Let me know what you think of this deep dive. Don't forget to sign up for Bart Ehrman's new course "The Unknown Gospels" here 👉 www.mythvisionpodcast.com/unknowngospels Join the Patreon or CZcams membership program 👉 www.patreon.com/mythvision
This is an important ethno-religious aspect of both the Christianity and the Judaism of the 1st Century of the Common Era. Paul's understanding of who was a real believer in God and the Messiah has affected not only the history of the Near East, the Mediterranean lands, and Europe but has influenced the course of History for the entire world by the strength of the belief system first written down by Paul the Apostle.
Paul was a self professed apostle. Paul never saw or heard the living jesus, but somehow he identified Jesus in his visions. Moreover he claims he spent 15 days talking to Peter, but proclaims he learned nothing. IOW, Paul is spreading his vision, not apostolic but mystic. Christians cannot seem to understand that.
@@Darisiabgal7573 I understand that Paul is a complex character in the development of Christianity, not the least of which was his desire to spread his particular and peculiar version of the faith to a wider audience than the original Jewish followers of Jesus. His claim to Apostlic authority had more to do with his successful missionary activity then with any contact he had with the first disciples of Jesus. The point of my comment was that without Paul we would probably had a much diminished population of not only Christians but also the influence of Judaism on world culture and probably the inspiration and spread of Islam the third Abrahamic religion as well. We cannot know if that world would have been a better place or a worse one then the one we have, but it surely would have been a different world had Paul never existed.
@@williamarends7138 You are imparting an anachronism on Paul. Paul thought his mission was a failure. Paul was arrested and sent to Jail. Paul's version of christianity hung on in places like Ephesus until the unthinkable happened, Jerusalem failed, the Evyon faded in importance. Temple observance was no longer a thing. Suddenly paul's message began to float. You should note that christians do not follow Pauline christianity. That version of christianity came from an author who wrote the signs gospel triggering a community of mystics called Johannian christians. They, like Paul also withered but their gospel, still not complete was uncovered by Iraneaus among the gnostic gospels he was critiquing.
At one point while listening to this, the gravity of the answers to these questions Christians came up with, hit me. This wasn't a mere academic, theological discussion. It had real and profound consequences for the lives, misery and suffering of millions of people, likely tens of millions across history because the answers to these questions and their prevailing interpretations, were the beginning of 2000 years of antisemitism. All of the ethnic cleansings, expulsions, pogroms, Jews becoming second class citizens, all the way up to the holocaust at the industrial scale...have their beginning right here.
@@corneliuscapitalinus845 My understanding is that there was indeed antisemitism in the Empire before Christianity but the spread gave it a specifically theological rather than merely political motive.
There's no such thing as origins to interethnic rivalry and animus and looking to texts for it is erroneous. "Antisemitism" is itself a myth that is integral to the identity of those thus identified. It also functions as a literary and moral trope to deflect against any legitimate criticism of said identified entity. In effect, an entire population was wiped from N. America and yet we still keep hearing about the purported original sin "antisemitism," itself a gross appropriation of a term that refers to many groups of which the historic Judeans are only one and bear a highly disputed connection to the Yiddim of Europe. What "hit you" was delusion.
In fact Martin Luther was to blame the most for missusing Paul's words to kill and maim Israelites and many other people including the Anabaptist folks
Excellent work. At 17:00 Dr. Stanley points out that Christianity was founded on the principle of cultural appropriation. They say to the Jews "We know your sacred texts better than you do. They are really all about *OUR* god, not what you say they are."
Paul is the number one reason why I’m not a Christian. The creation narrative and Noah’s Ark debates pretty much debunk the Bible as a whole for me but it is Christian reliance on the epistles of Paul that made me wonder who Paul was. Without Paul, the entire New Testament never happens. The Old Testament never happens because the tweaking of the text to support the Jesus as the Messiah narrative never happens. Hebrew scriptures remain Hebrew scriptures. I’m Irish. Without influence from the Church, my Celtic heritage would have remained strong. There never would have been a divide between Irish Catholics and Protestants. I’m an atheist because I have no good reason to believe that a god of any sort, exists. But I am certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the god as described in the Bible, is pure hokum.
Remember that if Jesus was for the Irish, he would have said: man can't live with potatoes alone. But he said bread. Not for the Irish, it is for brown terrorists; The kind of people who use the word bread and live exchangeably.🙂
The creation is the best reason there is to believe that a Transcendent Creator God exists, minus any baseless tradition or special divine mission ascribed to that entity. But if you know anything about the Hebrew Bible, you know already that this is not even the conception of God that it advocated for.
The Dr.’s orthodox reading i.e. original exoteric interpretation of text is that Christ is a primordial, perennial, substitution to the material realm. God in the Christian understanding is the maker of all things with clearly defined celestial hierarchies as is observable in the animal kingdom. As a creation we have discernable free-will it is incumbent on each being to not inwardly or outwardly circumvent evidentiary natural law/order. The material world is the micro as the metaphysical is the macro. Everything reverberates.
Yes, it smells of an attempt to sucker the superior Greeks and Romans into paying for a religion that puts the foreigners in a light that makes the superior natives weak and ignorant so the Canaanites can destroy them little by little and 2500 years after they started to immigrate they are still trying to use Christianity to destroy us.
On Roman ‘Christians’, I have read a study that suggests the ‘Jewish Christians’ outnumbered ‘Gentiles Christians’ in Rome all the way until about around 130 CE. This would be true when ‘Romans’ was written.
The suggestion that this "Gentile Problem" can be discussed presumes that Paul's motivations are known. They are not. Built into the discussion is a talk about what "God wants" yet God never existed. Paul's "Gentile Problem" was "how do I expand my audience to gain more wealth, power and influence" not "what God wants".
“The Pharisees and the scribes have received the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They did not go within, and those who wanted to go there were prevented by them. As for you, be alert as the serpent and as simple as the dove.” - Some Guy
Phi 4:9 KJV Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you... Mat 24:11 KJV And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. These verses were written more than 2000 years ago and on this time, these verses have become prominently and truly fulfilled.. The Devils are working hard in these last days...
4:15 I wonder when Jews stopped thinking of Yahweh as one God (theirs) among many, and switched to "the only God in existence". That's a tangent to the topic, but fascinating. I wonder if it was cultural appropriation from the Persians? What you'all think? I sometimes think of the idea of worshipping other Gods being "adultery" as indicative of the belief that other Gods existed. How do you cheat on your husband with nobody? Somebody has to be there to cheat with.
Rather, compare what Paul said to what Jesus said in Matthew. Then compare what Jesus said in Matthew to the words of God in the Hebrew Scripture. One cannot believe Jesus or God and Paul at the same time if you face the facts and see Paul was a total ignoramus. God wants us to observe and know - Paul wants us to imagine and pretend it's "spiritual".
@@michaelhenry1763 Where do you believe he taught that? He taught the Thessalonians that the return of the Lord could not happen until the man of lawlessness first came-which never happened in his lifetime.
@@mrfabulous4640 Paul’s genuine letters never ever taught that . In 1 Thessalonians, written between 41 and 49 CE, Paul writes how the end will come and those alive, including him, will be transformed and meet Jesus in the sky. I believe he also writes something similar in 1 Corinthians.
Hey I'm new here as a woman I've always had a problem with Paul. He doesn't like women . I've often wondered why there needed to be an apostle to the nations when Peter had gone to cornelius. The replacement apostle to judas iscariot had to have been a disciple of jesus from jonh the baptist onwards and a witness to the ressurection but Paul has nothing 🙄🙄🙄. He's a dark horse .
He does like women?? The most that can be said about Paul, to my knowledge, is that he perhaps thought that women would not or should not be official leaders in the church, that is people in "official" positions of leadership over the church, probably top leadership aka where the buck stops. He says nothing of women besides this. Everything else he says is normal or positive. He says, on one level there aren't even gender divisions in Christianity anymore, no male or female, we are all one in Christ. He tells men to treat women/wives as if they were the man's body themselves (treat others as you want to be treated). And he seems to highlight women also as his hard working companions in the Lord who deserve praise and thanks. Corinthians has an inconclusive understanding right now. As Paul seems to both say that women can and should speak in church, prophesy, and later seems to say they shouldn't. Scholars have noted this and are puzzled. Some have thought that Corinthians is partly an assembly of different letters, or that the part of women not speaking is an interpolation and not original, or that it has a specific context it was written in we are not accounting for.
Stick to the 7 undisputed Pauline letters and you will find nothing offensive to women other than the one anti-woman passage in 1 Corinthians that most scholars doubt is authentic. The later Pauline letters written after Paul’s death get progressively more hostile to women as church leaders reestablish traditional patriarchy.
As the proverb say we have to remove the chaff from the wheat. Only half of the Epistles are thought now to be written by Paul, the other six are divided in half and those two authors are more conservative and follow closer to Roman cultural norms. Later scribes had altered poor Junia who Paul praises, by placing her after her husband or changing her name to masculine. Romans I’d believed to be authentic.
@@youngknowledgeseeker He says women can not teach men, they must cover their hair, and wives must obey their husbands as a believer worships Christ. Sounds misognystic to me.
@@youngknowledgeseeker Well, Islam even gives some limited property rights to women. I guess that should suddenly "puzzle" modern scholars and mean that Muhammad was a feminist progressive. /s
I'm confused here ... Abraham had faith in God and he was counted righteous... So now we must have faith in Yeshua to be righteous.. something doesn't add up... If I think so it means forget about God think about Yeshua... But while Yeshua himself pointed us to God .. is Paul try to please the ruler of his days ... Other thing that doesn't sit well with me .. is how the Torah is referred as law .. I think rulers of the day put words into Paul's mouth to discredit Jews (Judaism)
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matthew 10:5) "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6) "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24)
Prof. Stanley agrees with what IOers have always said about gentiles and about who 'God' loved. (11:40-13:09). However, he doesn't seem to be aware of the metanarrative through the New Testament involving the theme of Israelites being gathered and restored to faith, reconciled with each other and renewed in their covenant relationship with their god....all of which does not involve non-Israelites. Like most scholars, he suffers from the bias of presentism. He reads into the text his culturally ingrained assumption about 'gentiles' always being non-Israelites. He's obviously a well credentialed scholar. However, for all of his many years of doing what scholars do, it evidently has never dawned on him that the part A of the story (which involved the gathering and restoration of Israel, not non-Israelites) would be completed in the part B of the story (which also involved the gathering and restoration of Israel and did not include non-Israelites). This couldn't have been made more clear throughout the New Testament, but today's fake-Christians miss it because they're conditioned to believe they have some part of the story. Scholars miss it because they're hung up on word definitions instead of context and because they're affected by presentism and a lack of knowledge of new testament eschatology, which involved only the twelve tribes of Israel. IO demonstrates from the scriptures how these themes are brought to completion by the end of the story.
There is no way that Greeks are equal to Paul's people. They were vastly superior. Paul was spreading toxic identity politics to Greeks, Greeks had become the target of the foreigner through religion.
What would be the distinction between the author of Acts ( Acts 6, 9 and 11:20 ) using hellēnistēs to refer to hellenized Jews whether because they speak Greek or follow the customs of the Greek people. In the context of the message being accepted by the Gentile ( Acts 11: 1). Is it possible that Paul himself taught to the Jews in the synagogue and to the Greeks outside. The Greeks being a reference to the hellenized Jew.
@Roger Beck The meaning of Ἑλληνιστής - “Hellenist” (literally, “Greek speakers”) is disputed. And it’s not clear if it was even part of Paul’s parlance. It seems to pop up out of nowhere in Acts, echoed in later commentaries (catenae on Acts) and Christian history (Sozomenus & Philostorgius). It’s not explicitly, or even contextually, defined. In Pervo’s Acts commentary, he mentions that the story of these “Hellenists” (in Acts 6) “testifies to a crucial link between Jesus and Paul” (per Martin Hengel). He concludes that “the ‘Hellenists’ conducted an independent mission that provoked opposition from other Greek-speaking Jews”. In Acts 6.1, the so-called “Hellenists” are contrasted with “Hebrews” (“Hebrew/Aramaic speakers”?). And that’s the only contextual clue how the term may have been used: distinguishing native, Hebrew-speaking “Judahites” from Greek speaking diaspora “Jews”. Yet Paul, a Greek speaking diaspora Jew, labels himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (per Philippians 3:5). It seems ambiguous in Acts 9.29: where Paul argued with “Greek speakers” in Jerusalem who sought to kill him. Codex Alexandrinus is the only mss with the variant Ἕλλην (Greek). So the Critical Text gives the “Hellenists” variant an {A} rating here. Acts 11.20 is problematic on multiple fronts. Those who were scattered only spoke to Jews, while the men from Cyprus and Cyrene seem to be speaking to Gentiles (non-Jewish “Hellenists” or even “polytheists”). So the idea that “Hellenists” were “Hellenophone Jews” doesn’t seem to hold up there. The variant “Ἑλληνιστάς” in Acts 11.20 gets a {C} rating in the Critical Text, since the variant “Ἕλληνας” (Greeks) is found in key manuscripts (P74, Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Bezae). So this may have originally referred to “Greeks” or “polytheists”. Pervo rationalizes the Author’s presumed choice of “Hellenists” as follows: “The author evidently used the term “Hellenists” in line with the apparent desire to introduce the gentile mission in Antioch with a minimum of fanfare, trusting that readers (for whom the word may have been as obscure as it is for modern scholars) would get the point.”
If I were a Jew, I'd view Paul as an arch-villian. He couldn't abandon Judiacal faith fast enough nor completely enough. Without Paul there would be no thing such as as "new covenant" theology, at the very least, no new religion. Where in the Hebrew bible is it said the Messiah would strike a new covenant with God? Wouldn't that have been an important thing to be mentioned there?
It is prophesied in the Tanakh that God would make a New Covenant not like the Old Covenant: Jeremiah 31: 31. In the Gospels they record Christ Jesus stating He was making a new covenant. We have the apostles claiming to be administers of the New Covenant. We have the author of Hebrews, who is most likely not Paul, talking about the New Covenant the whole way through.
@@mrfabulous4640 If you read the full passage and not just one verse you will find in verse 33 the new covenant is this: "But this is the covenant I will make with the House of Isrsel [and the House of Judah] after those days, says the LORD, I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Not, "I will send my only begotten Son to get murdered by Goyyim on their cruciform f***frame (not cross - do your research - Seneca Minor's Moral Epistles 101.10-14 is a good place to start) as a human blood sacrifice to save people from their sins but only if they accept him as their personal lord and savior and believe in their hearts that I raised him from the dead"!
*Paul on ethnicity* 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 Paul calls for people to remain in their place *that the Lord assigned to them.* That doesn’t leave much room for an ethnic melting pot (nor for liberation of slaves or women.) In Galatians 3:28, Paul starts by implying that there is no distinction under Jesus between free people and slaves, men and women, Judaeans and Greeks, but the passage continues into chapter 4, where Paul minimizes the suffering of slaves by saying child heirs are just like slaves, and by 4:24 he is saying that *birth into slavery* is part of the covenant of Mt Sinai. In Galatians 4:28-31, possibly paraphrasing the abuse of Hagar in Genesis 16:4-6, Paul *endorses not treating slaves well,* upholds leaving a slave woman _(paidisken_ when referring to Hagar) and her son homeless, and makes the slaves metaphorically ungodly; a separate, destitute class (which contradicts his earlier child-heirs-are-slaves claim). Galatians 4:30 *”The son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”* This is a metaphor for not inheriting Yahweh’s promise to Abraham and his people, which is an accurate assessment of the horrible morality of Genesis 16. If Paul thinks so little of slaves, altho there are no free vs slaves, this doesn’t say much for his view on Judaeans: Greeks or women: men.
One much remember,when he wrote his letters to whoever,he had absolutely no idea,that one day it will form part of the bible,or that his ideas regarding religion would in time be follow by billions,perhaps if he knew,things would have been different
Acts 14:12 Were the people accurate calling Paul Mercury & Barnabas Jupiter? Periodic Table: Mercury = Hg (Bible consists of H(Hebrew) & G(Greek). Mercury = Odin (I Don, Dino, NoID) Jupiter = Thor = Odin's son(adopted? what happened to Saturn?) Odin = Greek word 5604 in Strong's Concordance. Meaning = Birth Pangs, pain, trouble, sorrow...so tribulation. September 23 2017 revelation sign appeared in the sky iirc Jupiter was hanging out in the womb of the Virgo clothed with the sun & moon at her feet So my question is... Is the book itself in a roundabout way the actual deception that it claims will be sent?? I'm leaning towards yes. Also Odin = God of Death God of Know-ledge(Knows/Nose, sense/scents) Lord(Baal)(ByBaal) God of Burdens Mighty God High Ruler of Heaven Wakeful War Leader The one who is many Ancient one Lord of the Earth Swift in Deceit, Swift Tricker, Maddener, Wise in magical spells Wand-bearer(Holy Wood) Killer Wide-famed/well known Deciever Roarer/Weather Maker MASK/MASKED ONE HAT WEARER aka Cap'n(VV Victor Vran) Iron Mask(VV Victor VonDoom) VICTOR-Y AUTHOR - Nike(Enki) "just do it' If that's not enough: Mercury/Hermes = the speedster Meta = G3178(METH) meaning = with Aren't we all hooked on 5G HIGH SPEED internet???? Google's LaMDA....MDA = speed/ecstasy ????? IDK what to think about all this, but I do know: When I fight.. Au(Gold) Thor(JewPeter) It(Pennywise the Dancing Clown aka Bob Gray[Mercury = gray planet]) Y(Male chromosome) Authority always wins Yea when I fight Authority, Authority always wins... Oh yea and some think the KJV was actually written by SHAKESPEAR hence all the thou/hast/shalt fancy talk... Another name for Odin..SPEAR SHAKER SPEAR IT Not to mention Odin is played by Anthony Hopkins(just look thru his movie titles) Oh and Odin's other adopted son, Loki, is God of Mischief...low key sounding like the one spearding strife & discord among the apostles(PAUL???) Ever seen the image on the back of the dollar bill that looks like a gray alien? Look it up & look at that chin... It's Thanos chin...the mad purple Tit An If Jesus(New Zeus) = Red Prints Does Christ = Blue Prince? Together Jesus + Christ (the name aka E-Man) = purple crown of THOR-Ns
It sounds like he is writing to people who know “the law”. Therefore he addresses the Jews first, because his audience are Jews trying to understand how this new thing works.
At the end the mention of the gospels not addressing the differences between Jews and non-Jews; is this evidence of Paul’s teaching’s being accepted and applied, so the gospels have no need to address that issue? In the time between the letters and gospels how popular had Paul’s teaching got?
Where are all the arguments of that. With Paul having invented another God, don't the Jews have the one God and with Paul talking about the another kind of God about any second God, where is all the debate and argument over introducing a second God to a world that already had a monotheistic God
Wonderful video. Romans and the other letters of Paul are logically inconsistent and incoherent. I always find myself agreeing with Paul’s questions and always baffled by his “By no means” answers.
@@mrfabulous4640 yes, I can give you an example: Romans 9:13-14 (NRSV) As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! I would answer “yes” there is injustice on God’s part.
@@mrfabulous4640 of course he gives his reasoning in the next verse. It is convoluted and nonsensical. It is the very definition of injustice to arbitrarily choose to either like someone or not. Then to say “ By no means “ is almost gaslighting. So then you ask Paul, how Paul, how is it not injustice when you say a few chapters before that God does not show favoritism? He then says, paraphrasing, how are you to question God. God can like who he wants and dislike who he wants. That is not an answer. It is a justification for God’s favoritism and injustice.
@@michaelhenry1763 So the issue is concerning who would be elected to be in the lineage that brought the promised blessing to the nations-Messiah. Paul uses the term “hate”. However, in the Old Testament (and the Gospels) loving someone and hating someone (in the same context) just means showing preference (for example, a verse states that Jacob loved one of his wives more than the other, and the next verse states that when God saw Jacob hated one of his wives it displeased Him. Here we see side by side the use of preference used synonymously with “hate”). So the passage is saying God showed preference to one sibling to be in the line that brought Messiah into the world; that this preference was not based on works but it is a gift of God’s mercy and God can choose to give one person an underserved gift of mercy and not another. Paul is stating it is God’s prerogative to give or withhold (undeserved) mercy (mercy is by definition undeserved) and there is no injustice with that.
Gentlemen.. what are you trying to teach your viewers? If I look on the Greek side I see Isaiah and Joel quoted .. who was Isaiah and Joel pointing to? Because I've read both scriptures in Hebrew English version .. eg . Whoever shall call upon the name of Yehovah shall be saved ... What kind of salvation was it ... So mu thanking is why then this is referring to Lord not LORD ... ..was Paul this confused or the rulers of the day forced the Hebrew scriptures into their agenda..
I am disappointed that teachings by the Celtic church appear to have vanished. Eventually they got totally destroyed by the Catholic church because it may well be that it is actually the Celtic church who come closest to the teachings of Christianity. If you have any scholars who know more about the Celtic church and remainder of their teaching I would certainly like to hear about it. By the way, I liked that podcast about the trinity as it always felt totally illogical to me.
I think the laws of Judah are that you don't worship more than one God so when this guy is running around talking about another God and another way why isn't he beat up for that why isn't he held accountable for his mouth Oh, I thought people were stoned to death for worshipping false gods and doing things like that, what's going on here, the lawyers you worship one God and the Jews have a God and Jesus Is Our God does anybody see a goddamn conflict here
If you guys are honest with yourself Paul was not talking about Jesus .. if you zoom in these are verses from Hebrew scriptures.... It's either some who translated didn't not understand what he or she was doing ... So salvation in the name of Yehova...
The reason why Jesus preached hell and Paul didn't is because Jesus was representing the pre Babylon suffering servant and Paul was representing the post Babylon returnees.
Gentiles, the nations = Israel. Greco-roman world including Paul, Joseph and Jesus. Jews, circumsized = Jacob. a category of (allienated) outsiders within society. Paul never calls himself a jew but ; israelite, pharisee and benjaminite. Obviously we may conclude ; He is not a jew or 'jacobite'. He is from the other 'class' definitly. Where Paul = Cornelius, Germanicus ; the rightious gentile. He is a julio-claudian (from davidic descent thus israelite), the most loyal to ceasar (thus pharisee) and a sabinian (benjaminite) in the flesh just as his kinsmen. Sometimes referred to as Herodians, whereas Herodes is a reference to Tiberius princeps. Shortly Tiberius lineage was heirless and taken over by the Germanicus line. 'Herodians' is the house of Cornelius = the house of David. The jesus-geneaologies include Paul (Heli, Mathan), Claudius (Joseph) and David as forefather. The Clothi gens were considered to be from sabine descent. Christianity = continued ceasarism. Paul states that all Israel will be saved, he does not say that from Jacob ever. It's gentiles only (replacement) as the core of the NT as a whole. It wasn't a problem for them then, just gods souvereign choice to turn his back on the jews. Israel = the warrior, destroyer. Jacob = the servant, revivor . (in christianiy the HS is the 'lifegiver') This is why Paul is called the greatest sinner once : his warcrimes committed in Germania, as a venerated roman war-general he was the destroyer of the northern tribes. He never persecuted christians but instead 'the loyal innocent people of the northern parts of the Empire' . He butchered 'ceasar worshippers' or fellow believers in the north not chrestians in the east. The sins of his 'youthness', juvenility.
@William Pasterkamp, Paul does associate himself with "Jews" in Galatians 2.15 - “*We* are Jews by nature and not sinners from the nations" (*ἡμεῖς* φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί·). He also calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων) in Philippians 3.5.
@@choreologychannel Galatians 2. 15, Paul and his compagnions/relatives clearly acting as (rightious) gentiles (as stated in 2.14). Now 2.15 he makes the point of their (royal) 'jewish' descence. According their old blood-line they are equal to full-practizing jews. Paul is stating that they are 'as' jews in rightiousness, certainly not lesser. In phillippians 3 he is also referring to this royal descendance.
@@willempasterkamp862 "Paul never calls himself a jew... He is not a jew."... Except that he DOES literally call himself a "Jew," which is ostensibly not what he really means, because reasons...
Paul is Jew and Israelite.Paul says in NT (Rsv) that Jew,that is Judian. Yahooda is a child of one of Jacob's wifes,Jacob/Israel. Joe from red Judasium said Paul was a chief Towrat guy on knowledge. Jesus must be assumed to have been a master of the Holy Towrat.
Jesus lays the foundation and Paul lays a foundation with the foundation that Jesus lay. (NT says something like that). so understanding of Pauls writings means understanding Jesus. Justification is Paul Rank eg below The First Letter of Paul to Timothy 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, (rsv) (God our Savior is God the Father and Jesus is of the Father).
the saying of Paul,when he says about Abraham and his offspring.it seemed like Paul is saying Christ followers is what Avraham and God is talking about. (that could cause frowns ,with Avraham descendants who may not support Paul's and Christ) Paul is a son of Avraham,so he had authority. With Paul it may be that his own family harmed him and crucified him.(i would like to think that family does not do that to family). Paul said "Jews killed Christ Jesus". Jews is Judians,so Judians killed Jesus Christ. Judians may have been family with Paul.Paul is Jew and Israelite and a Son of Abraham. Christ forgave those who harmed him,so no stain is upon the Jew word and what it represents.
Yeshua didn't start new religion called Christianity... So if following Yeshua makes one a Christian? Just a try thought Christianity is a man made religion I doubt that God recognise it..
And the term Hebrew comes from the word Eber their descendants .. can't believe this guy didn't say that.. Eber is shems grandson And the people of Israel actually refers to them being descendants or the bloodline of Israel and who was named israel? Jacob, so by saying they are the children of Israel they are basically saying they are the children of Jacob
Paul - world's greatest salesman, also liar, scam artist? FYI - new book: The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity
That scripture doesn't existed in Hebrew scriptures... It's a twisted thing to show the hatred to Jews ... If you read that scripture in Hebrew Bible you will be shocked.... Will give u a hint of the passage ... It's when Moses came down from Mount Sinai.. he could see and read...
If you’re not a born again Christian then chances are that you’ll be unable to place your right palm on the KJV and say these words once only->> I refuse to be deceived by the devil. Rev.12:9 The devil deceives the whole world. ❤️✝️
@@variousbirdspecieshahaha Actually, I am the devil. I sent my evil energy into the internet and created a user profile in order to deceive you. And right now I'm tippy tapping on a keyboard in hell sending you this message. It's a special keyboard made from metals that don't melt because it's super hot here in hell. Anyway, I'm dissapointed you figured me out. I was hoping to trick you into believing that god, and by proxy myself too, aren't real. I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling with my plan Ronald. It's been nice chatting with you. I hope to keep up our correspondence. You've been a lovely pen pal. Hope to hear from you again soon. Sincerely, The Devil
Let me know what you think of this deep dive.
Don't forget to sign up for Bart Ehrman's new course "The Unknown Gospels" here 👉 www.mythvisionpodcast.com/unknowngospels
Join the Patreon or CZcams membership program 👉 www.patreon.com/mythvision
I am listening Very carefully from the city of Corinth half a mile from apostle Paul cathedral.
This is an important ethno-religious aspect of both the Christianity and the Judaism of the 1st Century of the Common Era. Paul's understanding of who was a real believer in God and the Messiah has affected not only the history of the Near East, the Mediterranean lands, and Europe but has influenced the course of History for the entire world by the strength of the belief system first written down by Paul the Apostle.
Paul was a self professed apostle. Paul never saw or heard the living jesus, but somehow he identified Jesus in his visions. Moreover he claims he spent 15 days talking to Peter, but proclaims he learned nothing. IOW, Paul is spreading his vision, not apostolic but mystic. Christians cannot seem to understand that.
@@Darisiabgal7573 I understand that Paul is a complex character in the development of Christianity, not the least of which was his desire to spread his particular and peculiar version of the faith to a wider audience than the original Jewish followers of Jesus. His claim to Apostlic authority had more to do with his successful missionary activity then with any contact he had with the first disciples of Jesus. The point of my comment was that without Paul we would probably had a much diminished population of not only Christians but also the influence of Judaism on world culture and probably the inspiration and spread of Islam the third Abrahamic religion as well. We cannot know if that world would have been a better place or a worse one then the one we have, but it surely would have been a different world had Paul never existed.
@@williamarends7138 You are imparting an anachronism on Paul. Paul thought his mission was a failure. Paul was arrested and sent to Jail. Paul's version of christianity hung on in places like Ephesus until the unthinkable happened, Jerusalem failed, the Evyon faded in importance. Temple observance was no longer a thing. Suddenly paul's message began to float.
You should note that christians do not follow Pauline christianity. That version of christianity came from an author who wrote the signs gospel triggering a community of mystics called Johannian christians. They, like Paul also withered but their gospel, still not complete was uncovered by Iraneaus among the gnostic gospels he was critiquing.
Paul is the Poet Laureate of Christian BS.
@@josiepens4480 You Muslim? My two Muslim friends have noting but ridicule for the Apostle Paul.
At one point while listening to this, the gravity of the answers to these questions Christians came up with, hit me. This wasn't a mere academic, theological discussion. It had real and profound consequences for the lives, misery and suffering of millions of people, likely tens of millions across history because the answers to these questions and their prevailing interpretations, were the beginning of 2000 years of antisemitism. All of the ethnic cleansings, expulsions, pogroms, Jews becoming second class citizens, all the way up to the holocaust at the industrial scale...have their beginning right here.
Oopsy
No, it was a phenomena before the advent of Christianity also
@@corneliuscapitalinus845 My understanding is that there was indeed antisemitism in the Empire before Christianity but the spread gave it a specifically theological rather than merely political motive.
There's no such thing as origins to interethnic rivalry and animus and looking to texts for it is erroneous. "Antisemitism" is itself a myth that is integral to the identity of those thus identified. It also functions as a literary and moral trope to deflect against any legitimate criticism of said identified entity.
In effect, an entire population was wiped from N. America and yet we still keep hearing about the purported original sin "antisemitism," itself a gross appropriation of a term that refers to many groups of which the historic Judeans are only one and bear a highly disputed connection to the Yiddim of Europe.
What "hit you" was delusion.
In fact Martin Luther was to blame the most for missusing Paul's words to kill and maim Israelites and many other people including the Anabaptist folks
Dr Stanley is brilliant. Thank you.
Please interview Dr Mark Nanos' work on "Paul within Judaism".
So far so good Derek. And, I signed up for Bart Ehrman's new course this morning.
Excellent work.
At 17:00 Dr. Stanley points out that Christianity was founded on the principle of cultural appropriation. They say to the Jews "We know your sacred texts better than you do. They are really all about *OUR* god, not what you say they are."
Christianity had its foundation with Jews...how do they Culturally appropriate themselves...?
Paul is the number one reason why I’m not a Christian. The creation narrative and Noah’s Ark debates pretty much debunk the Bible as a whole for me but it is Christian reliance on the epistles of Paul that made me wonder who Paul was. Without Paul, the entire New Testament never happens. The Old Testament never happens because the tweaking of the text to support the Jesus as the Messiah narrative never happens. Hebrew scriptures remain Hebrew scriptures. I’m Irish. Without influence from the Church, my Celtic heritage would have remained strong. There never would have been a divide between Irish Catholics and Protestants.
I’m an atheist because I have no good reason to believe that a god of any sort, exists. But I am certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the god as described in the Bible, is pure hokum.
👍👍
Remember that if Jesus was for the Irish, he would have said: man can't live with potatoes alone. But he said bread. Not for the Irish, it is for brown terrorists; The kind of people who use the word bread and live exchangeably.🙂
The creation is the best reason there is to believe that a Transcendent Creator God exists, minus any baseless tradition or special divine mission ascribed to that entity. But if you know anything about the Hebrew Bible, you know already that this is not even the conception of God that it advocated for.
I would love to see Rabbi Tovia Singer engage with Professor Christopher Stanley and in fact he should have been here!
Yep. Tovia's take on Paul seems closer to the target, in my mind. Far too much soft-peddling going on, in this particular discussion.
Very good analysis of Paul's inner thinking
You had to let that whole shipwreck conversation pass and just say “wow cool”. I fell out my chair. Hahahah.
This is why it makes no sense at all to all gentiles like us to buy the abrahamic myths.
The Dr.’s orthodox reading i.e. original exoteric interpretation of text is that Christ is a primordial, perennial, substitution to the material realm. God in the Christian understanding is the maker of all things with clearly defined celestial hierarchies as is observable in the animal kingdom. As a creation we have discernable free-will it is incumbent on each being to not inwardly or outwardly circumvent evidentiary natural law/order. The material world is the micro as the metaphysical is the macro. Everything reverberates.
Yes, it smells of an attempt to sucker the superior Greeks and Romans into paying for a religion that puts the foreigners in a light that makes the superior natives weak and ignorant so the Canaanites can destroy them little by little and 2500 years after they started to immigrate they are still trying to use Christianity to destroy us.
On Roman ‘Christians’, I have read a study that suggests the ‘Jewish Christians’ outnumbered ‘Gentiles Christians’ in Rome all the way until about around 130 CE. This would be true when ‘Romans’ was written.
One of my favorite videos in this podcast! Loved the deep dive!
Please bring Karan Armstrong into the show she wrote a whole book about Paul
The suggestion that this "Gentile Problem" can be discussed presumes that Paul's motivations are known. They are not. Built into the discussion is a talk about what "God wants" yet God never existed. Paul's "Gentile Problem" was "how do I expand my audience to gain more wealth, power and influence" not "what God wants".
“The Pharisees and the scribes have received the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They did not go within, and those who wanted to go there were prevented by them. As for you, be alert as the serpent and as simple as the dove.” - Some Guy
The key of knowledge... sounds like the forbidden fruit.
@@moshekallam1070 Indeed.
Awesome!
Phi 4:9 KJV Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you...
Mat 24:11 KJV And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
These verses were written more than 2000 years ago and on this time, these verses have become prominently and truly fulfilled.. The Devils are working hard in these last days...
i usually just listen
Me too😊
4:15 I wonder when Jews stopped thinking of Yahweh as one God (theirs) among many, and switched to "the only God in existence".
That's a tangent to the topic, but fascinating. I wonder if it was cultural appropriation from the Persians?
What you'all think?
I sometimes think of the idea of worshipping other Gods being "adultery" as indicative of the belief that other Gods existed. How do you cheat on your husband with nobody? Somebody has to be there to cheat with.
The Jewish scriptures stated constantly that the other claimed gods were nothing but dumb idols that had no power.
Rather, compare what Paul said to what Jesus said in Matthew. Then compare what Jesus said in Matthew to the words of God in the Hebrew Scripture. One cannot believe Jesus or God and Paul at the same time if you face the facts and see Paul was a total ignoramus. God wants us to observe and know - Paul wants us to imagine and pretend it's "spiritual".
Paul is an interesting character. I wonder if he ever thought people would be talking about him/his letters so indepthly till the end of time!
I would say no because he taught the ending was coming in his lifetime and he would be transformed and floating in the sky with Jesus.
@@michaelhenry1763
Where do you believe he taught that?
He taught the Thessalonians that the return of the Lord could not happen until the man of lawlessness first came-which never happened in his lifetime.
@@mrfabulous4640 Paul’s genuine letters never ever taught that . In 1 Thessalonians, written between 41 and 49 CE, Paul writes how the end will come and those alive, including him, will be transformed and meet Jesus in the sky. I believe he also writes something similar in 1 Corinthians.
Hey I'm new here as a woman I've always had a problem with Paul. He doesn't like women . I've often wondered why there needed to be an apostle to the nations when Peter had gone to cornelius. The replacement apostle to judas iscariot had to have been a disciple of jesus from jonh the baptist onwards and a witness to the ressurection but Paul has nothing 🙄🙄🙄. He's a dark horse .
He does like women?? The most that can be said about Paul, to my knowledge, is that he perhaps thought that women would not or should not be official leaders in the church, that is people in "official" positions of leadership over the church, probably top leadership aka where the buck stops. He says nothing of women besides this. Everything else he says is normal or positive. He says, on one level there aren't even gender divisions in Christianity anymore, no male or female, we are all one in Christ. He tells men to treat women/wives as if they were the man's body themselves (treat others as you want to be treated). And he seems to highlight women also as his hard working companions in the Lord who deserve praise and thanks.
Corinthians has an inconclusive understanding right now. As Paul seems to both say that women can and should speak in church, prophesy, and later seems to say they shouldn't. Scholars have noted this and are puzzled. Some have thought that Corinthians is partly an assembly of different letters, or that the part of women not speaking is an interpolation and not original, or that it has a specific context it was written in we are not accounting for.
Stick to the 7 undisputed Pauline letters and you will find nothing offensive to women other than the one anti-woman passage in 1 Corinthians that most scholars doubt is authentic. The later Pauline letters written after Paul’s death get progressively more hostile to women as church leaders reestablish traditional patriarchy.
As the proverb say we have to remove the chaff from the wheat. Only half of the Epistles are thought now to be written by Paul, the other six are divided in half and those two authors are more conservative and follow closer to Roman cultural norms. Later scribes had altered poor Junia who Paul praises, by placing her after her husband or changing her name to masculine. Romans I’d believed to be authentic.
@@youngknowledgeseeker He says women can not teach men, they must cover their hair, and wives must obey their husbands as a believer worships Christ. Sounds misognystic to me.
@@youngknowledgeseeker Well, Islam even gives some limited property rights to women. I guess that should suddenly "puzzle" modern scholars and mean that Muhammad was a feminist progressive. /s
I'm confused here ... Abraham had faith in God and he was counted righteous... So now we must have faith in Yeshua to be righteous.. something doesn't add up... If I think so it means forget about God think about Yeshua... But while Yeshua himself pointed us to God .. is Paul try to please the ruler of his days ... Other thing that doesn't sit well with me .. is how the Torah is referred as law .. I think rulers of the day put words into Paul's mouth to discredit Jews (Judaism)
For a moment I imagined that Paul wearing a hat and sunglasses singing ZZ Top Gimme All Your Lovin'🎸
At night?
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matthew 10:5)
"But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6)
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24)
Wery interesting 🤔😁
Prof. Stanley agrees with what IOers have always said about gentiles and about who 'God' loved. (11:40-13:09). However, he doesn't seem to be aware of the metanarrative through the New Testament involving the theme of Israelites being gathered and restored to faith, reconciled with each other and renewed in their covenant relationship with their god....all of which does not involve non-Israelites.
Like most scholars, he suffers from the bias of presentism. He reads into the text his culturally ingrained assumption about 'gentiles' always being non-Israelites. He's obviously a well credentialed scholar. However, for all of his many years of doing what scholars do, it evidently has never dawned on him that the part A of the story (which involved the gathering and restoration of Israel, not non-Israelites) would be completed in the part B of the story (which also involved the gathering and restoration of Israel and did not include non-Israelites).
This couldn't have been made more clear throughout the New Testament, but today's fake-Christians miss it because they're conditioned to believe they have some part of the story. Scholars miss it because they're hung up on word definitions instead of context and because they're affected by presentism and a lack of knowledge of new testament eschatology, which involved only the twelve tribes of Israel. IO demonstrates from the scriptures how these themes are brought to completion by the end of the story.
You should try to get Mark Nanos on
If God is timeless, how can he have a plan for humanity ?
There is no way that Greeks are equal to Paul's people. They were vastly superior. Paul was spreading toxic identity politics to Greeks, Greeks had become the target of the foreigner through religion.
I don't think you understand the topic well enough.
What would be the distinction between the author of Acts ( Acts 6, 9 and 11:20 ) using hellēnistēs to refer to hellenized Jews whether because they speak Greek or follow the customs of the Greek people. In the context of the message being accepted by the Gentile ( Acts 11: 1).
Is it possible that Paul himself taught to the Jews in the synagogue and to the Greeks outside. The Greeks being a reference to the hellenized Jew.
@Roger Beck The meaning of Ἑλληνιστής - “Hellenist” (literally, “Greek speakers”) is disputed. And it’s not clear if it was even part of Paul’s parlance. It seems to pop up out of nowhere in Acts, echoed in later commentaries (catenae on Acts) and Christian history (Sozomenus & Philostorgius). It’s not explicitly, or even contextually, defined.
In Pervo’s Acts commentary, he mentions that the story of these “Hellenists” (in Acts 6) “testifies to a crucial link between Jesus and Paul” (per Martin Hengel). He concludes that “the ‘Hellenists’ conducted an independent mission that provoked opposition from other Greek-speaking Jews”.
In Acts 6.1, the so-called “Hellenists” are contrasted with “Hebrews” (“Hebrew/Aramaic speakers”?). And that’s the only contextual clue how the term may have been used: distinguishing native, Hebrew-speaking “Judahites” from Greek speaking diaspora “Jews”. Yet Paul, a Greek speaking diaspora Jew, labels himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (per Philippians 3:5).
It seems ambiguous in Acts 9.29: where Paul argued with “Greek speakers” in Jerusalem who sought to kill him. Codex Alexandrinus is the only mss with the variant Ἕλλην (Greek). So the Critical Text gives the “Hellenists” variant an {A} rating here.
Acts 11.20 is problematic on multiple fronts. Those who were scattered only spoke to Jews, while the men from Cyprus and Cyrene seem to be speaking to Gentiles (non-Jewish “Hellenists” or even “polytheists”). So the idea that “Hellenists” were “Hellenophone Jews” doesn’t seem to hold up there.
The variant “Ἑλληνιστάς” in Acts 11.20 gets a {C} rating in the Critical Text, since the variant “Ἕλληνας” (Greeks) is found in key manuscripts (P74, Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Bezae). So this may have originally referred to “Greeks” or “polytheists”.
Pervo rationalizes the Author’s presumed choice of “Hellenists” as follows: “The author evidently used the term “Hellenists” in line with the apparent desire to introduce the gentile mission in Antioch with a minimum of fanfare, trusting that readers (for whom the word may have been as obscure as it is for modern scholars) would get the point.”
Thank you.
😶
Thought exercise. What if the Persians or Babylonians dominated?
If I were a Jew, I'd view Paul as an arch-villian. He couldn't abandon Judiacal faith fast enough nor completely enough.
Without Paul there would be no thing such as as "new covenant" theology, at the very least, no new religion.
Where in the Hebrew bible is it said the Messiah would strike a new covenant with God? Wouldn't that have been an important thing to be mentioned there?
It is prophesied in the Tanakh that God would make a New Covenant not like the Old Covenant: Jeremiah 31: 31.
In the Gospels they record Christ Jesus stating He was making a new covenant. We have the apostles claiming to be administers of the New Covenant.
We have the author of Hebrews, who is most likely not Paul, talking about the New Covenant the whole way through.
@@mrfabulous4640 If you read the full passage and not just one verse you will find in verse 33 the new covenant is this:
"But this is the covenant I will make with the House of Isrsel [and the House of Judah] after those days, says the LORD, I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Not, "I will send my only begotten Son to get murdered by Goyyim on their cruciform f***frame (not cross - do your research - Seneca Minor's Moral Epistles 101.10-14 is a good place to start) as a human blood sacrifice to save people from their sins but only if they accept him as their personal lord and savior and believe in their hearts that I raised him from the dead"!
@@mrfabulous4640 Even Islam fits this description better lol.
*Paul on ethnicity*
1 Corinthians 7:17-24 Paul calls for people to remain in their place *that the Lord assigned to them.*
That doesn’t leave much room for an ethnic melting pot (nor for liberation of slaves or women.)
In Galatians 3:28, Paul starts by implying that there is no distinction under Jesus between free people and slaves, men and women, Judaeans and Greeks, but the passage continues into chapter 4, where Paul minimizes the suffering of slaves by saying child heirs are just like slaves, and by 4:24 he is saying that *birth into slavery* is part of the covenant of Mt Sinai. In Galatians 4:28-31, possibly paraphrasing the abuse of Hagar in Genesis 16:4-6, Paul *endorses not treating slaves well,* upholds leaving a slave woman _(paidisken_ when referring to Hagar) and her son homeless, and makes the slaves metaphorically ungodly; a separate, destitute class (which contradicts his earlier child-heirs-are-slaves claim). Galatians 4:30 *”The son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”* This is a metaphor for not inheriting Yahweh’s promise to Abraham and his people, which is an accurate assessment of the horrible morality of Genesis 16.
If Paul thinks so little of slaves, altho there are no free vs slaves, this doesn’t say much for his view on Judaeans: Greeks or women: men.
Derek is such a character bro, he is really trying to debunk any mention of the Northern kingdom he dont like them. lol.
Paul, the supposed pharisee that seems to be a hypocrite too. Why anyone took him at his word is beyond me.
One much remember,when he wrote his letters to whoever,he had absolutely no idea,that one day it will form part of the bible,or that his ideas regarding religion would in time be follow by billions,perhaps if he knew,things would have been different
So I got halfway through and Stephen hadn't said a word, so I scanned ahead and still seemingly nothing from Stephen. Did I miss something?
Stephen does speak during this interview. I'm aware of those time stamps, but he does.
Derek is great, but sometimes he says far too much. There was a rather long and probably unnecessary intro to this.
Acts 14:12 Were the people accurate calling Paul Mercury & Barnabas Jupiter?
Periodic Table: Mercury = Hg (Bible consists of H(Hebrew) & G(Greek).
Mercury = Odin (I Don, Dino, NoID)
Jupiter = Thor = Odin's son(adopted? what happened to Saturn?)
Odin = Greek word 5604 in Strong's Concordance.
Meaning = Birth Pangs, pain, trouble, sorrow...so tribulation.
September 23 2017 revelation sign appeared in the sky iirc Jupiter was hanging out in the womb of the Virgo clothed with the sun & moon at her feet
So my question is...
Is the book itself in a roundabout way the actual deception that it claims will be sent??
I'm leaning towards yes.
Also Odin =
God of Death
God of Know-ledge(Knows/Nose, sense/scents)
Lord(Baal)(ByBaal)
God of Burdens
Mighty God
High
Ruler of Heaven
Wakeful
War Leader
The one who is many
Ancient one
Lord of the Earth
Swift in Deceit, Swift Tricker, Maddener, Wise in magical spells
Wand-bearer(Holy Wood)
Killer
Wide-famed/well known
Deciever
Roarer/Weather Maker
MASK/MASKED ONE
HAT WEARER aka Cap'n(VV Victor Vran)
Iron Mask(VV Victor VonDoom)
VICTOR-Y AUTHOR - Nike(Enki) "just do it'
If that's not enough:
Mercury/Hermes = the speedster
Meta = G3178(METH) meaning = with
Aren't we all hooked on 5G HIGH SPEED internet????
Google's LaMDA....MDA = speed/ecstasy
?????
IDK what to think about all this, but I do know:
When I fight..
Au(Gold)
Thor(JewPeter)
It(Pennywise the Dancing Clown aka Bob Gray[Mercury = gray planet])
Y(Male chromosome)
Authority always wins
Yea when I fight Authority, Authority always wins...
Oh yea and some think the KJV was actually written by SHAKESPEAR hence all the thou/hast/shalt fancy talk...
Another name for Odin..SPEAR SHAKER
SPEAR IT
Not to mention Odin is played by Anthony Hopkins(just look thru his movie titles)
Oh and Odin's other adopted son, Loki, is God of Mischief...low key sounding like the one spearding strife & discord among the apostles(PAUL???)
Ever seen the image on the back of the dollar bill that looks like a gray alien? Look it up & look at that chin...
It's Thanos chin...the mad purple Tit An
If Jesus(New Zeus) = Red Prints
Does Christ = Blue Prince?
Together Jesus + Christ (the name aka E-Man) = purple crown of THOR-Ns
It sounds like he is writing to people who know “the law”. Therefore he addresses the Jews first, because his audience are Jews trying to understand how this new thing works.
At the end the mention of the gospels not addressing the differences between Jews and non-Jews; is this evidence of Paul’s teaching’s being accepted and applied, so the gospels have no need to address that issue? In the time between the letters and gospels how popular had Paul’s teaching got?
Paul..the criptoJew whose (by himself) became an apostle...it seems we have someone here using Abraham's strategies lol
So Paul started the crypto cult too?
@@thescoobymike Ancient people used to call him Satoshi Nakamoto...only a few historians know it... lol
@@Enki3355 what does that mean and what are your sources?
@Stellar Prism oh, ok…so this guy(OP) is full of it, eh?
@Stellar Prism ok
Rabbi Tovia Singer. Learn why you are wrong.
No, he would wipe the floor with this guy.
I don't live like that because that character is not worthy!!! I live according to the True Law!!!
I wonder what the names of the parents of the 10 apostles were...
Paul was a self proclaimed apostle he didn't meet the qualifications to be a true apostle.
Where are all the arguments of that. With Paul having invented another God, don't the Jews have the one God and with Paul talking about the another kind of God about any second God, where is all the debate and argument over introducing a second God to a world that already had a monotheistic God
"Divine Plan of The Ages" .
Watch the video : "Israel , Appointment with Destiny"..
Wonderful video. Romans and the other letters of Paul are logically inconsistent and incoherent. I always find myself agreeing with Paul’s questions and always baffled by his “By no means” answers.
Can you give me one example?
@@mrfabulous4640 yes, I can give you an example:
Romans 9:13-14 (NRSV)
As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
I would answer “yes” there is injustice on God’s part.
@@michaelhenry1763
He gives the reason after (in the following verses) why there is no injustice. What is it about his reasoning you disagree with?
@@mrfabulous4640 of course he gives his reasoning in the next verse. It is convoluted and nonsensical.
It is the very definition of injustice to arbitrarily choose to either like someone or not. Then to say “ By no means “ is almost gaslighting. So then you ask Paul, how Paul, how is it not injustice when you say a few chapters before that God does not show favoritism? He then says, paraphrasing, how are you to question God. God can like who he wants and dislike who he wants.
That is not an answer. It is a justification for God’s favoritism and injustice.
@@michaelhenry1763
So the issue is concerning who would be elected to be in the lineage that brought the promised blessing to the nations-Messiah.
Paul uses the term “hate”. However, in the Old Testament (and the Gospels) loving someone and hating someone (in the same context) just means showing preference (for example, a verse states that Jacob loved one of his wives more than the other, and the next verse states that when God saw Jacob hated one of his wives it displeased Him. Here we see side by side the use of preference used synonymously with “hate”).
So the passage is saying God showed preference to one sibling to be in the line that brought Messiah into the world; that this preference was not based on works but it is a gift of God’s mercy and God can choose to give one person an underserved gift of mercy and not another. Paul is stating it is God’s prerogative to give or withhold (undeserved) mercy (mercy is by definition undeserved) and there is no injustice with that.
Gentlemen.. what are you trying to teach your viewers? If I look on the Greek side I see Isaiah and Joel quoted .. who was Isaiah and Joel pointing to? Because I've read both scriptures in Hebrew English version .. eg . Whoever shall call upon the name of Yehovah shall be saved ... What kind of salvation was it ... So mu thanking is why then this is referring to Lord not LORD ... ..was Paul this confused or the rulers of the day forced the Hebrew scriptures into their agenda..
I agree, in many ways, Paul is transferring the attributes of Yahweh to Jesus. It is strange.
How would the would be different if Jesus never existed?
Jews continued to be very influential.
So you're saying Abraham was a gentile before he was a Jew, very interesting
Abraham wasn’t never a Jew
So then also Yeshua was blinded ...
The most incredible fact is that Paul does not cites Jesus about this issues, it would be the best and only evidence you would need…
Well, this presentation completely destroys the IO position.
Why did Jewish religionists create the Septuagint mythology?
I am disappointed that teachings by the Celtic church appear to have vanished. Eventually they got totally destroyed by the Catholic church because it may well be that it is actually the Celtic church who come closest to the teachings of Christianity. If you have any scholars who know more about the Celtic church and remainder of their teaching I would certainly like to hear about it. By the way, I liked that podcast about the trinity as it always felt totally illogical to me.
This guy seems intelligent...but he is hard for me to follow...TOO MUCH INFORMATION...LOST IN MUDDLE
1.38 and thereabouts: Paul's corruption of the Hebrew scriptures, his misuse for his own weird ends!
I think the laws of Judah are that you don't worship more than one God so when this guy is running around talking about another God and another way why isn't he beat up for that why isn't he held accountable for his mouth Oh, I thought people were stoned to death for worshipping false gods and doing things like that, what's going on here, the lawyers you worship one God and the Jews have a God and Jesus Is Our God does anybody see a goddamn conflict here
WE ARE is very cringey. I know you’re obsessed with super heroes or whatever but it just sounds so hokey.
If you guys are honest with yourself Paul was not talking about Jesus .. if you zoom in these are verses from Hebrew scriptures.... It's either some who translated didn't not understand what he or she was doing ... So salvation in the name of Yehova...
Lol what he specifically names Jesus.
The reason why Jesus preached hell and Paul didn't is because Jesus was representing the pre Babylon suffering servant and Paul was representing the post Babylon returnees.
Huh?
What are you getting at?
Gentiles, the nations = Israel. Greco-roman world including Paul, Joseph and Jesus.
Jews, circumsized = Jacob. a category of (allienated) outsiders within society.
Paul never calls himself a jew but ; israelite, pharisee and benjaminite. Obviously we may conclude ; He is not a jew or 'jacobite'. He is from the other 'class' definitly.
Where Paul = Cornelius, Germanicus ; the rightious gentile. He is a julio-claudian (from davidic descent thus israelite), the most loyal to ceasar (thus pharisee) and a sabinian (benjaminite) in the flesh just as his kinsmen. Sometimes referred to as Herodians, whereas Herodes is a reference to Tiberius princeps. Shortly Tiberius lineage was heirless and taken over by the Germanicus line. 'Herodians' is the house of Cornelius = the house of David.
The jesus-geneaologies include Paul (Heli, Mathan), Claudius (Joseph) and David as forefather. The Clothi gens were considered to be from sabine descent.
Christianity = continued ceasarism. Paul states that all Israel will be saved, he does not say that from Jacob ever. It's gentiles only (replacement) as the core of the NT as a whole. It wasn't a problem for them then, just gods souvereign choice to turn his back on the jews.
Israel = the warrior, destroyer.
Jacob = the servant, revivor . (in christianiy the HS is the 'lifegiver')
This is why Paul is called the greatest sinner once : his warcrimes committed in Germania, as a venerated roman war-general he was the destroyer of the northern tribes. He never persecuted christians but instead 'the loyal innocent people of the northern parts of the Empire' . He butchered 'ceasar worshippers' or fellow believers in the north not chrestians in the east. The sins of his 'youthness', juvenility.
@William Pasterkamp, Paul does associate himself with "Jews" in Galatians 2.15 - “*We* are Jews by nature and not sinners from the nations" (*ἡμεῖς* φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί·). He also calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων) in Philippians 3.5.
@@choreologychannel Galatians 2. 15, Paul and his compagnions/relatives clearly acting as (rightious) gentiles (as stated in 2.14). Now 2.15 he makes the point of their (royal) 'jewish' descence. According their old blood-line they are equal to full-practizing jews. Paul is stating that they are 'as' jews in rightiousness, certainly not lesser. In phillippians 3 he is also referring to this royal descendance.
@@willempasterkamp862 "Paul never calls himself a jew... He is not a jew."... Except that he DOES literally call himself a "Jew," which is ostensibly not what he really means, because reasons...
@@choreologychannel ... for salvation is from the 'ceasars' john 4 . 22
The only thing you got right was that Christianity is continued Caesarism
Paul is Jew and Israelite.Paul says in NT (Rsv) that Jew,that is Judian.
Yahooda is a child of one of Jacob's wifes,Jacob/Israel.
Joe from red Judasium said Paul was a chief Towrat guy on knowledge. Jesus must be assumed to have been a master of the Holy Towrat.
Greek word could be used for identity purposes as like a nation.
Gentiles word could refer to varied peoples who are not Jewish.
Jesus lays the foundation and Paul lays a foundation with the foundation that Jesus lay.
(NT says something like that).
so understanding of Pauls writings means understanding Jesus.
Justification is Paul Rank eg below
The First Letter of Paul to Timothy
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, (rsv)
(God our Savior is God the Father and Jesus is of the Father).
the saying of Paul,when he says about Abraham and his offspring.it seemed like Paul is saying Christ followers is what Avraham and God is talking about. (that could cause frowns ,with Avraham descendants who may not support Paul's and Christ) Paul is a son of Avraham,so he had authority. With Paul it may be that his own family harmed him and crucified him.(i would like to think that family does not do that to family).
Paul said "Jews killed Christ Jesus".
Jews is Judians,so Judians killed Jesus Christ. Judians may have been family with Paul.Paul is Jew and Israelite and a Son of Abraham.
Christ forgave those who harmed him,so no stain is upon the Jew word and what it represents.
I also believe the scripture is Hebrew centric. Israel was the incubator for the answer to the problem of the whole world.
Yeshua didn't start new religion called Christianity... So if following Yeshua makes one a Christian? Just a try thought Christianity is a man made religion I doubt that God recognise it..
This is about Paul’s letters dude. Analyzing Paul’s letters doesn’t mean they’re correct. How did you miss that?
And the term Hebrew comes from the word Eber their descendants ..
can't believe this guy didn't say that..
Eber is shems grandson
And the people of Israel actually refers to them being descendants or the bloodline of Israel and who was named israel? Jacob, so by saying they are the children of Israel they are basically saying they are the children of Jacob
Amen brother. I also can’t believe he didn’t cover every detail regarding Hebrews in his presentation about Paul and gentiles.
Paul - world's greatest salesman, also liar, scam artist? FYI - new book: The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism
A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity
That scripture doesn't existed in Hebrew scriptures... It's a twisted thing to show the hatred to Jews ... If you read that scripture in Hebrew Bible you will be shocked.... Will give u a hint of the passage ... It's when Moses came down from Mount Sinai.. he could see and read...
If you’re not a born again Christian then chances are that you’ll be unable to place your right palm on the KJV and say these words once only->> I refuse to be deceived by the devil.
Rev.12:9 The devil deceives the whole world.
❤️✝️
Lol good jone
@@friendo6257 post a video of yourself voicing these words once only-> I refuse to be deceived by the devil
@@variousbirdspecieshahaha Actually, I am the devil. I sent my evil energy into the internet and created a user profile in order to deceive you. And right now I'm tippy tapping on a keyboard in hell sending you this message. It's a special keyboard made from metals that don't melt because it's super hot here in hell.
Anyway, I'm dissapointed you figured me out. I was hoping to trick you into believing that god, and by proxy myself too, aren't real. I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling with my plan Ronald.
It's been nice chatting with you. I hope to keep up our correspondence. You've been a lovely pen pal. Hope to hear from you again soon.
Sincerely,
The Devil
Gentile means - the ones of unclean practices.
@Stellar Prism Actually - there is a deeper context in it's meaning: Which - is not race - but - 'nationality' - that pertains to 'orientation.'
'Ethnos' - as word defined - meaning: 'Ethnicity' or 'Ethics': In particular - to 'Nationality.'
👎