I mean doesn’t it make sense to say he was just getting in the way of the mission? God sent him to suffer. Peter says No! Don’t suffer! Jesus rebukes him calling him Satan. Adversary. He’s just calling him an opposer. It does not seem to me that Jesus specifically disagrees with what any of them are calling him. Only until Peter intercedes not wishing him to suffer but he does not understand the suffering is necessary, not rebuking him for calling him the Christ.

@jamesdewane1642

Жыл бұрын

To me it looks like this in Mark: Jesus asks who am I? Peter says the Christ. Jesus starts to educate them on what that truly means, like yeah I'm the Christ, but not like you expect. Peter says something like no, the Christ doesn't die like that (this is me guessing, but you should look at what Jesus says after he rebukes Peter too). Jesus says, get behind me Satan (Tempter, like after the 40 days after the baptism). I take this to mean that Jesus was tempted by Peter's proposal to continue the ministry without going to die. Then Jesus goes on to give a longish speech (especially for Mark) all about giving one's life for the sake of the gospel, and what profit is it for a man to gain the whole world but lose his life? It feels to me like Jesus is explaining himself and his goals and methods, in addition to exhorting others. He's telling Peter and everyone that his life's work will be lost if he does not go to this death in Jerusalem. Peter's error is not accepting Jesus' teaching on what it means to be the Christ. Any difference between me and Tabor seems to be of semantics only.

@ChopinIsMyBestFriend

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesdewane1642 Well ya but Tabor seems to say that Peter gets rebuked for just saying he is the Christ. After Peter says “You are the Christ” There’s an very clear break. “Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him” and then goes on to say how he began teaching and saying that he must suffer. THEN Peter rebukes Jesus for saying he must be killed and rejected and all what is necessary. Tabor is taking an odd position. I think it’s clear that Jesus is not rebuking Peter for having a “Satan inspired confession of Christ” that sounds insane.

@ChopinIsMyBestFriend

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesdewane1642 Also if you see the wording. “Get behind me, Satan” It’s like he’s saying “Stand with me, opposer”. Rather than against me. You would only want someone behind you if you were leading them. In my humble opinion.

If we compare the truly ancient stories with what shows up in the Torah drawn up thousands of years later at Alexandria, we find Noah with a number of names like Utnapishtim, Atra Hasis, Ziusudra, Xisuthros, etc. And we discover that he was warned 120 years earlier than the Flood by a god who has also changed his original name by Genesis 6:3. And that that god had a Son who ended up head of the pantheon ... So my question for my favorite Bible scholar is whether anyone ever looked at Biblical stories of the Suffering Servant as related to much older Babylonian poems of a Righteous Sufferer ... Was the genesis of Christianity derived from a much more ancient mystery?

I think the word "false" as in "false" confession, maybe what is distressing people. If I understand Mark correctly, Jesus is basically saying is "Peter, you really don't know what you are talking about, and you are looking at this in a worldly way. What I must do cannot be understood from that viewpoint, and oh, by the way, Satan is the ruler of this world, so that looking at things in this way, is the way of Satan." So the "falsity" of the confession, is that Peter's meaning is not correct, not that Peter is intentionally making a statement that he knows isn't true.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

LMAO if THAT is what is distressing to some of these snowflakes, wait till they find out there is no god

Yes, we had a big debate over this in MythVision's video comments. People have to do the work and put, Mark, Matthew, and Luke side by side; is the only way. I did it myself. I did it because I wanted to know the truth, I didn't know it was only the start of a long journey, but I love it. I always knew something didn't make sense in Christianity. I had read the Bible many times before, but it was only when I did this and tried to make sense of it; I realized that what they had taught in church wasn't right.

@TheDanEdwards

Жыл бұрын

The Synoptic Problem is a useful way out of the cult-think that is so popular in Christian organizations.

@toddmcdaniels1567

Жыл бұрын

Or just read Mark and ditch the others. (My comment here is partly tongue in cheek and partly serious.)

@russelldavis4938

Жыл бұрын

@@toddmcdaniels1567 I am tending toward doing just that sort of thing although not ditching the others ( that is the tongue and cheek part I assume).

@SpiritMatter-qo3jj

Жыл бұрын

Why are my comments missing when I don't sign in ??????????????????

@Nexus-jg7ev

Жыл бұрын

Where are you now on your learning journey?

Great talk Dr. Tabor.

James, it is on my bucket list to be on one of your Israel tours. Keep up the good work. Love you!

@7Truth7Wins7

Жыл бұрын

I would really seriously think about NOT going to the Holy Land with the "good" "Dr." just to hear him teach you that nothing in the Bible is true !! To hear that Jesus, the Son of God who suffered for YOU that your sins could be forgiven, did NOT "get it right", is the last thing that you want to hear before your "time" is up on this planet. Dr. Tabor is a "lost" soul, like the Pharisee's in the Bible were, who studied the Scriptures night and day, yet could not recognize the Messiah when He showed up, and they paid a great price for it. If you read and study the Scriptures for YOURSELF, instead of allowing MEN to tell you what the Bible says and means, you will do well, as Jesus revealed that "Flesh and Blood" cannot reveal TRUTH, only the Spirit of God can.

@lindabishop1402

4 ай бұрын

​please!! Dr Tabor never ever says Jesus didn't die for our sins. I follow Dr Tabor very closely and if anything, my relationship with Jesus and God have become stronger. Finding the Family Tomb of Jesus excited me that yes, Jesus was here people 😊will believe. Also, I understand the scriptures, better, spiritually as well. Soo, your point is lost. No One can make me disbelief, it's in my soul that God exists.

It is said comments help a channel. I don't have anything else to say but, thank you Dr. Tabor! I so much appreciate your work!

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Also LIKE & SUBSCRIBE ;)

I would like to see these literary shards, such as the understanding of the word hate, dusted off and reviewed in the light of the historical context of the period. I think we are imposing contemporary concepts into our efforts at comprehension. We have reference material in ancient authorship [ Livy, Dio, and Petronius etc. ]. The works are extant and contemporary to the period under observation. This distinction is not so subtle as the noys may imagine.

Than you for the clarification.

@paulschlachter4313

Жыл бұрын

+1

the language is sharp because it is parable. and it caused the gospel to make history absorb the parable and get shaped according to histories/cause need. the rebuke carries self judgement and the parables of the first born and his brothers are integrated in the rebuke, as satan in "judaism" is a tool for judgement (stumbling block), and the accuser came first, first the salt. in the gospel there looks to be a connection to the roman city in the north, which is a metaphor in its own right. btw enjoy a lot the channel.

Makes a lot of sense. Interesting that Matthew's version is where papal primacy is proven textually and that Luke just deletes this passage.

Great class whenever you say “Satan” your going to have a full class !

Thank you.

Thanks Dr. Tabor. Good rebuttal. I am glad you read KZread comments and use those to shape your videos. Your terms have helped me greatly when speaking to fundamentalists. When I say to them, I take a critical view of the gospels they shut down immediately. However, if I say I take a careful view, they are much more receptive. The same thing happened when I started saying there are differences in the gospels instead of using the word contradictions.

@7Truth7Wins7

Жыл бұрын

Your doing well by NOT using the word "contradictions" because they are NOT contradictions. One would have to be a complete utter deluded fool to even consider the "title" of this video and that Peter's confession of Jesus Christ was inspired by Satan. Just because Mark's Gospel does not contain the response from Jesus to Peter that Matthew records, which is, "Flesh and Blood has not revealed this to you Peter, but my Father which is in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), does not reveal that it is a contradiction, because Mark clearly writes after Peter's confession of Christ,... "And Jesus charged them that they should tell no man OF HIM." (Mark 8:30), Jesus CLEARLY AGREEING WITH PETER WHO HE IS !! This so-called "Dr." is leading you down the wrong path my friend, BE CAREFUL !!

@Nexus-jg7ev

Жыл бұрын

​@@7Truth7Wins7 Just like Peter, you don't get it, do you?

@7Truth7Wins7

Жыл бұрын

@@Nexus-jg7ev It is Written: And...Jesus...said "O FOOLS, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:" (Luke 24:24)

@Nexus-jg7ev

Жыл бұрын

@@7Truth7Wins7 The main theme in Mark is that the disciples expected a Messiah who would be a Davidic king who, according to the prophecies, would restore the kingdom of David and bring world peace, etc. Instead, Jesus is trying to get them to understand that he is a suffering Messiah based on Isaiah 53. Peter rebukes Jesus because Peter doesn't expect a suffering Messiah, which is why Jesus calls him Satan with annoyance that he still doesn't understand him. That's the whole point. The gospel of Mark is very well written. You, the reader, know the secret but everyone in the gospel is struggling to figure it out.

@7Truth7Wins7

Жыл бұрын

@@Nexus-jg7ev I understand what you are saying, but you are missing some important & crucial "spiritual" Truth in this event, by not bringing the Book of Matthew and Luke into the study as a WHOLE. #1. Jesus is NOT trying to get them to understand that He is the suffering Messiah, as Jesus knows that they absolutely CANNOT UNDERSTAND or KNOW THIS TRUTH UNTIL AFTER the Cross, Resurrection and after they receive the Spirit of God. "...the hidden wisdom...Which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had understood it, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory." (1st Corinthians 2:8) #2. Jesus does not call Peter "Satan". Jesus knows that "Satan" is the INFLUENCE behind Peter's response to Him. Remember what Jesus taught concerning the Parable of the Sower Sows the Word ? Jesus said... "And these are they by the way side, where the Word of God is sown; but when they have heard, SATAN COMES IMMEDIATELY AND TAKES AWAY THE WORD THAT WAS SOWN IN THEIR HEARTS." (Mark 4:15) This is EXACTLY what happened to Peter. He "heard" the Word of the Kingdom, the TRUTH, from the mouth of Jesus Himself, and SATAN stole it from his heart, so that Peter REJECTED it. Now you must understand something else from MATTHEWS account of this event. A few verses earlier, BEFORE, Peter REJECTED the TRUTH from Jesus' mouth concerning His death in Jerusalem, Peter RECEIVED the TRUTH from the Father "personally", by "Revelation", which is "Spiritual Communication", which bypasses the natural realm. Why didn't Peter "rebuke" the Father for revealing the Truth about Jesus being the Messiah, the Christ & the Son of the living God ? The reason is, TRUTH must be REVEALED on the INSIDE OF US, BY GOD HIMSELF, through "spiritual communication" or by Revelation in order for that TRUTH to be REALITY & REAL to us. Jesus said to Peter, .. "Flesh and Blood has NOT REVEALED this to you, but MY FATHER which is in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17) But when Jesus speaks the TRUTH to Peter a few verses later, through "Natural Communication", NOT by Revelation from the Father, Peter REJECTS the Truth from Jesus because "Satan".... "takes away the Word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." (Matthew 8:12) And also notice, that the Truth that Jesus was telling Peter about His death in Jerusalem was necessary for us to "believe and be saved". And one last observation, there is a pattern in the Scriptures where whenever someone hears the VOICE OF GOD, by Revelation, NOT in the "natural" realm, Satan always shows up to OPPOSE that WORD FROM GOD. And that is EXACTLY what happened to Peter AFTER he heard "personally" from the Father that Jesus is the Christ in Matthew 16:17.

I think Iscariot, Zealot, Didymus, and Peter were irritated with Jesus for all the doom and gloom, and they sent Peter up to rebuke Jesus, which ticked Jesus off, causing him to look back at the disciples and then lash out at Peter, calling him “Satan” and telling him to get back in line!

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

They wanted GigaChad Christ instead of Virgin Jesus

@xifangyangren9997

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog we laugh, but the truth is, gigachad is exactly who they wanted. They didn’t realize Jesus was really Superman disguised as Clark Kent. And I mean that even if you don’t think Jesus was divine. Jesus was brave and crazy at the same time

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

@@xifangyangren9997 We need the "Virgin Jesus VS Giga Chad Christ" meme with the twist of course that Virgin Jesus wins

I don't know who was first but is it just a coincidence that Bart Ehrman has recently released a series on Mark you can purchase online? I wish I could afford both. I would purchase Tabor's first if I could buy one. What a great opportunity to see two popular scholars talk about Mark.

Whenever I read the, “get behind me Satan” line in Mark, I always feel like it has got to be out of place in the speech during the period of second temple Judaism. I almost feel it's like Romeo saying to Juliet, “Yo Juliet, that's cap bro.” But that's just my layperson’s knee-jerk reaction. So I'm wondering if that really fits in the Greek? Does it sit in the mix? I get the good versus evil everywhere theme… Peter, Judas,… I get that idea.

I have found that when I read the bible, one of the worst things I can do is to interpret anything at face value. Tabor might be onto something. I think Peter rebuked Jesus satanically (adversarial) by way of telling Jesus his own mission, and what a messiah was and was not, according to his PoV. Tabor seems to lump in Peter’s confession about Jesus being the prophesied messiah as part of that misguided reprimand. Only in one’s own faith in Jesus will the truth be known.

It is the language of a renunciant, it is the language of someone who understands the ties of family emotions and their short term efficacy. If you can surmount the "hate and love" dimension of emotions, you can find yourself free to "only love".

A very very persuasive reading, looks like that uncharitable and completely unfounded comment the other day resulted in something good in the end😃

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Throckmorton book available on Internet Archive!

@grantsmythe8625

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog Oh good! Thank you for that. That's a good site.

@sso1834

Жыл бұрын

I don't know if it is "all good" (purely good, or kind) since the Professor looks in distress (comparing to the sassy smiley happy professor in recording of the Mark course). Even we Atheist/Pagan Chinese were taught to respect elderly and to care for the young. The Wild Wild West of Animal Kingdom of Evangelical Sect of Christendom seems to DEFINE their goodness differently. Professor Tabor was born around same time as my parents. (Maybe I am reading too much in these online spats.)

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

@@sso1834 _Hell is other people..._ in Comment Sections of KZread videos😉

@sso1834

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog Hahaha 😂 I guess Silence is Golden. 😊

Thank you for this clarification, Dr. Tabor... though it appears you are still conflating two events and their respective separate sets of quotes into one: Mistakenly linking Peter's first quote (Peter's Confession of Jesus as "Christ) of one event with Jesus' last quote at the ending of the second (Peter rebuking Jesus for prophesying His own death resulting in Jesus' telling him, "Get behind me, Satan" for daring to rebuke Him). As I have previously pointed out, these two quotes you claim linked are clearly not: Jesus is NOT rebuking Peter for having called Him "the Christ." In short, both accounts relate as follows: Jesus asks the "apostles" who they think He is and Peter declares He is "the Christ." Mark then has Jesus apparently agreeing with Peter, telling them to reveal this to no one... just as He does throughout Mark's Gospel whenever He performs miracles. Now we move on to what happens next... a SEPARATE conversation... when Jesus then horrifies Peter, and probably the rest of the "apostles," in declaring He would soon be killed. 😯 Now, this flies in the face of ALL Davidic Messianic prophecies... and Peter knew it! Small wonder then that Peter correctly "rebuke(d)" Jesus. The Davidic Messiah is repeatedly prophesied as David's son (descendant) who would sit on his father's throne as the King who will vanquish all Israel's enemies and usher in the Messianic Age and Kingdom that will rule over all kingdoms on Earth! Never was the Messiah to ever be suddenly betrayed, handed over to his enemies and put to death to rise three days later. NONE of this is found anywhere in the Tanakh for the Messiah! And it was against this that Peter vehemently "rebuke(d)" Jesus as he was certain Jesus was wrong and needed to be corrected. And it was to THIS that Jesus then turned around and instead harshly rebuked Peter, telling him: "Get behind me, Satan. You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s." (Mark 8:33). Now... while I would love to delve deeply into why the Gospels would claim Jesus supposedly said such unseemly things ... yet that is not the purpose of this reply. My point here is that none of the Gospels, much less Mark, supports your view for Jesus calling Peter "Satan" for declaring Him to be "Christ." To the contrary, Mark and the rest of the Gospels clearly champion the doctrine that it was God who revealed this doctrine to Peter... not Satan. I have all kinds of respect for your scholarship, Dr. Tabor. But on this and a few other points you have made in other areas, I disagree because the scriptural and historical evidences indicate otherwise... imho. Thanks!

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

"Mark then has Jesus telling them to reveal this to no one... thus implying by this that He agrees with Peter; Jesus acknowledges thereby that Peter got it right. Matthew only makes Jesus' agreement with Peter far clearer by blessing him for realizing this. Thus... both Jesus and Peter are in agreement that Jesus is the prophesied Davidic Messiah. " Or it can be equally plausibly said that in Mark, Jesus charges them to tell no one about him _precisely because Peter gets it wrong_ and then Matthew does a 180 and with his invention of the blessing and the entire Peter/rock/keys bit manages to convey the exact opposite meaning that is in sync with his general theology. Matthew and Luke are not Mark's buddies. They did not write their gospels so these works can then live happily ever after _alongside_ Mark, they wrote them to _supplant_ Mark

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Notice that in Mark, as in his copyists Matthew and Luke, Jesus first tells them to keep silent about him, and ONLY THEN he teaches them about the suffering Son etc. Of course he doesn't want these thickos spreading fake Good News (in the wrong form, namely the conclusion Peter jumped to) before he clarifies to them what's what

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

"Peter obviously didn't get it wrong. All the Gospels call Jesus "the Christ," most notably for this discussion the first verse in Mark's Gospel: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus CHRIST, the Son of God" (emphasis added). Thus, Mark's author makes clear from the start HE believes Jesus to be the "Christ." And, obviously, all the other Gospels agree with Mark. Thus we know... Peter got it right. Let's not forget Mark's Gospel has Jesus constantly telling the "apostles" and those He heals not to tell anyone what they witnessed... all of which is presented as real and true. Thus it fits perfectly with this motif that Jesus would also not wish others to know He is not only a healer but actually the Christ, too. " The question here is, what KIND of Christ or better translated "messiah" If your claim that Peter got it right 100% was true, there would have been no need for Jesus RIGHT AFTER THAT to BEGIN teaching them about the SON OF MAN (in Mark and Luke, conspicuously deleted by Matthew) suffering etc. Why teach Peter something he apparently already knows? And Peter obviously did get SOMETHING wrong because he is AFAIK the only person called Satan by Jesus

@FatherVampire

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog -- If Mark's author is trying to say Peter is wrong... that, in fact, Jesus is not the Christ ... why would Mark's author agree with Peter? The first verse of Mark's Gospel declares what Peter did: that Jesus is, indeed, the Christ! ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus CHRIST, the Son of God" [emphasis added]). Obviously therefore, Mark agrees with Matthew who agrees with Luke... and all agree with Saul (Paul)... that Jesus is the "Christ." Were this not so, there would be no "Christ"-ianity, today.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

@@FatherVampire I responded to the original version of your comment above

Whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven , loose on earth loose in heaven From that time I began to teach them after three days rise again rebuke him get behind me Satan!

Bible scholars say a lot. Was the writings of the New Testament written in Aramaic. Was all the letters in Aramaic. Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was even written. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying on a different day. They also say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't right the Gospels. The Gospels came about at the time Peter and Paul and Jerusalem was destroyed by 70 AD. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. It's because the only commonly circulated manuscripts are in Greek. The strong consensus of modern scholars is that Revelation was not written by either the apostle John nor by the author of John’s Gospel. To distinguish the author, they now refer to him simply as ‘John of Patmos’. Patmos was a Greek island and naturally the book was written in Greek to be read by Greek-speaking Christians. But for the record, this is why when the boy Jesus taught at the Temple in Hebrew translating it into perfect Aramaic that the Rabbis were astounded. This was the first time a boy did what the priests could not do. The four gospels is associated with the four living creatures Matthew the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepare the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah

There are some difficult questions this passage raises, usually skipped by preachers. For example, what did the character Jesus mean by "Satan"? Is this presenting the view of the mystic-minded Jews of the time, who believed in demons? Or is the Greek translated as "Satan" as a convenience, perhaps put into the story by the author simply to demean his character "Peter'? If one believes, as do so many fundamentalists today, that "Satan" is a separate sentient super-being, was Peter actually possessed at that time? And if he was possessed, what does that imply?

@mikeroms1

7 ай бұрын

He was referring to him as Satan because he was standing in the way of His mission to die as a sacrifice for sin on the cross in that moment. His mind was not with God but thinking worldly thoughts of what the messiah should be.( mighty king/ conqueror/political leader) . The same thinking that Judas had when he betrayed Jesus.

Dear mr Tabor Could you please show me a single passage in Mark, which could convince me, that the author (whose name likely was not hammer) was indeed a christian and believer in Jesus by the time of writing?

The notion of Messiah was not fully understood by Peter. He identified Yeshua as Messiah, but he failed to understand that the Messiah must suffer. Like Joseph, son of Jacob, Yeshua ben Yosef was not recognized fully. What some meant for evil God meant for good. To not accept the need of the Messiah to suffer for the sin of the people is from Satan. Redemption comes after the rejection of ben Yosef (the stone/eben), and later, his exaltation will be fully revealed. As the brothers of Joseph did not recognize Joseph at his first appearance so the brothers of Yeshua ben Yosef did not recognize him.

@dustinellerbe4125

Жыл бұрын

His people. Not all people.

@josephdeisrael

Жыл бұрын

@Dustin Ellerbe people-human kind. To Israel/the House of Jacob and also to the nations. The Gospel is found in the narrative of the Torah. The stories of the forefathers reveal meaning to the children. Joseph, son of Jacob, is a redeemer for Egypt (and the nations) and the House of Jacob. Jacob's blessing of Joseph also reveals the meaning of the stone that was anointed.

@dustinellerbe4125

Жыл бұрын

@Joseph de Israel no no. People doesn't mean all humans. It meant his chosen people. The 12 tribes of Israel. To leave this out, does away with the whole backstory. The New Testament is a continuation of the Old. It's all about Israel. Salvation and redemption for Israel.

@josephdeisrael

Жыл бұрын

@@dustinellerbe4125 Gen 49.10

@zyme607

Жыл бұрын

I think you are absolutely right! The contemporary Jewish people expected a completely false Messiah: An invincible glorious priestly king (on a battle horse with a sword in his hand in front of a huge army of angels?) that would slaughter the Romans and drive all pagans out of the country. The Zealots wouldn't wait for this and just started murder in advance. This is the satanic misconception on the Messiah that Peter still shared. It distracts us from what really is important for our souls! But Dr. Tabor: Was is the problem? All three gospels concordantly report that Peter correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah. And two of them tell us in addition that nonetheless Peter (like most of his contemporaries) critically misunderstood what the true Jesaja-prophecy Messiah really was. People couldn't believe and didn't want that the great anointed king would be slaughtered than the other way round. The witnesses for Luke's gospel didn't report this incident - maybe they just forgot it. Without judging the non-professional witnesses and authors of the gospels with the magnifying glass: Isn't this all roughly but clearly in line?

My understanding in the Matt. account is Peter is telling Jesus to save himself, which is contrary to the will of the Father so Jesus rebukes Peter. Mark is on a special crusade to demonize the mortal apostles to make room for the new super apostle Paul, the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Damn, that's interesting.

Now where is that commentator that caused this whole video. He tucked his head in the sand real fast.

Jesus was reading Daniel and that timeline and knew he was the one who would be cut off before the 70 weeks expired. I seriously doubt he was all that confident he would wrap it up over a 3 day weekend if he understood Daniel.

Hmm

Ha ha. You have got my fascination, James. I will do your course as soon as I can pay for it. As an agnostic-atheist but an inheritor of a strong Christian legacy I have 2 basic questions: 1) what is the mystery of existence in all its ultimate uncertainty and unknowingness about? 2) in what way is Jesus an icon of Godness such that we have made him into a God? Your course sounds very interesting... maybe a small piece in my jigsaw. You're a great scholar

Is Satan and the devil the same character in Gospel of John?

I see many of your conclusions, but this one does not seem like an either-or to me.

For a parallel move from faith to no faith and God’s response to each state, reread Genesis 15 as YHWH interacts with Abraham.

Good video. I agree with your analysis. --- I consider Mark Ch 8, verses 29 and 30, to be extremely WEASEL-WORDED. --- In verse 29, there are two QUOTES, First quote by Jesus, "Whom say ye that I am?", and second quote by Peter, "Thou art the Christ." --- But Verse 30, is NOT a quote, Verse 30 is a "summary", and Verse 30 DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. --- Did Jesus say, "Yes, but keep it a secret," OR did Jesus say, "NO I'M NOT! And don't you tell anybody that I am!" ????? The text in Mark does NOT answer the question. I am a big, big Jesus fan, but I stopped calling myself "Christian" over 30 years ago. --- I like Christians, but their interpretation of Jesus is ALL WRONG. --- It is NOT the "Death and Resurrection" of Jesus that was important; instead, it was the LIFE and the MESSAGES of Jesus that were important.

No, you didn't use hyperbole, I think its exactly what Jesus meant. I get what you mean tho. Some of what I get from your teachings, is that Jesus understood the words coming out of Peters mouth was not sincere, it was a too easy thing to say. Jesus was talking to Satan that is dwelling in Peter, immediately in that moment. WOW!! It just makes sense why he says that, I never understood it until now. Thanks Dr Tabor, sooo cool 😎 👌 👍

When the disciples say to Jesus, some people say you’re Elijah, etc. It’s been argued to me that this proves that the Jews of this time believed in reincarnation. Do you think there’s any basis for this opinion?

@sso1834

Жыл бұрын

I think Luke-Acts 23 says the Sadducee Sect didn’t believe but the Pharisee Sect believed in resurrection. That was how Paul created an opening for himself, by dividing the council.

@gflem

Жыл бұрын

@@sso1834 How would one eseach this? Im starting to believe in reincarnation. Im wondering who believed in this during Jesus time. There is a teaching that John the Baptiser and Jesus were the reincarnation of Elijah and Elisha

@sso1834

Жыл бұрын

@@gflem If you are not limited to Jewish & Christian texts, you can read Buddhism texts and Eastern Lores. Lots of references there. I personally search "Strong's Hebrew 7307" to find sections with the word SPIRIT in OT and just read them.

@paulschlachter4313

Жыл бұрын

Normally reincarnation is assoziated with a rebirth to get to better / enlightened on a path to Nirvana and not with a concious lowering of a higher being. I.e. in "The Ascention of Isaiah" (pseudepigraphical Judeo-Christian text from 2nd century) Isaiah is watching Jesus descending through each of the heavens disguising himself as an angel toward earth, his earthly birth, death, his resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus.

@ChristopherCudworth

Жыл бұрын

Interesting point to consider whether reincarnation is much different than resurrection.

"It is by love, that the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother and the Son of Man become one. For the spirit of the Son of Man was created from the spirit of the Heaven Father, and his body from the body of the Earthly Mother. Become, therefore, perfect as the spirit of your Heavenly Father and the body of your Earthly Mother are perfect. And so love your Heavenly Father, as he loves your spirit. And so love your Earthly Mother, as she loves your body. And so love your true brothers, as your Heavenly Father and your Earthly Mother love them. And then your Heavenly Father shall give you his holy spirit, and your Earthly Mother shall give you her holy body. And then shall the Sons of Men like true brothers give love one to another, the love which they received from their Heavenly Father and from their Earthly Mother; and they shall all become comforters one of another. And then shall disappear from the earth all evil and all sorrow, and there shall be love and joy upon earth. And then shall the earth be like the heavens, and the kingdom of God shall come. And then shall come the Son of Man in all his glory, to inherit the kingdom of God. And then shall the Sons of Men divide their divine inheritance, the kingdom of God. For the Sons of Men live in the Heavenly Father and in the Earthly Mother, and the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother live in them. And then with the kingdom of God shall come the end of the times. For the Heavenly Father's love gives to all life everlasting in the kingdom of God. For love is eternal. Love is stronger than death."

@strappedfatman7858

Жыл бұрын

The woman at Genesis 3:15 is the birth of the kingdom. The 144,000 and the Lamb is a literal number. Adam wasn't deceived. The ground did produce thorns and thistles because Jesus worn the crown of thorns and thistles. God told Adam the prophecy of the resurrection. Genesis 3:15 The Sacrifice of Jesus was the first part of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will bruise him in the heel.” Satan the Dragon and the Wild Beast the 6th Kingdom executed Jesus on their image the cross. It was the Roman Empire of Italy that is also the shape of the heel. So the first part of the prophecy is complete . Satan bruised Jesus in the heel.

Why is it Mathew takes (copies) mark, why can't it be two different pov's?

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

But it _is_ two different POVs- that is exactly Tabor's point. Matthew is destroying Mark's point and making his own instead. And as for copying, it is _absolutely certain_ that - when you take Mark Matthew and Luke as texts - in the "synoptic" portions somebody was copying someone else the only issue left to determine is the order of copying. Mark being the first gospel is what Tabor presupposes here: the vast majority of scholars agree on that

@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog two people can look at a subject/event and see two different variations w/o destroying the other.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

@@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447 True, but that's not how gospels were created. They are not independent reports of the same underlying subject/events by several witnesses

@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog of course they are. Eyewitnesses accounts from the orale traditions.

JC was a turn your cheek guy because he pitied the ignorant innocent. He probably meant hate your father literally from a point of knowing something sinister about the guy specifically in his life.

@goneprivate2714

Жыл бұрын

I got to that point finally of hating my dead dad in this context. Sometime later I found Job 42:6 and learned how to hate myself. A wonderful personal revelation.

@dadedowuh

Жыл бұрын

@@goneprivate2714 I empathize without knowing the details. Taking back something said? Contextual. Be authentic and let the chips fall where they may, and except the outcome. My dad often said to me "don't shoot yourself in the foot" I finally said "where should I point the gun" that he put in my hands.. it hurts me tremendously to be the cause of anyone or things pain. It's so not me.

@dadedowuh

Жыл бұрын

My father is a cane pole fisherman that uses leather shoe string and a bobby pin to hang his bait. I'm the shrimp

Peter is a complicated guy. When Jesus is seized, Peter goes nuts and is ready to die for Jesus; he cuts off the servants ear, knowing the Temple guards will probably kill him in response. A few minutes later he is totally denying he even knows Jesus. Wth? Of course, none of that actually happened. But why tell the story that way? To make Peter look like a feckless fool? Probably.

It's quite ambiguous from your comments here which specific claim you're classifying as from "Satan". It's clear to most that Peter's objection is to Jesus' prophesy of his death. Of course, this met with rejection since it was not a part of the Jewish worldview of the destiny of their Messiah in the 1st century. They were then still expecting a conquering King to defeat Rome and elevate YHWH to the pinnacle of veneration by the gentile nations. Peter was not disclaiming, according to Mark, that Jesus was the Messiah. He had just confessed that. He was reacting to Jesus' statement that he would be killed. Why would anyone expect any less reaction from a 1st-century Jew? Obviously, in recording this conversation, Mark sympathizes with Peter, as he should as a first-century Jew. I just don't see how this argument (as I understand it) has any credibility.

The Church of Christ was founded by Christ, and built upon Peter's confession, the you know if someone can't say that Jesus is the Son of God, they are not of God, or with God, it was God who told Peter who Christ was, you are skipping the part where God tells Peter who Jesus is, you are getting way off track, he told him he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, dude, you are from the Church of Christ, the only one true Church, God guides me to those who are in the body of Christ, #1 there are no prophets today, that's that, God wants me to learn thing from you, but from me to you he wants you to learn something, don't you think God told them when they were writing things they did not do it the way God did not want them to, no, God does want us to figure somethings out.

Sounds like a cult leader disparaging/dodging a follower's request for more information on the promises the leader's made.

I think everyone's reading it wrong. I can see Jesus as having a great sense of humour and replied to Peter sarcastically, "get behind me Satan...." Satan of course being the worst thing Jesus could have called peter but with a big smile on his face. The tension was broken and they all walked off behind Jesus. That funny moment was why the story was remembered.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

You should write for SNL!

St Peters square has an obelisk, which is a falic symbol for a penis. He was called the stumbling block, you stumble and fall flat on your face. He was called the stone, heart of stone. He was called Kaypha, the pavement. He was a fisherman, not a good sign from Habakuk chapte 1. This is why he told him go find a fish and get the money out of it. As the crow or cock crows twice, you will deny me three times Peter, Petros, Satan! His idea of salvation was the snare to the world. The snare, the net of the fishermen. In the gospel of Mary he accuses as Satan does, he is angry and attacking her. He could not understand Jesus and did not believe in him "show us the father so we may believe". He sought Jesus, those who seek me are evil. He betrayed him at the supper, not Judah. Herod, Pilate, and the Temple has spies on them and knew where they gathered. His ideas all go against the teachings of Jesus, against or antiChrist. Did you think they would leave his testimony alone?

many times in our lives happend if we manage to at least a little turn the angle of view, we suddenly bear witness to the uncovering the curtain of the scene. Yep, it was Satanic confession of Peter. not because he would not understand the suffering of Jesus was necessary for a higher purpose meant by God ( which I would hesitate to interpret like that), but for his calling him ( Jesus) Christ. Maybe Jesus's statement: On that rock I will built my religion - does not talk about Peter's quality chosen by Jesus but about rocky deeds of Peter about which Jesus was aware. And finally - maybe it would be finally everything fitting into each other if we put into the equation of "unknown X" the simple and very possible fact, Jesus was a woman. Mary.

"Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”? The command “Get behind me, Satan,” spoken to Peter by Jesus, is recorded in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33. “Get behind me, Satan” seems harsh and out of character for Jesus, especially when addressing Peter, one of His most devout disciples. Why did Jesus say this? What was it Peter did to deserve such a rebuke? Without knowing it, Peter was speaking for Satan.Jesus had just revealed to His disciples for the first time the plan: He was to go to Jerusalem to suffer, die, and be raised to life (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31). Contrary to their expectations of Him, Jesus explained that He had not come to establish an earthly Messianic kingdom at that time. The disciples were not prepared for this new revelation of the Messiah’s purpose. Though Peter understood His words, he simply could not reconcile his view of the conquering Messiah with the suffering and death Jesus spoke of. So Peter “began to rebuke Him” for having such a fatalistic mindset. Unwittingly, Peter was speaking for Satan. Like Jesus’ adversary, Peter was not setting his mind on the things of God-His ways, His plans, and His purposes (Colossians 3:2; Isaiah 55:8-9). Instead, his mind was set on the things of man, the things of the world and its earthly values. Jesus was saying that the way of the cross was God’s will, the plan of redemption for all mankind. Peter’s reaction was most likely shared by the other disciples although, as always, it was Peter who spoke first. Peter was inadvertently being used of Satan in thinking he was protecting Jesus. Satan had purposely tempted Jesus in the wilderness to divert Him from the cross, from fulfilling the grand design of the Father and the Son (Mark 1:12-13). Innocently, Peter was doing the same thing. He had not yet grasped Jesus’ true Messianic purpose. Although Peter had just moments before declared Jesus as the Christ, he turned from God’s perspective and viewed the situation from man’s perspective, which brought about the stern rebuke: “Get behind me, Satan!” Jesus went on to explain: “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men” (Mark 8:33). At the time, Jesus’ stern reprimand did not make sense to Peter. However, Jesus’ indictment presents a profound message for us. We can easily see that Peter had the wrong perspective of God’s plan for Christ’s suffering and death. But we must also see how easily we can become an unwitting spokesperson for Satan. This is especially true when we lose sight of God’s plan for us. This comes about when our focus is on our careers, our possessions, our security, and the things of the world rather than upon sacrifice and service and the proclaiming of God’s message. When Peter’s focus shifted to his own desires and plans, Jesus rebuked him in order to get him back on track. May our focus always be on God and His plans, that we may never experience a similar rebuke from our Lord."

"Dr." Tabor, you are just like Nicodemus in John Chapter 3 who responded to Jesus' teaching on "spiritual" things by saying, "How can these things be? "(John 3:9). I am quite confident that if you were to meet Jesus today that he would no doubt ask you as well, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? (John 3:10). That was Jesus' "nice" way of telling Nicodemus, "Your in the wrong profession" !! First of all, until you have the "Spiritual Birth" or the "Born from Above" experience, you will be hopelessly blind to the things of the Spirit, and will have absolutely no understanding of the Holy Scriptures, as it is the Spirit of God, NOT MAN, who interprets God's Word to the "Believer", because the Words of God "are spirit and they are life" (John 6:63) This is why Paul, by the Spirit, wrote.."The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14) This verse perfectly describes Nicodemus and EVERYONE who has NOT had the "Spiritual Birth" that Jesus said WE MUST HAVE to enter into the Kingdom of God. Even the "carnal" or "natural" man that knows how to read can see that Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ was NOT inspired by Satan, as Jesus Himself clearly said, "Flesh and Blood has not revealed this to you, but MY FATHER which is in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17) Now what most are not seeing is that BEFORE Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ, the question was asked by Jesus, "Whom do MEN say that I am". Well, these particular men had 4 answers about who Jesus was, they were ALL DIVIDED and they were ALL WRONG !! The reason they were ALL WRONG is because they received the information from OTHER MEN in the NATURAL REALM, from natural mouth to natural ear. Peter got it RIGHT because he received the TRUTH FROM GOD DIRECTLY in the SPIRIT REALM, from GOD'S Spirit to Peter's spirit. Now think about this, the reason Peter rejected the TRUTH from Jesus concerning his fate in Jerusalem, where He would be killed, is because he received the information in the NATURAL REALM, from Jesus' natural mouth to Peter's natural ear. And when you hear Truth in the NATURAL REALM, it is NOT REALITY or REAL on the INSIDE OF YOU YET, as it is when you hear DIRECTLY FROM GOD through SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION, which BYPASSES the NATURAL REALM. Again, Peter RECEIVES Truth by Spiritual Communication, but REJECTS Truth by Natural Communication, because it is not REAL ON THE INSIDE OF YOU WHICH IS WHERE TRUTH HAS TO BE IN ORDER FOR YOU TO RECEIVE IT !! When Jesus says to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan", Jesus is discerning the devil speaking through Peter because Jesus KNOWS that UNLESS Peter HEARS DIRECTLY FROM GOD on this subject, like he did before when he confessed that Jesus was the Christ, He knew that Satan would take advantage of Peter being in "darkness" to that TRUTH. That is what Satan's Power is, keeping you in "darkness" to TRUTH. He has the Power of "darkness" or "ignorance". This is why Jesus said this.... "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side, are they that hear, (Peter), then comes the devil, and takes away the Word out of their HEARTS, (the inside where Truth needs to be), lest they should believe and be saved." (Luke 8:10,11)

I have asked this very question, is get behind me Satan GTFO or I’m gonna lead Satan, let’s roll.

Dr. Tabor, Read Peter’s declaration in Matthew again but make Jesus sarcastic. I guarantee you’ll laugh out loud.