NT Wright is the master of what I call "big beard energy" that involves saying very silly and ignorant things but saying it in such a serious scholarly tone that you feel like you have to take him seriously. I for one am putting my foot down. When he says that nobody could possibly invent such a theological innovation (which seems to be the core of every NT Wright argument), I am just going to point and laugh. It doesn't deserve better than that.
@@maninaliftI had interpreted that as the accent adding to the serious scholarly tone, as if people will be reminded of David Attenborough and want to trust him. But seeing your response and re-reading it as if being British should be a point against him is funnier 😂
This was a blast, Tabor is excellent! Moses & Elijah, two prominent figures the Gospels imitate when writing about Jesus were called "Ish-Elohim" in their stories. They were the acts of YHWH in human form.
@@ramadadiver7810as someone almost entirely uninformed, I’d guess that the “ish” there before the “Elohim” is some sort of modifier referring to the man. As mythvision there said, “the acts of YHWH *in human form.*”
@@ramadadiver7810 no idea. Like I said, I’m someone almost entirely uninformed on the languages being talked about and was just making a guess from the context clues I saw.
@@ramadadiver7810Hercules did 12 works and he killed Snakes send to murder him as a kid. By the way Hercules had a mortal brother and we know as soon someone invented family you are a real character
The number of possible interpretations of the Bible never ceases to amaze me! This is what happens when you spend 2000 years studying the same book, I suppose.
Helps that Paul is insufferably vague a lot of the time. You can get all kinds of readings out of those letters since he leaves so much wiggle room for interpretation.
@rainbowkrampus For sure! it's the mark of a good influencer. Make your message vague enough for people to twist effectively to make them feel it was made for them, but also specific enough to feel like you're actually saying something. There's a reason some people swear by horoscopes.
But that seems cool! I believe that in Judaism the idea is that the word is alive because new interpretations continue to arise, but on the other hand the evangelicals have chosen they have the correct interpretation and it's set in stone. That takes away the beauty of it
@ellyam991 I see your point! An ever evolving text that has different messages for different ages. I think the only real difference with Christianity is most Christians deny the incredible amount the religion has changed over the centuries. I personally think those changes are a result of the evolution of culture. I do, however, recognize the beauty behind the idea of a living book... there's something very romantic (in a literary sense) about it!
When I lived in Rotterdam I'd frequently take the bus to the city center. It passes by a chuch with a sign on the roof; *JESUS IS COMING SOON.* Last year I noticed that they had replaced the sign; new sign, same text. Apparently *SOON* means ... errrrrm ...
NT Wright was one of the authors I read that pushed me to rethinking my faith before I began deconverting . . . and then I rethought, and rethought and rethought until it was totally rethought. And now I have abandoned the silliness and I am so grateful that I did.
TBH I suspect NT Wright realized he didn't believe in the historicity of the gospels but wanted to remain intellectually and pastorally involved in the Christian project. Surely he doesn't seriously believe that a revolt by Judean rabble and it's subsequent suppression by the Roman machine which almost inadvertently caused the destruction of the temple (again) has any cosmic significance.
@@sciencesaves well I did that too, so I'm not surprised. But Wright's defence of the historicity of the NT seems to facilitate a watering down of belief in the supernatural amongst christians. And I don't think that bothers him.
Christians love to say the "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" is an incorrect question because God can't do illogical things. But they'll turn around and say Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time.
Your hand is 100% you. But it is not all of you. Jesus is 100% man and he is 100% God but the God part is like your hand. He is all that but not all of what God the father is just like your hand is 100% you but not all of you. That is how I understand it from my Fundy upbringing.
@mugglescakesniffer3943 I mean no disrespect but that makes no sense to me. It's like saying it's 100% up and 100% down it can't be both at the same time
God can create a stone that weighs a tone then adopt a human nature and struggle.to lift it . Then left it in his divine nature. Or God the father can create a stone that God the son jesus can't lift
@ramadadiver7810 that wasn't my statement/question can an all powerful God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. And I was told Jesus and God are equal in all things. But again how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God at the same time. It'd have been more logical if he was 50/50
Dr Wright is indeed a senior research fellow in the University of Oxford, but - out of interest - his position is at Wycliffe Hall, a training college for anglican clergy: it is in the University, the students sit the same exams, and one would not impugn the scholarship, but it remains a confessional institution.
@Pseudo-Jonathan yes, I stressed that in my comment. St.Mary's College in the University of St.Andrews is also a training college for clergy, in this case, for the Church of Scotland. Again, I insist that no impugnation of this institution's scholarship is intended, but, again, it is a confessional institution.
One thing to note, however, is that Wycliffe Hall to my knowledge does NOT require a profession of faith as such, unlike many American faith institutions. I read on their website that they are at least willing to take non-Christian students as long as those students can be respectful of the traditions and beliefs of the college. So at least you're not required to agree with a particular set of beliefs.
Mr James, that was amazing. Great to see how invested he is in his work and doesn't care about what's "true" in a religious sense, but more trying to understand the context of the text. Loved it
Jokes aside, I think the Enlightenment was the biggest revolution in human thought, as it broke with a lot of old venerated ideas and some taboos and in doing so enabled humans to cast off the chains of following the commands of dead people. AI/ML is probably a close second as we for the first time, however crudely, externalized thought.
Current AI isn’t externalized thought. It’s basically just pattern synthesis and amplification. A crude analogy might be that of using PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) to arrive at genomic sequencing. Fantastically useful. Amazing breakthrough. But not independent thought, crude or otherwise.
@@bensalemi7783 It really gets to how you define independent thought. How is current LLM different from humans? We draw on previous experiences to form "new" thoughts. Pretty similar I would say.
@@OscarSommerbo The difference is the context. ML is linear algebra, you input data, add some statistical weighting, and your formula spits out a result within a statistically appropriate range. It has no context for what it's doing because there is no "it" that "does" anything. A computer is running some equations. Actual people have to do all of the work of selecting data, selecting weightings and selecting results. The entire thing is run by humans, we've just automated the math part, it's no different from a factory which uses automation in the end. This means that, barring human input, ML does nothing and has no capacity to do anything. Without us, there is no ML. Even things as simple as viruses are capable of doing things independently. Which is why the language used is so misleading. Machine learning is catchy but there are no machines learning anything here. AI is even worse, it's just a marketing gimmick.
Listening to Dr. Wright discuss how this trinity idea came about, I couldn't help but thinking "he's describing how they made all this up." Like all religions, just another human invention.
I realized that NT Wright was not a scholar I could respect when he claimed that the Jesus of history MUST BE THE SAME as the Jesus of faith. So there's his agenda, right there.
7:42 So far, all these images of Jesus show him as being white. Wouldn't he have been brown skinned if he came from Jerusalem or Nazareth in the Middle East?
Honestly even when I was a Christian I always thought of cs Lewis as wildly overrated, the Tails to JRR Tolkien's Sonic. His books were just ham-fisted pandering analogies with no subtlety, his apologetics appealed only to those already convinced and addressed no nuance at all.
God is imaginary. and Jesus was a wandering Jewish end times preacher who became a miracle working godman through postmortem stories written by his followers.
Paul doesn't say Jesus did anything. The apocalyptic preacher in the epistles of Paul is Paul not Jesus. The jc that's ruining around first century Palestine doing stuff is from a late first century short story author called Mark and followed in later decades with fan fiction from other authors.
Well think of this, there was no more a real Jesus than there was a real Merlin. Merlin's Bridge does an exist. But at most we can say Merlin was a sage, since many kings had one on payroll. A real jesus is less evident than a real Gilgamesh. At least there were people talking about the kingdom, even if they had varied claims of what Gilgamesh did. Jesus? Not so much.
Something that always has bothered me: The 4th century was a century of great upheaval and creativity and we see in places so many technological developments. In India, we see the development of the mariner's compass. Sailing without having to hug the shores? Brilliant. Simultaneously in Afghanistan and in South America, we see the development of suspension bridges. Definitely useful and so much safer. In China, in the 4th century, they're drilling oil wells and boreholes, and they develop the fishing reel as well as iron stirrups for horse-riding. Wow, that's useful! In Persia, they develop the "Sassanian" windmill, which allows for improvements in agriculture and irrigation. Crazy useful! The list goes on and on. Meanwhile, here in Europe, our "technological" highlight is what? In 325, we're brawling in the streets (if you believe the legends of St Nic punching Arius in the streets of Nicaea), whilst we try to figure out how God the father fits with God the Son and how that whole weirdness fits with God the holy spirit. I know that the claim that "without Christianity, we'd have landed on the moon in the middle ages" is hyperbolic and probably wrong, but it sure did take a lot of navel-staring before we got started on real world problems. How much faster would we be moving through our development as a species if it weren't for the ballast of provincial navel-gazers?
Do you think that other cultures and polities didn't have religious conflicts and schisms? Why would the existence of religious conflicts and schisms be mutually exclusive with technological innovation?
@@soarel325 Of course they did, but looking at how much effort we (and I'm being very euro-centrist here, I admit) have put into elevating Christianity at the very top of our societal pyramid, it does make me wish for a continuation of Greco-Roman culture without the ballast of having to figure out an orthodox "truth". I'll also concede of course that other cultures did spend a lot of time navel-gazing and perhaps this is indicative of our short attention span as a species in the fulfilment of our full scientific potential. But it would appear that our desire to control society (and each other) and be "right" outweighs our humility in the face of the unknown. It would appear that we need certainty regardless of how we achieve it, that having zero data to support one hypothesis is irrelevant and that apologetics (which I like to rename as "excusology") are an acceptable intellectual discipline, often superior in explanatory power than the intellectually more honest attitude of "We don't know, let's explore all possibilities".
why do not you talk about the nothing you believe, the fact you stand on nothing atheism gives to you, and this is a sick cult where people are obsessed with what other people believe? let me guess you want war of religion, between your belief system in atheism and our believe system in God, right? Ye that is right. (you started this war.)
you've fallen for the typical atheist mistake of taking the word "fully" out of context, in context "fully" means 2/3rds. checkmate. fully checkmate mate. :)
@@HarryNicNicholas Drat!! I’ve been out logicked by theism, yet again! I’ll get those pesky theists one of these days! And by “days” I may mean 24 hours, or I may mean billions of years, depending on your interpretation!
@@HarryNicNicholas That's pretty much how they do it by equivocation. One second they will use "fully" in one definition, then immediately switch it up the next.
@@richardredmond1463 Don't see why that's the case. Of course, if you're saying God can do things that are beyond the bounds of logic then sure. However if God is like that, then we can say that God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously and both atheists and Christians are therefore both right AND wrong simultaneously about God.
James made a quick reference to Tom's realized eschatology at the end. I would LOVE to see an episode with him engaging that topic directly. I'm persuaded roughly of Tom's perspective on the topic, but I'd be happy to hear someone like James explain the problems with it. Especially since I assume he takes a post-70 date for Mark. Most of Tom's "realized eschatology" comes from assuming that the Olivette Discourse refers to 70 AD. If one says the OD is after 70 AD using the knowledge of what happened in 70 AD, it would still support the idea that it is meant to refer to that event instead of a failed prophecy. If it IS a failed prophecy, then that would suggest it was written BEFORE 70 AD. You could say Jesus predicted some things an then the author of Mark used 70 AD to say he was actually predicting the 70 AD event, but that requires you "show your work". Anyway, I'd love an episode on that topic, specifically addressing the tension I mentioned.
Ok then you need to point to the scripture that existed at the time Paul was writing which I am pretty sure is just old testament. That assuming that 1. Paul actually wrote those letters. 2. those letters not been altered in someway.
So… essentially, Yeshua was such an effective cult leader that he got nearly everyone to join his cult (number of Christians vs Jews), that was very much heretical to traditional Jewish beliefs. And it was mostly after he was dead and spurred on by a cult member who never even met him, but had some dreams about him. Well, I guess that’s impressive in its own way. Of course, given the size of the Yeshua movement before and after Paul, you gotta wonder if Paul wasn’t the more effective cult leader.
I'm glad James didn't argue against 1 Corinthians 8:6 being an intentional reformulation of Deuteronomy 6:4. I've heard some scholars say its a coincidence, but if you compare the Greek passages, it seems a stretch to suggest Paul didn't have that in mind.
The BIG question...... As many have said in the past (including Carl Sagan) - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". IMHO, Christianity fails that test. Too much 2nd hand, 3rd hand hearsay. But of course, virtually all religions have that in common.
Ordinary claims are ordinary _because_ they already have extraordinary evidence. e.g. claim : automobiles exist - evidence : billions of examples.. that’s an extraordinary amount of evidence. -All claims need extraordinary evidence- _(well, no, they merely need ordinary evidence. but it better be frkkn GOOD!)_
@@Dr_Wrong I disagree. You just defined the word “ordinary” and referred to it as extraordinary. If something is extraordinary, it is _not_ ordinary, meaning there are not billions of examples of it.
@@Dr_Wrong And my point is that something is not made extraordinary by their being a lot of it. There are many, many things that there are many of. Unique things are much more rare
What a lot of assertions packed onto what an old book says, layer after layer of logical leaps you must make in exactly the right way to get anywhere near this bunk.
For my library course at SAIT, we took a course on advertising and various techniques. One of them was 'The Authority Figure'. Basically, you hire a doctor, scientist or some kind of 'expert' to promote your product. Nowadays, I guess we call it 'Arguments from Authority.'
13:22 - This first image has the serpent with a demon's head. 13:50 - Now, this image seems to be the serpent with the face of Lilith. On top of that, they are already covering themselves before they have even consumed the fruit. And one more thing, if they were creations of God, one from dust, the other from a rib, why do they both have belly buttons? I know these are just artistic renderings, but it still makes me think, that's all.
I believe that this was one of the aspects that divided the Arians from the main group. We don’t know much else of the group except that they believed the Jesus came from God but wasn’t equal to God. That thought itself was considered heretical.
When Bart adds in a speaker discussing whether or not Anakin was really the chosen one to bring balance to the force or not, then I would be really excited. Until then it is just cool to hear actual analysis of all the Jewish super heroes without all the sunday school level of talk. "I reads it in muh transelashun of da bible so it must be da troof" even dough I dont understands Jonah living in the giant sea bass swimmin in da desert fer tree days.... Y'all never getting that smell out, know whats I mean? In my experience, THAT is high level christian thinking. great job Paul and James
"The most important question humanity can ever ask itself is 'Which bible era had the best costume for Jesus'" -Weird unhealthily hyperfocused 'tistic nerdloser N.T. Wright I can think of so many deeper and more important questions for humanity, and the very first one that pops into my mind is "What should I put on my white rice when I eat later". I'm thinking I might go simple and just put a chunk of butter on it and call it a day. I have no accomplished more in a minute's worth of comment-writing than N.T. Wright in his entire "career."
In the prepaulian era when the Roman occupation of Israel was taking hold, Jews believed that their God was the only God, were unwilling to participate in Roman polytheism, and also unwilling to share their God with the Romans, or the rest of the known world at that time. Israel was adamantly opposed to being ruled by a foreign king, made clear when the people demanded a King in 1 Samuel 8. A human king is being demanded here, not even their God would suffice. So what do the Romans do in an attempt to assimilate Jews into Roman culture in the aftermath of a bloody destruction of Jerusalem? They provide Israel with a human Jewish king in the form of Jesus as the son of Israel's God, albeit a dead Jesus proclaimed to be resurrected. Israel didn't need a king, they just needed to believe that they had one.
When I was a small child first being taught the bible, my understanding was exactly what Tabor is saying, i.e. the way I read it, it seemed like the meaning of Jesus was that anyone could/would become a son of god by being good enough and trying hard enough. I had to be talked out of this belief by pastors, and it always felt like they were getting it wrong. I think the fact that this was my natural instinct at my first innocent readings, before I had any preconceptions drilled into me, makes me think that this is indeed the real meaning of Christianity buried in the text which I was picking up on.
That interpretation is EXACTLY how Joseph Smith began his writings on Mormonism !!! Joe was a very young man who was a voracious reader after doing chores "on the farm" who came up with a new religion to explain...then exploit .. his fanciful ideas to the usual gullible people in society. Religion...its all about beLIEving abstractions.
YES !!!! Joe Smith just made up his "correction" on behalf of Moroni by sticking his face in a hat full of rocks and duping a bunch of easily influenced farmers.
How can you be exalted to a place you already occupy? Xtian theology makes such a mess out of logic and these passages. Tabor is so absolutely right - Paul has a 2nd ADAM theology. All one has to do is be familiar with Philo's teaching on this and Paul's own Romans letter.
@@mtdouthit1291 "my temple is my body and in three days I will raise it up" Jesus/Father/Spirit did the raising. I agree it's ridiculous but just like trinitarianism it has its internal logic. I think Unitarianism makes more sense, the JWs have good points if you think John and Proverbs 8 make it clear Jesus preexisted but if you're going to ignore the grecoroman influence on the gospel of John and read it like a Jew (God's plan manifested in physical reality first exists in heaven as a thought, Logos, similar to how manna didn't physically exist in heaven waiting to be served to earth) then the Jesus story meeting just a human makes sense, especially since Jews didn't think the Messiah would be YHWH himself, just bear the name which gives him the authority to speak as God, which in the first century under Roman oppression they didn't want to hear about such promises, just lead the revolt against Rome.
@@caffetiel it doesn't say God is the Word (it does in an interlinear). My favorite interpretation is "and what The Deity was, such was the Logos impersonally." Yeah it's a stretch but it clears things up. Dan Mclellan would probably tell me I'm asserting dogma into the text. 😏
I'm surprised my path never crossed the path of James Tabor. I started at University of Chicago the year after he received his PhD. I was raised Church of Christ like he was, but my major was biology with several courses in religion.
10:26 Why is "and the Logos was God" a poor translation of John 1:1? Every translation on BibleHub says those words, a stronger phrase (e.g., was truly God), or in a handful of "literal" translations,"God was the Logos."
Several reasons: 1) The Greek was not capitalized, so even translating "Word" and "God" is questionably trying to read something into the text that isn't there. If you read it as "the word," suddenly it looks very different. So for instance, if you're not married to capitalization consistency, something like "In the beginning was the ord, and the word was with God, and the word was divine" is a perfectly valid translation... 2) ...Because the Greek is not "ho theos" but "theos." In Greek you use the definite article ("ho" or "ton" = "the") when referring to the One True God™("ho theos" or "ton theon" in John 1:1), and no definite article when referring to a god/the gods/divinity generally. The Greek is "kai ho logos-" (definite article) "en pros ton theon-" (definite article) "-kai theos en ho logos," or "and the word-" (definite article) "-was with God-" (definite article) "-and the word-" (definite article) "-was [god/a god/divine]." The last use of "theos" has no definite article, which the author has scrupulously been using to refer to both the word and God prior to that. So he probably does not mean "and the word was God" in the sense that the word was one and the same with God. Otherwise he'd have said "kai ho theos en ho logos." Basically, it's ambiguous, and the ambiguity could be important to the wordplay intended by the author for poetic purposes. John 1:1 repeats "logos" and "theos" in a particular rhythm, but is also trying to convey information. Translating it even literally risks some degree of misunderstanding because the author wasn't trying to be perfectly comprehensible, he was trying to craft a strong poetic opener.
I heard it explained on data over dogma that, when john and such talk about Jesus having gods command...I forget the exact phrasing that it's refering to the same way that a messenger, or such is speaking for the king or president, he's not them, but has their power in this situation.
It's agency. It's a legal concept well understood to this very day, and it has roots in ancient Judaism (among other cultures). If God gives someone authority to act in his name, then they can say things like "I'm using God's power" or "I do this in God's name." Which, you know, is what Jesus says all the time. He's claiming to be a commissioned agent of God.
@@wolfwing1 Right, it's like someone who is a spokesperson for a corporation. "Megacorp Inc. is committed to environmental sustainability in our products." The person speaking is not Megacorp Inc. Megacorp Inc. isn't even an actual person, it's just a legal entity. But the spokesperson was hired by the corporate structure to issue press releases on behalf of Megacorp Inc., so when they say "Megacorp Inc. is committed to..." they are speaking on behalf of the corporation and conveying its views. "I and the Father are one" is basically that. Jesus is the spokesperson for God and they are in agreement. Hence why later Jesus prays that his followers will be one with the Father the same way he is one with the Father. If they're persons in a Trinity, that's impossible, unless believers will also become the Trinity somehow. He means they will be so closely aligned with God's purposes that they will be able to speak God's word, the same way he can.
9:05 - Now, I know it was common in the old days to have toddler boys in dresses, especially because it made potty training easier. However, the short-haired children, which I had first assumed were boys, I noticed were all wearing dresses. They were all far beyond toddler years. Plus, this seems to be a somewhat more recent picture. Maybe really short haircuts for girls were a thing at the time? I'm not sure where the photo was taken. I'm guessing England, maybe? Was this a thing back then? I'm just confused, yet curious. Can anyone enlighten me?
I look forward to the day that Paul, the founder of Christianity, is seen with the same level of criticism and despise that Joseph Smith and other cult makers are given. How much time has humanity wasted on this awful doctrine instead of focusing on humanity’s needs and goals?
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. -2 Corinthians 4:4 Many people are deceived by satan, and the problem with deception is that it is… deceiving! The deceived person believes they are correct. … the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil. -1 John 3:8 That is why Jesus was born into this world. God bless you.
I can honestly state that, when the question; "Is there a god? is answered, there are going to be a lot of disappointed Religions. To argue the toss about Jesus, god and the friendly ghost seems irrelevant when we see so many religions throughout history making equally silly claims.
It’s getting to the point that belief in God is just silliness. But it’s also becoming a more desperate / dangerous silliness as Christians vie for power as most of Western culture is beginning to realize Christianity, on the whole, does more harm than good for society and the human race.
Religious history 101: an overview of our attraction to imaginary friends compiled from our long history of faith based theologies. Christian theology is the most fought over imaginary reality we have ever created.
The worship of Jesus as a God beside the Father, also as a God, is what lead to the development of Islam. They saw it as polytheism and rejected it, instead seeing Jesus as a prophet not a god.
Why does God pick as leaders men who cannot write? Why does he choose prophets that are not written down until 100’s of years later after something happened? -From a Diest point of view
The thing is, we have no good evidence that the founders of Christianity were illiterate. Notably, Paul never once mentions that Cephas, James, and John, his foes in the Jerusalem branch of the church with whom he has clashed in the past, are uneducated. Considering Paul defensively says he is just as good as "those so-called super apostles," you'd think he would point out that he's literate in Greek and well-studied in Jewish law and they aren't. But he doesn't. Why not? Probably because they too were literate Hellenized Jews. Now, your question would still be validly reformulated as "Why does God allow the Gospels to make up backstories for the leaders God chose that are false?" and I'm not sure the Christians can answer that one, so your point is still there.
Joseph Smith taught that humans can become gods. Latter-day Saints still believe this. It’s called the doctrine of eternal progression. Jesus got there before the rest of us did.
So you think those that do buy into it are happier? Or in any way better off? Go to any place that serves the poor and homeless and ask those standing in line if they believe in God. Ask them if they pray regularly. If you know or have access to a mental health provider, ask them how many of their clients believe in God. Visit a cancer ward of any hospital and ask how many believe in a loving, benevolent God that answers prayers. Still think they are happier?
People died over that expression too. Not because they didn't want her to be called something nice, but because they didn't want her to be called the mother of God specifically.
I found this discussion very interesting! As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nicknamed Mormon), it was interesting to hear about apotheosis and idea of Jesus being the first among many sons of God. In Latter-day Saint theology, we believe in “exaltation” where people become gods. We also believe that we are all eternal beings, contrary to much of Christianity.
All these brilliant bibical scholars and preachers argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is all nonsensical fables that need to be sheleved into the 1st century mythical teachings of a library shelf. This is the 21st century, and let's focus on today's dangerous reality of a nuclear war that must be avoided at all costs.
I agree that theology can get tedious and nerdy but I would strongly argue for the central importance of understanding how deeply held beliefs like religion are crucial to how people act both as individuals and en masse. It's obviously complicated but as example consider the "mystical" elements of Putin's project or the emotional roots of MAGA etc. We are indeed dealing with any number of ideologies that could be seen as "nonsensical" but we have (as Vlad Vexler recently argued) to meet people where they are rather than where we would like them to be. (There is also the methodological issue about how we can be certain our ideology is the right one!) For better or worse political action has got to deal with this however daunting and frankly depressing this seems. I guess therefore there is a place for critical projects like Paulogia's where the details are examined. Just my thoughts - I don't want to appear to be preaching!
@@martifingers I dunno - valiant effort, but I just don't get the feeling that guys like him can ever really be convinced of the value of any field of scholarship they don't already know much about.
Well, if you don't believe in God, then what's the point of trying to convince others not to believe what Jesus has said about himself in the new testament. Unless, of course, you do missionary work... which this certainly resembles. And from that (and a couple of other things) it can be concluded that Atesmi is not only an explanation of the world, but also a religion. And both witches need a stable trust in the existence or happening of something to work, that is, by definition, faith. So you have your faith and I have mine... and I'll leave it at that.
@@miguelatkinson Well sometimes a duck walks like a duck... if something meets the definition then that's is what it meets. If pointing it out is "absolutely terrible" then so be it.
Reading the Bible carefully does not help when it different people wrote it and not a one ever saw Jesus or heard him. Carefully reading stuff that is made up just means you have the nonsense the way your intended to get it, assuming the author wrote what they intended in the first place. None of the authors were experts in clarity of writing.
Jesus wraps up the last book of the Bible by making his identity crystal clear and beyond dispute. Revelation 22:13 *I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.* It means he's God. Here's Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts: *I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me.* And Isaiah 48:12 Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called: *I am He; I am the first, and I am the last.* Compare with Christ saying in Revelation 1:8 *I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.*
nowhere in the bible Jesus claims to be God, but he claims Father is the only true God, and Jesus Christ is his prophet. "Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" John 17:3
@@Chance_Rice Yes, it is a religious idea. God magically created something from nothing, is what theistic fantasists claim. Naturalistic atheists don't believe that nonsense. Sadly, apologists seem to deliberately keep lying about atheist positions. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, because apologists are known professional liars.
The great thing about promising eternal salvation after death is no one comes back to complain it's all a scam
NT Wright is the master of what I call "big beard energy" that involves saying very silly and ignorant things but saying it in such a serious scholarly tone that you feel like you have to take him seriously. I for one am putting my foot down.
When he says that nobody could possibly invent such a theological innovation (which seems to be the core of every NT Wright argument), I am just going to point and laugh. It doesn't deserve better than that.
When he speaks, I hear, "Yeah, that's the ticket!"
And he's British.
@@reformCopyright I'm British too, so I don't think I count that against him. 😀
@@maninaliftI had interpreted that as the accent adding to the serious scholarly tone, as if people will be reminded of David Attenborough and want to trust him. But seeing your response and re-reading it as if being British should be a point against him is funnier 😂
NT Wright is at the top of my "closet Christian Atheist" list.
This was a blast, Tabor is excellent! Moses & Elijah, two prominent figures the Gospels imitate when writing about Jesus were called "Ish-Elohim" in their stories. They were the acts of YHWH in human form.
So Elohim can refer to humans . ?
@@ramadadiver7810as someone almost entirely uninformed, I’d guess that the “ish” there before the “Elohim” is some sort of modifier referring to the man. As mythvision there said, “the acts of YHWH *in human form.*”
@coruscanta
What would be the Greek equivalent if jesus was the 'acts of yhwh' Like Moses and Elijah
@@ramadadiver7810 no idea. Like I said, I’m someone almost entirely uninformed on the languages being talked about and was just making a guess from the context clues I saw.
@@ramadadiver7810Hercules did 12 works and he killed Snakes send to murder him as a kid. By the way Hercules had a mortal brother and we know as soon someone invented family you are a real character
The number of possible interpretations of the Bible never ceases to amaze me! This is what happens when you spend 2000 years studying the same book, I suppose.
Helps that Paul is insufferably vague a lot of the time. You can get all kinds of readings out of those letters since he leaves so much wiggle room for interpretation.
@rainbowkrampus For sure! it's the mark of a good influencer. Make your message vague enough for people to twist effectively to make them feel it was made for them, but also specific enough to feel like you're actually saying something. There's a reason some people swear by horoscopes.
That is true, but from the other direction the bible needs that much studying to try and make some coherent.
But that seems cool! I believe that in Judaism the idea is that the word is alive because new interpretations continue to arise, but on the other hand the evangelicals have chosen they have the correct interpretation and it's set in stone. That takes away the beauty of it
@ellyam991 I see your point! An ever evolving text that has different messages for different ages. I think the only real difference with Christianity is most Christians deny the incredible amount the religion has changed over the centuries.
I personally think those changes are a result of the evolution of culture. I do, however, recognize the beauty behind the idea of a living book... there's something very romantic (in a literary sense) about it!
When I lived in Rotterdam I'd frequently take the bus to the city center. It passes by a chuch with a sign on the roof; *JESUS IS COMING SOON.*
Last year I noticed that they had replaced the sign; new sign, same text. Apparently *SOON* means ... errrrrm ...
Maybe we just missed his visits in between and there's a quota before the apocalypse. Like when he gets his 10th starbucks coffee for free or sth
Any day, now. Maybe he got high, I mean elevated.
Maybe he was arrested for illegally comming to a country.
NT Wright was one of the authors I read that pushed me to rethinking my faith before I began deconverting . . . and then I rethought, and rethought and rethought until it was totally rethought. And now I have abandoned the silliness and I am so grateful that I did.
TBH I suspect NT Wright realized he didn't believe in the historicity of the gospels but wanted to remain intellectually and pastorally involved in the Christian project.
Surely he doesn't seriously believe that a revolt by Judean rabble and it's subsequent suppression by the Roman machine which almost inadvertently caused the destruction of the temple (again) has any cosmic significance.
@@seanhogan6893 idk, you’d be surprised to learn what seemingly intelligent people are able to compartmentalize in the rationalizing of things
@@sciencesaves well I did that too, so I'm not surprised. But Wright's defence of the historicity of the NT seems to facilitate a watering down of belief in the supernatural amongst christians. And I don't think that bothers him.
Christians love to say the "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" is an incorrect question because God can't do illogical things. But they'll turn around and say Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time.
Your hand is 100% you. But it is not all of you. Jesus is 100% man and he is 100% God but the God part is like your hand. He is all that but not all of what God the father is just like your hand is 100% you but not all of you. That is how I understand it from my Fundy upbringing.
@mugglescakesniffer3943 I mean no disrespect but that makes no sense to me. It's like saying it's 100% up and 100% down it can't be both at the same time
God can create a stone that weighs a tone then adopt a human nature and struggle.to lift it . Then left it in his divine nature.
Or God the father can create a stone that God the son jesus can't lift
@ramadadiver7810 that wasn't my statement/question can an all powerful God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. And I was told Jesus and God are equal in all things. But again how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God at the same time. It'd have been more logical if he was 50/50
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 I can make a rock too heavy for me to lift. So I am more powerful than God....
Dr Wright is indeed a senior research fellow in the University of Oxford, but - out of interest - his position is at Wycliffe Hall, a training college for anglican clergy: it is in the University, the students sit the same exams, and one would not impugn the scholarship, but it remains a confessional institution.
A useful clarification.
I agree. Before that though, he was research professor at the University of St Andrews. He’s a serious scholar.
@Pseudo-Jonathan yes, I stressed that in my comment. St.Mary's College in the University of St.Andrews is also a training college for clergy, in this case, for the Church of Scotland. Again, I insist that no impugnation of this institution's scholarship is intended, but, again, it is a confessional institution.
One thing to note, however, is that Wycliffe Hall to my knowledge does NOT require a profession of faith as such, unlike many American faith institutions. I read on their website that they are at least willing to take non-Christian students as long as those students can be respectful of the traditions and beliefs of the college. So at least you're not required to agree with a particular set of beliefs.
Mr James, that was amazing. Great to see how invested he is in his work and doesn't care about what's "true" in a religious sense, but more trying to understand the context of the text. Loved it
This was so good. I'm excited for the conference!!!!
I love Dr. Tabor. Thanks for having him on again Paul😀
Jokes aside, I think the Enlightenment was the biggest revolution in human thought, as it broke with a lot of old venerated ideas and some taboos and in doing so enabled humans to cast off the chains of following the commands of dead people. AI/ML is probably a close second as we for the first time, however crudely, externalized thought.
I agree... we owe a lot to their courage!
Transistors..
Current AI isn’t externalized thought. It’s basically just pattern synthesis and amplification. A crude analogy might be that of using PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) to arrive at genomic sequencing. Fantastically useful. Amazing breakthrough. But not independent thought, crude or otherwise.
@@bensalemi7783 It really gets to how you define independent thought. How is current LLM different from humans? We draw on previous experiences to form "new" thoughts. Pretty similar I would say.
@@OscarSommerbo The difference is the context.
ML is linear algebra, you input data, add some statistical weighting, and your formula spits out a result within a statistically appropriate range. It has no context for what it's doing because there is no "it" that "does" anything. A computer is running some equations. Actual people have to do all of the work of selecting data, selecting weightings and selecting results. The entire thing is run by humans, we've just automated the math part, it's no different from a factory which uses automation in the end.
This means that, barring human input, ML does nothing and has no capacity to do anything. Without us, there is no ML. Even things as simple as viruses are capable of doing things independently.
Which is why the language used is so misleading. Machine learning is catchy but there are no machines learning anything here. AI is even worse, it's just a marketing gimmick.
Love hearing James Tabor break down and explain complex issues so I can understand what he is talking about.
Listening to Dr. Wright discuss how this trinity idea came about, I couldn't help but thinking "he's describing how they made all this up." Like all religions, just another human invention.
Exactly !!
Great job! I have registered for the NINT conference on the 21st and cleared my calendar for the entire weekend.
around 19:50, mass apotheosis, every "follower becomes god", well look at Mormonism.
5 yellow disks is or the disk on the ground God called His son is the original Word.
I realized that NT Wright was not a scholar I could respect when he claimed that the Jesus of history MUST BE THE SAME as the Jesus of faith. So there's his agenda, right there.
7:42 So far, all these images of Jesus show him as being white. Wouldn't he have been brown skinned if he came from Jerusalem or Nazareth in the Middle East?
Tom Wright is the modern CS Lewis: a good mind wasted on a bad philosophy
Feels like an accurate take
Honestly even when I was a Christian I always thought of cs Lewis as wildly overrated, the Tails to JRR Tolkien's Sonic.
His books were just ham-fisted pandering analogies with no subtlety, his apologetics appealed only to those already convinced and addressed no nuance at all.
Reminds me of the sad case of Pascal
@@longcastle4863 I say this as a mathematician: there are a lot of mathematicians with embarrassing beliefs 😹
@@aosidh especially their belief in Platonic mathematical heaven
God is imaginary. and Jesus was a wandering Jewish end times preacher who became a miracle working godman through postmortem stories written by his followers.
💯%
Paul doesn't say Jesus did anything. The apocalyptic preacher in the epistles of Paul is Paul not Jesus.
The jc that's ruining around first century Palestine doing stuff is from a late first century short story author called Mark and followed in later decades with fan fiction from other authors.
@@grungeisdead8998 Prove it.
@@jamiehudson3661 Prove it wasn't.
Well think of this, there was no more a real Jesus than there was a real Merlin. Merlin's Bridge does an exist. But at most we can say Merlin was a sage, since many kings had one on payroll. A real jesus is less evident than a real Gilgamesh. At least there were people talking about the kingdom, even if they had varied claims of what Gilgamesh did. Jesus? Not so much.
Oh thank God.. I've been parched and needing my dose of Paulogia ❤️ live Tabor too.
Just noticed that Wright sounds EXACTLY like Stephen Fry when the latter is parodying pseudo-intellectuals.
"
Agreed
And if we ignore that the content is codswallop, great speaking voice.
Something that always has bothered me: The 4th century was a century of great upheaval and creativity and we see in places so many technological developments. In India, we see the development of the mariner's compass. Sailing without having to hug the shores? Brilliant. Simultaneously in Afghanistan and in South America, we see the development of suspension bridges. Definitely useful and so much safer. In China, in the 4th century, they're drilling oil wells and boreholes, and they develop the fishing reel as well as iron stirrups for horse-riding. Wow, that's useful! In Persia, they develop the "Sassanian" windmill, which allows for improvements in agriculture and irrigation. Crazy useful! The list goes on and on. Meanwhile, here in Europe, our "technological" highlight is what? In 325, we're brawling in the streets (if you believe the legends of St Nic punching Arius in the streets of Nicaea), whilst we try to figure out how God the father fits with God the Son and how that whole weirdness fits with God the holy spirit. I know that the claim that "without Christianity, we'd have landed on the moon in the middle ages" is hyperbolic and probably wrong, but it sure did take a lot of navel-staring before we got started on real world problems. How much faster would we be moving through our development as a species if it weren't for the ballast of provincial navel-gazers?
Do you think that other cultures and polities didn't have religious conflicts and schisms? Why would the existence of religious conflicts and schisms be mutually exclusive with technological innovation?
@@soarel325 Of course they did, but looking at how much effort we (and I'm being very euro-centrist here, I admit) have put into elevating Christianity at the very top of our societal pyramid, it does make me wish for a continuation of Greco-Roman culture without the ballast of having to figure out an orthodox "truth". I'll also concede of course that other cultures did spend a lot of time navel-gazing and perhaps this is indicative of our short attention span as a species in the fulfilment of our full scientific potential. But it would appear that our desire to control society (and each other) and be "right" outweighs our humility in the face of the unknown. It would appear that we need certainty regardless of how we achieve it, that having zero data to support one hypothesis is irrelevant and that apologetics (which I like to rename as "excusology") are an acceptable intellectual discipline, often superior in explanatory power than the intellectually more honest attitude of "We don't know, let's explore all possibilities".
I've met Dr. Wright. Nice man.
why do not you talk about the nothing you believe, the fact you stand on nothing atheism gives to you, and this is a sick cult where people are obsessed with what other people believe? let me guess you want war of religion, between your belief system in atheism and our believe system in God, right? Ye that is right. (you started this war.)
If Jesus was fully God, then he couldn’t have also been fully a man at the same time that he was fully God.
you've fallen for the typical atheist mistake of taking the word "fully" out of context, in context "fully" means 2/3rds. checkmate. fully checkmate mate. :)
@@HarryNicNicholas Drat!! I’ve been out logicked by theism, yet again! I’ll get those pesky theists one of these days! And by “days” I may mean 24 hours, or I may mean billions of years, depending on your interpretation!
If God can create a universe, His Son can be both fully God and fully man, even if that doesn't sound reasonable to some human beings. 🙂
@@HarryNicNicholas That's pretty much how they do it by equivocation. One second they will use "fully" in one definition, then immediately switch it up the next.
@@richardredmond1463 Don't see why that's the case. Of course, if you're saying God can do things that are beyond the bounds of logic then sure. However if God is like that, then we can say that God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously and both atheists and Christians are therefore both right AND wrong simultaneously about God.
More like "N.T. WRONG!" HAYOOO!😎
[Air horn noises]
I live on a small social security check.. can't afford the conference... sounds great
James made a quick reference to Tom's realized eschatology at the end. I would LOVE to see an episode with him engaging that topic directly. I'm persuaded roughly of Tom's perspective on the topic, but I'd be happy to hear someone like James explain the problems with it. Especially since I assume he takes a post-70 date for Mark. Most of Tom's "realized eschatology" comes from assuming that the Olivette Discourse refers to 70 AD. If one says the OD is after 70 AD using the knowledge of what happened in 70 AD, it would still support the idea that it is meant to refer to that event instead of a failed prophecy. If it IS a failed prophecy, then that would suggest it was written BEFORE 70 AD. You could say Jesus predicted some things an then the author of Mark used 70 AD to say he was actually predicting the 70 AD event, but that requires you "show your work". Anyway, I'd love an episode on that topic, specifically addressing the tension I mentioned.
Take the course and ask those questions !! It would be great to hear the answers during the Q&A !!!
Dr. Tabor, I recently bought a copy of 'Why Waco' and I'm very excited to start reading it.
Waco? As in Texas?
@@Dr_Wrong yep. I don't know if you knew this but Dr Tabor was there. He was a religious/cult consultant for the negotiators
@@JasonHenderson Sounds like he was _great_ at his job
@@lancetschirhart7676 the 3 letter agencies didn't listen.
Thanks again for bringing an expert in to really delve into the subject. RockOn, Paul.
"Paul's quoting the Scriptures; he's not just making stuff up."
Except for the “Phantom scriptures” that don’t seem to exist in Torah.
And as we all know, nobody has EVER used another person's ideas and then reinterpreted and twisted them around to support their own ideas!
Ok then you need to point to the scripture that existed at the time Paul was writing which I am pretty sure is just old testament.
That assuming that 1. Paul actually wrote those letters. 2. those letters not been altered in someway.
So… essentially, Yeshua was such an effective cult leader that he got nearly everyone to join his cult (number of Christians vs Jews), that was very much heretical to traditional Jewish beliefs. And it was mostly after he was dead and spurred on by a cult member who never even met him, but had some dreams about him.
Well, I guess that’s impressive in its own way. Of course, given the size of the Yeshua movement before and after Paul, you gotta wonder if Paul wasn’t the more effective cult leader.
I'm glad James didn't argue against 1 Corinthians 8:6 being an intentional reformulation of Deuteronomy 6:4. I've heard some scholars say its a coincidence, but if you compare the Greek passages, it seems a stretch to suggest Paul didn't have that in mind.
The BIG question...... As many have said in the past (including Carl Sagan) - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". IMHO, Christianity fails that test. Too much 2nd hand, 3rd hand hearsay. But of course, virtually all religions have that in common.
Ordinary claims are ordinary _because_ they already have extraordinary evidence.
e.g. claim : automobiles exist - evidence : billions of examples.. that’s an extraordinary amount of evidence.
-All claims need extraordinary evidence-
_(well, no, they merely need ordinary evidence. but it better be frkkn GOOD!)_
@@Dr_Wrongnow THIS is an argument worth making!
@@Dr_Wrong I disagree. You just defined the word “ordinary” and referred to it as extraordinary. If something is extraordinary, it is _not_ ordinary, meaning there are not billions of examples of it.
@@lancetschirhart7676
Dirt is ordinary because there is an extraordinary abundance of it.
@@Dr_Wrong And my point is that something is not made extraordinary by their being a lot of it. There are many, many things that there are many of. Unique things are much more rare
What a lot of assertions packed onto what an old book says, layer after layer of logical leaps you must make in exactly the right way to get anywhere near this bunk.
For my library course at SAIT, we took a course on advertising and various techniques. One of them was 'The Authority Figure'. Basically, you hire a doctor, scientist or some kind of 'expert' to promote your product. Nowadays, I guess we call it 'Arguments from Authority.'
13:22 - This first image has the serpent with a demon's head.
13:50 - Now, this image seems to be the serpent with the face of Lilith. On top of that, they are already covering themselves before they have even consumed the fruit.
And one more thing, if they were creations of God, one from dust, the other from a rib, why do they both have belly buttons?
I know these are just artistic renderings, but it still makes me think, that's all.
Artistic License 😂
I believe that this was one of the aspects that divided the Arians from the main group. We don’t know much else
of the group except that they believed the Jesus came from God but wasn’t equal to God. That thought itself was considered heretical.
There is a kind of sophistry in all the arguments presented by Christian apologists
the word you look is is lie or they argue about the color of the magic spell of Merlin
The Bible is already words which you can read for yourself. Apologism is sophistry
but m0stIy creduIity dipped in guIIibiIity
Yes, in the same way Harry Potter is a wizard.
Except Harry Potter is a fictional character AND wizards are fictional, but Yahweh is.. okay, God is.. never mind you’re right..
Hopefully one day religious belief will go the way of how humans now think of magic
Keep in mind we watched this instead of a movie that took millions of dollars to produce.
When Bart adds in a speaker discussing whether or not Anakin was really the chosen one to bring balance to the force or not, then I would be really excited. Until then it is just cool to hear actual analysis of all the Jewish super heroes without all the sunday school level of talk. "I reads it in muh transelashun of da bible so it must be da troof" even dough I dont understands Jonah living in the giant sea bass swimmin in da desert fer tree days.... Y'all never getting that smell out, know whats I mean? In my experience, THAT is high level christian thinking. great job Paul and James
"The most important question humanity can ever ask itself is 'Which bible era had the best costume for Jesus'" -Weird unhealthily hyperfocused 'tistic nerdloser N.T. Wright
I can think of so many deeper and more important questions for humanity, and the very first one that pops into my mind is "What should I put on my white rice when I eat later". I'm thinking I might go simple and just put a chunk of butter on it and call it a day. I have no accomplished more in a minute's worth of comment-writing than N.T. Wright in his entire "career."
In the prepaulian era when the Roman occupation of Israel was taking hold, Jews believed that their God was the only God, were unwilling to participate in Roman polytheism, and also unwilling to share their God with the Romans, or the rest of the known world at that time. Israel was adamantly opposed to being ruled by a foreign king, made clear when the people demanded a King in 1 Samuel 8. A human king is being demanded here, not even their God would suffice. So what do the Romans do in an attempt to assimilate Jews into Roman culture in the aftermath of a bloody destruction of Jerusalem? They provide Israel with a human Jewish king in the form of Jesus as the son of Israel's God, albeit a dead Jesus proclaimed to be resurrected. Israel didn't need a king, they just needed to believe that they had one.
70 books and no closer to defining a god concept let alone identifying a god.
You've read 70 books by the same guy? Hats off, you've got a lot more determination than I ever will.
When I was a small child first being taught the bible, my understanding was exactly what Tabor is saying, i.e. the way I read it, it seemed like the meaning of Jesus was that anyone could/would become a son of god by being good enough and trying hard enough. I had to be talked out of this belief by pastors, and it always felt like they were getting it wrong. I think the fact that this was my natural instinct at my first innocent readings, before I had any preconceptions drilled into me, makes me think that this is indeed the real meaning of Christianity buried in the text which I was picking up on.
That interpretation is EXACTLY how Joseph Smith began his writings on Mormonism !!! Joe was a very young man who was a voracious reader after doing chores "on the farm" who came up with a new religion to explain...then exploit .. his fanciful ideas to the usual gullible people in society. Religion...its all about beLIEving abstractions.
I found it interesting that Eastern Orthodox and early Christians held the idea of mass apotheosis, just as modern day LDS holds.
YES !!!! Joe Smith just made up his "correction" on behalf of Moroni by sticking his face in a hat full of rocks and duping a bunch of easily influenced farmers.
How can you be exalted to a place you already occupy? Xtian theology makes such a mess out of logic and these passages. Tabor is so absolutely right - Paul has a 2nd ADAM theology. All one has to do is be familiar with Philo's teaching on this and Paul's own Romans letter.
A very good video. Tabor presents a vision that I also argue for in my book on Trinity & Incarnation.
Imagine living your whole life at the mere word of long dead ancient people about "god claims" that have no veracity to them! 😐
John 1:1 tells you IMMEDIATELY that Jesus isn’t the Father, because he was “WITH” him “in the beginning”.
Trinitarians recognize this. Oneness folks insist that if God is one he can't be three so Jesus is the father is the holy Spirit.
@@cygnustsp If oneness people are correct, then therefore if he died then who raised him up?! Lol!
It also says 'and the word was god'. The mystic language is intentionally obscurantist.
@@mtdouthit1291 "my temple is my body and in three days I will raise it up" Jesus/Father/Spirit did the raising. I agree it's ridiculous but just like trinitarianism it has its internal logic. I think Unitarianism makes more sense, the JWs have good points if you think John and Proverbs 8 make it clear Jesus preexisted but if you're going to ignore the grecoroman influence on the gospel of John and read it like a Jew (God's plan manifested in physical reality first exists in heaven as a thought, Logos, similar to how manna didn't physically exist in heaven waiting to be served to earth) then the Jesus story meeting just a human makes sense, especially since Jews didn't think the Messiah would be YHWH himself, just bear the name which gives him the authority to speak as God, which in the first century under Roman oppression they didn't want to hear about such promises, just lead the revolt against Rome.
@@caffetiel it doesn't say God is the Word (it does in an interlinear). My favorite interpretation is "and what The Deity was, such was the Logos impersonally." Yeah it's a stretch but it clears things up. Dan Mclellan would probably tell me I'm asserting dogma into the text. 😏
I'm surprised my path never crossed the path of James Tabor. I started at University of Chicago the year after he received his PhD. I was raised Church of Christ like he was, but my major was biology with several courses in religion.
I'll believe it when he tells me personally. I don't regularly talk to people who died millenia ago, so I'm looking forward to it.
10:55 "We don't have good language" ====> "Don't get too specific, it will bite you on the backside."
20:38 There might be different data points to look at when counting the letters.
10:26 Why is "and the Logos was God" a poor translation of John 1:1? Every translation on BibleHub says those words, a stronger phrase (e.g., was truly God), or in a handful of "literal" translations,"God was the Logos."
Several reasons:
1) The Greek was not capitalized, so even translating "Word" and "God" is questionably trying to read something into the text that isn't there. If you read it as "the word," suddenly it looks very different. So for instance, if you're not married to capitalization consistency, something like "In the beginning was the ord, and the word was with God, and the word was divine" is a perfectly valid translation...
2) ...Because the Greek is not "ho theos" but "theos." In Greek you use the definite article ("ho" or "ton" = "the") when referring to the One True God™("ho theos" or "ton theon" in John 1:1), and no definite article when referring to a god/the gods/divinity generally. The Greek is "kai ho logos-" (definite article) "en pros ton theon-" (definite article) "-kai theos en ho logos," or "and the word-" (definite article) "-was with God-" (definite article) "-and the word-" (definite article) "-was [god/a god/divine]." The last use of "theos" has no definite article, which the author has scrupulously been using to refer to both the word and God prior to that. So he probably does not mean "and the word was God" in the sense that the word was one and the same with God. Otherwise he'd have said "kai ho theos en ho logos."
Basically, it's ambiguous, and the ambiguity could be important to the wordplay intended by the author for poetic purposes. John 1:1 repeats "logos" and "theos" in a particular rhythm, but is also trying to convey information. Translating it even literally risks some degree of misunderstanding because the author wasn't trying to be perfectly comprehensible, he was trying to craft a strong poetic opener.
I heard it explained on data over dogma that, when john and such talk about Jesus having gods command...I forget the exact phrasing that it's refering to the same way that a messenger, or such is speaking for the king or president, he's not them, but has their power in this situation.
It's agency. It's a legal concept well understood to this very day, and it has roots in ancient Judaism (among other cultures). If God gives someone authority to act in his name, then they can say things like "I'm using God's power" or "I do this in God's name." Which, you know, is what Jesus says all the time. He's claiming to be a commissioned agent of God.
@@Uryvichk yeah, even in john where he appears to be more overt about being god, it can still fit that pattern. God and I are one. and such.
@@wolfwing1 Right, it's like someone who is a spokesperson for a corporation. "Megacorp Inc. is committed to environmental sustainability in our products." The person speaking is not Megacorp Inc. Megacorp Inc. isn't even an actual person, it's just a legal entity. But the spokesperson was hired by the corporate structure to issue press releases on behalf of Megacorp Inc., so when they say "Megacorp Inc. is committed to..." they are speaking on behalf of the corporation and conveying its views.
"I and the Father are one" is basically that. Jesus is the spokesperson for God and they are in agreement. Hence why later Jesus prays that his followers will be one with the Father the same way he is one with the Father. If they're persons in a Trinity, that's impossible, unless believers will also become the Trinity somehow. He means they will be so closely aligned with God's purposes that they will be able to speak God's word, the same way he can.
9:05 - Now, I know it was common in the old days to have toddler boys in dresses, especially because it made potty training easier. However, the short-haired children, which I had first assumed were boys, I noticed were all wearing dresses. They were all far beyond toddler years. Plus, this seems to be a somewhat more recent picture.
Maybe really short haircuts for girls were a thing at the time?
I'm not sure where the photo was taken. I'm guessing England, maybe?
Was this a thing back then?
I'm just confused, yet curious.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Girls, possibly flea infestations,
I was born of a woman just like Jesus was. There's got to be something I can do with that.
A lot of followers considered Iesous more as an Arabic being like no food no sex not born
@@TorianTammas quit trying to take away my claim to the throne of David.
5:32 not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord!" will get their drink filled promptly. (just being silly, thanks for this!)
According to the version of the bible i grew up with he is! Left the church as a teenager though
I remember reading that Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon his church was to be built. How did Paul supplant Peter?
I look forward to the day that Paul, the founder of Christianity, is seen with the same level of criticism and despise that Joseph Smith and other cult makers are given. How much time has humanity wasted on this awful doctrine instead of focusing on humanity’s needs and goals?
3:00 skip the ad
22:21 it had been so long since a clip of the video was played and the conversation was so interesting that I forgot this was a response
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. -2 Corinthians 4:4
Many people are deceived by satan, and the problem with deception is that it is… deceiving! The deceived person believes they are correct.
… the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil. -1 John 3:8
That is why Jesus was born into this world.
God bless you.
I can honestly state that, when the question; "Is there a god? is answered, there are going to be a lot of disappointed Religions.
To argue the toss about Jesus, god and the friendly ghost seems irrelevant when we see so many religions throughout history making equally silly claims.
MY imaginary friend is REAL tho!
It’s getting to the point that belief in God is just silliness. But it’s also becoming a more desperate / dangerous silliness as Christians vie for power as most of Western culture is beginning to realize Christianity, on the whole, does more harm than good for society and the human race.
Can't we get a magical savior who does not seem like an unfortunate squirrel who got run over by a truck?
Religious history 101: an overview of our attraction to imaginary friends compiled from our long history of faith based theologies.
Christian theology is the most fought over imaginary reality we have ever created.
New headcanon about to drop for the world’s #1 selling fanfic! I look forward to hearing about mass apotheosis
Where do you find the art for your thumbnails?
The worship of Jesus as a God beside the Father, also as a God, is what lead to the development of Islam. They saw it as polytheism and rejected it, instead seeing Jesus as a prophet not a god.
Why does God pick as leaders men who cannot write? Why does he choose prophets that are not written down until 100’s of years later after something happened?
-From a Diest point of view
The thing is, we have no good evidence that the founders of Christianity were illiterate. Notably, Paul never once mentions that Cephas, James, and John, his foes in the Jerusalem branch of the church with whom he has clashed in the past, are uneducated. Considering Paul defensively says he is just as good as "those so-called super apostles," you'd think he would point out that he's literate in Greek and well-studied in Jewish law and they aren't. But he doesn't. Why not? Probably because they too were literate Hellenized Jews.
Now, your question would still be validly reformulated as "Why does God allow the Gospels to make up backstories for the leaders God chose that are false?" and I'm not sure the Christians can answer that one, so your point is still there.
Joseph Smith taught that humans can become gods. Latter-day Saints still believe this. It’s called the doctrine of eternal progression. Jesus got there before the rest of us did.
the d0ctrine 0f eternaI regressi0n w0uId be m0re descriptive
Love you Paul! That's it.
Who was it that said, when God promised Abraham that his sons would be like the Stars that this meant they would become deified?
A heathen as we have Venus goddess of love and planet, Mars god of war and planet, Jupited king of the gods and planet
So is a Curio cabinet a God cabinet?
Lore of Is Jesus God? (feat James Tabor) (N.T. Wright response) momentum 100
Are your thumbnails made with AI?
I would like to take a moment to remember L. Rin Hubbard.
Tabor is interesting.......but does anyone know, is he a NT believer or not? I can't tell.
I've had a difficult time myself putting a finger on him because he is in such opposition of applying a label to himself.
*The Bible: **_Gods Big Book Of Multiple Choice Answers_** ;*
Where ambiguity rules supreme.
is dr Tabor possibly of hungarian origin? tábor means camp
I'm curious about how mass apotheosis sounds a lot like Mormonism to me.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is God himself in the flesh.
Ngl, the chibi Jesus in the thimbnail is a little cutie. Just the sweetest little guy 🥰
im definitely listening to this, but i honestly have no clue what is being said.
You would understand this is you read ehrmans book How Jesus Became God. The audiobook is available on youtube
I wish I was dumb enough to buy into lol of this without question. I would be so much happier. I really do.
So you think those that do buy into it are happier? Or in any way better off? Go to any place that serves the poor and homeless and ask those standing in line if they believe in God. Ask them if they pray regularly. If you know or have access to a mental health provider, ask them how many of their clients believe in God. Visit a cancer ward of any hospital and ask how many believe in a loving, benevolent God that answers prayers. Still think they are happier?
Mother of god is even weirder
People died over that expression too. Not because they didn't want her to be called something nice, but because they didn't want her to be called the mother of God specifically.
I found this discussion very interesting! As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nicknamed Mormon), it was interesting to hear about apotheosis and idea of Jesus being the first among many sons of God. In Latter-day Saint theology, we believe in “exaltation” where people become gods. We also believe that we are all eternal beings, contrary to much of Christianity.
Heathens belief that humans become God We have Gaius Julius Ceasar becoming a god and a lot of Roman emperors
Is there a conference? 😂
This sounds so much like Mormon theology
All these brilliant bibical scholars and preachers argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is all nonsensical fables that need to be sheleved into the 1st century mythical teachings of a library shelf. This is the 21st century, and let's focus on today's dangerous reality of a nuclear war that must be avoided at all costs.
I agree that theology can get tedious and nerdy but I would strongly argue for the central importance of understanding how deeply held beliefs like religion are crucial to how people act both as individuals and en masse.
It's obviously complicated but as example consider the "mystical" elements of Putin's project or the emotional roots of MAGA etc. We are indeed dealing with any number of ideologies that could be seen as "nonsensical" but we have (as Vlad Vexler recently argued) to meet people where they are rather than where we would like them to be. (There is also the methodological issue about how we can be certain our ideology is the right one!) For better or worse political action has got to deal with this however daunting and frankly depressing this seems.
I guess therefore there is a place for critical projects like Paulogia's where the details are examined.
Just my thoughts - I don't want to appear to be preaching!
@@martifingers I dunno - valiant effort, but I just don't get the feeling that guys like him can ever really be convinced of the value of any field of scholarship they don't already know much about.
Well, if you don't believe in God, then what's the point of trying to convince others not to believe what Jesus has said about himself in the new testament. Unless, of course, you do missionary work... which this certainly resembles. And from that (and a couple of other things) it can be concluded that Atesmi is not only an explanation of the world, but also a religion. And both witches need a stable trust in the existence or happening of something to work, that is, by definition, faith.
So you have your faith and I have mine... and I'll leave it at that.
Wow what an absolutely terrible response
Atheism is not a worldview.
Atheism doesn't have any "faith".
These are childish arguments that low tier apologists tell people.
@@miguelatkinson Well sometimes a duck walks like a duck... if something meets the definition then that's is what it meets. If pointing it out is "absolutely terrible" then so be it.
Reading the Bible carefully does not help when it different people wrote it and not a one ever saw Jesus or heard him. Carefully reading stuff that is made up just means you have the nonsense the way your intended to get it, assuming the author wrote what they intended in the first place.
None of the authors were experts in clarity of writing.
First!
Category mistake. Historians are the wrong tool in the toolbox to answer a theological/philosophical question.
Jesus wraps up the last book of the Bible by making his identity crystal clear and beyond dispute.
Revelation 22:13
*I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.*
It means he's God.
Here's Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts: *I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me.*
And Isaiah 48:12
Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called: *I am He; I am the first, and I am the last.*
Compare with Christ saying in Revelation 1:8
*I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.*
nowhere in the bible Jesus claims to be God, but he claims Father is the only true God, and Jesus Christ is his prophet.
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent"
John 17:3
Jesus is not God. Nor is anything else. God is just a human idea. And one that does more harm than good, overall.
I said something similar, but for some reason my comments get deleted.
The idea that nothing became something is a human idea
@@Chance_Rice Yes, it is a religious idea. God magically created something from nothing, is what theistic fantasists claim.
Naturalistic atheists don't believe that nonsense. Sadly, apologists seem to deliberately keep lying about atheist positions. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, because apologists are known professional liars.
@@Chance_Rice
here`s y0ur big m0ment
define n0thing
but y0u`re right ,
g0d p00fing the universe int0 existence 0ut 0f n0thing is a human idea