I really appreciate how objective Jacob is when selecting his guests. He is able to bring the most important and intellectual guests from all spectrums of theological debate.

@BagzAndPresident

5 ай бұрын

Except Dr Price 🤔

Thank you Jacob, for not failing to bring top level content. I wish you to keep up.

Unfortunately, we have much reason to believe that our 'primary source' is a liar...

"You can't use a primary source if you don't know who wrote the primary source." Houston, we just lost the historical Jesus! The gospels are all anonymous.

@ObjectiveEthics

5 ай бұрын

Mythicist argument gets a +1....

@edwardmiessner6502

5 ай бұрын

@@ObjectiveEthics 😁

@garlandjones7709

5 ай бұрын

​@@ObjectiveEthicswhat's the relevance to myth?

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

The NT gospels are sources, but NT scholars have been asking questions about the historicity of the events described for quite a long time.

I think it’s very obvious for anyone who reads Acts and the Letters of Paul, that they do not add up. Time lines are off, how many trips to Jerusalem, some theology. Of course Acts doesn’t support Paul as much as people think.

Hughes repeatedly tells us that Paul was confronted by the risen Christ. He expects us to take that as the history. That is a statement of faith, not the real world well disciplined conclusion of a historian. The history is that Paul ALLEGED that he was confronted by Christ. That is NOT the same as that it actually happened. Paul's claims are dubious. Once one considers Paul to be unreliable, these presumptions must be re-examined.

@ObjectiveEthics

5 ай бұрын

True but Jacob does an excellent job of giving a voice to all sides of the arguments and thus it is up to the viewer to ascertain the truth.

@NomadOutOfAfrica

5 ай бұрын

Exactly. The most generous explanation of what Paul describes is to say he had a conversion experience. Conversion experiences are as common as mud. The “visions” that people have at such times are properly seen as psychological phenomena rather than physical. For a historian to suggest otherwise really undermines his credibility.

Paul taught opposition to God. Most people acknowledge that the enemy walks around hunting souls to devour. So does Paul (2 Cor 12:14&16) "for I did not seek your stuff but your souls"... and then said "I did not burden you, nevertheless being crafty, I did beguile you" He hides amongst the sheep pretending to be one of them. He comes in the name of Jesus but teaches opposite of Jesus. We are warned by Jesus that Anti Christ the False prophet in sheep's clothing will be a ravenous wolf from the tribe of Benjamin (Gen 49:27). Paul a pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1) A murderer since the beginning (John 8:4).

Seems like a smart guy. Thank you

jacob, you have the touch.

Since 90% of Acts is about Paul, and we must believe "primary sources" (even if they don't have a reputation for honesty, why bother with Acts?

@ObjectiveEthics

5 ай бұрын

Acts is a very important text. This text shows the influence of Greek epics so clearly and has thus been so important to textual criticism.

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

John Knox called for a Pauline chronology derived strictly from Paul’s letters. Gerd Lüdemann understood himself to be doing that. Robert Jewett, my doctoral teacher, said you can use details from Acts if they do not contradict what Paul says about his own activities.

@fepeerreview3150

5 ай бұрын

@@fwhughes54 If a writer proves himself to be unreliable in a large part of his work, shouldn't the remaining bits be viewed with a bit more skepticism than would be warranted for a scrupulously accurate writer? To put it another way - I start by telling you 3 things that you know are lies. I then tell you a 4th thing that could be true. Do you accept my 4th statement as readily as you would if the person saying it had a proven reputation for honesty? I would like to hear your opinion on that, but also the opinion of your doctoral teacher if you're still in touch with him.

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

@@fepeerreview3150 The John Knox approach, if it can really be followed strictly, would take the same position as your question implies. Robert Jewett died in 2020, but he thought the wholesale rejection of every detail from Acts was “cavalier.” Given that Acts used sources, just as the Gospel of Luke did, if you throw out Acts you are throwing out not only the material from the final editor of Acts, but also any sources that Acts used.

I see a lot of flaws in Hughes' argument that Paul is primary and Acts secondary as source material. I see both as secondary. Acts is anonymous but demonstrates first hand familiarity with genuine First Century sources. It was familiar with the "pillar" terminology so prevalent in the messianic literature of the Dead Sea scrolls (DSS). It was familiar with the conflict theme over issues of Torah observance that is addressed in the Habakkuk Pesher. It used the term "nazoraios" to tranlsliterate "nazorim" correctly. Acts gets this right, using an omega, while other places in the NT poorly render it as "Nazaraios". Acts was more authentic. It also identified the term as a sectarian label rather than falsely as a place of origin as is done elsewhere in the NT. The original DSS material that Acts accurately presented also tends to suggest that Paul was a liar. Paul himself objects that he is not lying on three occasions in the Pauline corpus, like the frequent refrain from one who is often accused. Then we must consider that we have Fourth Century copies of Paul and the material has been heavily edited by people from later centuries. The best method to proceed then is to admit those parts of the testimony that MATCH the DSS evidence. The DSS evidence is PRIMARY.

@youtubeaccount3230

5 ай бұрын

Yh however acts 5:36-38 verse 37 gets it wrong, it should have said before him instead says after him, i believe the author copied from Josephus who made this mistake, the author of acts could have very well used the DSS and made up the dialogue with Paul and James, which i believe was their first encounter, in Pauls letter where he says he went to Jerusalem to meet James and rebuke Peter, isnt found in marcions NT so that probably was added later

@ObjectiveEthics

5 ай бұрын

​@@youtubeaccount3230Yes but you both seem to forget the potential influence of Marcion priority and the more advanced Qn hypothesis.

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

Since we are studying Paul, his authentic letters are the only primary source.

@PotPoet

5 ай бұрын

@@fwhughes54 You are studying more than just Paul. You are also studying the First Century messianic movement. To ignore the Dead Sea scrolls perspective will skew your conclusions. You also seem to trust what Paul says. That is presumptuous.

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

The pillar terminology is in Galatians.

Without Kamal Salibi’s 4 bible study books and blog this guesswork will continue. “Who was Jesus?:a Conspiracy in Jerusalem “, for better understanding of Paul/Luke/Acts etc.

I find Hughes' argument that I Thessalonians fails to note the well developed Pauline arguments like flesh vs. spirit means it was written before the Jerusalem council. It was early and Paul had not yet developed all his arguments. Paul would have been ashamed of his being corrected by James. Paul had no reason to mention those who scolded him. Paul was a con man.

@ObjectiveEthics

5 ай бұрын

Was 1 Theselonions in the Marcion collection of Paul's 7 (10) letters?

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

Yes.

Dr Frank has an excellent Greek accent

Surely nothing in the books of Acts is actual fact. Acts mentions Judas the Galilean as a failed messiah but Judas’ movement did not fail until 73CE. So Acts was written after that. I would suggest Paul wrote Acts and he did it after Josephus published his history, which included damning passages about Paul. Paul hated Josephus so much for it, that he uses the name “Stephen” to mean Josephus and then metaphorically kills him by substituting him for James in the famous stoning story.

Great question Jacob about the conversion or the better so-called conversion. Paul did never convert like the others apostles too. it no sarcasm by Paul. When mentions the unspeakable things it is because he is a mystic.

*“Luke” unfamiliar with Corinthians?* I’m speculating. It sounds possible that “Luke” read Paul’s letters except Corinthians. Just because others read Corinthians doesn’t mean Luke did. Or maybe people were questioning the authenticity of certain of Paul’s letters and Luke decided to reject Corinthians.

@fwhughes54

5 ай бұрын

The first letter of Clement (in the Apostolic Fathers) writing in 95-97 CE knows of Romans, pieces of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, along with Hebrews (and he did not quote Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, or Titus). Clement was the bishop of Rome. It would have been very advantageous to his argument against the Corinthians if he had quoted 2 Corinthians, but he didn't. So by the end of the first century CE, about the most one can say is that the Pauline corpus is in formation. So, I think the burden of proof is on those who say that the writer of Acts knew any of the Pauline letters. I would like to see some evidence.

According to acts of the apostles, St. Paul offends the high priest Ananias calling him "painted wall" then apologizes(Acts 23)Apart from the fact that at the time Ananias son of Nedebeus was not the High Priest (he was arrested in 52/53-Antiquities XX 131 when Procurator of Judea was Ventidius Cumano. See also Annales XII 54) but Ishmael ben Fabus (antiquities XX 179), we are in 56/57 see Act of apostoles 24,27. "27) But after two years went by, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix, to curry favour with the Jews, left Paul imprisoned.” (Acts 24:24-27). How is it that Josephus does not speak of this very serious fact when he was just twenty years old and he was scribe of the Sanhedrin? 😂. In Faith 😂 Piero Azzolina

If acts contradicts Paul letters then one is wrong, I know in Paul’s letters he doesn’t say anything about the light he seen on the road to Damascus. This only proves you can not prove anything in the NT, and furthermore the whole which is only ligature of stories mostly allegories.

Wanna debate this? I'll cite 2 Peter 3: 16 for starters. Lemme know. Shalomie homie!! 😊

Paul doesn't say a lot of things... like the fact that He was married, to a wife who did not agree with his conversion. Ken Johnson (bible facts) has more on this, discovered in the dead sea scrolls.

I have fun with speculation, this is a fun topic from which to pivot beyond the extant sources. In making this leap I arrive at a place that cannot consider Jesus just a messenger subordinate to Torah. Acts and some of the Synaptic passages tend to indicate a desire on the part of authorship to keep the Christian movement Jewish, this is politics. There is a third and unnamed voice ahead of Torah, influencing NT and clearly obvious in Quran. The voice is not directly God, but it seems to come from that impulse. The voice in Quran is known and the human properties of his voice are clear in a term from 4:156. That pronounces an offence which is neither political not theological. However, there is something more above that. I enjoy not being an influencer when I can look behind me and see the atheists and experts working so hard

@garlandjones7709

5 ай бұрын

Im curious as to your stance on Yeshua if you don't consider him just a messenger in light of the quran references. The idea, imo, throughout the entirety of the new testament is to keep gentiles in the faith Jewish.

@thomasrhodes5013

5 ай бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 The NT and Torah try to perpetuate their social survival, no? There is a third voice. This is the voice from which all these organizations, Torah, NT and Quran, attempt to give a shape. I am not certain that the organizations understood this third voice. I think Yeshua did understand all these demands of soul that give this Kingdom of Heaven life - here in the firmament.

Everyone has known this for centuries.....😅😅😅😅

Ugh. I should have watched the video first... waste of time in debating this. DO NOT use opinions and commentaries of others as the basis of the arguments presented... because IF they are 'wrong', well... the rest of the flock goes over the side of the cliff or back into the sea. Please notice my 'two pronged' approach to finding the truth - bread, unlike bagels - can be toasted on both sides... but that bagel setting is nice too - especially when yer teeth have been busted out yer mouth, speaking for a friend of course. 😅 There is a reason that everything is neatly 'divided up' in the 'writings' - like dry land and sea for instance - because there then exists a path, right up the middle and you can put a foot on both sides and check them against each other. There is no 'partiality' in this 'law', none, zero, nada. Thus, 'grace' becomes a 'component' of... sorry - evil - because it allows for the stalling of the judgement that MUST come, IF God is to be considered 'just' and 'worthy' and all that 'goodly' stuff, rightly claimed of course... that I can promise. Speaking of (promises) this means that the ALMIGHTY is not so 'mighty' IF one is willing to FORCE HIM into having to 'keep and honor' those promises... which sounds pretty arrogant, but my response to the distasteful words that just hit your eardrums like an ice pick would be this... "can God 'break' those promises?" Um... hell no. Thus, everyplace were an IF is presented... so is an opportunity to put God to the test, by being obedient... even unto death, and thus in Jobian fashion, I will say simply - but accurately... "though He slay me yet I will trust in Him." This 'double-edge sword' is made of paper - and why the 'weapons' will be burned... when we get the word out that the laws are written on the heart as well as indelibly upon 'time' itself, and applicable to ALL MEN regardless of affilliation or... hehehe 'knowledge' of it [lawbof God], as pointed out in Romans 2: 12-14... thank you Paulie! Even the son of man, comes in (2) 'flavors' - see Book of Job (worm) and Numbers 23: 19 (repentant and doubleminded), and why Jesus the Christ offers, "will the son of man find faith". A, as in 'one like a son of man' is one who stands at the door and has a choice to make, defile themself with the choice of a foolish woman ♀️... or be a man ♂️. And thus is understood the whole 'pick up your cross ♀️, and follow me ♂️ is understood (Isaiah 52:15 fulfilled in your 'hearing' this btw). Maybe now it can be understood why we ('they' - I didn't do it) should NOT have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Corinithians 2:8). I'm ready to debate when you are. I can even let you touch the scar on my side, and yes... my father actually was a carpenter, and fisherman, and volunteer fireman. My clock here just stuck for 1000 (10 am).... I never lie. Shalom.

Paul = J. the Just = Germanicus = Claudian = Nazarite/nazorean = Called one (sponsiani) elogi, magi, rabbi Hillel, Heli, helios/elias/elymas, zebedee, imran (blessed, prosperous, rich) Mark, marcion ? apollonius of Tyana ? Kamtza (huqoq elephant mosaic). Zacherias, Camil/calimero, benedictus, Cornelius (splendid horn), thorny agave, elevated Agabus, Pantera (pander, deceiver), C. coot, klopas, Nathanael (mathan, matthias), Festus Damnias, grumpy Scrooge, the egyptian Aga Khan, pied piper, robin hood and maybe more. The slavic girls name Tiana seemingly from latin root ; iustia/justinian usually meaning ; Just, friendly, peace and quiet (humble) all characteristics applied to Paul/saul.

You should call this channel "Dismanteling Messiahs Covenant with man"...in the name of the Rabbis brain

The book of Acts of the apostles was written to justify Saul / Paul of Tarsus false gospel of lawlessness. To believe that a Council was held in Jerusalem concerning the gentile church and the sabbath never came up. It is plain to see that Saul / Paul of Tarsus was cutting the head Ecclesia off the Ecclesia. Saul / Paul of Tarsus never brought the church at Corinth under the authority of the head Ecclesia at Hierusalem. Saul / Paul of Tarsus = 666 the antichrist false apostle. To teach Jesus the Christ in the likeness of a descendant of Adam is antichrist. The true gospel by and of Jesus the Christ the Son of the living God / YAHovah is of every good and righteous work. The true gospel is a work gospel.

@hudsontd7778

5 ай бұрын

BLASPHEMY

Acts was written by a faithful man of God filled with the Holy Spirit, and so were Paul's letters. If you see contradictions you're seeing with your mind - not a BORN AGAIN Spirit (John 3). God gave us free will and always allows room to doubt His Word... the trick is to have FAITH in the completed *Word of God,* which is what the Bible IS.

@user-ks4vl1jl7j

5 ай бұрын

The Bible was written by and is the word of bronze age men who thought the earth and plants existed before the Sun and that human slavery and misogyny were cool. You are confused . People should use their minds and logic to validate any claims - including yours- not faith. Faith isn't a virtue. Faith, is the excuse gullable -people use when they can't provide any evidence for their religious claims or beliefs. - Matt D. Btw, Jews, Muslims and Mormons all have faith too and they all disagree with you. Therefore , the faith you recommend is not a pathway to the truth and the truth is what matters. Not what your parents and teachers told you when you were growing up.

I'll put this video on my 'to do' list and comment these 'inconsistancies'. For starters... Paul is NOT himself, and there are (2) identities that need to be considered. When God renames you, you are a new 'unit'. Consider Abram & Abraham... recall that the angel of the Lord says... 'because you have not withheld your one and only son'. Abram bore Ishmael and Abraham bore Isaac. When Paul says that which I want to do I do not do, He is saying that He is merely a 'vessel' for the spirit of God to 'do' THROUGH him, and that he 'wants to do' because he is of the 'right (Holy) spirit'. Coversely, and with honesty, he absolves any of his acts that might tarnish God's works through him as being his [Paul] idea... such as the persecutions he preciously did. This 'guilt' was the 'thorn' in his side also. Shalom.

If you don't know ALMIGHTY GOD JESUS CHRIST HAMASHIACH, you will continue to doubt His Word because He inspired the Bible and the writers and His Word will not return void