What Jesus Really Said | Dr. John S. Kloppenborg
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- ➡📚amzn.to/4bNy5vP (Q, The Earliest Gospel)
➡📚amzn.to/3KwUamz (Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel)
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course! Bible and the Quran: Comparing Their Historical Problems!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on The Genius of the Gospel Of Matthew - What Scholars Say About the First Gospel!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up and join Dr. Jodi Magness on an enthralling archaeological journey through Jesus' world!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on the scribal corruption of scripture!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course on Paul The Apostle!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Kipp Davis's course on the Real Israelite Religions!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on the Gospel of Mark!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. Dennis MacDonald's course on the Gospels and Greek Poetry!
historyvalley-...
👉Sign up for Dr. M. David Litwa's course on Mystery Cults!
historyvalley-...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @history-valley
(c) 2024, by speakers, distributed under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 international license.
𝕏Twitter: @Jacob56723278
$ cash.app/$JBer...
📧Email: jacobberman553@gmail.com
✅Discord server / discord
┃🔴www.patreon.co...
✅PayPal Link www.paypal.com...
✅Centurions For Paul Facebook Group / 957292477950756
✅History Valley Facebook group / 639724514390191
🌐Historical Jesus, higher criticism and Second Temple Judaism / 1038530526485151
Would you like a sophisticated yet simple apparatus to be able to easily Stream from your Desktop, Laptop or iPhone? Look no further, Streamyard is easy to use and you can stream to several platforms all at once!
Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com...
➡📚amzn.to/4bNy5vP (Q, The Earliest Gospel)
➡📚amzn.to/3KwUamz (Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel)
Very interesting conversation....but I'm hypnotized by the grey shirts. :D
Thank you Jacob always a treat when you have Dr Kloppenborg on
I loved how there was debate in the chat about talking animals!
As a history enthusiast, One thing about the "taking up the cross" saying that I always think about is how similar the Christian cross is to the Furca. A cross shaped pole that Roman legionnaires used to carry their equipment on Marches.
Another excellent interview, I used to think there was just one Q document. Many years later I now believe there were probably a half dozen compilations of the sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke drew their gospels from.
Papius did say he had 5 volume books about the sayings of Jesus
@@youtubeaccount3230 It's entirely possible that the Gospel of Thomas, or an even earlier version of that work, was one of them.
With my question at 1:14:00 about whether a few disciples memorizing or a community trying to think back is the apologetic idea that Jesus taught like a rabbi and disciples memorized like a rabbinical disciples and that is why the saying should be all seen as reliably from Jesus. Hard to ask this complete questions without spending $100 on the question. LOL.
We already know, from Dykstra and Eurell, that what 'Mark' had his Jesus say was mostly just Paul's opinions from his letters, re-cast. Subsequent gospelers added dialog to enforce their own theological opinions. There is nothing quite like having your Jesus say a thing as a way to put down quarreling. Except, of course, where gospels conflict. The dozens of other gospels show us how churchmen tried to strong-arm disagreements.
They were uneducated according to Acts (Peter and John), they are called illiterate. The author of the gospels also used GREEK torah translations and copied and corrected each other. So definitely no
@@JopJio The idea is that they memorize by wrote, so they could dictate exactly years later. Not that they wrote it themselves.
@@JopJiocan you cite that verse in Acts?
Even if there are gospels written in Greek using Greek Torah translations (which would be expected if you're writing in Greek), there is still underlying Hebrew in the gospels.
I see the bible as loose sayings of Jesus mixed with all the most familiar Greek mythology stories. That is why i think it took off in Roman areas. These mythology stories were already very familiar to most Romans. Each iteration of the Jeusu story became more and more aligned to Greek mythology.
The sayings of Jesus in Mark mostly trace to Paul's opinions seen in his letters, and to some in Hebrews. ('Mark' appears to have had little more to work with than we have today, even at that early date.) 'Matthew' makes his Jesus add his opinions, many of which 'Luke' then alters to match his own. Late revisions of John add text to contradict Luke, mainly where Luke has tried to accommodate Jewish customs. 'John' preferred a wholly gentile church.
It all makes more sense when you understand that several characters were amalgamated to produce the canonical and apocryphal gospels, and the three templates for the dueling gospels originated in 135BC, so that there was already a schism in progress by the time John the Baptist wrote his gospel as the last full initiate into the Melchezidek mysteries that grew up in their community
One tradition emerged from the Baalat ecstatic sin cult of Syria via Eunus, the miracle working leader of the First Servile Revolt in Sicily, one of two Antiochid plots to thwart Rome's expansion into the East and sow seeds of destruction in their republic, and the other via the "teacher of righteousness" which mobilized the Jews under the Hasmonean dynasty, but was then suppressed bt both Rome and it's Hellenistic enemies till the third player, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, got them all on the same page by linking the Serapis cult of the Ptolemies by marriage to the network of power bloodlines in the east and began rebranding the Hebrew messiah with the hellenistic messiah cults and setting in motion creating a Romanized Serapis as the living heir of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, who they saw as the same deity as El Elyon. That's how Caesar became pontifex maximus and found his way to Egypt to produce the failed Roman Messiah, Caesar ion, and later produced Vespasian and his failed messiah son Titus. And why another Flavian finally succeeded in the person of Constantine, but too late to save the more polytheistic Christianity of the Serapis Emperor's. Julian II, ironically called "the apostate" was the real Messiah of the late Roman Empire, and his murder the original sin of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, who hated Julian for embracing polytheistic Christianity and promising to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Mark's parable of the sower tells me that noone wrote before Paul. Not John, not Jesus, not Peter or the other disciples.
Or if they wrote anything it had been lost by the time of Mark.
@@iwilldi Do you think imperial agent Paul was selling his own creation? His programmers were in Rome and the Roman-intermarried allies were f Rome in the Hellenistic world, elite families that came together to bend the future Rome to their will, just as we see happening again today to the stumbling new Roman republic of the just God of gods, El Elyon, Jupiter Optimus Maximus
Lol
Nah the Gospels date to the 13th century BC. It's obvious that Ramses to is Jesus
@@iwilldi 1 Clement must predate Mark; it cites temple rites still being performed. Probably Mark got his line about Judas "better never born" in 14 from there, and stuck the part about the millstone back in 9, so not to waste it. Anyway Clement never heard of Judas, because they were casting far and wide for examples of betrayal.
One glaring flaw of the trinity, of which there are MANY, is who exactly is Jesus' Father? Was YHWH or was it the Holy Spirit. Since he supposedly was conceived in Mary by the 3rd person Holy Spirit this poses a HUGE problem for Christians based upon their strict definition of the trinity. The Holy Spirit cannot be the Father and vice versa. When this is pointed out to Christians they usually say something like "well I don't follow the doctrine exactly." Which leads me to say "then you are not a Christian, but some other religion." You cannot truly be a Christian unless you follow the churches creed on its most important belief. This goes for "Onenes" believers as well. Unitarians usually prefer to shy away from Christian theology anyway so it doesn't bother them. They are in fact closest to the truth. There are many other huge problems with this trinity doctrine and how the church was able to go 2 years without being seriously questioned is amazing to me. I guess we can thank God for the internet which led to millions of Christians seeking truth they didn't have access to before. 😊
One way to look at the dead bury the dead comment is as an idiom. It can roughly mean let the past go.
It actually means let the spiritually dead bury the physical dead.
If there was a communal editing, than is this a valuable material? Today ppl will sit down to discuss what the other person said/done and will project their needs and emotions on the material. Thus giving us their "reality" but not what really transpired. What chance is there that by time of 30+AC the process would function otherwise?
I found it a bit ridiculous that because Yeshua talked about The Temple being destroyed that it "obviously was written after the fact" , of course , Yeshua couldn't have known that ........ but then we'll quote from and take seriously from "Q" , a totally 100 % hypothetical creation , something that nobody can prove one way or the other that it ever existed or never did ........
I mean papius said he had 5 volume of the sayings of Jesus, so most definitely a the original gospels would have been saying 0 narrative, you do not need to call it Q, call it whatever
@@youtubeaccount3230 the only thing that I would call an original Gospel would be the Gospel of the Hebrews (Hebrew Matthew) but we don't actually have one , mostly just quotes . It's even been said that since Luke used it that his Gospel is probably closer to it than the Greek Matthew
@@koreyoneal2623 The original Matthew probably had a Greek beginning and ending added to it, becoming the version we have today.
@@ji8044 just so that I understand you correctly , are you implying that what we have now as Matthew is an added Greek beginning , original Hebrew main body and an added Greek ending ?
Another one that was there with his tape recorder, "oh but I've lost the tapes".
HOW COULD THERE BE SUCH STRIKING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLES OF JAMES (THE JUST) FOLLOWERS OF JESUS AND THE MUSLIM FOLLOWERS OF MUHAMMAD ?
IF the first Jewish-Christians(the earliest disciples and followers of Jesus the Prophet) lived in and around Jerusalem during the 1stCE and then vanished from history at the end of the 5thCE as historians believe, how could they be linked to ISLAM, which appeared in early 7thCE Arabia with a new call for ISLAM Faith, Repentance, and Salvation ?
[James D. Tabor/Robert Eisenman]
za
We have more literal long quotes shared between Luke and Matthew in the double tradition than we have between Matthew and Mark.
Lukes great omission corresponds to page 9/10 of Mark's 20 page gospel quire.
Matthew has a long quote page 9 line 1 from Mark.
Luke shows great resentment concerning all material in Matthew which do not just concern Mark's page 9/10 but also it's conclusions aka Matthew's prehistory which shows. 3.14 as solution to Mark's feeding riddle and the stargazer / celestial pole / egypt as Matthews theory about the inspiration to Mark's riddle.
Luke's pedigree shouts at you Matthew-Levi, meaning he adresses the author of the gospel, who changed Levi the tax-collector to Matthew.
In order for Luke to show such adverse reaction to Matthew he had to read Matthew.
Luke's great omission is the result of a missing page
Luke reacts as if he assumes that Matthew tore away the page just carefully enough that his long quote from Mark on page 9 line 1 would still be retained.
Luke must have inherited a damaged copy of Mark by Matthew.
It's most likely that Luke learned about Matthew and Mark when he got both copies at the same time.
The only thing interesting about Matthew/Luke independance is the psychology of it's adherents.
Hint: there were not "pages" then; it was on a continuous scroll. Codices came a long time later, bound books later still. Most of the "great omission" is sprinkled around elsewhere in Luke, not omitted at all. But, yes, 'Luke' absolutely had Matthew in hand as he wrote, because he frequently makes a point of contradicting Matthew. 'Luke' would have been mortified to find his gospel bound with Matthew; he meant to supplant it. 'Matthew' and 'Luke' writing independently has to be among the strangest of "NT scholarship" notions. When all those whoppers are finally rooted out, centuries hence, hardly anything will remain.
@@sciptick
So show me how a scroll better explains that the great omission corelates to pages / columns and then demonstrate how those columns have been lost.
No most of the great omission is not sprinkled around anywhere. Here you are simplying lying. There are only two alusions where Luke in fact uses Matthew's text where Mark's text is not available.
The idea of Luke supplanting / replacing Matthew: is that why Luke starts the pedigree with his Matthew - Levi patterns?
I don't think so.
Luke rejected Matthew as a middleman to the lost markan content.
@@iwilldi The "great omission" is 'Luke' exercising authorial agency, as _all authors_ do. That is what makes them authors and not mere scribes or editors (like Marcion). 'Luke' _chose_ to split up that bolus of text that interfered with the flow of his narrative, and place the parts where they were less disruptive, much of it in his chapters 8 and 9, the rest scattered into 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 24. (Generally, when you don't have facts at hand that another does, it is better to ask than to shriek "liar".) He and Matthew were both impatient with Mark's repetitiveness, which had served a rhetorical function they valued much less.
'Luke' cared about certain things, such as narrative flow and poor people, more than 'Mark' or 'Matthew' did. He disagreed vehemently with 'Matthew' on several doctrinal points, so he had his Jesus express his own opinions where 'Matthew' had placed his. For example, where 'Matthew' has his Jesus say "blessed are the poor in spirit", Luke wrote just "blessed are the poor". This is not an isolated example; he does such alterations systematically.
'Matthew' put sketchy characters in his pedigree that 'Luke' objected to, just as he objected to Matthew's Joseph skirting the law. So, 'Luke' replaced those ancestors with paragons, and portrayed his own Joseph obeying the law.
@@sciptick
rubbish. If Luke had read a healthy Mark then he would have made better use of Bethsaida, than he does. The bridge in the great omission is consistent with a page missing with Luke just reading the left side parts of remnants of page 9 lines 1,2,3 .
That bridge does not show that Luke read Mark's page 9/10, but that he had to fix remnants.
I can easily reconstruct the Mark which Luke used on a quire of 2 pages. And this also shows nicely the end of the great omission on a page turn.
You need to do more to convince me that Luke made great use of Matthew's content which corresponds to page 9/10 of Mark's quire.
Luke restored the paralytic to the original place yet retains the centurion, a story which Matthew created from the paralytic.
Luke's Nazareth story does not fit the narrative flow at all. Mark has a nice tripartite narrative structure involving the disclosure of details of messianic sufferings. I don't need to tell you what Luke does to that one.
So don't tell me that Luke cared more for the narrative flow than Mark did.
@@iwilldi You really want to die on the hill of everyone using bound paper books in the 2nd century? Audio cassettes could explain so much more.
The Jewish Second Commandment is;
1) “I Am YHVH, 2) thou shalt have no other YHVH (Lord), 3) no other Elohim (sons of God) before me.” Exodus 20:2, Deu 5:6 Tanakh
Read the “Hebrew Script.”
Isaiah 43:10 I am YHVH; “Before me there was no other god formed, neither shall any be after me”. Tanakh
I really need a bookcase overflowing with books to sit in front of so people know how any books I have read and therefore how smart I am.
The common source was the Ruach Hakodesh. Problem solved.
If Jesus ever existed we certainly don't have a clue what he said.
Excuse me but where is the original manuscript or copies of the manuscript of Matthew? I mean the Vatican has the original of the book of Matthew, but it doesn't have anything Matthew actually wrote does it. Same for Mark, Luke and John. So where exactly are you getting this "What Jesus really said" given no one has anything Jesus really said?
Exactly...the romans made all this shit up.
Romans chapter 13 literally rips the mask off the NT...It literally starts off, teaching to bow down to Roman Authorities...like who the fruit-loops does that 😢😴🥸🤦♀️
As Christians, we believe the Ruach Hakodesh inspired the New Testament writers. If you aren’t a Christian you will not understand or believe this. If you are a Christian, you must believe this because all scripture is Yahuah breathed and suitable for doctrine.
@@David-lq4tq Why should I care what you believe about an unsustainable and fake scripture? You only believe because Christian = deluded and believe what they are told without finding out if it contains any truth.
The simple fact is at least the four main books in the New Testament don't exist and aren't backed by any actual originals or copies i.e. they were made up by someone not associated with any Jesus guy.
Oh and nice name quote i.e. with nothing to do with Jesus.
As much as I'v elooked into it, I have no idea why anyone wastes their time on the Q hypothesis. Its nonsense. Its a big old stretch that provides zero insights, as far as I can tell.
Attention! Achtung! Warning! Serious biblical study leads to agnosticism/atheism!!!
The Gospel accounts are very early. You can tell by the letters of Paul and the other Epistles that refer to events during Jesus ministry and his teachings. This video is just another sad attempt by the devil to deceive the world. Christ and the Apostles warned us of false teachers that attempt to get Christians to fall away. The reason we have scripture is because the church preserved the writings from the beginning by making many copies. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are very very reliable.
I see it as gods word transmitted through men. If you dont believe then you area non believer.
Baptism was a Zoroastrian practice.
Most of the previous mystery cults had baptism. And communion too. To compete as a mystery cult you had to have those.
Young man telling old men how to live.
Q the source that never was....
Please present evidence against it.
Have a scholars name that argues against it in any real way? Preferably a scholar that hasn't signed a Statement/Declaration of Faith to be "in".
Thanks in advance.
and never will be!
@iwilldi So,...you've got nothing of value. Thanks
@@dmsdad6866
I wrote a long comment on this page, with all the arguments needed. Help yourself.
@@dmsdad6866Although he may not quite fit every criteria you requested, still he would be certainly considered a "serious" biblical scholar Professor Mark Goodacre is among those who question the authenticity of Q. Although Q's existence is the majority view and one I personally currently accept, I suggest there is far more valid opposition to Q than you may realise.
Let's face it, no one knows who wrote the bible. It cannot be taken seriously.
Exactly. Who wondered around behind Jesus writing down what he said?
@@deborahjensen3512 Who wrote Plato's dialogs? Platonists were real people who copied Plato's works by hand over centuries and millennia. Do you imagine that books copy and translate themselves? Obviously, books do not copy and translate themselves. Broadly speaking, Americans are uneducated, unrealistic and psychotic. No TV. No radio. No recorded audio. No recorded video. No broadcast. No printing press. No copyright. No patents. I studied at Harvard. On scholarship. Not an idiot kid of rich parent. Fooling uneducated "consumers" (tax payers and TV watchers) is the nature of the game. Trust me. Why would I lie?
I've always quite liked the idea of a kind of superego constructing ancient writings, by many hands. And this is kind of what god actually is.
@@curiositycloset2359 Pretty much. This is sadly complicated by TRANSLATION. Just compare TV-English vocabulary (slang, brand names) with Engineering Specifications vocabulary. Hard to compare, right? Just by luck, I got a Classical Education at a private Boys Latin school and then Harvard. When I say English words like "Faith" I am translating in my head to Latin Fide (Fidelity, Confidence) and Greek Pistis. And I actually studied Aristotle's work on Rhetoric. When I say words like English "Sin" I am translating in my head into Greek "Hamartia" which we translate into "Tragic Flaw" in Aristotle. See? We Americans are not all using familiar everyday words the same ways. Educated Americans are translating everyday English words into Latin and Greek. Others are not. I also program computers in SQL, C, Lisp, C++, Python and other formal languages. See? I don't think of computers as brand names and prices. "Meaning" is either shared or absent.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 I think most people understand that. Not that Latin would help you much, the Greek yes.
Jesus misquoted the Tanakh out of context. Paul misquoted the Tanakh out of context. And christian translators misquoted the Tanakh out of context.
There are over 4000 words, phrases and sentences that christians mistranslate out of context to conform to the Roman Imperial Cult.
Learn Hebrew in a Jewish synagogue and do your own translations. And get a Jewish Tanakh with the “Hebrew Script and Vowels.”
Only trust the “Hebrew Script,”
I'd like to know how anyone can PROVE what Jesus actually said? Based on the Bible?
@@deborahjensen3512 The “Roman New Testament” was written by Roman Missionaries, with Roman Collaborators.
Israel’s enemy wrote the christian new testament.
@@deborahjensen3512 You are missing the point. You are asking ALL the wrong questions and missing ALL the important lessons. Christians run graveyards. Memento Mori. Look it up.
@@deborahjensen3512it’s hard to get the full context of what was being said. The Nag Hammadi library has helped me, but also made me very troubled. It would seem Christianity was molded far more than I previously thought.
The Masoretic is also full of errors. The Septuagint is more accurate, closer to the original than the present Leningrad Codex.
Can't stand him sayin': sayin'
Just sayin'.
The whole Jesus story is full BS.
Endless analysis of what he may or may not have meant is delusional.
it's all myth alright
All are 3rd party narratives IF put to a Court of Law will surely be thrown out of the window !