Forgive me Caleb for making this annoying correction, around the 12 mark you got something wrong, should be corrected. The mistranslation of John 1 isn’t that it says Jesus was with God, it’s how the verse ends that’s the mistranslation; As a case in point, the standard translation of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”, but the Jehovah’s Witness bible renders it as “a god” instead of God, so even the new world translation calls Jesus a god, but not God.
Ps to be clear the jehovas witness new world translation says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god,” it’s how the v
Technically, "a god" is closer to the original texts, according to actual scholars, see Dr. Dan McLellan However, calling Jesus god-like or divine doesn't explicitly support either interpretation
Referring to the remark made at 9:30 - if "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" would state that is is a fact, not fiction, we should believe it, because it provides accurate geographic and timing descriptions 🤔😁
Of course Chrisianity was in flux, what is fascinating is how the ridiculous Protestant notion of "sola scriptura" became the measuring stick of Christianity. If they knew that some churches did not use Gospels at all (like the Assyrians), their brains would probably explode.
We can't say the gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke. We can only say there is no textual evidence that it was. We can only say the text does not explicitly identify its author by name - none of the gospels do.
How can they say the account of the immoral woman is spurious. They don’t use it because it wasn’t there. However, in the ENTIRE Greek scriptures they just add ‘jehovah’ where it is clearly it wasn’t there. Am I missing something???? That’s a genuine question because you’re brain-researchy smart, so I shit you not and am asking you.
@@Mr.DC3.1914 The made up name, "Jehovah" does not appear in new testament manuscripts. When the writers of the new testament wrote, none of them used "Jehovah" In the Hebrews scriptures Tetragrammaton is Gods name.(four Hebrew letters) In the new testament the original writers substituted the Tetragrammaton with a word that means ' Lord' in English. Which means everywhere in the new testament where the actual Bible writers wrote, 'Lord' the Watchtower organisation leaders put the made up name "Jehovah" instead. You can easily look this information up for yourself, in more detail you don't have to take my word for it. It easy to find out the facts on this subject. The name "Jehovah" was made up by a Spanish monk in the 12 century. This was even recognised by Watchtower organisation magazine, The Watchtower heres a direct quote, "Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E.-over 700 years ago." Of course this article goes on to try and Justify, use of the name Jehovah.
@@CoffeeAddictEvan Whenever Jesus and others QUOTED from the OT with the Divine name, of course, it should appear in the NT. New Testament in Hebrew translation (Gaster Hebrew MS 1616) for example uses the Divine Name in the NT
All the different versions (in the Pentateuch there are even two versions of the Ten Commandments) ultimately demand that there's some kind of authority that will choose what to believe. Founders of the proto-orthodoxy in antiquity understood that, looks like the Government Body understands that too.
Do tell which parts of Genesis have the two versions of the Ten Commandments; I’ll help you out here with that; it’s not in Genesis, the different versions of the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Please don’t spread misinformation.
No, "the later the Gospel, the more divine Jesus is" is by no means the rule, you can argue that the Gospels originated as collections of sayings or statements regarding Jesus as a personalized gnostic Sophia that has descended to the Earth, and the narrative and personification was added later. If there's any rule to the Gospels it's "the different audience, the different the gospel". Mark was definitely targeted at Romans who had a problem with personal divinity (that's why Augustus was only the First Citizen in Rome but a living God in Asia Minor at the same time).
It is true that the later the Gospels, the more they magnifices Jesus. Specially in John, which is even a different theology than the rest of the Gospels, which is why it isn't even considered synoptic
The best Lord of the Rings scholars are not people who believe that we are currently living in the 5th age of Middle Earth. Belief in a book has nothing to do with the merit of one's understanding of it.
Anybody else still getting used to the beards? I still have the knee jerk reaction of seeing the beard and yelling Worldly!!! in my head 😂
yet jesus wrote nothing... son of god and not a single paragraph
Spiderman ain't real?? Nooooo😂😂
Debunking that explains it well, does anyone know where Luke did his training to become a doctor?
Rockefeller plaza 1
Jesus is Jehovah
i can’t help but think of the fake scholarly documentary as having the exact same vibe as if he tried to paint the LOTR lore as historical facts
Forgive me Caleb for making this annoying correction, around the 12 mark you got something wrong, should be corrected. The mistranslation of John 1 isn’t that it says Jesus was with God, it’s how the verse ends that’s the mistranslation;
As a case in point, the standard translation of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”, but the Jehovah’s Witness bible renders it as “a god” instead of God, so even the new world translation calls Jesus a god, but not God.
Ps to be clear the jehovas witness new world translation says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god,” it’s how the v
Technically, "a god" is closer to the original texts, according to actual scholars, see Dr. Dan McLellan
However, calling Jesus god-like or divine doesn't explicitly support either interpretation
Referring to the remark made at 9:30 - if "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" would state that is is a fact, not fiction, we should believe it, because it provides accurate geographic and timing descriptions 🤔😁
Of course Chrisianity was in flux, what is fascinating is how the ridiculous Protestant notion of "sola scriptura" became the measuring stick of Christianity. If they knew that some churches did not use Gospels at all (like the Assyrians), their brains would probably explode.
Which is even sillier, KNOWING that beyond the Bible there's absolutely NO FUCKING MENTION OF JESUS
@@Trotoloko There are mentions in lots of extrabiblical texts, including gnostic, magical or apocryphal.
We can't say the gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke. We can only say there is no textual evidence that it was. We can only say the text does not explicitly identify its author by name - none of the gospels do.
We know that the gospel was written after Luke died so yeah, we can say Luke didn't write it.
@@ExJWCaleb When did Luke die and how do you know that?
Slam Dunk!
How can they say the account of the immoral woman is spurious. They don’t use it because it wasn’t there. However, in the ENTIRE Greek scriptures they just add ‘jehovah’ where it is clearly it wasn’t there. Am I missing something???? That’s a genuine question because you’re brain-researchy smart, so I shit you not and am asking you.
the name JEHOVAH appeared in the NT.
@@Mr.DC3.1914
The made up name,
"Jehovah" does not appear in new testament manuscripts.
When the writers of the new testament wrote, none of them used "Jehovah"
In the Hebrews scriptures
Tetragrammaton is Gods name.(four Hebrew letters)
In the new testament the original writers substituted
the Tetragrammaton with a word that means ' Lord' in English.
Which means everywhere in the new testament where the actual Bible writers wrote,
'Lord' the Watchtower organisation leaders put the made up name "Jehovah" instead.
You can easily look this information up for yourself,
in more detail you don't have to take my word for it.
It easy to find out the facts on this subject.
The name "Jehovah" was made up by a Spanish monk in the 12 century.
This was even recognised by Watchtower organisation magazine,
The Watchtower heres a direct quote,
"Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E.-over 700 years ago."
Of course this article goes on to try and Justify, use of the name Jehovah.
@@Mr.DC3.1914where?
Jezzz, this issue is addressed in the appendix of the nwt
@@CoffeeAddictEvan Whenever Jesus and others QUOTED from the OT with the Divine name, of course, it should appear in the NT.
New Testament in Hebrew translation (Gaster Hebrew MS 1616)
for example uses the Divine Name in the NT
All the different versions (in the Pentateuch there are even two versions of the Ten Commandments) ultimately demand that there's some kind of authority that will choose what to believe. Founders of the proto-orthodoxy in antiquity understood that, looks like the Government Body understands that too.
Do tell which parts of Genesis have the two versions of the Ten Commandments; I’ll help you out here with that; it’s not in Genesis, the different versions of the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Please don’t spread misinformation.
@@SeekingTheLordsMercy I meant "Pentateuch", thank you, Mr. Smart, you helped to make the world a better place.
Harod died in 4 BCE. Harods life is well recorded. 4 years before Jesus was born
You mean 4 years before when 500's era Dionysius Exiguus thought Jesus was born, and built a calendar around it.
Ask any religious person... WTF does a color printer have to do with the Bible? Damn, these guys can make an analogy out of anything!!!
No, "the later the Gospel, the more divine Jesus is" is by no means the rule, you can argue that the Gospels originated as collections of sayings or statements regarding Jesus as a personalized gnostic Sophia that has descended to the Earth, and the narrative and personification was added later. If there's any rule to the Gospels it's "the different audience, the different the gospel". Mark was definitely targeted at Romans who had a problem with personal divinity (that's why Augustus was only the First Citizen in Rome but a living God in Asia Minor at the same time).
It is true that the later the Gospels, the more they magnifices Jesus. Specially in John, which is even a different theology than the rest of the Gospels, which is why it isn't even considered synoptic
@@Trotoloko Yeah, and the "proof" that John's gospel is late is that Jesus is more magnificent. It's circular reasoning.
How do you know all of this, by following some scholars and atheists who don't believe in the Bible?
The best Lord of the Rings scholars are not people who believe that we are currently living in the 5th age of Middle Earth. Belief in a book has nothing to do with the merit of one's understanding of it.
@@MartijnMuller Since when does a fictional fantasy book "Lord of the Rings" need scholars?
@@Karl-dd4omThe same way the Odyssey AND THE BIBLE DOES
Common sense would show you the events in the bible are all works of fiction
Most likely why scholars are atheists...they've studied it, only logical conclusion
12 apostles and jesus didn't ask any of them to keep a journal. But luke says "high fever" so...
With all of these “the gospel writer felt” statements. PROVE the Bible is NOT INSPIRED.
HFAHADJFAHHAHAHA CHRISTIANS COPING IN THE COMMENTS 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
it is pretty funny tbh