CHRISTIANITY: Find out who "invented" it and who didn't.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Did the personal disciples of Jesus "twist and ruin" his teachings? This brief video explains who really founded Christianity and how didn't. Another helpful video from ASKABIBLEPROF.
#ASKABIBLEPROF
#bible
#christian
You can also find us on the web, as well as on Rumble and Facebook at the same name.
ASKABIBLEPROF.COM
If you want to help support the channel, then look for us on PATREON at: / askabibleprof
Some suggested books:
The Case for Christ: amzn.to/37JqMpn
Evidence That Demands a Verdict: amzn.to/3qGCmKA
Mere Christianity: amzn.to/36WttV7
I have a question please, based on your statement of the gospels and New Testament being the only authoritative source about Jesus Christ.
There are several accounts *in the Bible* of Jesus’ fame spreading abroad after miracles were done by him. Thousands of people came to him for healing. He raised dead people back to life. He fed thousands who were hungry. Are you saying there are no extra-biblical accounts of any of these events?
Just curious, Thanks.
Lloyd, sorry for not responding sooner, I actually thought I had, I even remember typing it out, but just in case you didn't get it, I'm responding again. There are several statements made by Roman historians that are contemporaneous with Jesus time. The best known one comes from Josephus in Antiuques 18.3, in which Josephus described Jesus has having performed many "wondrous works," and there are others made by others. Many anti-Christian skeptics argue that this particular statement was a non-original insertion made by Christian copyists that deceptively inserted into Josephus works historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. However, the manuscript evidence makes it obvious that Josephus had heard of Jesus and wrote about him. Moreover, what Josephus stated about Jesus would hardly have come from the hand of a "Christian" copyist. And as I stated, there are a few others (e.g., Seutonius). However, we should not be surprised that pagan Roman historians during the first century had never heard of a Jewish prophet that basically had never traveled more than about 75 miles from his home town (e.g., Nazareth) as an adult. Christianity during the first century was generally misunderstood and held in suspicion and even despised during that time. I recommend that you consider viewing the video on Roman persecution for ASKABIBLEPROP, it may give you more understanding about how Christianity was viewed during the first couple of centuries. Thanks for asking.
Notice how this professor professor professor just makes claims and says oh, there are others that also made claims about Jesus. He's lying. Seriously this guy is really bad news and I'm sick of the bad news of apologists redirecting history and the only response they have to someone like me who is recommending books to read so they learn more is ad hominem and name-calling and assumptions. Their knowledge is so little that I knew more the first three months I was saved. Seriously this guy is one of the worst. The antisemitism in the gospel of John and Christians going around saying that the Jews killed Jesus has caused much antisemitism and these people that claim to be professors are the cause of it, and they refuse to learn.
I have an honest question: deuteronomy 13 speak of if a prophet teach contrary to the torah he is considered a false prophet. I personally believe in the whole Bible, but whenever I ask others regarding food laws, sabbaths ect the answer is that was the old covenant. I also have tons of commentaries that often avoid or just interpret things away. Example: Isaiah 66 that mentioned that God will judge those who eat swine flesh.. if that hasn't happened yet how can being in the new covenant dismiss it? I believe we are saved by faith in christ alone ,but just wondering how to study the Bible where it has continuity.. thanks for taking my question
I appreciate the question and your commitment to the "whole Bible." Your question is very complex, so I will attempt to answer it, but we must take it one issue at a time. First, do you understand that the "Torah" (i.e., the Pentateuch) contains the covenant that God made with Israel, which was a conditional covenant (i.e., if you do x, then I will do y, but if you don't do x, then I will do z). It outlined how the Hebrew (i.e., Jewish) people would maintain their relationship with God while living in the land. It was never meant for the rest of humanity. Paul make this very point in Gal. 3.15-25. Consequently, if you are under the impression that the Mosaic Law is intended for all of humanity for all times, and that all of humanity is currently under the authority of the entire Mosaic Covenant, then regrettably, you don't correctly understand the Law and its intended purposes. If you wish to discuss your questions, then please keep your next thread to under 75 words. This is not the forum for protracted discussions, but I'm happy to help if I can.
@@askabibleprof7099 Thanks for the response. I had some questions that I have come across in my studies and your channel came down my feed. I apologize for not keeping it short.
@@lj342 No problem, I understand completely, but because your question is so complex, I just wanted to make sure that if we interact, it would be manageable. Always happy to interact with viewers.
great! tkx for this!
Glad you found it helpful, and merry Christmas.
This is a good one! Arguing that the apostles "invented Christianity" is not only inaccurate, it's profoundly inaccurate. You provide great evidence. The verses that come immediately to my mind are Luke 11:1-4. The disciples actually ask Jesus to teach them "how to pray." A core element of Jesus's role with his immediate following was instructive, i.e. formation of the core of Christian teaching and practice, i.e. Christianity. As for Lennon, he "imagined a world without religion" in his song "Imagine" and was roundly panned for comparing the Beatle's popularity with that of Jesus in a televised interview. I'd almost prefer to hear Bart Ehrman's take on it...almost. LOL
Very nice observation regarding Jesus' didactic instructions to his disciples, which can be constantly observed throughout the canonical Gospels. Thanks for the input and merry Christmas.
Yeah, Ehrman is so below you. ugh!
I doubt you ever read anything he has written
I recommend: _The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings_ 7th Edition by Professor Bart D. Ehrman
Any edition is fine. The early ones are cheaper.
I also suggest you read the gMark since it was the first one written and 52% of it is in gLuke and 90% in Matthew.
He loves the loaded terms "modern skeptics" and "attacks on christianity" then he uses the loaded terms "skeptics and liberals" He loves the term "skeptics" so much he is still using it.
I guess he forgot Jesus was a Jew and also an apocalyptic preacher. This guy also will not read _The Pharisees_ by Amy-Jill Levine.
The term "modern skeptics" is an accurate term and identifies a significant amount of modern scholars. This group has a presupposition that miracles don't occur and that God either doesn't exist or is unknowable. They also believe that both the Old and New Testaments are the products of literary evolution. Consequently, they are by definition "skeptical" and I doubt that they would claim otherwise. In fact many are proud of it and make a lot of money for being so. They believe that both the OT and NT contain inaccuracies, myths, falsehoods, and that the NT does not accurately preserve the teachings of the risen savior the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand Jesus is a Jew, he still is a Jew, and he is returning to save his own and judge the world for rejecting him. During his first appearing he was certainly an apocalyptic preacher, but he was also so much more, which his bodily resurrection from the dead proves.
@@askabibleprof7099 lol again, for the 11th time you don't read the scholars, so you don't even know what they're saying because you don't read their books. Hell, you don't even get Goodacres book. You're making a donkey out of yourself. You don't even have enough common sense to be embarrassed. You can't refute the scholars because you don't read them, and all you do is say the same things over and over again. Been there. Done that. My library is bigger than yours. It has all kinds of people in it.
@@askabibleprof7099 and saw again. I had this so people that are asking questions in their own minds will know the truth here. A lot of these modern skeptics are believers. They didn't come out of the faith they're still in it I'll give you one person only because this guy is taking up too much of my time, but read Dale Allison. There's plenty others that are still in the faith that and aren't presupposing that miracles don't exist. This 'professor' dude is just totally out of touch with reality. And the fact is that the Christians who did leave the faith were studying 10-12-14 hrs. a day like I still do and they left the faith because they studied more and really looked at it objectively. The guy with no credibility is the guy who runs this channel
Nobody knows who wrote the gospels and there are no eye-witness accounts.
So I'm assuming that you categorically reject all historical evidence from the late first century and early second century AD on this topic. In other words, it is your opinion that there is no credible historical evidence or documentation on who wrote them or how the church received them. If so, then that position is a perfect example of what can only be labeled as "extreme." Moreover, it is not a conclusion that is drawn from objective and disciplined historical research. Nonetheless, I appreciate that you took the time to view the video.
@@askabibleprof7099 I already gave a response to this on another video but here it is in a nutshell but before I get there...Your accusation I reject all historical evidence is nonsense. You just blurt out I don't have a clue! lol
Your response to me is nonsense. You are the one not doing objective and disciplined research, sir
You're an apologist and you twist things to make them fit your narrative
First to name Authors of Gospels MMLJ was Irenaeus of Lyons - 130-180 CE
Papias of Hieropolis claimed Matthew originally written in hebrew (which RFW says may be so)but problematic to say he names authors of MM 120-130 CE (as we know the gospels). Also says Mark was interpreter of Peter. (Consensus today is that is not correct at all)
First to name Authors of Gospels MMLJ was Irenaeus of Lyons - 130-180 CE
Mark was the first gospel written
matthew has 90% of mark
luke has 52% of mark
So your "assumption" about what my view is was just an assumption on your part and I know the history quite well, and your claim that I am not objective and disciplined is well, Wrong!
Is this channel dead? No new videos in 7 months.
Hello, I hope this finds you well. No, the channel has videos planned, but I have had chronic laryngitis for several months due to allegeries and the pandemic really has made things difficult for interviewing other profs. Thanks for your patience, we are planning a new video next week. Thanks for asking.
@@askabibleprof7099 I'm sorry to hear about your laryngitis! I'll send up a prayer for you. Looking forward to new videos!
@@sorenpx Your prayers are greatly appreciated. I'm going to start a allergy shot regiment in the next week or two, and will probably do vocal cord therapy at the same time. This will mean that videos take longer to produce. Thanks for your patience and being interested in the channel. Blessings.
Yeah, Acts is historically accurate lol.
What exactly the evidence that Acts is not historical reliable?
@@askabibleprof7099 duh! I guess the guy unblocked me. I could go into it and it's not really too difficult to show how the book of acts is not reliable as history because it doesn't line up with Paul's seven genuine letters, but I've already said this and this guy does not reply to direct points made. I guess he ordered some testosterone and is reading my comments from months ago when he never responded.
@@askabibleprof7099 deal with the points I made or just take a hike. You're not impressing anybody and I'm not gonna go into it but you have no credibility and if you want to apologize about misquoting somebody go ahead and we can start over. It ain't gonna happen because you don't have the cojones to do that. In fact, it's not even a missed quote. You said he said something too personally and that's BS. You're a fraud dude.
He doesn't respond because you make BS comments but never any proof
@@davidmathews9633 let's see if this ... answers. 1) Do you think the book of Acts is historically accurate? If you do, 2) which version of Paul's experiences do you believe? 3) the ones that he actually wrote about in his seven authentic letters or 4) do you think whoever wrote Acts (which nobody knows) 5) who is more accurate?
Thanks. Just answer 12345 and make it simple and see who is making comments but doesn't have any proof.
Now we will we will see how he "responds" lol