some want to reform G_d, but He wants to reform us...in due time. It is sad that the importance cutting out offenses has been lost. I believe that "righteousness" is a gift to be received by faith and confession. My soul was healed. The was an offensive desire of my heart that needed to be surgically removed by circumcision of the heart. I have never heard anyone preach about Abraham's covenant in this way. Have I gotten it wrong?
@@nadzach Biblically, causing offense is not a sin. We should try to avoid it as a matter of having good manners, but offense in and of itself is not wrong. For example, truth offends liars, goodness offends the wicked, and peace offends the violent. Secondly, the Law is written on a person's heart when that person desires of his own free will to observe what the Law commands (or what God command via the Law). Do Christians desire to eat kosher, observe the Sabbath, wearing tefillin, etc.? No. Ok, so Christians do not have the Law written on their hearts then - nor do they have to. There is no biblical command for Gentiles to have the Law written on their hearts. This was said exclusively of Jews, i.e. the people to whom the Law was given. The Law was not given to the Gentile nations. The Bible does not deal in broad themes or general universalistic narratives. That's largely a modern Christian misconception. The Bible is a piece of Jewish literature, written by Jews, for Jews, documenting Jewish spiritual, political, intellectual, philosophical, literary, and historical developments. There's not much in it "for" non-Jews. It can benefit non-Jews, there are some things that happen to be universally applicable, but it was not "for" non-Jews, if that makes sense. The rabbis, through the oral tradition and through the holy spirit, developed a system of biblical religion for Gentiles which is called the sheva mitzvos bnai Noach (the seven laws for the children of Noah), i.e. Noahidism. These are seven broad categories of law which cover man's relationship with God, with his fellow human, and even with animals. A person does not have to be Jewish in order to "be saved" or go to heaven. A person just has to be the best version of himself that he can be, pursuing justice and holiness no matter his situation. There are plenty of wonderful Christians and Muslims out there that are very good people. They love God and try to do their best in life. The basic Noahide laws can be found in both of these religions already, so if a person follows his NT or Quran devoutly, he will already be very close to godliness. However, there are many details to each of the seven laws and these details are found in the Jewish legal tradition called the Oral Law. This is why all prospective Noahides must learn from a competent rabbinic authority in order to know how to live his life in righteousness and decency. I recommend consulting AskNoah.org or purchasing Rabbi Moshe Weiner's book called The Divine Code. www.amazon.com/Divine-Code-Observing-Noahide-Revealed-ebook/dp/B0719SDQVM#:~:text=The%20Divine%20Code%20is%20the,details%20of%20the%20Noahide%20precepts.
This helped bring the final pieces of the story together. Paul would practice being a Jew when with Peter/James but not when with gentiles. Paul needed Peter/James for credibility but had essentially started his own religion. Later, the gospel of John tries to reconcile these differences.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything odd on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Really enjoy Dr Tabor, so courteous and enthusiastic, very refreshing. My issue with his lectures as well as someone like Bart Ehrman is that so many data points are left out or stretched, so that when I double back on their presentations to read the source material, an incredible number of texts are just left out of their argument. Case in point: Paul's omission of the pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a divine character. There is no mention of Romans 8:3 or Colossians 1:15ff or Hebrews 1:2 possibly written by one of Paul's companions, not to mention the incredible number of texts from the Wisdom of Solomon (in your NRSV Episcopal, Catholic or Orthodox Bibles) in which the language of the pre-existing character of Wisdom as a Person was there in the beginning with the Father, and this language about Wisdom was studied and used by the authors of the NT autographs as source material to conceptualize early NT theology. I am not Catholic or Orthodox, but the entire corpus of the Deutero-canonical works of Paul and the apocrypha do not nullify the orthodox doctrine of Jesus, rather they serve to reflect the opinions and values of the early church or the second temple period that ended in 70 CE. My conclusion is that Doctors Tabor and Ehrman are not sincere in their presentations but are trying to make a living with biblia nouveau - $$$$.
@@coreybray9834How? Paul continually instructed about continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ, just as our Lord warned about aiding in him, and that we bear much fruit. Jesus also instructed that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And in another place he says the first and great commandment is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all the mind.” “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” And Paul explained this in more detail when he said “Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”… “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8,10) So what was it that he did to ruin his own credibility?
28:58 Didn't come ? Why do you think John wrote "Look, he is coming with the clouds" ? When he wrote about what happened in his time, when Jesus was reviled as the slaughtered Lamb of God ?
if Paul said 'remain in your calling' it would imply that he believed in the covenant obligations. If we take the other quote that Paul really gave a speech before his death when he says, I am a Pharisee, he either was, or he wasn't. Somehow I can't imagine many traditional pharisees denying their covenantal obligations.
Its hard to admit because then the person will be admitting that Pauline christianity has a glaring problem from the beginning. Paul not getting the blessings (approval) of Jesus's original apostles is damaging to Paul's understanding of Jesus. No way someone who never met Jesus have a better understanding than Jesus's handpicked apostles who lived, ate, and learned from him.
00:41 by that moment I am suspecting that the stuff is a bunch of nonsense for people that want to feel special and believe they have special knowledge. The music is the kind of techniques used by nonsensical infomercials. I am going to listen and see if it's just bad music selection. 14:19 seems to be wrong or maybe he misspoke, Perter and James di not teach Paul about Jewish traditions, Paul was the educated one. In general the video was good and a testament of not judging the book by its cover. I frankly. disagree with him that Paul and Peter broke off. If we go with Paul confronting Peter it make sense only if Paul knew Peter believed the same of pretty similar to him, but was hiding it.
how could Paul disagree with Peter, when, according to Gospel, Jesus said, 'upon this Rock I build my Church'.? also, how could Paul argue with Peter, after the Holy Spirit had descended upon him, (Peter& other apostles)? surely after that event they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and could not be mistaken?
Why couldn’t Peter make mistakes afterwards that the Holy Spirit could correct? Look at Acts, Peter refuses to kill and eat. And they have to hold a council later on the issue anyway. He built the church on Peter but every single bit of New Testament literature show that all Christians go through growth and learning and understanding
@@youngknowledgeseeker ..young.. Peter was suppoedly, 'inspired by the Holy Ghost'.. which somehow gave him the ability to speak and understand all languages.. and Jesus had said to him, 'upon this Rock I build my Church.'. meaning that he did not go thru a period learning and understanding, he was miraculously endowed with understanding of everything that Jesus meant by his teachings.. he could not be mistaken in any thing church related, faith related.. just as the Pope claims, even unto this day.. (the Pope, St.Peters successor.)..he has the abiltity to forgive sins, he is infact, infalible.. and they had to hold a council? how could that be, if they were all so inspired? did'nt they realise that Jesus said that ' he came not to change one jot or tittle in the Law Of Moses.'.. why did they need a council, to discuss to change a of Moses Law? it was Paul who changed Moses Law, to make it easier for Gentile converts.. they especially did not like Male Genital Mutilation, or circumcision, as it is known.. an absurd practice then, even as it is now.. what kind of God demands that baby boys are circumsised? did'nt God look at all that he had created and say that it was good, very good?.. ohh, except for that little bit of skin there, take that off! is this a God who changes his divine mind? this council, first split in Christianity, but not the last?
@@GARYWERSLEY That’s just an interpretation though. Possibly correct. But just that, an interpretation. If correct though then Acts and Galatians is a lie. Which of course your entitled to believe. Came not to change it until “all is fulfilled”….Not to mention that Jesus ratifies a *new* covenant, not changes the old one. Even in Paul’s arguments it’s never that it’s a changed old covenant rather an entirely *new* law. I love we all think we’re just oh so clever when we smugly point out “see Jesus said not one hot or tittle 😌”. I used to be the same. You are right though, Christianity has split unfortunately to an astronomically ludicrous degree.
Id like to see a discussion of Paul's idea of faith to be saved versus good works to be saved. I was raised Catholic and remember the importance placed on good works. Could you have someone discuss this topec.
(Jesus) Mathew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Paul) 1 corinthians 4:15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Is Paul in the gospels?it is interesting that Saul who was a Jewish bounty hunter of Christian's who never met Jesus incarnate became one of if not THE Foremost theologian of Christianity.
@@owlnyc666 Paul was not an Apostle. He actually was rejected by the churches in Asia. The Book of Revelation was written to the churches in Asia After Paul was rejected by them. 2 Timothy 2:15 You know that *everyone* in the province of *Asia* has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes. Revelation 1:4 John, To the seven churches in the province of *Asia*: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, Revelation 2:2 I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
As one under. . . , I take as claim, "I am you, you are I Colorful, our creation, humanity. Let's God-up, save our Earths' growth; place progress afore our pride.
Do not discount the Gospel according to Paul. Paul was the instrument Jesus used to reach the non-Jews- That is, the Gentiles, the Pagans, Barbarians. This made possible salvation through the blood atonement of Jesus, to anyone who had faith in Christ. Without Paul, we would have everyone thinking that in order to be saved through Christ, we must first be converted to follow the laws of Moses, be converted to Judaism and become a practicing Jew. Let's not forget that in Judaism, even today, they do not acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. They are still waiting for their Messiah.
The life of people in the Old Testament were not govern, by the Jewish constitution so the Christians need not to be forced to keep it 💯 The church settled that Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Shared via Bible KJV Paul met the resurrected Jesus Christ Acts chapter 9 Paul had constructive arguments when making different points, like to the Jew in general one could respect them to win some of them Abraham became righteous, before circumcision and the constitution of Israel and anyone who are not Jewish and believe in Jesus Christ are justified by faith like Abraham Time passing away in the general sense would be that things and times change with passing times, we can't conclude that Paul was against living, Marriage and having a good life, like an adult act differently from when in childhood The Old Testament have a lot of disagreement,like some can't agree how much Bones in the Human body and philosophy or the love for wisdom or knowledge are different in certain aspects The church, Paul and others are one in Christ, because Paul said the church has many members with different gifts and write about the love and unity of the church, don't divide Paul and Peter with a little bit of information about their dispute, Jesus had that with his disciples too and set them right ✅ John chapter 14 had examples of that & other places too !!!
Delving into Acts to find an authentic Paul is an exercise in absurdity. To say that a real Paul went here and did that and said this that and the other, makes only marginally more sense than relating that the Owl and the Pussycat " ... sailed away, for a year and a day, to the land where the Bong-Tree grows and there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood with a ring at the end of his nose ...". Much of Paul's journeys sound like the Voyages of Sinbad and are probably just as historical.
It’s pretty evident that there was a hard split in Paul’s case even by Acts 23:6, because instead of blurting out that he was a convert to Christianity, he insisted rather that he was a Pharisee. And Christ warns his followers to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 16, and that Pharisees make procelites twice the child of hell than themselves in Matthew 23:15 and that unless our righteousness is greater than that of Scribes and Pharisees we won’t enter his kingdom in Matthew 5: a complaint Christ blasts the Scribes and Pharisees over in Matthew 23:13 again quite openly, because they hinder the work of his kingdom in that respect. Paul could have stuck with his original plan back in Acts 21, insisting that he was ready to die for the cause and leaving no one the wiser that he was pretending, but when push really came to shove he chose to divert from that plan in Acts23:6, blurting out he is a Pharisee, and the Pharisees a couple verses later embrace him back into their fold. But in 2Cor 12:7, it is Paul’s admission to having a “messenger of Satan” that really seems to be something of a problem. If true Apostles in Luke 9:1 were given power by Christ over all devils, not merely a few devils, and Paul was claiming to be an apostle, then why was he being buffeted by a “messenger of Satan” that God refused to take away from him in 2Cor 12:7-10? Was God trying to expose for us in that instance that Paul was a fraud claiming to be an apostle? And was saying that his grace was sufficient for Paul, leaving him high and dry with no remedy to this problem with his “messenger of Satan”, God’s way of saying that Paul’s ideas of grace saving people are equally fraudulent. Because Christ never teaches anywhere that man is saved by grace, and this idea was never really a teaching in Christianity until Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him. But, on what authority does Paul claim to be an apostle is at the heart of Paul’s problems. We know the twelve original apostles are hand chosen by Christ in the gospels, and we know that Mathias was chosen to replace Judas Escariot to fulfill a prophetic psalm according to Peter in Acts chapter 1. In fact, an apostle, according to Peter in Acts 1, must have been someone who was a witness of the ministry of Christ from the beginning, something Paul admits in 1 Cor 15 to be late to the party of being born out of due season, further calling the legitimacy of his claims to being an apostle into serious question. But, neither Christ, nor any of the twelve actual apostles ever claims that Paul is an apostle.Not even at Paul’s conversion: a story he can’t seem to keep straight between Acts 9 and Acts 26. Instead Paul claims he was converted by a voice from a bright light claiming to be Jesus, but never actually saw who it was talking with him. That is curious, being that Paul in 2Cor 11:13-15 himself warns us, while defending his own apostleship to the Corrinthians no doubt, that Satan can transform into an angel of light and that his ministers can also appear to be ministers of righteousness. 2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Gee, what would Paul know about all that, seeing that he was approached by a bright light at his conversion and has a “messenger of Satan” by his own admissions? What Paul says above just provides us with more reason to be suspicious about Paul. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. But, was Paul one of these ministers of Satan with his “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7? What would possess God to give an apostle a “messenger of Satan” when Christ in Luke 9:1 gives his true apostles power over all devils? Clearly, Paul’s story runs aground at this point and has serious issues that most Christians aren’t even taking into account. And if Revelation 21 is any indication of how many apostles there are, seeing that the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed on the twelve foundations of the city, then anyone else like Paul running around claiming to be an apostle is simply a liar. So, who was it really that was behind Paul’s so called conversion in Acts 9, or was Paul simply an infiltrator as his admission to being a Pharisee in Acts 23:6 and his “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7 suggests? As for the Jewish converts taking issue with Paul’s attacks on Moses and the law in Acts 21, it is evident that Paul eventually admits in 2Tim 1:15 that all in Asia, the Roman province of Asia where the seven churches of Revelation 1-3 reside, departed from Paul by Paul’s own admission. 2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. This is curious, because when Christ comes back to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, he doesn’t rebuke any of them for rejecting Paul. Instead, he praises the church of Ephesus for trying those who say they are apostles and are not, but are found to be liars. Then he warns them to repent and to do the first works, a teaching directly opposed to Paul’s teaching to the same Ephesians in Ephesians 2:8-9, where Paul insists we are saved by grace through faith and “not of works”. So, why would Christ come back and insist they repent and do the first works, unless Christ was pleased with them for trying false apostles like Paul and was correcting the damage Paul taught among them with his substitute grace theology? Because the promise to this church is that if they follow this advice and overcome, they will have right to the tree of life. It’s the same promise Christ offers to commandment keepers in Revelation 22:12-14, seeing that in verse 15 it is everyone else who is stuck outside the city with no access to the tree of life.
(edited) Great analogy, with one small excemption about Peter. It appears that Acts was written by Luke who is said to have been a compaion of Paul. However Luke is not present during these events in Acts. So it stands to reason that most likely Acts is recorded by Luke accordingly to Paul's testimony. Thus "... Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him" may be based upon Paul's version of things and not Peter's version. It appears we don't have Peter's separate testimony on anything of this. Even 1st and 2nd Peter is consider frauds among many modern scholars.
@@KeepingWatch95 KeepingWatch95 KeepingWatch95 2 days ago (edited) Great analogy, with one small excemption about Peter. It appears that Acts was written by Luke who is said to have been a compaion of Paul. However Luke is not present during these events in Acts. So it stands to reason that most likely Acts is recorded by Luke accordingly to Paul's testimony. Thus "... Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him" may be based upon Paul's version of things and not Peter's version. -----You might be on to something there. I always had a problem with the conclusion reached in Acts 15, because for centuries prior there was never a problem with Gentiles being circumcised into the Old Covenant, and God had already in Isaiah 56 told us that he would give those who kept his Sabbath a name better than sons and daughters, showing that those old laws were meant for far more than the Jews only. But, Paul didn’t want the Gentiles rising above the Jews, because that would guarantee christ’s threat to take the kingdom away from the Jews and give it to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof would mean that christ knew many Gentiles would be better at obeying god’s law than the jews themselves. So, by keeping the Gentiles out of the original covenant, Paul would be aiming to cut Christ’s prophetic words off at the pass there. And fortifying that aim with his antilaw, grace theology would only further push Gentiles to seek to be saved in their sins, rather than from their sins, through meaningless grace entitlements. Yet, Lucifer makes war with commandment keepers in Revelation 12:17 and Christ only lets commandment keepers into the city to gain access to the tree of life in Revelation 22:12-16, so the first church council should have been emphasizing commandment keeping first and foremost, placing the Gentiles on the correct side of the war effort against Lucifer in line with Isaiah 8:20’s earlier warning from God.------- It appears we don't have Peter's separate testimony on anything of this. Even 1st and 2nd Peter is consider frauds among many modern scholars. -------Given that Peter supposedly defended Paul in those epistles, I am not one to disagree that they are likely fraudulent. I think the Peter defense there has been the real cause for why most Christians are afraid to give Paul any honest scrutiny. It’s about as bad as Hebrews 8’s misplacement of the New Covenant which is in direct rejection of numerous prophecies of the Old Testament like Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. The new Covenant wording prohibits it from being in force when the Gospel commission is going on, for example, because under the New Covenant we are not supposed to be teaching everyone to know God, because everyone from the least to the greatest already knows him when the New Covenant is in force. So, today, we have a bunch of Christians running around teaching about god to new converts, pretending they are under the New Covenant. What a disaster that has been. Then they call it a new Covenant of Grace, pretending they are not under the law anymore, because they didn’t read that under the New Covenant the law will be written in their heart. How can they not be under the law, if it is written in their hearts? To make such a claim would cause their own heart to condemn them if they were under the New Covenant.
@@JamesTaborVideos I will have time to listen further tomorrow. I do not think the epistles are letters, I do not think that Paul wrote them all. I think they are a collection of church 'doctrin' put together after the right fact. Re Acts: the whole of Acts reads like a made up story and was the first example I used in discussions with my uncle The Revenend Michael Massey, when he's was alive....
@@jonathonjubb6626 No problem Jonathan. Ignore my comment. I was assuming certain things in terms of baseline, and then a critical analysis of contents. I qualified my use of the phrase you quote for several minutes after.
That's crazy! They didn't eat blood, period. The eucharist in the Didache has an entirely different meaning that it does in 1 Corinthians or the Gospels and has nothing to do with a pretended cannibalism of the sacrificed Jesus.
Naw, I don't think Paul "broke away" as such. In a way he did, but more like someone barging ahead & demanding that they either follow him or be left behind & seen as stupid! And they did follow him! He was so bombastic in & about his beliefs, that timid , self-doubting Peter came under his authority. The rebuke Peter got from him in Gal.2, was hectic! Just because Peter got up to great James' men (probably of the Circumcision Group), and possibly explain to them what was happening, Paul climbs into him. AND, he gossips it to the Galatians as telling them and doing it "for their freedom"! We see in 2 Pet.3:15-16 that Peter tries hard to defend BOTH Torah PLUS Paul, which is actually not possible without evading issues. And that's exactly what Peter did, by calling Paul's writings "difficult to understand". Classic evading tactic! He's like an estate agent pretending to benefit both the seller & the buyer, but actually only working for his own pocket! Remember, the events described in Gal.1-2 by Paul, are described in Acts 9-11 supposedly by Luke. In Gal.5:12, Paul is so hot against circumcision that he belittles the practice by saying, "If someone lets himself be circumcised, let him go all the way then & castrate himself!" But it should make us wonder why he circumcised Timothy only a little later in Acts 16:3, "because of the Jews"??!!! In Gal.2, he is so adamant about "false brothers infiltrating" their ranks to "spy on their freedom", freedom to not circumcise converts. You know the drill: when someone is over-confident about his beliefs, others who think that person knows more than them, are inclined, even obliged, to follow that person... even if they're wrong. The less confident person is overpowered by the charisma of the one claiming to know so much, whether academically, or - as in Paul's case - "by revelation". Oh, he claimed to know Scripture academically, too, but he misquoted left, right and center. In fact, he misquoted all 8 passages he mentions in Rom.10, e.g., by changing good news about the return from exile (Isa.52) into supposed good news about Jesus; replacing The Word in our hearts & mouths which makes Torah easy to keep and results in good life on earth (Deut.30:11-20), with Jesus in our hearts & mouths for eternal life in heaven; adding a line between Isa.65:1 & 2 so that it looks like the nice verse is about the church, and the rebuke is about Israel; and the most profound: quoting only a line or two from Deut.32:21 (and vs.35 in Rom.12:19) and making as if it is a prophecy about the church being raised up in order to make Jews jealous and want to join them for salvation because of the freedom they have, whereas the rest of Deut.32:21 & vs.27 calls them a "foolish no-nation enemy", and vs.27-43 tells of their evil character & root & teaching; tells us that their rock (god) is not like the Rock of Israel; God tells Israel to rid themselves of false rocks, and finally tells of His vengeance against them, "Rejoice, O nations, for He will avenge the blood of His servants; He will take vengeance on His enemies and make atonement for His land & people". Since Jesus said he would built his church upon either Peter or upon the statement Peter made about Jesus being Messiah, it seems that Jesus missed it and built his church, rather, upon Paul, thus making his prophecy untrue... although Catholics consider Peter to be the 1st pope. And when you see that the very next generation - Peter's disciple Clement, and John's disciples Polycarp & Ignatius - are even more Greek-minded and less Hebrew-minded than them, just one generation later... and, how the church for 2000 years persecuted & force-converted Jews, and all branches still want to convert Jews today, I don't see that Jesus bore good fruit at all! The church is bad fruit, through & through!
James and Peter were thick and ordinary. Paul was far more educated than them both. If it wasn't for him, Christianism would have never ascended as a religion.
there was no beef... no conflict... the only conflict is perceived by spiritless evaluation--> [2Pe 3:16 KJV] 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
If you trust Peter so much.. didn't Peter choose Mathias 12 apostle? Acts 1: 26 .. who is supposed to take the gospel to gentiles.. ? Acts 15: 7.. Galatians 2 : 7- 8 .. 1 Corinthians 9 : 2.. 2 Corinthians 12 : 16 Romans 3 : 7
@@inthenamemosthigh the SAME gospel came thru PETER FIRST...-->(to the jew FIRST then the greek(cornelius)) Acts 11 17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
It is obvious that you completely believe everything Paul said was given to him by Jesus in the revelation. You have forgotten that Paul was trying to get Jews to go back to Judaism. Paul did this by making the Christian church a gentile only church. To me Paul's letters are always trying make the Christian church undesirable to all Jews. This has always bothered me that Christian churches teach Paul's Christianity, not Jesus and definitely no what the Apostles understood Jesus teachings. Paul convinced everyone that Jesus appeared to Him and taught him the real Christian beliefs. Martin Luther saw a saint when he almost got hit by lightning. Maybe Paul did hear a voice that he believed was Jesus, but you must remember that Paul only interest is to lead Jews away from Christianity.
9:08 "I know you were with him (Jesus) a long time ago" This is unbelievable that a trained scholar can still peddle such duplicity. Paul never says anything like this, anywhere & Tabor would know that! Not only does Paul not say anything like this he never hints or alludes in any way that he thinks anybody saw, heard or hung out with Jesus on earth. No one in return ever says to Paul that they saw, heard or hangout with Jesus or even that they knew some one else who did. Paul reports zero eyewitness testimony and confirms only scripture & revelation as a way of knowing anything about Jesus. This is the sand that modern historicists build their shabby mansions on. It's time for scholars to stop spouting this nonsense.
At 20:40 it gets very interesting, because he explains that Paul was telling Jewish Christian’s they did not need to follow the Jewish laws because the end was near. This interesting because some of these Jewish Christian’s started to die and it is my understanding that Paul was challenged about this.
Who is Paul? is he even met Jesus? What's Quranic perspective about him? Paul is only jew who used to persecuted the follower of Jesus. Quran implicitly told us who he was. The disciples of Jesus are called Alhawariyyun in Quran. Quran 5:112 says that the disciples are asking the food in the Last Supper. There was no Paul there of course. Hence, he is not one of the disciples. Quran 3:50 says "And confirming what was before me (Jesus) of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you." Jesus respected Torah. He made lawful some of Torah Law. He didnt condemn the Torah at all. Not like what Paul said about Torah. Quran 9:31 says "They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary." What does the verse means? Prophet Muhammad has explained it in hadith. According to a tradition, when Adi bin Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him), who was formerly a Christian, came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the intention of understanding Islam, he asked several questions in order to remove his doubts. One of these was: “This verse accuses us of taking our scholars and monks as our lords. What is its real meaning. For we do not take them as our lords.” As a reply to this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) put him a counter question: “Is it not a fact that you accept as unlawful what they declare to be unlawful, and lawful what they declare to be lawful?” Adi confessed, “Yes, it is so.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, “This amounts to making them your lords.” Incidentally, this tradition shows that those who themselves set limits to the lawful and the unlawful without the authority of Allah’s Book, assume for themselves the rank of godhead, and those who acknowledge their right of making laws take them as their lords. Then, who make law beside GOD and Jesus? Of course Paul did it. Quran 5:41 says, "Among the jews, they are avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah." It seems quite same with what Paul said in Galatia 1:6-10. "we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." Since, Paul was jews, he might be the liars. QS 4:159 says "And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death." It means, the ones who believe in Jesus before Jesus' death, is among the people of scripture. Paul didnt believe in Jesus while Jesus alive, so he might be not the people of scripture. It is my point of view relating Paul according to Quran. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus choose Peter to built his church, not Paul. Remember Matthew 7:15-27. Beware !
I was waiting for a discussion of Paul undergoing a "Nazirite Vow" and admitting to Peter, James and John that he WAS preaching contrary to them. Paul was a bit of a braggart, saying he suffered more floggings, nearer to death, jailed more, than others; that he claimed he was the First Apostle, appointed before his birth. My next comment has nothing to do (or maybe it does) with the conflict between Peter, James, John and Paul: that the "thorn in my side" was all the problems he was having with the Jerusalem leaders and their correcting what they saw as errant teaching. That is my opinion only, not based on anything beyond a wild-assed guess.
I don’t understand accepting Paul at his word. He is a bullshitter. He based his whole philosophy on a “revelation” which, for years, he didn’t care to confirm with the people who supposedly were with Jesus throughout his ministry. A common Pauline contradiction: Flattery? 1 Thessalonians 1 - You are chosen by god and your faith is famous. 1 Thessalonians 2:5 We never used flattery. There are many of these
Absolutely a bullshitter. By his own admission, he was law observant when around the Jews then lawless when around the Gentiles (reminds me of politicians).
@@michellechalmers8753 Because he was an Israelite who followed the laws that had become like a way of life in the Jewish community. However, he believed Gentiles didn’t have to observe the Law to be a follower of Jesus Christ. After all, the Gentiles were never meant to follow the laws of the Israelites. Even in Judaism today, the Jews would tell you that Gentiles don’t need to convert to Judaism to follow their laws, but they can simply follow the “7 Noahide Laws” to be saved.
I believe that the story of Saul/Paul started from Luke 18:9-22:30 I believe both Saul, the self righteous pharisee, and Zacchaeus, the tax collector- both sinners in different ways, were there, and due to his short size, Zacchaeus could only listen, but not able to see Jesus, due to the crowd, which got him up the sycamore tree, to get a glimpse of who has been teaching, and he also must have heard the discourse between Jesus and the rich young ruler (Saul/Paul). This prompted him to offer to give half of his goods to the poor, etc. Both of them were touched, but it took Saul longer to humble himself, and Jesus even bided him some time to dispose of his worldly riches and then "follow" Him. Luke 18:22. Jesus then began to talk about His death because He had completed bringing together, His desciples, all His sheep were in the fold at last John 10:16,27,28. (This "eternal life" must have caught his attention). Saul's story actually spanned the 18th and 19th chapters of Luke. He was the self-righteous pharisee, and Zachaeus was the humble guy. That was why their story ran side by side. Jesus Christ really came to seek and to save that which was "lost" indeed 19:10! "Son of sorrow," becoming son of "His right hand" ". Showing the immense grace to be revealed to Jews and the nations through him, a very good epitome of a grace recipient. The more reason he recognized by referring to Jesus Christ as "Lord...", (no longer as just "master") in acts 9, when he was knocked down from his high horse- so to speak, and became a grain of corn that fell to the ground, that would on towards, bring for fruit abundantly.
@@FatMenace he presents his speculations as facts. A nice clean narrative that follows A to B to C. He inserts his own modern interpretation of why there were discrepancies between acts and Paul’s letters. But before going into that, these manuscripts were fucked with, cut pasted, anonymous authors, and who-knows-what over how long. Any discussion should start with a heavy disclaimer and apologies then the speculation can begin.
Tabor says that James believed that Jesus was raised from the dead but we don't have any first hand written evidence that James believed that James believed that or taught that.
Thank God for the apostle Paul. My goodness the revelations. That the gates of hell cannot prevail against. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. Oh hallelujah!
There is only ONE law as per Yahuah and that law is for all mankind: 'One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. ' - Numbers 15:16 and 'One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. '- Exodus 12:49. If you follow Yahuah, you have to keep Torah. It's the Torah that EVERYONE gets judged by in the end.
Coming from Hebert Armstrongs legalistic cult The Worlswide Church of God now defunct and transformed from those shackles… Paul’s letter Galatians is so practical for those who worship now in spirit and truth rather than tradition, form and function. Jesus! Thank you SO much for your servant Paul and like FFH one of these days….I’ll sit with him and learn all the things I didn’t know but through a glass darkly now..
Circumcision is over done. Babies are circumsized. The neighborhood throws a big party and a band plays while the baby cries for a couple of hours.It is no big deal. Before sunset the baby is sleeping and tommorow it to s scabbed up. Abraham was 100 yrs old when he was circumsized.What is the problem?
I'm with Dr. Tabor in his idea that there was an unsolvable schism between Paul, James, and Peter, probably later in Paul's ministry. Remember that according to Luke Acts, Paul went to Rome and spent two years there under 'house arrest', so he was very far away from Jerusalem later in his life, and preached to the Jews in Rome just 3 days after he arrived. These were probably Greek speaking Jews who had more liberal interpretations of the law and Torah, which fit Paul perfectly. Paul saw his mission to be gear toward the Gentiles and appealed to them by softening the requirements to be a follower of Jesus from their Jewish origin into a form that would be appealing to a wider audience. So, once he started his trip to Rome, he likely never visited Jerusalem again or met with James and Peter. His focus now was on getting the Gentiles into the fold.
You all seem to miss there are no monuments to indicate a Jesus in the first 300 years of archeology strata confirming what history we are told today. What we have is fiction & religious tourism.
The minority apocalyptic Jewish Nazarene sect of the Way was overwhelmed by all the gentiles and the doctrinal path that was becoming prevalent through Paul’s ministry.
I'd love to a see a discussion between James Tabor and Robert Eisenman on the so-called James ossuary and the alleged Talpiot grave of the family of Jesus. What's Tabo's take on the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus.
I have always found it extremely odd that Matthew (Levi) who was actually with Jesus, says that Jesus told us that in order to reach Heaven, we have to follow all of the laws of Moses without changing even a pen stroke until the end of time. Paul, who never met Jesus, tells us that we only have to accept Jesus as the savior.
Mark 7:19 "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean. So, you want to say that Jesus was breaking the Law of Moses?? Cause this was a part of the Ceremonial Law and Jews were obliged to follow it. The Law of Moses was FULFILLED through Jesus' sacrifice in order for Christianity to begin. Christians are saved by the Grace of YHWH, through Jesus' sacrifice by faith in Him.
Wouldn't his name (James) be Ya'acob? From my own studies, the "v" in modern Hebrew comes from the Ashkenazi who lived in Eastern Europe? I'm definitely open to being wrong, but I've heard it pronounced both ways, with the "b" pronunciation being the more ancient of the two.
I can't find the exact reply I read earlier in this video but I'll post it here in the main comments because my last sentence brings Paul and Peter into agreement: the resurrected, ascended, and glorified Christ is the "Head" of the ekklesia - not Peter, the man. Peter received a revelation from the Father... "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The revelation itself ("this Rock", Jesus' words referring to Himself) is the Rock upon which the ekklesia is built. Remember, too, that, shortly before Peter's revelation, that Jesus called Peter "Satan"... so Peter, the weak, blind, sinful, impetuous man, cannot be the head of anything. Certainly he was among the first believers, but it is a serious error to elevate him to headship. Peter was a "perfect" believer prototype of the ups and downs believers / disciples must inherently live through their entire lives as the necessary process by which we are transformed into "living stones" for God's building (Peter's words, 1 Pet. 2:5), a "habitation of God, in spirit", (Paul's words, Eph. 2:22).
@@edwardmiessner6502You thought you did something didn't you? The first revealed verse to the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was not "write".
_Paul fails to follow Jesus' sayings, teachings and instructions._ _Paul proclaims (in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) I am “ordained/appointed” to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher._ *1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.* *2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.* _For those that do not read or follow Jesus' commandments closely, the error(s) in what Paul has proclaimed can be easy to overlook._ _Here are some of Jesus's commandments:_ *Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, Christ; and all ye are brethren.* *Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.* *Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, Christ.* (Matthew 23:8 & 10 Master,G2519) καθηγητής From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: *for one is your [Teacher], Christ; and all ye are brethren.* Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.* _In Matthew 23:8 Jesus makes it clear he is the one Teacher (for one is your [Teacher], Christ)_ _In Matthew 23:10 Jesus makes it clear to neither be called teachers (Neither be ye called [teachers])._ _Also in verse 10 Jesus repeats what he had just said in verse 8. (...for one is your [Teacher], Christ)_ _Paul fails to keep Jesus' commandment “neither be ye called [teachers]...” even (in the same verse and in conjunction) as he proclaims himself to be an apostle._ _In other words; Paul is breaking Jesus' commandment not to be called teacher(s) at the same time as declaring himself as an apostle._ *1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.* _Paul repeats this claim as an apostle and a teacher in 2 Timothy 1:11._ *2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.* _Once again Paul is breaking Jesus' commandment not to be called teacher(s) all while claiming himself to be an apostle._ _Furthermore in 2 Timothy Paul proclaims; _*_“ Whereunto I am appointed...”_* *#1 Question:* _Who had appointed Paul “a teacher;” after Jesus had instructed not to be called such; in_ Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.* _Paul claims likewise in 1 Timothy 2:7 _*_Whereunto I am ordained..._* Moreover *#1 Question:* _Who (against Jesus' commandment of (Matt __23:10__) not to be called a teacher) “ordained” and or “appointed” Paul as “a teacher?”_ _None of Jesus' disciples would have had the authority to break any of Jesus' commandments, and to go and “ordained” or “appointed” Paul as “a teacher.”_ *_#2 Question:_*_ Or is it perhaps, we are to believe that Jesus broke his own commandment and came to Paul privately (came to him secretly as it were) and “ordained” and “appointed” Paul as “a teacher” against Jesus' own commandment?_ *_#3 Question_*_ Or worst, should we assume that God “ordained” and “appointed” Paul as “a teacher” against Jesus' commandment? However If this were true (being beforehand Jesus declared he is our one Teacher; for one is your Teacher, Christ) this would mean God “ordained” and “appointed” Paul in the position of an Antichrist (which means in the place of Christ or instead of Christ.)_ _The above questions are mere speculations which seemingly can not fit as explanations as to Paul's claims._ _The important fact to remember is; for in effort to conform with Paul's statements (found in 1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:11) it is of a necessity to break Jesus' commandment; _*_Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ._* _Paul's statements in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy break Jesus' commandment. Thus does not follow Jesus' teachings and Paul is a usurper of his self claimed position of teacher of the Gentiles._
@@chad969 Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: *for one is your [Teacher], Christ; and all ye are brethren.* Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.* _In Matt 23:8 to 10 Jesus gives 4 instructions/commandments. Paul comes usurping positions of authority and breaks 3 of the 4._
@@KeepingWatch95 Definitely a hard one to reconcile. I did a concordance search for that greek word "διδάσκαλος" and a verse came up that I'd be curious to get your thoughts on. In Matthew 10:25 Jesus says _It is enough for students to be like their teachers (διδάσκαλος), and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!_ Here it looks like Jesus is using the word "teachers" to refer to people other than himself. It also seems (maybe I'm wrong) that Jesus is speaking approvingly of students having teachers (plural) other than himself. I'm wondering why he would say that if he's the only teacher and he doesn't want other people to be referred to as teacher.
it would have been tricky for new gentile believers as having turned their backs on pagan idolatry, they were no longer fish nor fowl. what should a male christ believer do in the early church if they fell in love with an observant jewish believer? Such complex questions are not answered. We have so much missing in terms of context of the very earliest jesus movement apart from the new testament texts. we have little contemporary documents to aid us.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Seems like a lot of fundamentalist worship and listen to the word of Paul more than Jesus.
@@DBCiscoCan we prove there was a Paul
@@DBCisco So no Paul
@@DBCisco Can I ask you another question?
Correct. The all want to run away as far as possible form Jesus' Judaism and Paul is the perfect race car.
@@thesolarengineer There is a lot of B.S. to go around for sure.
Isn't it strange that Jesus forgot to tell the Jerusalem people about Paul's Gospel?
He forgot to tell them that their way would disappear and a different way would dominate.
Nope he told them. Jesus foretold of false prophets to come. Paul came in fulfillment, Paul is a false prophet just as Jesus foretold
@@KeepingWatch95 When you put it that way.... 🙂
@@GravityBoy72 _Jesus foretold and warned about false prophets to come. He warned what they would do and what they would say. Paul then does come and do these very things._
Matthew 7:15 *Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.*
Matthew 7:16 *Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?*
_Jesus says in Matt __7:16__;_ *“...Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”*
_Paul said in;_ Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that *beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:*
_It appears there was no greater among the thorns and thistles than Paul who persecuted the church of God “beyond measure” and “wasted it.”_
_Jesus says in Matt __7:16__;_ *“...Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”*
_Paul said in;_ 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save *sinners; of whom I am chief.*
_Paul confirmed that there was no greater among the thorns and thistles for he was the chief of sinners._
_Jesus says in_ Matthew 24:23 *Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.*
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Matthew 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
_Regardless of what Jesus had said (“...if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ ...believe it not” in Matt __24:23__) Paul wants others to believe that Jesus meet with Paul._
Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Matthew 24:26 *Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.*
_Furthermore the road to Damascus is said to have been a desert/wilderness place and may still be a desert/wilderness._
_Jesus says_ Matthew 24:24 *For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.*
_Regardless of what Jesus' warns about signs and wonders in Matt __24:24__, Paul claims to be nothing behind the “very chiefest apostles” because of his signs, and wonders._
2 Corinthians 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
2 Corinthians 12:12 *Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought* among you in all patience, *in signs, and wonders,* and mighty deeds.
_Jesus foretold and warned about false prophets to come. He warned what they would do and what they would say. Paul comes and does these very things._
@@GravityBoy72 😊
Jesus said they would know a lot more with the advent of the Holy Spirit. Paul was the greatest apostle.
James Tabor raises many important points in this video regarding the split between Pauline & Nazorean Ebionite Christianities but (probably due to constraints of time) fail’d to do the deeper dive into other places in the Canonical Greek New Testament such as Revelation 2:9 & 3:9-10 (‘Pay no heed to those persons claiming to be Apostles but are nothing of the kind but Liars [& Deceivers] of the Synagogue of Satan...) and (‘Lo, I shall cause the men of the Synagogue of Satan to be brought before you groveling at your feet-those men who are claiming to have been Judean-born but are no such thing but rather are Liars belonging to the Synagogue of Satan-Behold, you will know that I have chosen you [over them]’ (see Targum of DeuteroIsaiah 45:14)
Clearly these verses in Revelation seem to be conscious swipes at Saul of Tarsus (aka ‘Paul’, lit. ‘Tiny’) who claim’d over and over and over again in the letters bearing his name in the Canonical Greek New Testament that he was an ‘Apostolos’ of Jesus - i.e. one personally ‘sent’ by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (BCE 12-36 CE) -a man he never met in person at all but only in dreams & visions like my gardener-(see I Corinthians chapter 9, & 15:9, Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12; Romans 1:1 &c)
Moreover Paul goes out of his way to insist that he is a ‘Judaean’ of the Tribe of Benjamin & a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5 &c) whereas he was certainly NOT born in Palestine but in Tarsus, the capital city of Cilicia in modern day Turkey -and moreover home of the Roman Worship of Mithras (via Cilician Pirates who introduc’d the cult from Persia c. 63 BCE) -so we can catch a glimpse (along with the whole of Galatians chapter 2 which no serious textual scholar doubts was the writing of Paul himself throughout) which shews the enmity that existed between the Ebionite Torah Abiding & Circumcision-loving Nazorean Christians out of Jerusalem under the auspices of Yakkov bar Yosef, haTzaddiq (James son of Joseph, the Righteous) who was Jesus’ blood brother & whose position as eventual head of the Jesus End of Days Community (despite his not being a disciple or one of the 12 or of the 70, but ran a distinct branch call’d ‘The Poor Ones’ (haEvionim, later call’d the Ebionites who splinter’d into factions after the 1st Fail’d Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) was soley bas’d on his Daviddic bloodline (in fact all Ebionite Bishops before the War were chosen from the Daviddic lineage bas’d on blood relation to Jesus himself) -
Or as the Gospel of Thomas states in L. 9 - ‘Rabbi, if you are taken from us, to whom then shall we turn to follow?’ And he said to them, if the Bar Enasha (‘son of Man’ see AramDaniel 7:13ff) is taken from you, you are to go at once to my. brother Yakkov haTzaddiq (‘James the Just’) for whose sake Heaven & Earth had come into being !’
Anyone reading phrases like ‘those two so-call’d pillars’ when Paul was referring to ‘Kephah’ (Shimeon bar Yonah, HaKefah, aka ‘Peter’) & Yohanon bar Zavdai (two of the 3 inner circle members of the original Jesus Movement) in Galatians chapter 2 would see the obvious jealousy that ‘Paul’ felt about the original disciples whom he avoided (apparently rather shortly after meeting only the Top Brass of the movement) like the plague...
Unfortunately Acts chapters 15 & 18 has signs of a later 2nd century style smooth’d over post Jewish War (post 72 CE) harmonisation of the original bitter friction between Paul’s antinomians and the Torah-Abiding Nazorean Evionim under James the Just -we can glean a trace of the vitriol which pass’d between the two hated groups in the early 50s from Paul’s own words in Galatians chapter 2 - what can only be describ’d as an accident of history occurred after the First Jewish War (66-72CE) when the Torah Abiding circumcising Nazorean Ebionites under James the Just were virtually wip’d out (along with most of the Daviddic descendants-Jesus’ brother Judah Ha Thomah (‘Thomas’ aka the Twin) had a daughter and 2 twin grandsons who manag’d to escape to Pella and survive into the reign of Domitian in 96 CE) whereas Paul’s gentile-Loving antiTorah antinomian antiCircumcision churches in the Diaspora (mainly in Macedonia, Greece & present-day Turkey) surviv’d to get far more press in the Canonical Greek New Testament (whereas ‘James the Just’ & ‘Jude’ and other representatives of the Nazorean Ebionite branches of the earliest Christianities barely got one letter each into the NT canon...)
In the Book of Revelation’s 7 letters there are 7 calls to ‘shuvah’ (‘repentance’ which according to protoIsaiah chapter 8:20 means ‘return to obeying the Torah & the Testimony [of the prophets]’ to which was added in other places in Revelation 3 more calls to ‘Return’ reflecting the 10 Days of Repentance (‘Yomei Aseret Teshuvah’) Festival following the Feast of Trumpets- Rosh Hashannsh (Sept New Year) and sandwich’d in before Yom Kippur where the High Priest in Jerusalem call’d qol-Yisro’el to repentance back to obeying Torah and ‘sealing’ the House of Yisro’el for the coming year against Tribulation...sound familiar ?
Several passages in chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation use terms like ‘repent & be zealous’ (Rev 3:18-20) meaning go back to the Kabbalah (‘traditions’) of the Abboth (‘the fathers’) meaning to obeying the Torah & ignoring those preachers of the Synagogue of Satan who claim Torah obedience even for Messianic Jews & Christians in the Diaspora was unnecessary and are saved ‘by faith alone’ -absolutely refuting & flying in the face of what is written in plain Koine Greek in canonical James’ letter (‘salvation by faith without ma’aseh ha Torah - works of the Law-is like a dead body in the gutter-a corpse without a soul to give life to it...’) see James 2:14-26 &c.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls the phrase ‘be zealous for the Torah’ occurs several dozen times - a description which Paul claim’d he bragg’d was his habit ‘as a Pharisee Zealous in obeying Torah’) in the period before his conversion following what sounds like a ‘lightning strike’ with qolot & Orim (thunders & brilliant lights) which knock’d him out cold ‘carrying me into the 3rd Heaven, I suppose...’
So when we read in Revelation chapter 3:20ff ‘be therefore Zealous & Repent’ the writer of the 7 letters in Revelation (Part of the 7 heads & 10 horns of Daniel Typology) was clearly implying that the Yahad Messianic Synagogue e.g. at Philadelphia (in present-day Turkey) had stray’d from obeying the Torah of their fathers and needed to return to the Torah by being Zealous for the Law...
One could make a case therefore that 99% of modern day ‘Christians’ are in fact ‘Pauline Christians’ bas’d on the warp’d theology of a 1st century ‘heretic’ and that the original ‘Christian Torah Abiding Circumcising Messianists’ that knew & follow’d Jesus ‘in the flesh’ have all but died out to-day...
They say Jesus was a Naxorean then Paul says the Nasoreans are full of it. Follow me I know the Truth. (its Roman) Oh yeah bring cash..
Yes the Ebionites were the Jewish Christians Paul disputed with (and according to Epiphanius, they came after the Temple was destroyed) and after a disastrous prediction about the end of the world (the 'man of lawlessness' being Terentius Maximus) Paul was rejected in Asia as he says in Timothy. Hence the Revelation was written in Asia for the Asian churches disparaging Paul. You are right but note that it all happened during the reign of Titus or shortly after.
@@paulgeorge1144 - ‘sell all you have & give the proceeds to the Evionim’ = the church fathers didn’t want to dwell on this group of James the Just apparently - and only reference the later postWar splinter groups after James the Just had died (sometime around 62 CE) - but it is clear that James the Just was the Daviddic successor to Jesus & that he headed up a group call’d ‘the poor ones’ even whilst his brother was still alive and that before the war they only recruited Episcopoi (= meqqaberin, ‘over-seers’) from Daviddic branches - after James died & the War came (66-72CE) the group lost most of its Daviddic membership & splinter’d into factions and it is these factions that the Church Fathers call’d The Ebionites & didn’t even seem to know where they came from (some like the self-castrated Tertullian in the early 3rd century said ‘named after one Ebion a heretic’ displaying his compleat ignorance of the historical facts)
So yes, there were splinter Ebionites during the time of Titus and into the early mediaeval period but the first ones seem to have originated with James the Just (or possibly even further back to John the Baptist)...
Fun fact did you realize that Revelation is a Christian gnostic text. It even goes so far as to call yahweh the beast of revelation by mentioning exodus 13:9 original Hebrew.
Paul seems complex. I don't believe him when he says that Jesus revealed himself to him. Their paradigms are worlds apart.
I’m with this guy…my fundamentalist friends don’t like it when I say things like this…and yet I still say things like this…
"Their paradigms are worlds apart."
You must be joking.
Jesus and 12 were preaching to the Jews who were under the Law of Moses, Paul was told by Jesus to preach to the gentiles - PAGANS, i.e. different laws, traditions, habits, sacrifices, millions of gods = different approach.
That happened because Jews rejected Jesus and God Himself. That's why God opened His doors to the gentiles.
God washed away our sins through Jesus' blood and faith in Him - NOT through works, because the Law (of Moses) proved salvation through works impossible - because people are corrupt to the core and NO deed can ever be perfect and good enough to match the standards of God - because, even when we do something good, we use it in vain to be great in our own eyes.
Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)
6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
That's why we were saved through FAITH in Jesus - and it was by God's Grace (Grace is God giving us something we cannot earn or deserve).
Our salvation was a gift from God - FOR FREE ...
Because of Jesus' victim and sacrifice for ALL of us, there was no need for sacrifices that were obligatory under the Law of Moses ... for the circumcision, dividing of the fabrics and so on - anymore.
Not even for the religious establishment - Matthew 18:20: 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
For, when Jesus died for our sins, we gained straight path to God. Matthew 27:51 says, "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And that's what Paul was preaching.
Then the Bible contains lies and we might as well throw it away because it’s unreliable.
@@MultiSky7 Amen purihin ang panginoong Jesus 🙏🙏🙏
You must not worship God in truth and in spirit. Paul could perform miracles when he became a follower of Christ. Could he do that when he was a Judaist?
I feel like this channel has been mind blowing for the past year with the quality of interviewing and guests. It's shocking how few subscribers you have compared to what you're actually pouring out for us. Thanks for being persistent; you'll get there!
Dr Tabor seems so genuine with no agenda beyond finding the truth. What a treasure.
I can see a bit of an agenda at play working my way through Tabor’s book, Paul and Jesus”. I think all of us who find this stuff interesting need to sharpen our critical thinking skills whenever we read about early Christianity as there’s so little in the way of objective evidence of the veracity of authorship or untainted manipulation. For me, Tabor pushes me to dig deeper and deeper.
The way the Lambert of god is critical about the Bible, while maintaining a love for it at the same time actually inspires a whole new love for the book itself. Thank god for people like Derick , and , Dr. Tabor.
can see the qualitative difference - there are lots of opinions on the topic discussed here that Paul and the Jeresalem church leadership were at odds because of Paul obsoleting the Law, so to speak.
But Dr. Tabor puts the crucial point on the matter that Paul truly beleived that the return of Christ was so eminent that so much of what we get caught up worrying about will soon pass away and in the new reality will no longer matter. He was just living that new reality that he soon saw to be at hand.
There is much less soap opera drama in the point Dr. Tabor puts forth on the matter. But people do like their soap opera drama.
For some reason Jesus lives rent free in their heads.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything strange on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
@@perttiroska9970 nice! God sends false prophets to lie to everyone 😂🤡
As I’m listening to this I’m thinking to myself…Paul was so close with Jesus, talking to him in spirit yet Jesus didn’t tell him that he isn’t coming anytime……. soon. 😂 poor Paul
2000 years still doesn't qualify as "long" in the face of eternity.
@@EndoftheAge717 2000 10000 same result
jesus and paul both said that the end times would come within the lifetimes of those then living. It didn't happen. It's not gonna happen. It's a fable.
@@scambammer5940 Jesus said that some of those around will see the kingdom of heaven in their lifetime. In another instant he said that the kingdom of heaven is within. Ever considered that aside the historic chain of events there might also be an individual?
@@petervonbergen5364 what do you mean by INDIVIDUAL?
This channel continues to be one of the best balances of scholarship and accessibility on all of YT. I hope you get 10 million subs.
Though he is a little wacko in atheism. As a God Beleiver myself.
Don't you find strange that Paul never had another encounter with Jesus, yet he keeps modifying Christian church beliefs to attract gentiles and confuse Jews. Specially the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan Gods.
I think he never had an encounter ?!?! I'm loosing it
Exactly! "Refuse nothing that is sold in the shambles, not asking questions for conscience's sake" Paul clearly knows all the meat there was sacrificed unto idols, and inadvertently spills the beans! 😁
There was a reason Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
And Paul never said we should meat eat sacrificed to pagan gods.
Why not deal with the truth of scripture? Our opinions are irrelevant.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything wierd on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
I enjoyed listening to this interview with professor James D Tabor about Paul and James interactions and development of the early church growth.
Nice get to have Professor Tabor. The guest line up has been nothing short of superb as of late.
I loved Michael Goulder's book "St. Paul versus St. Peter", where he pretty vividly describes how he imagines some of these conflicts that occur in Paul's congregations when "other apostles" show up.
Guess who won the soccer match Italia 1 Levant 0
Those other apostles were checking Paul and he didn’t like it. I think Paul was a false apostle who meant to thwart the Way.
@@Stacyaj10 This was the very thought that eventually led me to becoming a Muslim, much to my surprise.
@@jpaqon I’m considering it
@@Stacyaj10 No, he wasn't. His passion proves it. The fierce with which he prosecuted Christians, was even stronger and bigger in defending Jesus, defending Christianity, preaching about Jesus and teaching people about Jesus - no matter how much suffer, jailing and beating it took, and he suffered A LOT.
He just didn't like hypocrisy and BS.
It seems that most people tend to forget that James, Jesus' brother, was mocking Jesus almost all his life, didn't believed Him, thought that Jesus lost it, during Jesus’ public ministry, his brothers rejected his message, criticized him, and refused to follow him - until he (James) saw him Resurrected, people forget that Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times at the night Jesus was captured even though he said he never would ...
Paul's Gospel came from Jesus, NOT humans, that's why he wouldn't/couldn't debate other apostles, because he had clear instructions from Jesus Himself - that he was about to preach and convert the gentiles.
He was chosen to preach to the gentiles because he was educated, spoke several languages, had Roman citizenship, travelled before, was witty and courageous, but before all - Jesus showed him who's the boss because of his prosecution of the Christians - or, as people would say - karma.
He knew that we are under the Grace and no more under the Law (of Moses), that we are saved through FAITH alone - not deeds (as it is under the law), and gentiles were NEVER under the Law anyway, so how, and mostly WHY, would you insist on imposing something on people who have nothing to do with it, never had and the thing that you want to impose is not required anymore, anyway ... and James and Peter, at the end, agreed with it.
From all the scholars I know Prof. Tabor shows the least signs of any kind of personal agenda, no signs of ideology and also he is totally free in saying what he found out by thorough research. If more scholars, men were like him this world would look a lot different. My honest repect!❤🎉 Pls continue to enlighten us!
This is all great stuff. One of the things I'm curious about is why no mention of Robert Eisenman? He's the guy who made the Dead Sea Scrolls accessible to scholars of every stripe, wresting legal control of them from the Catholic Church. The Church had tried to control the scholarship on the scrolls until he challenged them. Eisenman wrote extensively about James, the Brother of Jesus, the Pseudo Clementine Recognitions, Acts, the Mandeans, Ebionites, the early Church fathers and Josephus. I know Eisenman is retired from teaching and research now, but he doesn't get nary a mention in your 'tubecasts.' All of the scholars you bring on owe at least a debt of gratitude to him, even if you might not agree with his findings.
I watched Robert Eisenman videos about Paul, the most eye opening revelations about a Biblical figure I've seen, completely changed everything I thought about the NT, so what I take from your statement is this, people will reveal who they are by what they say or don't say about a subject, it depends on the viewers knowledge to be able to see thru rhetoric..... you should've seen my eyes open wide when I saw his name in your comment 👀👌 were scholars talking about Paul like this before him? if so let me know...
@@adrian72300 well, I don't have names of scholars and researchers who came upon this view of Paul before Eisenman, but I can't help but feel this discussion has been around in academic circles for a long time. Eisenman had to have been inspired and challenged by his professors to think critically about the various texts, he's written about. I also wonder about those scholars in the apologist camp, particularly the Roman Catholic Church scholars. Eisenman had to wrest control of the Dead Sea Scroll scholarship from the Church through legal means. The question arises, why did the Church need to have control over the Scrolls in the first place? I can't help, but feel their scholars were already aware of these problems, even before the discovery of the scrolls, maybe centuries before. However, the Scrolls posed the problem of confirming the disagreements between Paul and James and Peter among other things and elucidating how deep those disagreements ran. So yeah there had to have been other scholars who were aware of that view of Paul before Eisenman articulated it.
@@JohnHoulgate Agreed, I should have been more specific with my comment, you just don't see modern scholars, make videos like his
@@adrian72300 Yeah, this is all new ground for sharing this kind of information. I read Bob Eisenman's book, "James, The Brother Of Jesus" when it was fairly new. It was about 1,000 pages long and written in a very complex academic style - very difficult reading, but there were some very interesting takeaways that I think shed light on early Christian history.
@@JohnHoulgate What was your core take away from reading his book?
Professor Tabor 's paul and jesus ,i read it several times.It really change my view of christianity.
He spoke for upwards of 30-minutes and never did get to the point of the video. What's their beef?
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything strange on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
how many billions of people has Paul mislead over time
So sad
This is so sad, made me cry. Blasphemy has no forgiveness. What a serious thing!!
I like Tireo Hammond says we need to have our opinion when following God.
But the truth is without Paul Christianity would probably never made it outside of Jerusalem and the Jewish communities living in the Roman Empire.
@@I.W.Lthomsson a catch 22 …
Where was Paul during the destruction of the Temple in AD. 70????
He was dead
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything suspicious on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Always great to watch and listen to Dr Tabor.
Hmmmmm......... something in me almost feels like tentatively agreeing with Dr Tabor's minority view that 2Corinthians was referring to characters like James over there in Jerusalem as "superapostles", instead of people based closerby to Corinth. The idea that Paul was hiding a bit of his secretly held views that didn't conform to his earlier agreement with them in Jerusalem which eventually led to a more bitter break.
Great interview. From your extensive time with Dr. Price, I was surprised you didn't say "I'm familiar with F.C. Baur" when Dr. Tabor brought him up :-).
Paul is about eschatology and a frustration with Judaiism resulting in the repudiation of it, always w his eschatology in mind, to the extent that he himself identifies as gentile. As soon as someone WRITES, and not just blurts out in conversation, that he is all things to all men bc he has a Moses-complex, then his entire schemata as a religious thinker becomes suspect. Scholars who unwittingly sentimentalize Paul, or conveniently set aside his vitriol and utter narcissism, are naive on purpose.
The Jews say Paul was a Greek that converted to Judaism to marry a Jewish woman. She did not want to marry him and he got frustrated with the Jewish faith and its strict rules. So he started his own version of Judaism minus the Abrahamic rules and open it to everybody. The Greek rules (no beard, no circumcision, no long hair, very few rights for women etc) shine through very clearly.
@@mver191 I think you mean the Mosaic rules bc Paul very much liked Abraham's cozy covenant. But, yeah, I don't see a problem w buying into that story. Paul was a very Hellenized Roman citizen, and practically every religious thought he had was formulated in Greek and quite un-Hebraic. Virtually every time he brings up Moses it is to either cunningly misread or just plain outright lie against a particular biblical text. Abraham, when god made all those promises to him, wasn't really asked to do very much in return, if you think about it, except, of course, to just believe. Paul liked that; he was kinda lazy and bubbling with all kinds of latent, unacknowledged emotional issues - hence his overwhelming appeal to modern xtians who occupy the centers of their own little universes wout really having done very much at all to get there. Cheers!
Yes, Paul was quite angry with those who corrected his errant teaching; and I never applied the word narcissist to him, but it fits: his bragging about more beatings, more times closer to death, more times in prison...and his claim that he was the "First Apostle," even before he was conceived.
James Tabor is a gift. Great interview Derek.
Wow. This RUclips channel keeps inviting on great guests!
BRAVO, Professor Tabor! Well done.
Wow, very interesting insight. Tabor has done his research and shed knew light on the subject of Torah observance in those days Wow. God Bless him
Dr. Tabor does a great interview!
As an Orthodox Jew myself, I thought Dr. Tabor's joke about racing to the latrines before Shabbat was pretty funny.
I was wondering if I might ask this question. Please don't feel obligated to answer, since i may be asking out of ignorance. I see the law summed up in Abraham's part in the covenant between G_d and himself. The Hebrew word for circumcision defines how we should live. We are not to "offend" our neighbor. Offenses are fences between ourselves and others. Circumcision is the ever present reminder to cut off of-fence-ive behaviors. NOT that we should cut off a right hand or eye--but cut out the bad behavior. It seems that the men and women coming out of Egypt were so indoctrinated or affected by slavery that they needed Moses to spell out what their behavior should be. Exactly how were they to love their neighbors and how to love G_d. Moses was overwhelmed with the people coming to him to settle their conflicts. And it seems to me they were given the most important instruction. That the Lord is One, To love Him with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind and strength And to love my neighbor as my self. Then the 10 laws which spell it out. And that still wasn't enough. Paul has gone back to the basic tenents of faith. Gentiles will be drawn into the kingdom by cords of love. The benefactor offers to save, heal and deliver. He saves us through forgiveness. The healing of the soul will come after when, the gentile has questions about behavior. Paul seems to have been obedient to the essence of the law in trying not to offended either Jew or Greek. As a gentile, I understand that through the Word, i have the law written on my heart. When my behavior conflicts with the will of the father, i must either allow myself to be changed or refuse the gift of healing. The will of G_d does not change. I suppose some want to reform G_d, but He wants to reform us...in due time. It is sad that the importance cutting out offenses has been lost. I believe that "righteousness" is a gift to be received by faith and confession. My soul was healed. The was an offensive desire of my heart that needed to be surgically removed by circumcision of the heart. I have never heard anyone preach about Abraham's covenant in this way. Have I gotten it wrong?
@@nadzach Biblically, causing offense is not a sin. We should try to avoid it as a matter of having good manners, but offense in and of itself is not wrong. For example, truth offends liars, goodness offends the wicked, and peace offends the violent.
Secondly, the Law is written on a person's heart when that person desires of his own free will to observe what the Law commands (or what God command via the Law). Do Christians desire to eat kosher, observe the Sabbath, wearing tefillin, etc.? No. Ok, so Christians do not have the Law written on their hearts then - nor do they have to. There is no biblical command for Gentiles to have the Law written on their hearts. This was said exclusively of Jews, i.e. the people to whom the Law was given. The Law was not given to the Gentile nations.
The Bible does not deal in broad themes or general universalistic narratives. That's largely a modern Christian misconception. The Bible is a piece of Jewish literature, written by Jews, for Jews, documenting Jewish spiritual, political, intellectual, philosophical, literary, and historical developments. There's not much in it "for" non-Jews. It can benefit non-Jews, there are some things that happen to be universally applicable, but it was not "for" non-Jews, if that makes sense.
The rabbis, through the oral tradition and through the holy spirit, developed a system of biblical religion for Gentiles which is called the sheva mitzvos bnai Noach (the seven laws for the children of Noah), i.e. Noahidism. These are seven broad categories of law which cover man's relationship with God, with his fellow human, and even with animals. A person does not have to be Jewish in order to "be saved" or go to heaven. A person just has to be the best version of himself that he can be, pursuing justice and holiness no matter his situation.
There are plenty of wonderful Christians and Muslims out there that are very good people. They love God and try to do their best in life. The basic Noahide laws can be found in both of these religions already, so if a person follows his NT or Quran devoutly, he will already be very close to godliness. However, there are many details to each of the seven laws and these details are found in the Jewish legal tradition called the Oral Law. This is why all prospective Noahides must learn from a competent rabbinic authority in order to know how to live his life in righteousness and decency. I recommend consulting AskNoah.org or purchasing Rabbi Moshe Weiner's book called The Divine Code.
www.amazon.com/Divine-Code-Observing-Noahide-Revealed-ebook/dp/B0719SDQVM#:~:text=The%20Divine%20Code%20is%20the,details%20of%20the%20Noahide%20precepts.
@@TzaddikMedia Thank you. I am saving your helpful comment to consider more carefully later.
when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world-right up to this moment
This helped bring the final pieces of the story together. Paul would practice being a Jew when with Peter/James but not when with gentiles. Paul needed Peter/James for credibility but had essentially started his own religion. Later, the gospel of John tries to reconcile these differences.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything odd on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
@@perttiroska9970 Paul = James
Really enjoy Dr Tabor, so courteous and enthusiastic, very refreshing. My issue with his lectures as well as someone like Bart Ehrman is that so many data points are left out or stretched, so that when I double back on their presentations to read the source material, an incredible number of texts are just left out of their argument. Case in point: Paul's omission of the pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a divine character. There is no mention of Romans 8:3 or Colossians 1:15ff or Hebrews 1:2 possibly written by one of Paul's companions, not to mention the incredible number of texts from the Wisdom of Solomon (in your NRSV Episcopal, Catholic or Orthodox Bibles) in which the language of the pre-existing character of Wisdom as a Person was there in the beginning with the Father, and this language about Wisdom was studied and used by the authors of the NT autographs as source material to conceptualize early NT theology. I am not Catholic or Orthodox, but the entire corpus of the Deutero-canonical works of Paul and the apocrypha do not nullify the orthodox doctrine of Jesus, rather they serve to reflect the opinions and values of the early church or the second temple period that ended in 70 CE. My conclusion is that Doctors Tabor and Ehrman are not sincere in their presentations but are trying to make a living with biblia nouveau - $$$$.
"I'm trusting Paul". Ugh, that blows his credibility.
Whers Waldo OH i found Waldo . Wheres Paul the Usurper of the Apostles that may not be real either? Burn the Witches..
It was on one specific point and reasons were given. We can trust Paul as a witness to the split in the Jesus movement of the first century.
I think Paul did a good enough job of blowing his own credability.
@@coreybray9834How? Paul continually instructed about continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ, just as our Lord warned about aiding in him, and that we bear much fruit.
Jesus also instructed that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
And in another place he says the first and great commandment is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all the mind.” “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
And Paul explained this in more detail when he said
“Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”…
“Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
(Romans 13:8,10)
So what was it that he did to ruin his own credibility?
28:58 Didn't come ? Why do you think John wrote "Look, he is coming with the clouds" ? When he wrote about what happened in his time, when Jesus was reviled as the slaughtered Lamb of God ?
The Best content on Comparative Religion and Spirituality revealing the layers of these myths
if Paul said 'remain in your calling' it would imply that he believed in the covenant obligations. If we take the other quote that Paul really gave a speech before his death when he says, I am a Pharisee, he either was, or he wasn't. Somehow I can't imagine many traditional pharisees denying their covenantal obligations.
Paul was clearly sending shots why are people scared to admit that lol
Two thousand years of momentum.
Paul was delusional af. 😂 beefing the true apostles
@@prophetofanu8933 man listen I don’t even know who his Dad is Lol
Its hard to admit because then the person will be admitting that Pauline christianity has a glaring problem from the beginning. Paul not getting the blessings (approval) of Jesus's original apostles is damaging to Paul's understanding of Jesus. No way someone who never met Jesus have a better understanding than Jesus's handpicked apostles who lived, ate, and learned from him.
00:41 by that moment I am suspecting that the stuff is a bunch of nonsense for people that want to feel special and believe they have special knowledge. The music is the kind of techniques used by nonsensical infomercials. I am going to listen and see if it's just bad music selection. 14:19 seems to be wrong or maybe he misspoke, Perter and James di not teach Paul about Jewish traditions, Paul was the educated one. In general the video was good and a testament of not judging the book by its cover. I frankly. disagree with him that Paul and Peter broke off. If we go with Paul confronting Peter it make sense only if Paul knew Peter believed the same of pretty similar to him, but was hiding it.
There is one idea that Paul was acting as a spy for the Romans.
There are other ideas that he never even existed. Who knows? No one for sure.
Ideas are just that: ideas.
They are not reasoned deductions.
There is an idea that the world is flat.
He was the jail house informant the Romans used
Paul is a liar
Some Theories suggests that Paul was actually Flavius Josephus the Historian.
This guy is very respectful as he explains this not deliberately attacking faiths of jews or Christians
Ebonite s rejected Paul as a false apostle. They rejected his writings as false doctrine. Their canon was a shorter Aramaic gospel of Matthew.
Great interview conversation. More please
how could Paul disagree with Peter, when, according to Gospel, Jesus said, 'upon this Rock I build my Church'.? also, how could Paul argue with Peter, after the Holy Spirit had descended upon him, (Peter& other apostles)? surely after that event they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and could not be mistaken?
You would think, wouldn’t you? 🤔
It’s almost like the texts were harmonized after the fact by the group that won the ecclesiastical war.
Why couldn’t Peter make mistakes afterwards that the Holy Spirit could correct? Look at Acts, Peter refuses to kill and eat. And they have to hold a council later on the issue anyway. He built the church on Peter but every single bit of New Testament literature show that all Christians go through growth and learning and understanding
@@youngknowledgeseeker ..young.. Peter was suppoedly, 'inspired by the Holy Ghost'.. which somehow gave him the ability to speak and understand all languages.. and Jesus had said to him,
'upon this Rock I build my Church.'.
meaning that he did not go thru a period learning and understanding, he was miraculously endowed with understanding of everything that Jesus meant by his teachings.. he could not be mistaken in any thing church related, faith related.. just as the Pope claims, even unto this day..
(the Pope, St.Peters successor.)..he has the abiltity to forgive sins, he is infact, infalible..
and they had to hold a council? how could that be, if they were all so inspired? did'nt they realise that Jesus said that
' he came not to change one jot or tittle in the Law Of Moses.'.. why did they need a council, to discuss to change a of Moses Law? it was Paul who changed Moses Law, to make it easier for Gentile converts.. they especially did not like Male Genital Mutilation, or circumcision, as it is known.. an absurd practice then, even as it is now..
what kind of God demands that baby boys are circumsised? did'nt God look at all that he had created and say that it was good, very good?.. ohh, except for that little bit of skin there, take that off!
is this a God who changes his divine mind?
this council, first split in Christianity, but not the last?
@@GARYWERSLEY That’s just an interpretation though. Possibly correct. But just that, an interpretation. If correct though then Acts and Galatians is a lie. Which of course your entitled to believe.
Came not to change it until “all is fulfilled”….Not to mention that Jesus ratifies a *new* covenant, not changes the old one. Even in Paul’s arguments it’s never that it’s a changed old covenant rather an entirely *new* law. I love we all think we’re just oh so clever when we smugly point out “see Jesus said not one hot or tittle 😌”. I used to be the same.
You are right though, Christianity has split unfortunately to an astronomically ludicrous degree.
Id like to see a discussion of Paul's idea of faith to be saved versus good works to be saved. I was raised Catholic and remember the importance placed on good works. Could you have someone discuss this topec.
(Jesus)
Mathew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
(Paul)
1 corinthians 4:15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Catholics call priests Father.😉
@@owlnyc666 your right. Because of Paul
Is Paul in the gospels?it is interesting that Saul who was a Jewish bounty hunter of Christian's who never met Jesus incarnate became one of if not THE Foremost theologian of Christianity.
@@owlnyc666 Paul was not an Apostle. He actually was rejected by the churches in Asia. The Book of Revelation was written to the churches in Asia After Paul was rejected by them.
2 Timothy 2:15 You know that *everyone* in the province of *Asia* has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.
Revelation 1:4 John, To the seven churches in the province of *Asia*: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
Revelation 2:2 I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
If the pharisees were liberals Then Jesus was ULTRA Liberal. I have heard speculation that Jesus a pharisee and a Rabbi.😀
I just love to listen to Mr. Tabor
Great video! Thank you both!
Thank you
James Tabor's lighting is absolutely perfect. Just saying.
As one under. . . , I take as claim, "I am you, you are I
Colorful, our creation, humanity. Let's God-up, save our Earths' growth; place progress afore our pride.
Every time i watch this channel i get an "Gospel to Israeli" commercial
@Auld Lang Syne Go figure why would they. They want you dead and it is all the Elites. They are at war with you and you don't know it yet.
Do not discount the Gospel according to Paul. Paul was the instrument Jesus used to reach the non-Jews- That is, the Gentiles, the Pagans, Barbarians. This made possible salvation through the blood atonement of Jesus, to anyone who had faith in Christ. Without Paul, we would have everyone thinking that in order to be saved through Christ, we must first be converted to follow the laws of Moses, be converted to Judaism and become a practicing Jew. Let's not forget that in Judaism, even today, they do not acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. They are still waiting for their Messiah.
Good episode Derek, and Dr. Tabor!
The life of people in the Old Testament were not govern, by the Jewish constitution so the Christians need not to be forced to keep it 💯
The church settled that
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Shared via Bible KJV
Paul met the resurrected Jesus Christ Acts chapter 9
Paul had constructive arguments when making different points, like to the Jew in general one could respect them to win some of them
Abraham became righteous, before circumcision and the constitution of Israel and anyone who are not Jewish and believe in Jesus Christ are justified by faith like Abraham
Time passing away in the general sense would be that things and times change with passing times, we can't conclude that Paul was against living, Marriage and having a good life, like an adult act differently from when in childhood
The Old Testament have a lot of disagreement,like some can't agree how much Bones in the Human body and philosophy or the love for wisdom or knowledge are different in certain aspects
The church, Paul and others are one in Christ, because Paul said the church has many members with different gifts and write about the love and unity of the church, don't divide Paul and Peter with a little bit of information about their dispute, Jesus had that with his disciples too and set them right ✅
John chapter 14 had examples of that & other places too !!!
Delving into Acts to find an authentic Paul is an exercise in absurdity. To say that a real Paul went here and did that and said this that and the other, makes only marginally more sense than relating that the Owl and the Pussycat " ... sailed away, for a year and a day,
to the land where the Bong-Tree grows and there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood with a ring at the end of his nose ...". Much of Paul's journeys sound like the Voyages of Sinbad and are probably just as historical.
Quite.
It almost reads like somebody’s self-insert fanfiction.
Quite true. Acts is even more obviously fictional than the gospels.
It’s pretty evident that there was a hard split in Paul’s case even by Acts 23:6, because instead of blurting out that he was a convert to Christianity, he insisted rather that he was a Pharisee. And Christ warns his followers to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 16, and that Pharisees make procelites twice the child of hell than themselves in Matthew 23:15 and that unless our righteousness is greater than that of Scribes and Pharisees we won’t enter his kingdom in Matthew 5: a complaint Christ blasts the Scribes and Pharisees over in Matthew 23:13 again quite openly, because they hinder the work of his kingdom in that respect. Paul could have stuck with his original plan back in Acts 21, insisting that he was ready to die for the cause and leaving no one the wiser that he was pretending, but when push really came to shove he chose to divert from that plan in Acts23:6, blurting out he is a Pharisee, and the Pharisees a couple verses later embrace him back into their fold.
But in 2Cor 12:7, it is Paul’s admission to having a “messenger of Satan” that really seems to be something of a problem. If true Apostles in Luke 9:1 were given power by Christ over all devils, not merely a few devils, and Paul was claiming to be an apostle, then why was he being buffeted by a “messenger of Satan” that God refused to take away from him in 2Cor 12:7-10? Was God trying to expose for us in that instance that Paul was a fraud claiming to be an apostle? And was saying that his grace was sufficient for Paul, leaving him high and dry with no remedy to this problem with his “messenger of Satan”, God’s way of saying that Paul’s ideas of grace saving people are equally fraudulent. Because Christ never teaches anywhere that man is saved by grace, and this idea was never really a teaching in Christianity until Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him.
But, on what authority does Paul claim to be an apostle is at the heart of Paul’s problems. We know the twelve original apostles are hand chosen by Christ in the gospels, and we know that Mathias was chosen to replace Judas Escariot to fulfill a prophetic psalm according to Peter in Acts chapter 1. In fact, an apostle, according to Peter in Acts 1, must have been someone who was a witness of the ministry of Christ from the beginning, something Paul admits in 1 Cor 15 to be late to the party of being born out of due season, further calling the legitimacy of his claims to being an apostle into serious question. But, neither Christ, nor any of the twelve actual apostles ever claims that Paul is an apostle.Not even at Paul’s conversion: a story he can’t seem to keep straight between Acts 9 and Acts 26. Instead Paul claims he was converted by a voice from a bright light claiming to be Jesus, but never actually saw who it was talking with him. That is curious, being that Paul in 2Cor 11:13-15 himself warns us, while defending his own apostleship to the Corrinthians no doubt, that Satan can transform into an angel of light and that his ministers can also appear to be ministers of righteousness.
2Co 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Gee, what would Paul know about all that, seeing that he was approached by a bright light at his conversion and has a “messenger of Satan” by his own admissions? What Paul says above just provides us with more reason to be suspicious about Paul.
2Co 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
But, was Paul one of these ministers of Satan with his “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7? What would possess God to give an apostle a “messenger of Satan” when Christ in Luke 9:1 gives his true apostles power over all devils? Clearly, Paul’s story runs aground at this point and has serious issues that most Christians aren’t even taking into account. And if Revelation 21 is any indication of how many apostles there are, seeing that the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed on the twelve foundations of the city, then anyone else like Paul running around claiming to be an apostle is simply a liar.
So, who was it really that was behind Paul’s so called conversion in Acts 9, or was Paul simply an infiltrator as his admission to being a Pharisee in Acts 23:6 and his “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7 suggests?
As for the Jewish converts taking issue with Paul’s attacks on Moses and the law in Acts 21, it is evident that Paul eventually admits in 2Tim 1:15 that all in Asia, the Roman province of Asia where the seven churches of Revelation 1-3 reside, departed from Paul by Paul’s own admission.
2Ti 1:15
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
This is curious, because when Christ comes back to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, he doesn’t rebuke any of them for rejecting Paul. Instead, he praises the church of Ephesus for trying those who say they are apostles and are not, but are found to be liars. Then he warns them to repent and to do the first works, a teaching directly opposed to Paul’s teaching to the same Ephesians in Ephesians 2:8-9, where Paul insists we are saved by grace through faith and “not of works”. So, why would Christ come back and insist they repent and do the first works, unless Christ was pleased with them for trying false apostles like Paul and was correcting the damage Paul taught among them with his substitute grace theology? Because the promise to this church is that if they follow this advice and overcome, they will have right to the tree of life. It’s the same promise Christ offers to commandment keepers in Revelation 22:12-14, seeing that in verse 15 it is everyone else who is stuck outside the city with no access to the tree of life.
👍👍👍👍👍
(edited) Great analogy, with one small excemption about Peter. It appears that Acts was written by Luke who is said to have been a compaion of Paul.
However Luke is not present during these events in Acts. So it stands to reason that most likely Acts is recorded by Luke accordingly to Paul's testimony.
Thus "... Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him" may be based upon Paul's version of things and not Peter's version.
It appears we don't have Peter's separate testimony on anything of this. Even 1st and 2nd Peter is consider frauds among many modern scholars.
@@KeepingWatch95
KeepingWatch95
KeepingWatch95
2 days ago
(edited) Great analogy, with one small excemption about Peter. It appears that Acts was written by Luke who is said to have been a compaion of Paul.
However Luke is not present during these events in Acts. So it stands to reason that most likely Acts is recorded by Luke accordingly to Paul's testimony.
Thus "... Paul arrives on the scene in Acts 15, where Paul evidently convinced Peter to head off in that direction with him" may be based upon Paul's version of things and not Peter's version.
-----You might be on to something there. I always had a problem with the conclusion reached in Acts 15, because for centuries prior there was never a problem with Gentiles being circumcised into the Old Covenant, and God had already in Isaiah 56 told us that he would give those who kept his Sabbath a name better than sons and daughters, showing that those old laws were meant for far more than the Jews only. But, Paul didn’t want the Gentiles rising above the Jews, because that would guarantee christ’s threat to take the kingdom away from the Jews and give it to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof would mean that christ knew many Gentiles would be better at obeying god’s law than the jews themselves. So, by keeping the Gentiles out of the original covenant, Paul would be aiming to cut Christ’s prophetic words off at the pass there. And fortifying that aim with his antilaw, grace theology would only further push Gentiles to seek to be saved in their sins, rather than from their sins, through meaningless grace entitlements. Yet, Lucifer makes war with commandment keepers in Revelation 12:17 and Christ only lets commandment keepers into the city to gain access to the tree of life in Revelation 22:12-16, so the first church council should have been emphasizing commandment keeping first and foremost, placing the Gentiles on the correct side of the war effort against Lucifer in line with Isaiah 8:20’s earlier warning from God.-------
It appears we don't have Peter's separate testimony on anything of this. Even 1st and 2nd Peter is consider frauds among many modern scholars.
-------Given that Peter supposedly defended Paul in those epistles, I am not one to disagree that they are likely fraudulent. I think the Peter defense there has been the real cause for why most Christians are afraid to give Paul any honest scrutiny. It’s about as bad as Hebrews 8’s misplacement of the New Covenant which is in direct rejection of numerous prophecies of the Old Testament like Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. The new Covenant wording prohibits it from being in force when the Gospel commission is going on, for example, because under the New Covenant we are not supposed to be teaching everyone to know God, because everyone from the least to the greatest already knows him when the New Covenant is in force. So, today, we have a bunch of Christians running around teaching about god to new converts, pretending they are under the New Covenant. What a disaster that has been. Then they call it a new Covenant of Grace, pretending they are not under the law anymore, because they didn’t read that under the New Covenant the law will be written in their heart. How can they not be under the law, if it is written in their hearts? To make such a claim would cause their own heart to condemn them if they were under the New Covenant.
@@coreybray9834 ✔👍😊
"Acts 15 is accurate..."
Well, there's a first time for everything.
Please listen...I explain and qualify :-)
@@JamesTaborVideos I will have time to listen further tomorrow. I do not think the epistles are letters, I do not think that Paul wrote them all. I think they are a collection of church 'doctrin' put together after the right fact.
Re Acts: the whole of Acts reads like a made up story and was the first example I used in discussions with my uncle The Revenend Michael Massey, when he's was alive....
@@jonathonjubb6626 No problem Jonathan. Ignore my comment. I was assuming certain things in terms of baseline, and then a critical analysis of contents. I qualified my use of the phrase you quote for several minutes after.
There's very little in Acts that's accurate, and Acts 15 & 21 are the most likely to be
11:00 No, that's not odd. They eat the blood of Jesus offered to God.That's why they are against eating blood offered to idols.
That's crazy! They didn't eat blood, period. The eucharist in the Didache has an entirely different meaning that it does in 1 Corinthians or the Gospels and has nothing to do with a pretended cannibalism of the sacrificed Jesus.
Re: eating of blood, that was a part of the covenant God gave to Noah, thus pre law of Moses, and thus not fulfilled by Jesus
nothing is fulfilled by jesus
I still call my history teacher from high school (1974) Mr Compton! I can’t call him Jimmy to save my life.
My Histoy teacher was Paul Enis, His door said P.Enis.We called him d@&k head. Funny thought after many years.
Naw, I don't think Paul "broke away" as such. In a way he did, but more like someone barging ahead & demanding that they either follow him or be left behind & seen as stupid! And they did follow him! He was so bombastic in & about his beliefs, that timid , self-doubting Peter came under his authority. The rebuke Peter got from him in Gal.2, was hectic! Just because Peter got up to great James' men (probably of the Circumcision Group), and possibly explain to them what was happening, Paul climbs into him. AND, he gossips it to the Galatians as telling them and doing it "for their freedom"!
We see in 2 Pet.3:15-16 that Peter tries hard to defend BOTH Torah PLUS Paul, which is actually not possible without evading issues. And that's exactly what Peter did, by calling Paul's writings "difficult to understand". Classic evading tactic! He's like an estate agent pretending to benefit both the seller & the buyer, but actually only working for his own pocket!
Remember, the events described in Gal.1-2 by Paul, are described in Acts 9-11 supposedly by Luke.
In Gal.5:12, Paul is so hot against circumcision that he belittles the practice by saying, "If someone lets himself be circumcised, let him go all the way then & castrate himself!" But it should make us wonder why he circumcised Timothy only a little later in Acts 16:3, "because of the Jews"??!!!
In Gal.2, he is so adamant about "false brothers infiltrating" their ranks to "spy on their freedom", freedom to not circumcise converts.
You know the drill: when someone is over-confident about his beliefs, others who think that person knows more than them, are inclined, even obliged, to follow that person... even if they're wrong. The less confident person is overpowered by the charisma of the one claiming to know so much, whether academically, or - as in Paul's case - "by revelation". Oh, he claimed to know Scripture academically, too, but he misquoted left, right and center. In fact, he misquoted all 8 passages he mentions in Rom.10, e.g., by changing good news about the return from exile (Isa.52) into supposed good news about Jesus; replacing The Word in our hearts & mouths which makes Torah easy to keep and results in good life on earth (Deut.30:11-20), with Jesus in our hearts & mouths for eternal life in heaven; adding a line between Isa.65:1 & 2 so that it looks like the nice verse is about the church, and the rebuke is about Israel; and the most profound: quoting only a line or two from Deut.32:21 (and vs.35 in Rom.12:19) and making as if it is a prophecy about the church being raised up in order to make Jews jealous and want to join them for salvation because of the freedom they have, whereas the rest of Deut.32:21 & vs.27 calls them a "foolish no-nation enemy", and vs.27-43 tells of their evil character & root & teaching; tells us that their rock (god) is not like the Rock of Israel; God tells Israel to rid themselves of false rocks, and finally tells of His vengeance against them, "Rejoice, O nations, for He will avenge the blood of His servants; He will take vengeance on His enemies and make atonement for His land & people".
Since Jesus said he would built his church upon either Peter or upon the statement Peter made about Jesus being Messiah, it seems that Jesus missed it and built his church, rather, upon Paul, thus making his prophecy untrue... although Catholics consider Peter to be the 1st pope.
And when you see that the very next generation - Peter's disciple Clement, and John's disciples Polycarp & Ignatius - are even more Greek-minded and less Hebrew-minded than them, just one generation later... and, how the church for 2000 years persecuted & force-converted Jews, and all branches still want to convert Jews today, I don't see that Jesus bore good fruit at all! The church is bad fruit, through & through!
Love it when you have real scholars like Dr. Tabor on the show … not so much when you don’t, so keep it up. Thanks for a great episode!
So happy I’m not alone on this
James and Peter were thick and ordinary. Paul was far more educated than them both. If it wasn't for him, Christianism would have never ascended as a religion.
what do we know about james and peter from history?
A really interesting discussion. Thanks Derrek and thanks "Dr. Tabor" :-)
Peter, Paul and Mary were always harmonized!
Puff ! The Magic Dragon who lives by the Sea 😅
there was no beef... no conflict... the only conflict is perceived by spiritless evaluation-->
[2Pe 3:16 KJV] 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
If you trust Peter so much.. didn't Peter choose Mathias 12 apostle? Acts 1: 26
.. who is supposed to take the gospel to gentiles.. ? Acts 15: 7.. Galatians 2 : 7- 8
.. 1 Corinthians 9 : 2..
2 Corinthians 12 : 16
Romans 3 : 7
@@inthenamemosthigh the SAME gospel came thru PETER FIRST...-->(to the jew FIRST then the greek(cornelius))
Acts 11
17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
It is obvious that you completely believe everything Paul said was given to him by Jesus in the revelation. You have forgotten that Paul was trying to get Jews to go back to Judaism. Paul did this by making the Christian church a gentile only church. To me Paul's letters are always trying make the Christian church undesirable to all Jews. This has always bothered me that Christian churches teach Paul's Christianity, not Jesus and definitely no what the Apostles understood Jesus teachings. Paul convinced everyone that Jesus appeared to Him and taught him the real Christian beliefs. Martin Luther saw a saint when he almost got hit by lightning. Maybe Paul did hear a voice that he believed was Jesus, but you must remember that Paul only interest is to lead Jews away from Christianity.
My comment is for Dr. Tabor.
9:08 "I know you were with him (Jesus) a long time ago" This is unbelievable that a trained scholar can still peddle such duplicity. Paul never says anything like this, anywhere & Tabor would know that! Not only does Paul not say anything like this he never hints or alludes in any way that he thinks anybody saw, heard or hung out with Jesus on earth. No one in return ever says to Paul that they saw, heard or hangout with Jesus or even that they knew some one else who did. Paul reports zero eyewitness testimony and confirms only scripture & revelation as a way of knowing anything about Jesus. This is the sand that modern historicists build their shabby mansions on. It's time for scholars to stop spouting this nonsense.
At 20:40 it gets very interesting, because he explains that Paul was telling Jewish Christian’s they did not need to follow the Jewish laws because the end was near.
This interesting because some of these Jewish Christian’s started to die and it is my understanding that Paul was challenged about this.
Yeah!!
Yeah way or Yeah no way. LOL
Thank you…for stirring and thought provoking
Who is Paul? is he even met Jesus? What's Quranic perspective about him?
Paul is only jew who used to persecuted the follower of Jesus. Quran implicitly told us who he was.
The disciples of Jesus are called Alhawariyyun in Quran. Quran 5:112 says that the disciples are asking the food in the Last Supper. There was no Paul there of course. Hence, he is not one of the disciples.
Quran 3:50 says "And confirming what was before me (Jesus) of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you." Jesus respected Torah. He made lawful some of Torah Law. He didnt condemn the Torah at all. Not like what Paul said about Torah.
Quran 9:31 says "They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary." What does the verse means? Prophet Muhammad has explained it in hadith. According to a tradition, when Adi bin Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him), who was formerly a Christian, came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the intention of understanding Islam, he asked several questions in order to remove his doubts. One of these was: “This verse accuses us of taking our scholars and monks as our lords. What is its real meaning. For we do not take them as our lords.”
As a reply to this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) put him a counter question: “Is it not a fact that you accept as unlawful what they declare to be unlawful, and lawful what they declare to be lawful?” Adi confessed, “Yes, it is so.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, “This amounts to making them your lords.” Incidentally, this tradition shows that those who themselves set limits to the lawful and the unlawful without the authority of Allah’s Book, assume for themselves the rank of godhead, and those who acknowledge their right of making laws take them as their lords.
Then, who make law beside GOD and Jesus? Of course Paul did it.
Quran 5:41 says, "Among the jews, they are avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah."
It seems quite same with what Paul said in Galatia 1:6-10.
"we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Since, Paul was jews, he might be the liars.
QS 4:159 says "And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death."
It means, the ones who believe in Jesus before Jesus' death, is among the people of scripture.
Paul didnt believe in Jesus while Jesus alive, so he might be not the people of scripture.
It is my point of view relating Paul according to Quran.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus choose Peter to built his church, not Paul.
Remember Matthew 7:15-27. Beware !
I was waiting for a discussion of Paul undergoing a "Nazirite Vow" and admitting to Peter, James and John that he WAS preaching contrary to them. Paul was a bit of a braggart, saying he suffered more floggings, nearer to death, jailed more, than others; that he claimed he was the First Apostle, appointed before his birth. My next comment has nothing to do (or maybe it does) with the conflict between Peter, James, John and Paul: that the "thorn in my side" was all the problems he was having with the Jerusalem leaders and their correcting what they saw as errant teaching. That is my opinion only, not based on anything beyond a wild-assed guess.
I don’t understand accepting Paul at his word. He is a bullshitter.
He based his whole philosophy on a “revelation” which, for years, he didn’t care to confirm with the people who supposedly were with Jesus throughout his ministry.
A common Pauline contradiction:
Flattery?
1 Thessalonians 1 - You are chosen by god and your faith is famous.
1 Thessalonians 2:5 We never used flattery.
There are many of these
Absolutely a bullshitter. By his own admission, he was law observant when around the Jews then lawless when around the Gentiles (reminds me of politicians).
@@michellechalmers8753
Because he was an Israelite who followed the laws that had become like a way of life in the Jewish community.
However, he believed Gentiles didn’t have to observe the Law to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
After all, the Gentiles were never meant to follow the laws of the Israelites.
Even in Judaism today, the Jews would tell you that Gentiles don’t need to convert to Judaism to follow their laws, but they can simply follow the “7 Noahide Laws” to be saved.
I believe that the story of Saul/Paul started from Luke 18:9-22:30 I believe both Saul, the self righteous pharisee, and Zacchaeus, the tax collector- both sinners in different ways, were there, and due to his short size, Zacchaeus could only listen, but not able to see Jesus, due to the crowd, which got him up the sycamore tree, to get a glimpse of who has been teaching, and he also must have heard the discourse between Jesus and the rich young ruler (Saul/Paul). This prompted him to offer to give half of his goods to the poor, etc. Both of them were touched, but it took Saul longer to humble himself, and Jesus even bided him some time to dispose of his worldly riches and then "follow" Him. Luke 18:22.
Jesus then began to talk about His death because He had completed bringing together, His desciples, all His sheep were in the fold at last John 10:16,27,28. (This "eternal life" must have caught his attention).
Saul's story actually spanned the 18th and 19th chapters of Luke. He was the self-righteous pharisee, and Zachaeus was the humble guy. That was why their story ran side by side. Jesus Christ really came to seek and to save that which was "lost" indeed 19:10! "Son of sorrow," becoming son of "His right hand" ". Showing the immense grace to be revealed to Jews and the nations through him, a very good epitome of a grace recipient. The more reason he recognized by referring to Jesus Christ as "Lord...", (no longer as just "master") in acts 9, when he was knocked down from his high horse- so to speak, and became a grain of corn that fell to the ground, that would on towards, bring for fruit abundantly.
You know all he said was speculation. Educated speculation. But speculation nonetheless.
And?
@@FatMenace he presents his speculations as facts. A nice clean narrative that follows A to B to C. He inserts his own modern interpretation of why there were discrepancies between acts and Paul’s letters. But before going into that, these manuscripts were fucked with, cut pasted, anonymous authors, and who-knows-what over how long. Any discussion should start with a heavy disclaimer and apologies then the speculation can begin.
@@SkepticalBrother an objective analysis of the evidence is hardly speculation.
I’m excited! I’ve read the book, let’s see the video!
Paul sounds like the Elon Mus of the Bible
Tabor says that James believed that Jesus was raised from the dead but we don't have any first hand written evidence that James believed that James believed that or taught that.
Thank God for the apostle Paul. My goodness the revelations. That the gates of hell cannot prevail against. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. Oh hallelujah!
There is only ONE law as per Yahuah and that law is for all mankind: 'One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. ' - Numbers 15:16 and 'One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. '- Exodus 12:49. If you follow Yahuah, you have to keep Torah. It's the Torah that EVERYONE gets judged by in the end.
I’ve been wondering, In revelation who is the 12th judge of the tribes, Matthias or Paul?
Coming from Hebert Armstrongs legalistic cult The Worlswide Church of God now defunct and transformed from those shackles… Paul’s letter Galatians is so practical for those who worship now in spirit and truth rather than tradition, form and function. Jesus! Thank you SO much for your servant Paul and like FFH one of these days….I’ll sit with him and learn all the things I didn’t know but through a glass darkly now..
Circumcision is over done. Babies are circumsized. The neighborhood throws a big party and a band plays while the baby cries for a couple of hours.It is no big deal. Before sunset the baby is sleeping and tommorow it to s scabbed up. Abraham was 100 yrs old when he was circumsized.What is the problem?
I'm with Dr. Tabor in his idea that there was an unsolvable schism between Paul, James, and Peter, probably later in Paul's ministry. Remember that according to Luke Acts, Paul went to Rome and spent two years there under 'house arrest', so he was very far away from Jerusalem later in his life, and preached to the Jews in Rome just 3 days after he arrived. These were probably Greek speaking Jews who had more liberal interpretations of the law and Torah, which fit Paul perfectly. Paul saw his mission to be gear toward the Gentiles and appealed to them by softening the requirements to be a follower of Jesus from their Jewish origin into a form that would be appealing to a wider audience. So, once he started his trip to Rome, he likely never visited Jerusalem again or met with James and Peter. His focus now was on getting the Gentiles into the fold.
You may have missed it but Paul went for 3 years into Arabia where he was taught by Christ. Paul only taught what was revealed to him by the Lord.
You all seem to miss there are no monuments to indicate a Jesus in the first 300 years of archeology strata confirming what history we are told today. What we have is fiction & religious tourism.
Are you high?????
The minority apocalyptic Jewish Nazarene sect of the Way was overwhelmed by all the gentiles and the doctrinal path that was becoming prevalent through Paul’s ministry.
Yes but what is meant by “the end of the world” ?
I'd love to a see a discussion between James Tabor and Robert Eisenman on the so-called James ossuary and the alleged Talpiot grave of the family of Jesus. What's Tabo's take on the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus.
I have always found it extremely odd that Matthew (Levi) who was actually with Jesus, says that Jesus told us that in order to reach Heaven, we have to follow all of the laws of Moses without changing even a pen stroke until the end of time. Paul, who never met Jesus, tells us that we only have to accept Jesus as the savior.
Mark 7:19 "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.”
In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.
So, you want to say that Jesus was breaking the Law of Moses?? Cause this was a part of the Ceremonial Law and Jews were obliged to follow it.
The Law of Moses was FULFILLED through Jesus' sacrifice in order for Christianity to begin.
Christians are saved by the Grace of YHWH, through Jesus' sacrifice by faith in Him.
@@MultiSky7 I didn't say it, you did. Your "infallible word of god" seems to be somewhat fallible, no?
Titus was also an Israelite he just aquired the customs and traditions of the nation he was borned in.
Wouldn't his name (James) be Ya'acob? From my own studies, the "v" in modern Hebrew comes from the Ashkenazi who lived in Eastern Europe? I'm definitely open to being wrong, but I've heard it pronounced both ways, with the "b" pronunciation being the more ancient of the two.
I can't find the exact reply I read earlier in this video but I'll post it here in the main comments because my last sentence brings Paul and Peter into agreement: the resurrected, ascended, and glorified Christ is the "Head" of the ekklesia - not Peter, the man. Peter received a revelation from the Father... "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The revelation itself ("this Rock", Jesus' words referring to Himself) is the Rock upon which the ekklesia is built. Remember, too, that, shortly before Peter's revelation, that Jesus called Peter "Satan"... so Peter, the weak, blind, sinful, impetuous man, cannot be the head of anything. Certainly he was among the first believers, but it is a serious error to elevate him to headship. Peter was a "perfect" believer prototype of the ups and downs believers / disciples must inherently live through their entire lives as the necessary process by which we are transformed into "living stones" for God's building (Peter's words, 1 Pet. 2:5), a "habitation of God, in spirit", (Paul's words, Eph. 2:22).
would like to know after Paul's experience on his way to Damascus her went to Arabia he stayed there for three years what did he do there
He hid in a cave near Mecca and Gabriel appeared to him, saying "Write!", just like he appeared to Muhammad about 600 years later
@@edwardmiessner6502You thought you did something didn't you? The first revealed verse to the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was not "write".
There is Christianity, which is based on the Gospels and there is Paulianity which is based on the writing of Paul.
What up Tabo(e)r
_Paul fails to follow Jesus' sayings, teachings and instructions._
_Paul proclaims (in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) I am “ordained/appointed” to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher._
*1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.*
*2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.*
_For those that do not read or follow Jesus' commandments closely, the error(s) in what Paul has proclaimed can be easy to overlook._
_Here are some of Jesus's commandments:_
*Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, Christ; and all ye are brethren.*
*Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.*
*Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, Christ.*
(Matthew 23:8 & 10 Master,G2519) καθηγητής From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master.
Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: *for one is your [Teacher], Christ; and all ye are brethren.*
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.*
_In Matthew 23:8 Jesus makes it clear he is the one Teacher (for one is your [Teacher], Christ)_
_In Matthew 23:10 Jesus makes it clear to neither be called teachers (Neither be ye called [teachers])._
_Also in verse 10 Jesus repeats what he had just said in verse 8. (...for one is your [Teacher], Christ)_
_Paul fails to keep Jesus' commandment “neither be ye called [teachers]...” even (in the same verse and in conjunction) as he proclaims himself to be an apostle._
_In other words; Paul is breaking Jesus' commandment not to be called teacher(s) at the same time as declaring himself as an apostle._
*1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.*
_Paul repeats this claim as an apostle and a teacher in 2 Timothy 1:11._
*2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.*
_Once again Paul is breaking Jesus' commandment not to be called teacher(s) all while claiming himself to be an apostle._
_Furthermore in 2 Timothy Paul proclaims; _*_“ Whereunto I am appointed...”_*
*#1 Question:* _Who had appointed Paul “a teacher;” after Jesus had instructed not to be called such; in_ Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.*
_Paul claims likewise in 1 Timothy 2:7 _*_Whereunto I am ordained..._*
Moreover *#1 Question:* _Who (against Jesus' commandment of (Matt __23:10__) not to be called a teacher) “ordained” and or “appointed” Paul as “a teacher?”_
_None of Jesus' disciples would have had the authority to break any of Jesus' commandments, and to go and “ordained” or “appointed” Paul as “a teacher.”_
*_#2 Question:_*_ Or is it perhaps, we are to believe that Jesus broke his own commandment and came to Paul privately (came to him secretly as it were) and “ordained” and “appointed” Paul as “a teacher” against Jesus' own commandment?_
*_#3 Question_*_ Or worst, should we assume that God “ordained” and “appointed” Paul as “a teacher” against Jesus' commandment? However If this were true (being beforehand Jesus declared he is our one Teacher; for one is your Teacher, Christ) this would mean God “ordained” and “appointed” Paul in the position of an Antichrist (which means in the place of Christ or instead of Christ.)_
_The above questions are mere speculations which seemingly can not fit as explanations as to Paul's claims._
_The important fact to remember is; for in effort to conform with Paul's statements (found in 1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:11) it is of a necessity to break Jesus' commandment; _*_Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ._*
_Paul's statements in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy break Jesus' commandment. Thus does not follow Jesus' teachings and Paul is a usurper of his self claimed position of teacher of the Gentiles._
Interesting
@@chad969 Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: *for one is your [Teacher], Christ; and all ye are brethren.*
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:10 *Neither be ye called [teachers]: for one is your [Teacher], Christ.*
_In Matt 23:8 to 10 Jesus gives 4 instructions/commandments. Paul comes usurping positions of authority and breaks 3 of the 4._
@@chad969 _Jesus foretold of false Christ and false prophets would come. Paul came in fulfillment._
@@KeepingWatch95 Definitely a hard one to reconcile. I did a concordance search for that greek word "διδάσκαλος" and a verse came up that I'd be curious to get your thoughts on. In Matthew 10:25 Jesus says
_It is enough for students to be like their teachers (διδάσκαλος), and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!_
Here it looks like Jesus is using the word "teachers" to refer to people other than himself. It also seems (maybe I'm wrong) that Jesus is speaking approvingly of students having teachers (plural) other than himself. I'm wondering why he would say that if he's the only teacher and he doesn't want other people to be referred to as teacher.
@@KeepingWatch95 Or maybe Jesus is only speaking about Beelzebul and "the members of his household" in that context? Idk
Yes, this is an Amazing Interview. Beautiful!
it would have been tricky for new gentile believers as having turned their backs on pagan idolatry, they were no longer fish nor fowl. what should a male christ believer do in the early church if they fell in love with an observant jewish believer? Such complex questions are not answered. We have so much missing in terms of context of the very earliest jesus movement apart from the new testament texts. we have little contemporary documents to aid us.