I think the versus on women remaining silent is an interpolation. If you take out the verses on women, the letter flows perfectly. The entire thrust of the letter is about speaking in tongues (discouraged) versus prophesying (encouraged) in an orderly manner. What does "Or are you the only ones it has reached" have to do with women speaking? You could ask the same of men. He's talking about speaking orderly: "If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. " You also don't mention that in some manuscripts, those verses are added at the end.
Thank you for making this comment! Marcus Borg in his book "The First Paul" writes exactly the same thing, and once you see it, you can't unsee it. That passage was clearly added later. I do highly recommend Borg's book, it goes very much in depth about the "different Pauls" we meet in these letters, and shows very compelling evidence and reasoning that the "First Paul" was quite a radical Jesus-follower, whose teachings were so 'revolutionary' that they had to be toned down by later additions to his texts. After all, Paul was executed. Why would he have to be executed if he told his followers to not make waves and behave according to the existing rules of society?
If 1Thess was written around 50CE, then *to what is the "But God's wrath has come upon them at last" referring?* The conflict with Rome that destroyed the temple is still several years away.
The sentence may be literally translated thus: “…but the wrath has-anteceeded upon them for-the-outworking-of a-goal” Romans 11.2b-5 and 7-10 addresses (in my judgement) the exact same situation, elaborating on ethnic Israels spiritual blindness to the gospel, which God himself has caused as a consequence of their opposition to and rejection of the gospel of God, as it was evangelized in word and deed by Jesus, and afterwards by his representatives (the apostles). “Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal’ - SO TOO, AT THE PRESENT TIME there is a remnant chosen by grace. … What then? What Israel seeks for, that he has not obtained; but the election has obtained [it], and the rest have been blinded, in alignment with how it has been written, God has given to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, unto this day. And David says, ‘Let their table be for a snare, and for a gin, and for a fall-trap, and for a recompense to them ‘let their eyes be darkened not to see, and bow down their back always’. Psalm 68 LXX (69 MT) which Paul quotes from here, proceeds immediately to call down God’s wrath upon those who persecuted the Christ-figure in the Psalm. We know that Paul saw this Psalm as a prophecy about the Christ-event and what was to happen afterwards, because he quotes from it in Romans 15 as if David had foreseen Jesus sufferings. Thus the blindness and their present status as ‘enemies of the gospel’ is evidence that ‘wrath has anteceeded upon them’. But do take note that it is ‘eis telos’ which can be translated as ‘for-outworking-of a goal’. If so, what might that goal be? As so often before in the Jewish scriptures, the outpouring of God’s wrath on ethnic Israel has ultimately a healing purpose. Paul explains that purpose as a mystery in Romans 11: all Israel will be saved. That is my current take on 1 Thess 2.16
Paul actually says that ‘the wrath has anteceeded upon them UNTO an outcome/goal’ without specifying if that outcome/goal is imagined to be destruction or a turnaround to life ‘in Christ’. The gospel of John 3.36 reads: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath REMAINS UPON them” Paul’s concept of wrath (when not speaking directly of judgement day) is, I think, the same as implied by the quote from gJohn. Wrath is the default condition. It is being separated from Christ. Theologically speaking, the divine wrath is not evident in external afflictions. It is rather evident in a hardening of hearts and a blindness of the mind, which results when human beings rejects God’s truth, and chooses to oppose it. Wrath, as Paul defines it, is when God hands over people to their evil desires in a hardening and blinding, because of their willful rejection of his truth. This is most likely the sign of wrath being upon his kinsmen, that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Thess 2.16. I will explain this further below. I’ll avoid citing the hyperbolic language of Psalm 68 22-23 LXX (~ Psalm 69,22-23 in our bibles) which Paul used in Romans 11,7-10, in the hope that YT will not censor my response this third time. When quoting from this Psalm, Paul did not continue his quote into verses 24-26, but he surely knew how the Psalm continues (I suggest that you read the whole Psalm for yourself), and he clearly thought that it was prophetic and testified to the gospel, as we can see when he quotes from it again in Romans 15.3, making explicit that he considered this Psalm as anticipatorily written testimony to Jesus’ sufferings. In Psalm 69 verse 21, coming immediately before what Paul chooses to quote in Romans 11.8, which he introduces with ‘in alignment with how it is written’ it says: “And they gave bile for my food; and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” The Psalm continues with an invective against those who persecuted the suffering figure. The phrase: “The wrath has anteceeded upon them unto a goal” is a wooden translation of the last sentence in 1 Thess 2.16. It expresses what was evident to Paul, not because of a physical national disaster, but because the vast majority of his own kinsmen were spiritually blinded, rendered unable to receive the gospel from God, opposing God’s final messengers (Paul and his co-workers and the other apostles) at the time when Paul wrote his letters. I am fully aware that translating ‘eis telos’ as ‘for-outworking-of a-goal’ may be viewed as idiosyncratic, but it ought not be so. The outpouring of God’s wrath on his people in past times was always with a goal to heal them again. Examples are Isaiah 57.16-19 LXX and Hosea 14:1-4 LXX. Psalm 6.1 LXX also considers Gods wrath as a disciplinary measure. Furthermore, Paul often used ‘telos’ to mean a goal or an outcome. One well known example where ‘telos’ is being used by Paul to mean ‘a goal’, and that goal is being defined as the outworking (eis) of rigtheousness in Christ, is Romans 10.4. Another example is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where Jesus’ current reign will reach it’s intended goal/outcome: “then [comes] the goal (telos), when he shall hand over the Kingdom to the God the Father .. and be in subjection to Him.. so that God may be all in all.” A final important example is 2 Corinthians 3.13-14 which is verbally the closest to 1 Thessalonians 2.16, and reads: “and [we are] not as Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own face, for the sons of Israel not stedfastly to look into the outworking of the goal (‘eis to telos’) of-that-which is-being-made-void (‘καταργουμένου’), but their minds were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn -- which in Christ is-made-void (καταργεῖται).” Observe how being ‘in Christ’ in 3.14 removes the hardening/blinding (veil) and how it relates to ‘eis to telos’ in 3.13. Paul shortly thereafter restates that a blinding/veiling of the mind evident at the reading of Torah is taken away when a perso turns to Christ. Paul is here stating that God’s intended goal/aim (telos) of the ministry of the Mosaic covenant is ultimately to fade away, and be replaced with ‘being in Christ’. This is exactly the same goal (telos) Paul defines for Torah (nomos) in Romans 10.4. The ‘coming-to-nothing’ (katargeo) refers in context to the former and diminishing glory of the old covenant ministry - it’s purpose being a replacement with God’s rigtheousness ‘in Christ’. Being ‘in Christ’ is for Paul synonymous with ‘the outworking of the purpose/goal (eis to telos). The temporary condition of ‘spiritual blindness’ to the new covenant glory is actually the doing of the God of Israel himself - who is ‘this aeons God’ (2 Cor 4.4) because he is making both his salvation/righteousness and his wrath known to all of mankind in this last age. In Romans Paul tries ro explain the mystery of how God is using his current wrath, intending the ultimate salvation ‘in Christ’ for his people. In the same context (Romans 11), Paul compared the present situation (11,5) to the situation with Elijah, where most of Paul’s kinsmen were bending their knees to ‘Baal’ (11.4), and were intent on killing God’s messengers (11.3) and only a small elected remnant was left - see Romans 11,2-5 and then 7-10, where Paul quotes the verses of Ps. 68.22-23. The language of the Psalm hyperbolic, like Paul’s language in 1 Thessalonians 2.15-16. The spiritual blindness, which Paul elsewhere calls ‘a hardening’ (11.25) had previously been linked with a display of wrath (9.17-23) and opoosed to faithfulness in Christ (1.17-18 - here the divine wrath is a present and opposite reality, concurrent with the rigtheousness available through the evangelization project that Paul is engaged in! For Paul, these verses were not separated but were bound up together: wrath is the opposite reality to a gospel-shaped life, and results from ‘suppression of the truth’), and was thought to have been caused by the God of Israel, who had recently sent forth the Messiah, Jesus, when the time had fully come. The current wrath was evident to Paul in and through the rejection of and opposition to God’s eschatological messengers: Jesus and his apostles, interpreted as blindness and hardening. Paul had himself been one of those who were under God’s wrath when he was still afflicting the assemblies of Christ-followers. But the wrath that was then upon Paul was ‘eis telos’ exactly as the wrath is in 1 Thesalonians 2.16. ‘eis telos’ can be translated ‘for the outworking of a goal’. That goal (telos) was Paul’s turning to Christ, enabling him to see the light of the gospel. I am certain that Paul imagined the same goal for ret rest of ethnic Israel, so that the ‘natural branches’ might be grafted back in to the eschatological reconstituted ‘Israel of God’, which is rooted ‘in Christ’. (I am using theologically loaded language with Pauline metaphors, because that reflects how Paul used language)
While I think a strong argument could be made regarding a possible partial corruption of the Corinthian text, I agree and believe Dr. Tabor that the Thessalonian text was written by Paul. But Dr. Tabor appears to be missing the more salient features of this text. His reasoning is largely based on the context of an apocalyptic Paul, but that is not the context the Thessalonian texts were written in. If I wanted to make the argument that Paul thought he would see the end of days, I wouldn’t use the Thessalonian texts to do it. The context has Paul praising his followers for keeping the faith in DIFFICULT TIMES. He is addressing converts to the Jesus movement, and their imitation isn’t the suffering they endured, it is believing and keeping the faith while suffering. Read 1 Thess 1:7, “And so you became a model to all the believers…” In 1T-1:5, Paul is referring to himself and the strong convictions that followed his conversion experience, but you have to first correctly understand Paul in order to correctly follow the context. Paul isn’t referring to the end of times in verse 16. He is explaining that the same people trying to prevent him from speaking to the Gentile masses so that they may be saved, which is the context he wrote his letters in, are the same people that crucified Jesus. Unless Dr. Tabor is trying to claim Paul thought he was actually living the apocalypse as he wrote to the Thessalonian’s, “the wrath of God is upon them” is a reference to the Gentile masses that believe in spite of all the persecution. Paul makes it clear in 1T-5:1 that he does not know the time and date of the end. IMO it is one thing to read, or even try to interpret history, but it is quite another to invent history just to sell your own dogmatic point of view. And it leaves me wondering which is more nasty, the finger that points out a blaspheme, or the lips of the blasphemer?
In his writings, and the writings attributed to him, it's impossible to come to such a conclusion. He praises Jewish people, he himself being a Jew, and he says that in Christ everyone male or female is one and should submit to one another. Tabor himself says so in this very video actually.
@@youngknowledgeseeker The title of the video appears to have changed since I posted my comment. The previous title was along the lines of “Was Paul an antisemitic woman hater?” There was some ambiguity in the wording of the title which might be why it was changed.
I'm still in favor of the 1Cor 14:34 being added; it doesn't fit very well in context. After a brief tangent on silencing women in the church, and an assertion of authority; versus 39 then picks up saying "There, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid the speaking in tongues." It is odd for Paul to say that women should not speak in church, and then seem to encourage them to prophesy in church. In any case, the main thesis of this section, which begins in earnest in verse 27 ("If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret."), seems to be saying that, basically, people should speak in an orderly way, in turn. Verse 40 concludes the section by saying "But everything should be done in a fitting an orderly way." The part of women not speaking seems to be shoed in, and then is contradicted by something five versus later. Not to mention Cor 11:5, where Paul also talks about women praying and prophesying in church. If I learned anything from great scholars like Dr. Tabor is that one cannot be certain of much when it comes to ancient texts, but I still lean towards interpolation on 1Cor 14:34.
My take is that Paul was OK with women prophesying and praying, but he didn't want women to teach or to ask questions about his teachings. Personally, this is one point of Paul's that (to me) is not congruent with what Jesus taught or how Jesus acted in his earthly life.
@@luckylunaloops I think it is the latter: Paul did not want the full-time-housekeeper wives to interrupt the speaker with uniformed basic questions. If the wives desired to be discipled/learn (the Greek verb Paul uses is 'manthanó' - the corresponding noun is 'mathētḗs': a disciple, a learner), they should instead ask their own husbands (Greek: 'idious andras') about 'basics' at home. I think the unmarried women (widows and virgins) are not included in the group Paul is talking about in 14.34-35, since they do not have 'their own husbands'.
Paul was beloved (2 Peter 3:15-16) and a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15-16). Paul led much of Asia out of idolatry (Acts 19:26) making him one of the greatest Jews of all time (Daniel 12:2-3).
Hahaha....what?... Let put the fact that Paul is a fictional character aside, just for a second... If you didn't know; Jews and Judaism is built upon the Laws found in the Torah....Now what did paul teach?...Paul totally rejects the idea of people following the laws in the Torah, so how is he a jew?
re 1 Corinthians 14, I would suggest you read Andrew Bartlett's book 'Men and Women in Christ'. As he has written elsewhere - In my book I conclude in favour of the other solution in the second group, the interpolation view: An early scribe added a comment into the margin, expressing his opinion that women should not speak at all in the assembly but should remain silent, and later scribes mistakenly inserted this comment into the text, in two different places (some after what we call v33, and some after what we call v40). The reason why I conclude in favour of this view is because it best fits the totality of the evidence.
Thank you for the book recommendation! I can also highly recommend Marcus Borg's book "The First Paul". It lays out very compelling evidence that Paul's original teachings were so radical and true to Jesus that certain scribes must have felt the need to tone them down considerably.
@@Hebrew42Day ah yes, I recently came across the very interesting Marcion character, and also across Paul Wallis' research which makes Marcion even more credible...! Fascinating stuff.
It doesn't make sense to me that Paul would accuse "the Jews" broadly of stopping him from preaching to the Gentiles when, according to Galatians he was specifically granted approval for preaching to Gentiles by his fellow Jews in Jerusalem. And your evidence that it's not interpolation is from the book of Acts?? Why is that book suddenly reliable? That seems like more evidence for it being interpolation, in an attempt to harmonize it with Acts (and Matthew). It seems likely such gospel-reading scribes felt the need to separate Paul from his Judaism within the increasingly anti-Jewish Christianity surviving in the increasingly anti-Jewish Roman Empire after 70 and 134 CE. They couldn't believe in a Paul who said that salvation was coming to the Jews first, and also believe Jesus saw those Jews as wicked tenants who deserved to be thrown out of the land so that the wedding banquet could be filled with random Gentiles and Legionaries. Because of that, scribes threw in the "they killed the son of the Lord" nonsense even though the guy was very famously crucified by Roman authorities instead of stoned to death by Jewish ones.
Paul had an extreme ideas after all, sometimes he shifted away from Jesus teachings. I would like to ask you about dead sea scrolls, were they in harmony with current teachings of priests of jews at that time. May be they were in the cave before the existence of Jesus the Christ
Women submit to their gabor (father, brother, or husband) and become private (away from society). Their understanding of the Torah and later the teachings of Yeshua are subject to the approval of their gabor. They hear the truth and the interpretation in presence in the gathering house, but they ask questions of their gabor in the privacy of their home. This was already the way it was in Judah, but Paul was teaching it to the loosed tribes of the Huse of Israel who hadn't had the Torah in 7 centuries. You can see this privacy when Paul wrote that every man should have his own woman, and every woman her idios, privacy, separation from public society.
It seems likely that interpolations will be very short when they are being inserted into the genuine letters from Paul. Scribal modifications of genuine letters would have sought to clarify or modify the meaning of views being expressed by Paul, either because the scribes didn't understand them or understood them all too well and didn't approve. For the Thessalonians passage, the modern view is that Paul was by this point in serious conflict with James and his followers over his right to preach. With this in mind perhaps we could go with the following: "... for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who drove us out and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved - so as always to fill up the measure of their sins ..." With this version, we restore the passage to the situation that Paul faced and his likely emotional state, with only two short proposed interpolations: "killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and" and "But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"
1Thes is special in that's the only letter with no cross and it's the only letter where Timothy and Silvanus may be authentic to the letter. Yet i think there is an interpolation in 1chapter 4 when the letter starts to speak about sons of light and uses the _like a thief in the night_ metaphore. Given there is allways ware somewehere some time, one has to have a specific location in mind to use the this peacetime metaphore: Jerusalem. And thus the author of this addition already lives in the late 60s or later. Here the _But god's wrath has come upon them_ equally is best explained as later addition, shifting the date now past 70, when there is peace again. Thus the editor is allready trying to extend the date of the parousia. However the authentic part of the letter looks in many ways so different from Galatians, 1Cor etc, that i think that we read the earliest extant letter even before the fallout between Paul and James. But what did Mark read when he exploited Paul? Mark clearly judges the eschatological messiah and agrees with this judgement, while the sanhedrin cannot even agree on beiographical details, all framed by Peter and the cock crow. Remember that Jesus does not know the season of figs. Mark does not know the rhetoric of the editor to 1Thes. and has no idea that the day of the Lord would come suddenly in peace time.
I think the entire Bible is “lost in translation.” Everything before the Babylonian captivity was as simple as that the Kings, Prophets, and characters of the Torah were earthly physical manifestations of God. That was the religion of the hebrews. The second temple era and Sanhedrin suppressed the first temple religion that man is God. Jesus was as simple as bringing back the ancient religion where the king is God. Man is God again. The Sanhedrin and Roman Imperial Cult did not want that ancient Hebrew religion to ever exist again. Freedom of speech did not exist then, so even mentioning the idea and history of it was illegal.
The answer is Yes. ''Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah, ' in order to gain a small price for it''. - Qur'an
Paul nowhere else says "the Jews" killed Jesus (which sounds like the "blood curse" in Matt 27:25). Paul says in Romans 8:32 that Jesus was delivered up by God, apparently as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45, cf. 4Macc 17:21-22, 6:27-29). Paul never says one of the twelve betrayed Jesus, and one might think Paul would have mentioned that. Paul knew that Jesus was crucified, and Paul knew crucifixion was a Roman means of execution for sedition. What does "God's wrath has come upon them at last" mean if not the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans for sedition? But Paul was already dead by them.
Pretty much my thoughts. Well put. I don't think the idea of Judas's betrayal existed during Paul's time either. I'm not even certain it was in the earliest drafts of Mark, as the betrayer predictions could also have referred to Peter for denying knowing Jesus. I agree that after the temple was destroyed was when those intense anti-Jewish polemics probably started working their way in, and especially after Bar Kokhba and the expulsion of the Jews and Christians from Jerusalem. That's when you start seeing the "wicked tenants" and "wedding banquet" parables about salvation not being for the people of Israel, but for literally everyone else. That's the stuff that doesn't make any sense coming from either Jesus or Paul, in my opinion.
This could have been written by paul, but the meaning could be that wrath was about to come upon them. Yet Paul, might have been writing in a prophetic sense as if it already has happened, already seeing what is going to happen. That's the way I see it.
maybe a better way to say it would be, By saying “God’s wrath has come upon them at last,” Paul could be indicating an imminent judgment that he sees as so certain that it can be spoken of as already happening.
quote: Paul nowhere else says I assume that you mean nowhere but in 1Thes. And that is true. 1Thes is the only pauline letter without cross/crucifixion, and the only one where Timothy and Silvanus appear legit. Paul is even worse. He claims that the jews killed Jesus AND (all?) the prophets. For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων, καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων, καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, What does that mean? That they (the jews of Pilate's time) killed the prophets? Why then can we read the prophets? But we cannot read Jesus teachings. This passage is so odd but it serves to paint Jesus as the prophet of the parousia, and that fits the theme of 1Thes. I see that the καὶ in v15 has a large influence. Without the kai it might read as "Jesus of the prophets" which would make much more sense. But if i read the _kai_ as original then the whole thing takes on a different meaning. It means they (the jews) rejected prophecy. And Jesus is in this case formost meant as prophet. But in that case we should be able to read Jesus prophecy as we are able to read prophets like Daniel. But i can also delete the whole _who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets_ and the sentence is even more logical. It looks like a 2ndary intrusion. Is it early? It seems Mark has read it. Mark has Jesus judged as eschatological Messiah (and Mark agrees with this judgement). The sanhedrin cannot agree on biographical details, but they judge him on the prophecy which he delivers at that moment. When Mark wrote/finished the gospel the high priest was allready dead and thus the judgement is legit. Mark here demonstrates that he deconverted from messianic eschatology. Secular late dating scholars should be more verbose about this very obvious fact in Mark. Early dating is almost impossible (Cesarea Philippi). But the interesting thing continues, because 1Thes looks like the earliest extant letter by Paul. It has no cross! And given that the cross is absent in much of christian literature (it is still lacking in 1Clement) the cross might have been the late invention coinciding with Paul introducing his blood and flesh obstacle around the eucharist table after his fallout with James (or was the fallout caused by Paul's change?)
@iwilldi I don't think Paul wrote that about the Jews and Jesus, nor that Mark saw it. That accusation of killing the prophets comes from Matthew and Luke. It also appears in that area of Luke in chapters 10-13 where there's much overlap with Matt but not Mark (meaning it's possible Q source material instead of Pauline). I think Judas might not have even been the original betrayer of Mark, because Peter also "betrays" Jesus by denying knowing him. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says the resurrected Jesus appeared to "the twelve" which logically includes Judas and any betrayers. So yeah, I think Paul wouldn't have written that especially anti-Jewish passage.
Did Paul ever quote the Father? Ever? "Thus says the LORD..."? I am sticking to those that qualify to be trusted under the Deuteronomy 18 test for a prophet. You can trust another that came in his own name, I will trust he who came in the name of the Father.
@@Plethorality Amen! Bible simply means collection of books. If I staple the US Constitution to a copy of Twilight, does it cheapen the value of the US Constitution because I bound them together?
Please let us be clear about Christianity putting all dogma and doxology aside. It is a ""Way"" to that which goes beyond the material. The ""material"" being ""carnal"" which is mainly sex, but also any form of flesh which is corruption for it rots, and of course the material world's love of money. Almost all documents in Christianity reference this is some form. I do not understand why this is not more clearly understood.
@@iuutoob I was being to demonstrative. I do understand why people do not understand because there is always an attempt to tern God into material, thus Moses commandment against ""Graven Images"".
Can I ask you to clarify "when" and "where"? There were many competing Christianities in the early centuries. If you are referring to the Jewish movements out of which these Christianities emerged, then it also seems there were different groupings, and conflicting views and objectives even within the same family.
@@digitaurus There are certain understandings that all '''Christianity''' had namely "'that there is a God"' and that "'Jesus had a resurrection"'. These understanding are not consistent with a materialists point of view, if a materialist understanding was even present. There was of course the ''real world''' that is the world of pain and tears and the "'world of God"' that is eternal bliss and joy or heaven after death. This is "material' or 'spiritual'. which is a duality that has always been part of Christianity.
@@marshalldarcy7423 Thanks. Your general point about incompatibility with a materialist point of view was true at the time for all forms of religion, was it not? I don't see anything distinctive about Christianity here. Of course, the claim that Jesus as a specific individual had a resurrection is distinctive but that kind of behaviour in general wasn't precluded in Judaism, Pagan religions and so forth.
The UK is the United Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The UK conquered the lands of Israel and Judah and established the State of Israel. Then they moved Judahites there and set up a secular Ministry to govern by. They are currently building the third temple in which the Antichrist will declare himself to be "God."
Still Paul became all things so old facts get hints of more excellent way so letters have same levels of beliefs so your trying to solve parabolic tales mental still earth elements still outside worships creations statues legends religions laws wacko only have two become one.
No, he is not. The story of Krishna was originally based on the real Yeshua, but it was corrupted on the order of Constantine. Hinduism was corrupted by Rome, much like Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Druidism were. The real Yeshua is with his followers in spirit. He has no denominations or religious organizations of men, all of which are corrupt.
I appreciate your videos, even when I have some different conclusions. You always have something worth thinking about.
I think the versus on women remaining silent is an interpolation. If you take out the verses on women, the letter flows perfectly. The entire thrust of the letter is about speaking in tongues (discouraged) versus prophesying (encouraged) in an orderly manner.
What does "Or are you the only ones it has reached" have to do with women speaking? You could ask the same of men. He's talking about speaking orderly: "If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. "
You also don't mention that in some manuscripts, those verses are added at the end.
speaking in tongues is not discouraged, rather speaking in tongues in public without interpretation.
Thank you for making this comment! Marcus Borg in his book "The First Paul" writes exactly the same thing, and once you see it, you can't unsee it. That passage was clearly added later. I do highly recommend Borg's book, it goes very much in depth about the "different Pauls" we meet in these letters, and shows very compelling evidence and reasoning that the "First Paul" was quite a radical Jesus-follower, whose teachings were so 'revolutionary' that they had to be toned down by later additions to his texts. After all, Paul was executed. Why would he have to be executed if he told his followers to not make waves and behave according to the existing rules of society?
I love all your videos Dr Tabor and look forward to new content.
If 1Thess was written around 50CE, then *to what is the "But God's wrath has come upon them at last" referring?* The conflict with Rome that destroyed the temple is still several years away.
The sentence may be literally translated thus:
“…but the wrath has-anteceeded upon them for-the-outworking-of a-goal”
Romans 11.2b-5 and 7-10 addresses (in my judgement) the exact same situation, elaborating on ethnic Israels spiritual blindness to the gospel, which God himself has caused as a consequence of their opposition to and rejection of the gospel of God, as it was evangelized in word and deed by Jesus, and afterwards by his representatives (the apostles).
“Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel:
‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal’ - SO TOO, AT THE PRESENT TIME there is a remnant chosen by grace. … What then? What Israel seeks for, that he has not obtained; but the election has obtained [it], and the rest have been blinded, in alignment with how it has been written,
God has given to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, unto this day.
And David says,
‘Let their table be for a snare, and for a gin, and for a fall-trap, and for a recompense to them ‘let their eyes be darkened not to see, and bow down their back always’.
Psalm 68 LXX (69 MT) which Paul quotes from here, proceeds immediately to call down God’s wrath upon those who persecuted the Christ-figure in the Psalm.
We know that Paul saw this Psalm as a prophecy about the Christ-event and what was to happen afterwards, because he quotes from it in Romans 15 as if David had foreseen Jesus sufferings.
Thus the blindness and their present status as ‘enemies of the gospel’ is evidence that ‘wrath has anteceeded upon them’.
But do take note that it is ‘eis telos’ which can be translated as
‘for-outworking-of a goal’.
If so, what might that goal be?
As so often before in the Jewish scriptures, the outpouring of God’s wrath on ethnic Israel has ultimately a healing purpose.
Paul explains that purpose as a mystery in Romans 11: all Israel will be saved.
That is my current take on 1 Thess 2.16
Paul actually says that ‘the wrath has anteceeded upon them UNTO an outcome/goal’ without specifying if that outcome/goal is imagined to be destruction or a turnaround to life ‘in Christ’.
The gospel of John 3.36 reads:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath REMAINS UPON them”
Paul’s concept of wrath (when not speaking directly of judgement day) is, I think, the same as implied by the quote from gJohn. Wrath is the default condition. It is being separated from Christ.
Theologically speaking, the divine wrath is not evident in external afflictions.
It is rather evident in a hardening of hearts and a blindness of the mind, which results when human beings rejects God’s truth, and chooses to oppose it. Wrath, as Paul defines it, is when God hands over people to their evil desires in a hardening and blinding, because of their willful rejection of his truth.
This is most likely the sign of wrath being upon his kinsmen, that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Thess 2.16.
I will explain this further below.
I’ll avoid citing the hyperbolic language of Psalm 68 22-23 LXX (~ Psalm 69,22-23 in our bibles) which Paul used in Romans 11,7-10, in the hope that YT will not censor my response this third time. When quoting from this Psalm, Paul did not continue his quote into verses 24-26, but he surely knew how the Psalm continues (I suggest that you read the whole Psalm for yourself), and he clearly thought that it was prophetic and testified to the gospel, as we can see when he quotes from it again in Romans 15.3, making explicit that he considered this Psalm as anticipatorily written testimony to Jesus’ sufferings. In Psalm 69 verse 21, coming immediately before what Paul chooses to quote in Romans 11.8, which he introduces with ‘in alignment with how it is written’ it says:
“And they gave bile for my food; and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”
The Psalm continues with an invective against those who persecuted the suffering figure.
The phrase: “The wrath has anteceeded upon them unto a goal” is a wooden translation of the last sentence in 1 Thess 2.16. It expresses what was evident to Paul, not because of a physical national disaster, but because the vast majority of his own kinsmen were spiritually blinded, rendered unable to receive the gospel from God, opposing God’s final messengers (Paul and his co-workers and the other apostles) at the time when Paul wrote his letters.
I am fully aware that translating ‘eis telos’ as ‘for-outworking-of a-goal’ may be viewed as idiosyncratic, but it ought not be so. The outpouring of God’s wrath on his people in past times was always with a goal to heal them again. Examples are Isaiah 57.16-19 LXX and Hosea 14:1-4 LXX. Psalm 6.1 LXX also considers Gods wrath as a disciplinary measure. Furthermore, Paul often used ‘telos’ to mean a goal or an outcome.
One well known example where ‘telos’ is being used by Paul to mean ‘a goal’, and that goal is being defined as the outworking (eis) of rigtheousness in Christ, is Romans 10.4.
Another example is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where Jesus’ current reign will reach it’s intended goal/outcome: “then [comes] the goal (telos), when he shall hand over the Kingdom to the God the Father .. and be in subjection to Him.. so that God may be all in all.”
A final important example is 2 Corinthians 3.13-14 which is verbally the closest to 1 Thessalonians 2.16, and reads:
“and [we are] not as Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own face, for the sons of Israel not stedfastly to look into
the outworking of the goal (‘eis to telos’) of-that-which is-being-made-void (‘καταργουμένου’),
but their minds were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn
-- which in Christ is-made-void (καταργεῖται).”
Observe how being ‘in Christ’ in 3.14 removes the hardening/blinding (veil) and how it relates to ‘eis to telos’ in 3.13. Paul shortly thereafter restates that a blinding/veiling of the mind evident at the reading of Torah is taken away when a perso turns to Christ.
Paul is here stating that God’s intended goal/aim (telos) of the ministry of the Mosaic covenant is ultimately to fade away, and be replaced with ‘being in Christ’. This is exactly the same goal (telos) Paul defines for Torah (nomos) in Romans 10.4.
The ‘coming-to-nothing’ (katargeo) refers in context to the former and diminishing glory of the old covenant ministry - it’s purpose being a replacement with God’s rigtheousness ‘in Christ’.
Being ‘in Christ’ is for Paul synonymous with ‘the outworking of the purpose/goal (eis to telos).
The temporary condition of ‘spiritual blindness’ to the new covenant glory is actually the doing of the God of Israel himself - who is ‘this aeons God’ (2 Cor 4.4) because he is making both his salvation/righteousness and his wrath known to all of mankind in this last age. In Romans Paul tries ro explain the mystery of how God is using his current wrath, intending the ultimate salvation ‘in Christ’ for his people.
In the same context (Romans 11), Paul compared the present situation (11,5) to the situation with Elijah, where most of Paul’s kinsmen were bending their knees to ‘Baal’ (11.4), and were intent on killing God’s messengers (11.3) and only a small elected remnant was left - see Romans 11,2-5 and then 7-10, where Paul quotes the verses of Ps. 68.22-23. The language of the Psalm hyperbolic, like Paul’s language in 1 Thessalonians 2.15-16.
The spiritual blindness, which Paul elsewhere calls ‘a hardening’ (11.25) had previously been linked with a display of wrath (9.17-23) and opoosed to faithfulness in Christ (1.17-18 - here the divine wrath is a present and opposite reality, concurrent with the rigtheousness available through the evangelization project that Paul is engaged in! For Paul, these verses were not separated but were bound up together: wrath is the opposite reality to a gospel-shaped life, and results from ‘suppression of the truth’), and was thought to have been caused by the God of Israel, who had recently sent forth the Messiah, Jesus, when the time had fully come. The current wrath was evident to Paul in and through the rejection of and opposition to God’s eschatological messengers: Jesus and his apostles, interpreted as blindness and hardening.
Paul had himself been one of those who were under God’s wrath when he was still afflicting the assemblies of Christ-followers.
But the wrath that was then upon Paul was ‘eis telos’ exactly as the wrath is in 1 Thesalonians 2.16. ‘eis telos’ can be translated ‘for the outworking of a goal’.
That goal (telos) was Paul’s turning to Christ, enabling him to see the light of the gospel.
I am certain that Paul imagined the same goal for ret rest of ethnic Israel, so that the ‘natural branches’ might be grafted back in to the eschatological reconstituted ‘Israel of God’, which is rooted ‘in Christ’.
(I am using theologically loaded language with Pauline metaphors, because that reflects how Paul used language)
Nope
Lol another lie another story from the red book lol james
@@TheDanEdwards it ain't that.
Just note that Semites are several different people groups not just Hebrews
Good clarification Dr. Tabor. Checking out Morton Smith. Another thought provoking study James thanks for sharing.
While I think a strong argument could be made regarding a possible partial corruption of the Corinthian text, I agree and believe Dr. Tabor that the Thessalonian text was written by Paul.
But Dr. Tabor appears to be missing the more salient features of this text. His reasoning is largely based on the context of an apocalyptic Paul, but that is not the context the Thessalonian texts were written in. If I wanted to make the argument that Paul thought he would see the end of days, I wouldn’t use the Thessalonian texts to do it.
The context has Paul praising his followers for keeping the faith in DIFFICULT TIMES. He is addressing converts to the Jesus movement, and their imitation isn’t the suffering they endured, it is believing and keeping the faith while suffering. Read 1 Thess 1:7, “And so you became a model to all the believers…”
In 1T-1:5, Paul is referring to himself and the strong convictions that followed his conversion experience, but you have to first correctly understand Paul in order to correctly follow the context.
Paul isn’t referring to the end of times in verse 16. He is explaining that the same people trying to prevent him from speaking to the Gentile masses so that they may be saved, which is the context he wrote his letters in, are the same people that crucified Jesus.
Unless Dr. Tabor is trying to claim Paul thought he was actually living the apocalypse as he wrote to the Thessalonian’s, “the wrath of God is upon them” is a reference to the Gentile masses that believe in spite of all the persecution. Paul makes it clear in 1T-5:1 that he does not know the time and date of the end.
IMO it is one thing to read, or even try to interpret history, but it is quite another to invent history just to sell your own dogmatic point of view. And it leaves me wondering which is more nasty, the finger that points out a blaspheme, or the lips of the blasphemer?
The title of the video left me wondering if Paul hated all Jews and all women or whether he just hated Jewish women.
In his writings, and the writings attributed to him, it's impossible to come to such a conclusion.
He praises Jewish people, he himself being a Jew, and he says that in Christ everyone male or female is one and should submit to one another.
Tabor himself says so in this very video actually.
@@youngknowledgeseeker The title of the video appears to have changed since I posted my comment. The previous title was along the lines of “Was Paul an antisemitic woman hater?” There was some ambiguity in the wording of the title which might be why it was changed.
Excellent !!!
Thank you very much
I'm still in favor of the 1Cor 14:34 being added; it doesn't fit very well in context. After a brief tangent on silencing women in the church, and an assertion of authority; versus 39 then picks up saying "There, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid the speaking in tongues." It is odd for Paul to say that women should not speak in church, and then seem to encourage them to prophesy in church. In any case, the main thesis of this section, which begins in earnest in verse 27 ("If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret."), seems to be saying that, basically, people should speak in an orderly way, in turn. Verse 40 concludes the section by saying "But everything should be done in a fitting an orderly way." The part of women not speaking seems to be shoed in, and then is contradicted by something five versus later. Not to mention Cor 11:5, where Paul also talks about women praying and prophesying in church. If I learned anything from great scholars like Dr. Tabor is that one cannot be certain of much when it comes to ancient texts, but I still lean towards interpolation on 1Cor 14:34.
My take is that Paul was OK with women prophesying and praying, but he didn't want women to teach or to ask questions about his teachings.
Personally, this is one point of Paul's that (to me) is not congruent with what Jesus taught or how Jesus acted in his earthly life.
It’s not odd for Paul… unless there are other such interpolations.
He seems to go back and forth on a few issues.
@@luckylunaloops I think it is the latter: Paul did not want the full-time-housekeeper wives to interrupt the speaker with uniformed basic questions. If the wives desired to be discipled/learn (the Greek verb Paul uses is 'manthanó' - the corresponding noun is 'mathētḗs': a disciple, a learner), they should instead ask their own husbands (Greek: 'idious andras') about 'basics' at home. I think the unmarried women (widows and virgins) are not included in the group Paul is talking about in 14.34-35, since they do not have 'their own husbands'.
There was no tangent- like any scripture both the context and other scriptures within the canon shows women have their place within the church
Your Bible is corrupt, that's why you're confused.
Paul was beloved (2 Peter 3:15-16) and a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15-16).
Paul led much of Asia out of idolatry (Acts 19:26) making him one of the greatest Jews of all time (Daniel 12:2-3).
Hahaha....what?...
Let put the fact that Paul is a fictional character aside, just for a second...
If you didn't know; Jews and Judaism is built upon the Laws found in the Torah....Now what did paul teach?...Paul totally rejects the idea of people following the laws in the Torah, so how is he a jew?
Oh, please....
Reread Peter's warning of Paul and you might not see a glowing endorsement of this "brother" (or "apostle" according to Paul).
Hi I’m curious what you personally believe and how you follow your beliefs.
re 1 Corinthians 14, I would suggest you read Andrew Bartlett's book 'Men and Women in Christ'.
As he has written elsewhere - In my book I conclude in favour of the other solution in the second group, the interpolation view:
An early scribe added a comment into the margin, expressing his opinion that women should not speak at all in the assembly but should remain silent, and later scribes mistakenly inserted this comment into the text, in two different places (some after what we call v33, and some after what we call v40).
The reason why I conclude in favour of this view is because it best fits the totality of the evidence.
Thank you for the book recommendation! I can also highly recommend Marcus Borg's book "The First Paul". It lays out very compelling evidence that Paul's original teachings were so radical and true to Jesus that certain scribes must have felt the need to tone them down considerably.
@@queenria7 If anything it was toned down to be less Marcionite by the Roman church.
@@Hebrew42Day ah yes, I recently came across the very interesting Marcion character, and also across Paul Wallis' research which makes Marcion even more credible...! Fascinating stuff.
12:05.. Am I correct in thinking the Jewish enemies being referred to here are Christian Jewish enemies?
It doesn't make sense to me that Paul would accuse "the Jews" broadly of stopping him from preaching to the Gentiles when, according to Galatians he was specifically granted approval for preaching to Gentiles by his fellow Jews in Jerusalem. And your evidence that it's not interpolation is from the book of Acts?? Why is that book suddenly reliable? That seems like more evidence for it being interpolation, in an attempt to harmonize it with Acts (and Matthew). It seems likely such gospel-reading scribes felt the need to separate Paul from his Judaism within the increasingly anti-Jewish Christianity surviving in the increasingly anti-Jewish Roman Empire after 70 and 134 CE. They couldn't believe in a Paul who said that salvation was coming to the Jews first, and also believe Jesus saw those Jews as wicked tenants who deserved to be thrown out of the land so that the wedding banquet could be filled with random Gentiles and Legionaries. Because of that, scribes threw in the "they killed the son of the Lord" nonsense even though the guy was very famously crucified by Roman authorities instead of stoned to death by Jewish ones.
Paul had an extreme ideas after all, sometimes he shifted away from Jesus teachings. I would like to ask you about dead sea scrolls, were they in harmony with current teachings of priests of jews at that time. May be they were in the cave before the existence of Jesus the Christ
Agreeing or Attempting To Rebuke, Take It To The Wisest Fellow To Help You.
Women submit to their gabor (father, brother, or husband) and become private (away from society). Their understanding of the Torah and later the teachings of Yeshua are subject to the approval of their gabor. They hear the truth and the interpretation in presence in the gathering house, but they ask questions of their gabor in the privacy of their home. This was already the way it was in Judah, but Paul was teaching it to the loosed tribes of the Huse of Israel who hadn't had the Torah in 7 centuries. You can see this privacy when Paul wrote that every man should have his own woman, and every woman her idios, privacy, separation from public society.
It seems likely that interpolations will be very short when they are being inserted into the genuine letters from Paul. Scribal modifications of genuine letters would have sought to clarify or modify the meaning of views being expressed by Paul, either because the scribes didn't understand them or understood them all too well and didn't approve. For the Thessalonians passage, the modern view is that Paul was by this point in serious conflict with James and his followers over his right to preach. With this in mind perhaps we could go with the following:
"... for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who drove us out and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved - so as always to fill up the measure of their sins ..."
With this version, we restore the passage to the situation that Paul faced and his likely emotional state, with only two short proposed interpolations: "killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and" and "But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection Rev 20:5 ?
1Thes is special in that's the only letter with no cross and it's the only letter where Timothy and Silvanus may be authentic to the letter.
Yet i think there is an interpolation in 1chapter 4 when the letter starts to speak about sons of light and uses the _like a thief in the night_ metaphore. Given there is allways ware somewehere some time, one has to have a specific location in mind to use the this peacetime metaphore: Jerusalem. And thus the author of this addition already lives in the late 60s or later.
Here the _But god's wrath has come upon them_ equally is best explained as later addition, shifting the date now past 70, when there is peace again. Thus the editor is allready trying to extend the date of the parousia.
However the authentic part of the letter looks in many ways so different from Galatians, 1Cor etc, that i think that we read the earliest extant letter even before the fallout between Paul and James.
But what did Mark read when he exploited Paul? Mark clearly judges the eschatological messiah and agrees with this judgement, while the sanhedrin cannot even agree on beiographical details, all framed by Peter and the cock crow. Remember that Jesus does not know the season of figs. Mark does not know the rhetoric of the editor to 1Thes. and has no idea that the day of the Lord would come suddenly in peace time.
I think the entire Bible is “lost in translation.” Everything before the Babylonian captivity was as simple as that the Kings, Prophets, and characters of the Torah were earthly physical manifestations of God. That was the religion of the hebrews. The second temple era and Sanhedrin suppressed the first temple religion that man is God. Jesus was as simple as bringing back the ancient religion where the king is God. Man is God again. The Sanhedrin and Roman Imperial Cult did not want that ancient Hebrew religion to ever exist again. Freedom of speech did not exist then, so even mentioning the idea and history of it was illegal.
The answer is Yes.
''Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah, ' in order to gain a small price for it''.
- Qur'an
Paul nowhere else says "the Jews" killed Jesus (which sounds like the "blood curse" in Matt 27:25). Paul says in Romans 8:32 that Jesus was delivered up by God, apparently as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45, cf. 4Macc 17:21-22, 6:27-29). Paul never says one of the twelve betrayed Jesus, and one might think Paul would have mentioned that. Paul knew that Jesus was crucified, and Paul knew crucifixion was a Roman means of execution for sedition. What does "God's wrath has come upon them at last" mean if not the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans for sedition? But Paul was already dead by them.
Pretty much my thoughts. Well put. I don't think the idea of Judas's betrayal existed during Paul's time either. I'm not even certain it was in the earliest drafts of Mark, as the betrayer predictions could also have referred to Peter for denying knowing Jesus. I agree that after the temple was destroyed was when those intense anti-Jewish polemics probably started working their way in, and especially after Bar Kokhba and the expulsion of the Jews and Christians from Jerusalem. That's when you start seeing the "wicked tenants" and "wedding banquet" parables about salvation not being for the people of Israel, but for literally everyone else. That's the stuff that doesn't make any sense coming from either Jesus or Paul, in my opinion.
This could have been written by paul, but the meaning could be that wrath was about to come upon them. Yet Paul, might have been writing in a prophetic sense as if it already has happened, already seeing what is going to happen. That's the way I see it.
maybe a better way to say it would be, By saying “God’s wrath has come upon them at last,” Paul could be indicating an imminent judgment that he sees as so certain that it can be spoken of as already happening.
quote: Paul nowhere else says
I assume that you mean nowhere but in 1Thes. And that is true. 1Thes is the only pauline letter without cross/crucifixion, and the only one where Timothy and Silvanus appear legit.
Paul is even worse. He claims that the jews killed Jesus AND (all?) the prophets.
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out.
ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων, καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων, καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
What does that mean? That they (the jews of Pilate's time) killed the prophets? Why then can we read the prophets? But we cannot read Jesus teachings. This passage is so odd but it serves to paint Jesus as the prophet of the parousia, and that fits the theme of 1Thes.
I see that the καὶ in v15 has a large influence. Without the kai it might read as "Jesus of the prophets" which would make much more sense.
But if i read the _kai_ as original then the whole thing takes on a different meaning. It means they (the jews) rejected prophecy. And Jesus is in this case formost meant as prophet. But in that case we should be able to read Jesus prophecy as we are able to read prophets like Daniel.
But i can also delete the whole _who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets_ and the sentence is even more logical. It looks like a 2ndary intrusion. Is it early? It seems Mark has read it.
Mark has Jesus judged as eschatological Messiah (and Mark agrees with this judgement). The sanhedrin cannot agree on biographical details, but they judge him on the prophecy which he delivers at that moment. When Mark wrote/finished the gospel the high priest was allready dead and thus the judgement is legit. Mark here demonstrates that he deconverted from messianic eschatology. Secular late dating scholars should be more verbose about this very obvious fact in Mark. Early dating is almost impossible (Cesarea Philippi).
But the interesting thing continues, because 1Thes looks like the earliest extant letter by Paul. It has no cross! And given that the cross is absent in much of christian literature (it is still lacking in 1Clement) the cross might have been the late invention coinciding with Paul introducing his blood and flesh obstacle around the eucharist table after his fallout with James (or was the fallout caused by Paul's change?)
@iwilldi I don't think Paul wrote that about the Jews and Jesus, nor that Mark saw it. That accusation of killing the prophets comes from Matthew and Luke. It also appears in that area of Luke in chapters 10-13 where there's much overlap with Matt but not Mark (meaning it's possible Q source material instead of Pauline). I think Judas might not have even been the original betrayer of Mark, because Peter also "betrays" Jesus by denying knowing him. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says the resurrected Jesus appeared to "the twelve" which logically includes Judas and any betrayers. So yeah, I think Paul wouldn't have written that especially anti-Jewish passage.
"Did God really say you shall not eat from the tree of good and evil. You will NOT surely die." Who will you believe?
Did Paul ever quote the Father? Ever? "Thus says the LORD..."? I am sticking to those that qualify to be trusted under the Deuteronomy 18 test for a prophet. You can trust another that came in his own name, I will trust he who came in the name of the Father.
Believing God is not the same thing as assuming that contradictory ancient texts are all of equal value.
@@Plethorality Amen! Bible simply means collection of books. If I staple the US Constitution to a copy of Twilight, does it cheapen the value of the US Constitution because I bound them together?
@@DH-jj1wkPaul was legit. The book list of the NT is verified.
@@blain20_ verified by whom?
Please let us be clear about Christianity putting all dogma and doxology aside. It is a ""Way"" to that which goes beyond the material. The ""material"" being ""carnal"" which is mainly sex, but also any form of flesh which is corruption for it rots, and of course the material world's love of money. Almost all documents in Christianity reference this is some form. I do not understand why this is not more clearly understood.
Well, you might say it clearly to help others understand.
@@iuutoob I was being to demonstrative. I do understand why people do not understand because there is always an attempt to tern God into material, thus Moses commandment against ""Graven Images"".
Can I ask you to clarify "when" and "where"? There were many competing Christianities in the early centuries. If you are referring to the Jewish movements out of which these Christianities emerged, then it also seems there were different groupings, and conflicting views and objectives even within the same family.
@@digitaurus There are certain understandings that all '''Christianity''' had namely "'that there is a God"' and that "'Jesus had a resurrection"'. These understanding are not consistent with a materialists point of view, if a materialist understanding was even present. There was of course the ''real world''' that is the world of pain and tears and the "'world of God"' that is eternal bliss and joy or heaven after death. This is "material' or 'spiritual'. which is a duality that has always been part of Christianity.
@@marshalldarcy7423 Thanks. Your general point about incompatibility with a materialist point of view was true at the time for all forms of religion, was it not? I don't see anything distinctive about Christianity here. Of course, the claim that Jesus as a specific individual had a resurrection is distinctive but that kind of behaviour in general wasn't precluded in Judaism, Pagan religions and so forth.
Is present day Israel in the bible?
Yes. I recommend David Nikao Wilcoxson's book and website, "revelation timeline decoded".
The UK is the United Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The UK conquered the lands of Israel and Judah and established the State of Israel. Then they moved Judahites there and set up a secular Ministry to govern by. They are currently building the third temple in which the Antichrist will declare himself to be "God."
Still Paul became all things so old facts get hints of more excellent way so letters have same levels of beliefs so your trying to solve parabolic tales mental still earth elements still outside worships creations statues legends religions laws wacko only have two become one.
Does it really matter who wrote the books in the bible? If the existence of god cannot be demonstrated, it is just all fiction.
Yes. It matters. Even if it were fiction, it still matters.
@@Plethorality Why does it matter? Do you care who wrote the Marvel comics? It’s the same thing.
It can be demonstrated
@@cgmickelson27 Then how does one demonstrate the existence of god?
The books of the Bible demonstrate the existence of God.
I am reading 'paul: a biography' but NT Wright...essentially a work of fiction 😂
Jesus was an incarnation of Lord krishna's first expansion Balram
By what authority would you say such a thing. That is as far-fetched as any Christian dogma, so why believe it, if your name is not Paul?
No, he is not. The story of Krishna was originally based on the real Yeshua, but it was corrupted on the order of Constantine. Hinduism was corrupted by Rome, much like Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Druidism were. The real Yeshua is with his followers in spirit. He has no denominations or religious organizations of men, all of which are corrupt.