Paul believed there was a cut-off date for circumcision. His opponents didn't, but they insisted you had to leave a tip for the surgeon.

@rhecb

Жыл бұрын

😂

@palazzo1113

Жыл бұрын

...YOUUUUUUUUUUU...

@joecurran2811

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sick joke tbf

@Dragonette666

Жыл бұрын

Paul didn't want to work for tips

@rhecb

Жыл бұрын

I think Paul was worried about inflation

I'm looking forward to more from Robyn. As a former Jehovah's Witness she's giving me a totally different viewpoint on Paul. My mind is blown. I'm seeing him as kind of a crackpot now.

After losing my amazing husband, I get why ancients wanted to connect with their loved one in death. It's a huge hole.

Dr Walsh is one of the smartest professors I've seen on your channel she is wonderful

Great interview, thank you. I still don't understand how early Christians could accept someone who had a history of persecuting them, who was the only one certifying that he communicated directly with Jesus, and who wanted to change their whole religion without any prior credential from elders.

@tirandaz7612

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, me too. What kind of people were they? Who, in their correct mind would listen to anything he said?

@Mitch-MD

6 ай бұрын

Jesus gave warning of false prophets and never mentioned the coming of the “prophet” Paul to give us different teachings on His behalf. Near the end of His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus issued this stark warning to His listeners: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

@markhill553

6 ай бұрын

Jesus said the Spirit of the Antichrist had already entered into the world. Some time later a man hellbent on the slaughter of the saints is later retooled and given to crafting and harnessing the power of this new religious movement. I do not believe it is all sinister though. Paul did direct us toward divinity in a way as he emphasized the Grace principle, but stripped us of all possibilities of actually achieving divinity ourselves in our lifetime. All we can do is get locked into a cycle of sin and repent. Then came the Roman Catholic Church who went forth and colonized/evangelized amd the West is history.

@carolgebert7833

6 ай бұрын

Paul’s story is fictional.

@TorianTammas

4 ай бұрын

@@markhill553 Jesus is unkown, as we have only greek-roman stories that tell us about an Iesous and the earliest existing frgments we have come after 150 year of total silence. What we have are crafted roman-greek stories filled with elements from Homer, Euripides, Vergil and Josephus. They are produced in greek, for greeks and build a greek-jewish syncretistic religion.

Dammit. Another book to buy. Just ordered it. At 72, too many books to read and not enough time. Dr Walsh's idea sounds fascinating and makes a lot of sense. Well done to Dr Walsh and a great interview Derek.

@aaronaragon7838

2 жыл бұрын

You might learn how to speed read or get the abridged Readers Digest version.

@Peekaboo-Kitty

Жыл бұрын

I don't have any money for any of these books. Videos are so much better.

@garystanfield2274

Жыл бұрын

Read and study the scriptures all these books from people that know nothing write a book about a subject and they think they are scholars

@deborahjensen3512

11 ай бұрын

​@garystanfield2274 why do you even watch his podcasts?

@conradbulos6164

4 ай бұрын

Uh, Roland, we have audiobooks now so you dont have to strain your eyes while expanding your biblical knowledge.

The bit about Paul saying of those who (allegedly) knew Jesus "yeah, okay, so you knew Jesus and hung out with him, but Jesus picked me to talk to last week" reminds me so much of the important "son" of a Roman Emperor being the chosen, adopted son instead of the "accidental" biological son. Paul must have been aware of this and is sort of referencing being chosen and adopted to say "I'm better, nyah nyah nyah".

Dr Walsh is a joy to learn from. Fascinating discussion. The book is on my wish list (as is the moon book).

@Marabarra134

Жыл бұрын

also a joy to watch!❤

Always appreciate your interviews with Robin Faith Walsh. She really is excellent in explaining her scholarship.

@chrisrauber6602

9 ай бұрын

....and we guys cant deny she is pure eye candy,too gg

@Fearl3ss234

2 ай бұрын

​@@chrisrauber6602I'm hoping I she has an only fans!

Always charming, always fascinating, such an informative guest. 👍

Did Paul meet with Peter and James, and try to tell them what Jesus was trying to say even though he never actually met the man and Peter and James both knew him their whole lives? What would that meeting have been like?

@Lobsterwithinternet

2 жыл бұрын

Lots of yelling and shouting, I'm sure. But the Disciples probably couldn't afford to alienate Paul and his growing gentile following.

@christianmichael8609

2 жыл бұрын

Paul would conceivably have known that Jesus was proclaimed in terms of Isaiah 53 and certain psalms even before his mind became unveiled, and he became able to see Jesus as the predicted Messiah in line with the scriptures. Peter and James would probably have used Isaiah 53 and 11, and Psalm 22 and 69 to speak of him. These texts were known to testify to the recently manifested Messiah and Son of God in the early Pauline as well as non-Pauline churches. The testimony about Jesus in scripture appears to have been front and center in apostolic proclamation, whether by Peter, or Paul, because it was understood as testimony from the prophetic past to the significance of the gospel: The events that had become manifest in the present day - and now continued to unfold, according to scripture, within the apostolic ministry. Paul viewed his own role as a scripturally foretold apostle to the nations. I do not see evidence that subjective experiences and oral tradition played a significant role in the earliest preaching about Jesus and his significance. Paul claimed not to go beyond scripture in anything that he preached. Paul would have gotten everything central and significant about Jesus from there. It was conceivably unnecessary for Paul to know anecdotes about Jesus ministry, when he had access to the much more impressive testimony from the prophetic writings and psalms in the LXX, that were apparently shared testimonials by most or all of apostles. However, Paul certainly knew what the gist of Jesus’ historical ministry was about. This is seen in his many calls for his converts to imitate himself, precisely because he in turn imitated Jesus. We see it already in his first letter: 1 Thessalonians 1:5-7, where the imitation consists of joyfully receiving the Spirit of adoption and gospel about prominent membership in God’s Kingdom for the lowly among humans - even in the midst of severe suffering: “OUR GOOD NEWS news did not come to you in WORD only, but ALSO IN POWER, and in the HOLY SPIRIT, and in much ASSURANCE (compare carefully with 1 Clement 41:4- 42:3) even as ye have known of what sort WE BECAME AMONG YOU BECAUSE OF YOU, and ye -- YE DID BECOME IMITATORS OF US and OF THE LORD, (by) HAVING RECEIVED THE WORD (of God) in MUCH TRIBULATION, with JOY of the Holy SPIRIT, so that YE BECAME PATTERNS to all those believing in Macedonia and Achaia,” Here is a later example from 1 Corinthians, where Paul is claiming to imitate Jesus and convey traditions about his ministry: “… why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I partake (in meals) with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I DO NOT SEEK MY OWN BENEFIT, BUT THE BENEFIT OF MANY, SO THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED: BE IMITATORS OF ME, JUST AS I ALSO AM OF CHRIST. I PRAISE YOU BECAUSE you remember me in everything AND MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONS JUST AS I PASSED THEM ON TO YOU… (Greek: kai kathos paredoka hymin) …are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? SHOULD I PRAISE YOU? I will NOT PRAISE YOU FOR THIS! For I RECEIVED from (Greek: ‘apo’ indicating ultimate source) the Lord what I ALSO PASSED ON TO YOU (Greek: kai paredoka hymin), that the Lord Jesus ON THE NIGHT IN WHICH HE WAS HANDED OVER … I also think it probably the ‘marks of a true servant of Christ’, which Paul summarized in 2 Corinthians 11:23, are referring the well known passion-tradition about Jesus: “Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am moreso. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.” The sequence of Paul’s summary: ministry arrest flogging death This is what Paul has emphasized as characteristic of being servants of Christ, and here Paul says that he excells above other apostles

@richman8082

2 жыл бұрын

I would say that this is all made up. He never met them

@christianmichael8609

2 жыл бұрын

@@richman8082 on what basis would you say that? And how does that saying of yours explain the existence of and arguments within the letters of 1 Corinthians and Galatians more elegantly than the default position - that Paul met them? Among the things a good theory has to explain is fact that the author of 1 Clement is well aware of 1 Corinthians and of the factionalism that Paul had to deal with, mentioning Cephas already in Chapter 1 and several times thereafter in that same letter - and Clement now has to address factionalism in Corinth once more. The tone and evident emotional outbursts in Galatians also need explaining…

@Lobsterwithinternet

2 жыл бұрын

@@christianmichael8609 So do you follow Cephas and James or do you follow Paul?

Most of you commenting are lovely but I'm not sure you others understand that commenting on the looks of a scholar could be experienced as sexual harassment. She's not here to be a model, she's here to impart wisdom, just like the men who appear on the show 🥰✌️

@Vinnymanvinny1

8 ай бұрын

Would it be considered sexual harassment if it was the other way around and people were saying that Derek was very handsome? I'm not trying to be a dick, I am genuinely curious. What would it be considered if they were saying she is unattractive?

@diapedesis1093

8 ай бұрын

Hi, women here. Derek is handsome. Like, very handsome. You can tell by her body language she thinks so too. But it’s not appropriate to comment on that in this context. I’m pointing it out for explanation. He’s not here for eye candy and neither is she. They’re both hot, but comments about someone’s looks when they aren’t there for that reason reduce the person to their physical parts ignoring their other attributes- objectification. So no, in this context it’s not okay… you can think those thoughts but keep them to yourself. Comment on her arguments not her appearance is the rule :)

@markhiggins8315

7 ай бұрын

​@@diapedesis1093Robyn is very attractive but that is completely irrelevant in this context. People will inevitably notice her looks and may comment. I have no issue with this as long as it is recognised to be an irrelevance and a potential distraction from the point of her being on the show, which is about her scholarship and how that influences her perspective regarding Paul.

Thank you Robyn Faith!!! You are amazing! so much wisdom and knowledge! :)

@ryanyoder2111

9 ай бұрын

Derek turns into Luke Skywalker whenever Lay-ya comes on..

Really appreciate this video with Dr. Walsh n I've learned quite alot from her.

Dr. Walsh is quite amazing. Thank you.... Just got her book...fantastic!

Dr Walsh might be interested re.1h18m point that they still do this mortuary practice of burial, exhumation, and reburial of bones today. I believe it was Malaysia but it's documented in the TV series "Around the World in 80 Faiths" should you be able to track that down - very eye-opening series. Thanks for a great podcast.

@theseustoo

2 жыл бұрын

You should read about the kind(s) of relationships the Melanesians have and maintain with their 'dear departed'... fascinating stuff.

Bring Robyn back PLEEEEASE. I would love a deep dive analysis of book of Acts: who wrote, when, how they got their info, why it conflics with Paul's letters (see: basket story), how we know, etc

@MythVisionPodcast

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the comment and the super thanks! 👌

@MythVisionPodcast

Жыл бұрын

I will ask her if she will do it.

I first read the OT & NT Cover to cover 56yrs ago and even at the tender age of 9 years(!) I remember still how much Paul was imprinted on my mind than Jesus or even God! The most resounding phrase that was "giving up the ghost". The number of times I tried to "give up my ghost" to an imaginary guardian angel ( my father was a serial abuser and a violent alcoholic narcissist and only at the age of 80, 3yrs before he died, did we learn that he was a paedophile too across 3 generations of family & outside of) made me think that God was very unfair to hold out such hope as Paul spoke of and only allowed this 'out' in biblical times. 3 decades passed before I tossed the whole theist game aside! Becoming a father and having my first born go to school then come home telling me they were 'praying for me' - I'd had a fracture in two vertebrae fused but years before, as a result my wide and eye swapped the division of labour around and somehow they'd drawn her out in conversation about her 'Mr mom' dad - I felt that it was some form of psychological abuse but didn't have back then the 'aetheist' mind-set to express it. And I did have to bite my tongue for my little girl's sake.

@garystanfield2274

Жыл бұрын

This has been Satan's world since Constantine and why this world is all about death and evil. I doubt that you even know who the 4 horsemen are. Augustine was not a believer, he lived after the 11 Roman Emperor Persecutions that killed off Yahweh's Elect, So he was a pagan non believer. The New Covenant was done in Hebrew, Constantine put them into the Greek. Will all these ignorant people on Paul, will they ever wake up to the real truth of Paul and the lie of Christianity?

@jerrybuckley2049

11 ай бұрын

too much information

@p.i.6373

5 ай бұрын

Man, what a story 😢

She's a professional giving a talk about her field. Let's stop making it about how she looks though the intent may be nice.

This is the video I was looking for! I needed more information about Paul and what’s his role in Christianity 🤙🏾🤙🏾

Very nice talk. She is very smart, eloquent and charismatic.

Replay crew... looking forward to it 🌿

You're awesome Robyn. I'm going to look up your other work. Thanks mythvision

Love your channels I've learned a lot in a short time. In my mind I see Paul working for Rome to bring in the sheep so to speak correll the masses to one thought🤔 he was bring them back to mental slavery. The writings were just enough confusion to keep everybody separatey together!

@herewegoagain7135

11 ай бұрын

Well said

I could stay the whole day listening to this woman’s voice….

Incidentally, the books that Derek recommends in this video, the ones he brings up on the screen from Amazon and has those big price tags on them, are now much more affordable. I got Dr. Walsh's book for a little over $16.00. It was like 25.00, no more than 30.00 bucks and I had points. So don't let those prices scare you because they have come down.

Paul doesn't need a historical Jesus b/c his letters are written regardless of one, of whether there was one or not (as may be with the Gospels and the catholic letters)

36:38 "Yeah, you knew the guy [Jesus] but who cares about whether not you knew the guy." Really? So, Paul's strategy consists of telling his own revelations and interpretation of the scripture have the same weight as (or more than) the teachings who came from the very holy mouth of the Son of God Himself. Really?? And presumably educated listeners swallowed it, no questions asked about the real man. Really??? By the way, Paul never says Peter and James were with Jesus. He never says anything about his terrestrial life. They were apostles, not disciples. Can't we just seriously contemplate the possibility of a mythical Jesus? That surely explains Paul's letters better than any other hypothesis.

Has anyone tried to identify sections of the NT stories that likely originated in the OT stories, Josephus stories, and classic Greek stories ?

Yay for Robyn!

Wow! Best scholar on your show ever!😍😍

Dr. you are awesome. ❤

I wonder if Paul suffered a stroke/brain damage which could explain his religious experience, temporary blindness and possibly impaired eyesight, loss of fine motor skills, resulting in difficulty in writing and in speaking, making him hard to understand. That was a long sentence. Maybe he couldn't make tents anymore to support himself and sought financial support/sponsorship from followers????

@JesusIstheNameTakenInVain

2 жыл бұрын

Lol what absolutely anything other than the actual 😂

@Rupunzelsawake

2 жыл бұрын

@@JesusIstheNameTakenInVain Please inform me then what "the actual" thorn in the flesh was if you know and have proof.

@callendarl

2 жыл бұрын

Very well could have been a stroke. He definitely has the symptoms of a stroke victim.

@Rupunzelsawake

2 жыл бұрын

@@callendarl Well that's what I thought, as a reasonable possibility. We know from scientific studies today that "religious experiences" can result from medical events and they are very convincing to the people who have them.

@JesusIstheNameTakenInVain

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rupunzelsawake Angels caught on hospital cctv. Not that even that would change anyones mind. Be a malfunction or something I guess.

I have to wonder: what is the evidence that Paul even existed? I understand that the obvious answer is his letters. And certainly, among the body of Pauline epistles are certain ones that are viewed as authentic, clearly ascribed to someone named Paul. But I’m wondering-what are the other sources that describe something to the effect of “a writer named Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, is now a missionary proselytizing for someone he refers to as Jesus the Christ.“ Etc. What historical document refers to Paul? That’s what I want to know.

At about 27:30 Robyn Faith Walsh's book is also in ebook form via Kobo (Rakuten)

Need to save this and have it as reference

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall the day Paul met Peter and James for the first time. What did they talk about? Did they talk about who Jesus was? What he believed? Did they talk about the bodily resurrection? Seems not. Why not? Did Peter and James see a resurrected Jesus or not? Surely they would have talked about it. But it seems not. Odd.

@maninalift

2 жыл бұрын

@@eximusic quite. Jon is imagining a scene that imports assumptions based on later traditions. An interesting exercise for an interested amateur is to try reading the books of the new testament (or the whole Bible) in the order that they are thought to have been written, and with notes about authorship etc. I want to do this, but I haven't got far yet. EDIT: look up "the authentic letters of Paul" by dewey et al.

@scambammer6102

2 жыл бұрын

they might have talked about the resurrection. You have no way of knowing that. Paul had his own reasons for downplaying that event (he wasn't there). Assuming anything from his silence is unwarranted.

@eximusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@maninalift Yes, good stuff.

@MatthewQuigley

2 жыл бұрын

Probably they were talking about financial issues of the communities and the rate of taxation they’re supposed to send to the church of Jerusalem.

@geraldmeehan8942

2 жыл бұрын

@@maninalift The "authentic" letters of Paul were the first NT writings, followed by the other letters attributed to Paul and others then Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, John & Revelations?

Biggest thing for me is that in the time of and after Jesus society is defined by your stature within. Because of this you see that the holy people have wealth, influence, power, respect etc. Hell even Jesus never had to earn his living! So anybody with critical thinking abilities could see how profitable it is to be holy, if you are charismatic enough. But if you overshoot your abilities and start being a threat to the established holy peoples profits…. What do you know, taken out. You become a martyr and your line of shit still lives on as holy doctrine. You know “For just $100 you can bring the word to desperate souls in need” blah blah blah. There is an endless supply of marks in the holy business. I have always considered the New Testament as a text written by this scenario. IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO?

@travis1240

2 жыл бұрын

The OT was too... It goes all the way back. The early priests just wanted someone to bring them dinner.

Thanks!

@MythVisionPodcast

11 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for this superthanks!

Thanks to you both, ps the back seats are still great for your shows.

Paul: The Roman government enforced his dogma at the outset and now nobody is willing to question the basis of the deference he's afforded by tradition and church authority. This is the case even though it takes a recherche, contortionist analysis to reconcile his attributed writings to the words and acts attributed to Christ. Adding to the problem is the illogical incoherence of the 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 hypostatic union doctrine that came out of Nicea by a narrow vote margin and a crossbow to the head of dissenters like Eusebius, who along with Emperor Constantine was a subordinationist.

Thanks

@achingzeemeek2768

2 жыл бұрын

I have learned so many things from your channel. Thank you again for putting all the efforts to inform and educate us.

@MythVisionPodcast

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the superthanks!

Paul seems abog standard film-flam man, reminds me of literate Ray Kroch. Argueably, most successful traveling salesman ever.

Thank you Derek and thank you, Dr. Walsh, I wonder why nobody in 2000 years asked why Jesus himself didn't preach his message to the Gentiles! According to Christianity, sending his own son to the earth had been God's plan. Did God forget his plan when it was about the Gentiles?

I think the MythVision Podcast has given me the greatest understanding of Christianity, the most diverse, researched opinion on all things Christian. I'm sitting here with Robyn's book, unread. Why haven't I read it yet?? Probably all the other books I've bought that Derek has recommended. And why am I so interested in Christianity? I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. Christianity put such a great claim on my life. The only way to truly overcome the indoctrination is to understand it from its origins, and as free of mysticism as possible. MythVision is attempting to bring the reality of Christianity and Christian origins to life to be understood in all its complexity......truly for the first time.

@garlandjones7709

6 ай бұрын

It would help to overcome indoctrination if you actually learn what the text says and every skeptical scholar js going to give you a wrong spin somewhere. With that said, most of your conservatives will too. The fact that you love to read is great, but keep a balance and constantly be reading the material under discussion while youre comparing

@droth0226

6 ай бұрын

@@garlandjones7709good advise. Thank you

🤔 So awesome. Thanks

Wow. I think you just described the move from "memes" in culture, to "menomes". Groups of people in cultures replicating ideas (memes), then groups progressing to codify and secure, protect and reinforce those systems (memomes). Like Genes and Genomes for cells, but for social structures!

Shes awesome!!!

33:21 "When he (JC) breathed on you, what did it feel like?" - - WTF - - How about what did it SMELL like?

Wasn't the greek culture, when paul was alive, where men and women interacted in a pretty strict and narrow (rigorous) manner (different from middle eastern/jewish and roman manners)? If yes, could it be possible that the christian ethics and morals are in essence greek values, due to paul? Because in that case the modern christian moral values (and therefore the western culture) would be a continuation of ancient greek values?

At 43:00 Dr. Walsh mentions a fascinating character, who may be useful to understand the Greek & Roman mystic cult traditions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Abonoteichus

Why did God create Mormons? So Christian’s can understand how Jews feel about them!! Christian’s dismiss Mormons because they have their own scripture and Jews feel the same way about the Christian’s New Testament lol

@efandmk3382

Жыл бұрын

What makes you think that Mormonism is of God??

Could Paul have been a Pharisee when he seems to prefer the Septuagint over the tanakh? It seems weird that he wouldn’t have familiarity with Hebrew if he was any kind of a Jewish teacher, surely even an Aramaic speaker would prefer to teach from the tanakh rather than the Septuagint.

At around 14: Dr Walsh mentions Jesus defeated Death. I capitalize because in an interview with another scholar (I can't remember who - sorry) it was mentioned that Death is a divine being. If this is true, (?) what does Paul mean: 'death' or Death? and (maybe?) where did this take place?

Shes the woman from "Lost!"🎉❤

It is said that the apostles hated Paul because he broke the teaching of Jesus. even the apostles questioned him because he did from the teaching of Jesus and abolished many worships such as circumcision Of course, Paul denied everything in front of them out of fear. but then he continued in the same way, I think his only concern was to eliminate the apostles and go to the head of this movement.

@Heaven703

2 жыл бұрын

@@zen-sufi So who will vouch for peter?

@SDAQandA

2 жыл бұрын

And sadly he succeeded. Paulinism is bigger than Jesusism :)

@Heaven703

2 жыл бұрын

@@zen-sufi I mean, how do you know that it was Peter who wrote these letters? Besides, these men you blessed as apostles are not theologians or academics, they are fishermen or carpenters, they are not professional people, even their identities are unknown.I just. I talked about the relationship of the apostles blessed by evangelicals with Paul To me, they're all as unreliable as Paul

@Heaven703

2 жыл бұрын

@@zen-sufi Jesus, Paul, Gospels: Why and How Did Christianity Emerge? By Prof .zafer duygu In this book, these claims, the subject of Jesusism and Paulism are handled extensively. the author's area of ​​expertise was the history of ancient christianity, i think he has many books on christianity

What is this 'numa'? thing they speak of? Sorry, I just forget how to spell it, can't seem to look it up ATM!

@sduck122

2 жыл бұрын

It’s pneuma. I hope that helps you!

@SaulKopfenjager

2 жыл бұрын

@@sduck122 Thanx very much! Ah, as in pneumatic. (Bah, I was sticking a 'g' in front of it!)

@ncarmstron

2 жыл бұрын

Pneuma is the Greek word for spirit, air, breath or wind. Paul said that we will be given a new “spiritual” body at the eschaton, the general resurrection. What kind of body the risen Christ has is problematic for Christians who are adamant that he rose bodily from the grave, a decidedly non-Pauline concept. Could the risen Christ have a corporeal body while everyone else will have spiritual ones? Since the eschaton hasn’t happened yet, we still don’t know.

Considering the law of Moses, or rather Pauls view on the law of Moses, I would like to suggest that he also, ultimately, thought it was non-binding on Jewish people as well, though he would not fight to strongly urge them to believe this like he would for the Gentiles. One big indicator that this was his mindset is in 1st Corinthians 9:19-21. He, a self described Hebrew-Israelite-Benjaminite-Jew-Pharisee, has absolutley no qualms saying "I am not under law [of Moses]"...but qualifies by saying he *is* indeed under Gods law. However he denotes God's law as being a seperate identity than the law of Moses (the law of Christ, a phrase also repeated in Galatians, a writing he hyper-dedicates to clarifying the position of the law of Moses in light of the coming and accomplishments of the Messiah). The pertinent point being, Paul thinks a Jew (himself) is not under any command of God to obey the law of Moses, only to obey Jesus's words. The wider ramifications being this applies to all Jews (Paul, in his undisputed and disputed writing has big expositions on his idea that the church is one and should not be divided in thought and belief, meaning no such thing as "Jewish-Christians" who observe one way of righteousness and "Gentile-Christians" who observe another way. One church with one way and one master with one teaching. This was his vision and what he believed God was trying to teach through him.) I wonder what Walsh would think of this. She seemed to suggest that Pauls message was only to the Gentiles and that they were being given this "new" covenant exclusively. However I think when we look at Pauls writing, they reveal he thought this was meant for everybody but kept himself from forcing this idea upon Jews, specifically and most especially Jews in Judea. Jewish people outside Judea I think he might of thought were "fair game" however to some extent. Edit: 1:29:40 Regarding Pauls view on whether or not Jesus pre-existed, perhpaps the strongest view thst suggests Paul did no literally view him as pre-existing would be the concept of "wisdom" in 2nd Temple Jewish literature, dubbed "wisdom literature". Wisdom, the concept of it, ultimately Gods wisdom, was displayed as anthropomorphized and existing from the beginning of creation (Proverbs 8). Walking talking wisdom. It was also portrayed as embodied in or by certain individuals, like Sarah or Solomon, and also written to be found in the very torah itself. Gods wisdom became associated with and near synonymous with Gods word as well. So, by Jesus day, Rabbinic discourses were taking place on where Gods wisdom can be found. Where did it reside now and how can it be found. So the idea is that one thing the Jewish New Testament writers (or Jewish influenced) were portraying and arguing for was that Jesus is now the locus of Gods wisdom. Above Torah or any other individual. So the things that had been said about Gods wisdom (its existence from the beginning, its work in creation) were now being applied to Jesus to portray him as what wisdom has now become, where it now resides. So the few potential pre-existent texts we might see of Paul rather are him speaking of Jesus as Gods locus of shared, vital, and expressed wisdom, not declarations of his literal pre-existence. Presumably this would be understood by his readers, much of whom he personally would have educated himself or would have been God fearers hearing of wisdom in the synagogue anyways. 1 Corinthians 1:24 1 Corinthians 10:4 (Some see the Intertestemetal book of the Wisdom of Solomon ch 11 being drawn upon here. Wisdom provides the water here, and now Paul equates Christ with the one providing the (spiritual) water). These are just two small examples but, there is a whole genre of scholarship dedicated to understanding the influence of wisdom literature on the 1st century New Testament authors, and there are plenty more examples that are much stronger. One resource I would reccommend is "Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John" by Dr. Dustin Smith where he goes over wisdom literature and the concept of embodied and personified wisdom in the 2nd Temple period, and then goes over its seeming influence over the gospel of John.

Dime piece!

1:14:00 So deferring to the historical Jesus does Paul no good. So how exactly does he avoid controversy with the many people who supposedly do defer to the teachings of the historical Jesus? Why is he never challenged by a question or criticism from one of these believers? How does the fact that he knows Cephas & James make the historical Jesus a fact?

In future, can you please set your webcams up so that you are a more similar size, so that when I cross my eyes I see a 3D superimposition combining your features. Thank you in advance

Beautiful and intelligent

What about gentile christans recognition of Elysian fields parallel hidden in the Pauline mystery gospel?

What always cracks me up is Moses is an ancient Egyptian word or name but mostly a suffix Moses Ramses and so on

At 18:35 ... letter of the law or spirit of the law, or ... letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

I think Paul's description of the Lord's supper is etiological. A sect of Jews were doing this meal thing, perhaps influenced by pagan rituals as well, the meal in the Didache for instance which does not mention body and blood, and asking why are we doing this, where did it come from? Paul gives them an origin story. It may be no better than the "explanation" in Genesis of why a snake has no legs, or dreamtime stories of how the kangaroo got its tail.

Most people do not realize there was always a place for "righteous gentiles" within Judaism. Paul would have been aware of this, and his push that gentiles didn't need to convert to Judaism to become Christian. This was the first argument of the Council of Jerusalem. The ruling they walked away with was exactly what Jews had always taught, keep the Noahide laws, be righteous gentiles, and believe in Jesus. This was not what was being taught in Jerusalem, but it was deemed good enough for gentiles. So, Paul in his letters was targeting Jews who had come from Jerusalem stating that Christians need to convert to Judaism to be Christians. This was against what Paul believed and taught to gentiles - and in the end, the "Church" went with Paul's teaching of Christianity and not what was from Jerusalem.

@garlandjones7709

6 ай бұрын

The church in Jerusalem nor Paul taught Noahide laws. That is a misunderstanding. Paul's letters don't teach a different method than what was discussed in tbe Acts passages. You're misreading him or youre taking your info from someone else misreading him.

1:34:02 watching the recording works just fine of course being there could be better

I think if most early church fathers and historians like Eusebius and there works prove otherwise regarding the writers and writings of the Gospels and it seems to be that some where actually writen in Aramaic and or Hebrew before also translated to Greek.

Paul was not competing with the Jerusalem church… he was evangelizing people who had no access to leaders of the mother church. What Paul DID have was a good story and the convincing patter common to every good con man

At the end there, pertaining to Paul speaking about not having a wife. I really think it was just his way to slip in how virtuous he was. Enlightened beyond temptation. I would argue based upon a lot of evidence that Paul has a personality disorder.

I thought that the Gospels were written by anonymous people who worked with Josephus, so who was Paul?

Paul, the Joseph Smith of broader Christianity? Just asking.

What is the likelihood that the originator of christianity was Simon of Samaria and that greek christians who did not like Simon due to his association with the first christian bible and the Marcionite sect resulted in the christian sects that would evolve into the catholic sect co-opting Simon by crafting him into the Saul/Paul character ?

A Pharisee who primarily reads a Greek translation? Does that make sense? I don’t know, but I would have thought they’d use the Hebrew.

@stevenv6463

2 жыл бұрын

You are back projecting a later idea of Pharisees as being similar to Orthodox Jews in modern times to Paul's time.

@scienceexplains302

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenv6463 No. You are reading too much into the question. I am not claiming, I am asking. If I remember, Rabbi Tovia Singer, who has read a lot more than I have, said that a rabbi of that era would never rely on the Greek. (my paraphrase) They had the Greek and Hebrew available. Given the religion, culture, the person’s position in it, and his purpose, I would expect him to focus on Hebrew. Instead, the Christian Bible uses only the Greek, afaik. Even Jesus is shown as relying on the Greek.

@stevenv6463

2 жыл бұрын

@@scienceexplains302 Tovia Singer is a rabbi not a historian. A lot of people were Greek speaking but Pharisee or sympathetic to the Pharisee sect. Besides that Paul isn't a rabbi, just like there could be an Orthodox Jew that relies on an English translation now. Paul didn't have Hebrew training.

@scienceexplains302

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenv6463 “Paul didn’t have Hebrew training” That is what I was thinking. His process doesn’t match his claims

@stevenv6463

2 жыл бұрын

@@scienceexplains302 But he never claimed to have Hebrew training

About 35:00 Dr Walsh talks about Paul relating Jesus instructions to him about the last supper. Dr Walsh includes 'to his followers' but... that is not what Paul says. Paul's Jesus is alone (as far as I can tell) reading 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. My understanding is that in this vision Paul believes Jesus is talking directly to Paul and Paul thinks he has just been commissioned by Jesus to proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. There are no followers at this supper.

I understand that the Four Horsemen thing was a tongue and cheek plug, but for the sake of order and clarity there should be a video explaining what John's vision really meant, not what people assume it to be. I may be wrong, but the Four Horsemen are the representation of events, not literal persons

Paul is a mistery to me. I like a lot somethings that said that I never heard. Like the influence of Plato, there is a verse in romans that revels that. She said that Paul want to overshadow Peter and James what is also in the letters. I wish she could have elaborate why Acts is not historical. I know very little, but I watch the Yale course with Martin and a bunch of lectures of Bart and never hear that I will by her book for sure.

Im a little confused on something. Does Peter ever claim to have met Jesus. I don't see it in the New Testament. If he did meet Jesus then why didn't he mention this when he is arguing with Paul?

I now see Paul as the false prophet of that time frame, just like Joseph Smith is to the Mormon religion. Even Muslims say where Christians go wrong is they follow the teachings of Paul more than the teachings of Jesus.. And they are solely believing Paul's vision story alone!!! So Paul theology

@scambammer6102

2 жыл бұрын

why would I care what muslims say about it?

@edward1412

2 жыл бұрын

Even if you take away all Paul’s letters from the Bible, nothing will change. People criticise Paul a lot (even some Christians do) but what he preached wasn’t really different from what Jesus’ disciples preached. 1. Jesus Christ is our Lord and the Son of God. 2. Salvation is found only in the name of Jesus Christ. 3. Jesus Christ died and resurrected, and will return to judge the world. Muslims hate Paul because no one preached Jesus Christ more than he did. If Muslims hate someone, it means the person did something great.

@redsneakers10

2 жыл бұрын

@@edward1412 Muslims hate Paul because they believe he perverted and corrupted the true teachings of Jesus, not because he preached about Jesus.

@supernaturallife2996

2 жыл бұрын

Of course you must add Mohammed to to the list all of these religions were set up as a control system especially as a war tool🤥🤐

@charleslorenzodavis3387

2 жыл бұрын

Yes they are, “Paulinist” not “Christians.”

There is no serperate covenant for Jews and Gentiles. It's the same for both. And both still keep the law. It doesn't go away for either..... Paul hammers this repetitively through Romans. It literally comes up almost every other chapter. Edit: regarding Galatians in chapter 2 he says to Peter they are trying to convince gentiles to live like Jews. Not the other way around. He says in chapter 2 and chapter 5 he still supports circumcision. 5 is tricky bc he seems like he's saying no, but he's arguing no for the specific reason theyre being called to do it. He says I think in verse 10 he still preaches circumcision. His idea of not being under the law is iterated in Romans in walking by the spirit...as in now in Christ Jesus they can walk it and keep it correctly, I.e. not sinning ... Bc being under the law(as a tutor) is making you feel guilty every time you break it. Now that you're in Christ you no longer break it. You're not under it as a teacher, nor as an authority for atonement as he is now the Atonement. 2nd edit: this idea that we can't keep the law ... Misreading Romans 7... That's his pre Yeshua argument. Follow into chapter 8...in Christ Jesus we now no longer walk in the flesh(sinning) but in the Spirit(sinless). He's not saying you can't keep the law. He's saying now absolutely you can and he expects you to. Edit 3: Paul explicitly states he preaches circumcision in chapter 5 of Galatians. The argument is that isn't where righteousness, nor introduction to the covenant comes from and if you read the Torah, he is correct. To me, Paul's line of thinking on this isn't that they aren't to be circumcised, at all. He's arguing Abrahams Righteousness came 24 years before his circumcision. Circumcision comes up 3 places in the law. Genesis 17 with Abraham, which Paul argues his point over on this very matter.....where Abraham AND his people with him that aren't blood are to be circumcised. To Paul, based on Romans 11 this would include gentiles too. It comes up again at the Passover in Exodus 12. Both the Israelite AND the alien that joins to them is supposed to be circumcised. This includes the Gentile. Refer again to Romans 11. Here's where it gets tricky. Both of those passages are related to all people. If you read either of those texts alone you'll form the idea that this was expected immediately, i.e. Galatians. The 3rd place it comes up is Leviticus 12:3. Circumcision is supposed to take place on the 8th day after birth. This is a problem.... What about these adults under Abraham's covenant, or those that came out of Egypt? You don't get an answer in the Torah. As above, it seems to imply it was immediate. However, when you get in the book of Joshua in chapter 5 he circumcised everyone because for FOURTY YEARS they had been IN COVENANT with God and had not one man been circumcised in the wilderness waiting to come into promise. This is Paul's point or frame of mind, I believe, in his writings. It's not a matter of if, but when, and I don't think he knows when that "when" is, but he's not about to bind them to something the Torah didn't bind them to. If the issue were with Gentile babies, I assume he'd say absolutely circumcise them. This is similar in thought process to Acts 15 and the letter to the Gentiles...what do we tell them to do? These 3/4 non-10 commandment laws (for a start) for Moses is read in the synagogue every Sabbath (expecting them to grow into it and learn it). This idea is paralleled mildly in Romans 14. Edit 3: another opinin here, when hes talking about getting his gospel, i dont think hes referring to the history of Jesus, or his axts or whwt happened. I think hes referring to his understanding of how he was the messiah vs how a jew today can read the old testament and hear the gospel and not accept it, based on objections of their understanding. The same boat Paul was in when persecuting. His revelation is the idea of the Priestly requirements and desth requirements, and 2 modes of appearance requirements, etc in the old testament. That its a process where both parts are done by one. Instead of two messiahs, or one Messiah doing either this or that depending on Israel's state at the time.

From ,2004 I broke away from Paul's teaching.

When people of any time need to overcome oppression of the earthly ruling powers that be, they know the power of the people can come from our numbers. If we join together we can overcome. Was Paul thinking in order to usher in this new age, the power of the people could come through the joining of the Jewish people with the gentiles?

Paul and Law: *Anatomy of a broken analogy* The Romans analogy first has people under the law so long as that person is alive, like a wife under her husband. Then when the husband dies, the wife is freed. So that contradicts the first part, where the person who dies, not the survivor, is freed. The analogy is broken. In Romans 7:4 it gets worse. Now the believers died to the law, getting back to the original formation, except that the liberation comes first, not the death, because Jesus first had to die (it’s not clear - “through the body of Christ”), “that you might belong to another,” so this breaks the original analogy in a different way. In 7:5-6, the sinful passions that the Law aroused causes the death that frees people from the Law. Following the Law releases you from the Law. Yahweh’s plan was for the Law to last for 1,000 generations, as long as the Israelites kept them. Only 25 or so had passed. There was nothing about the law causing sin, etc. Paul makes Yahweh look like a buffoon in a new way.

I feel like you can demonstrate pretty easily Paul knew Hebrew and read or had read prior to evangelizing, the hebrew scriptures

As a Jew, uncle Saul had some really wacky ideas. But one thing he did get correct was the antiquated nature of Halakha, Jewish ritual law. And he was definitely a Jew critiquing Judaism. We just try to ignore his Jesus fantasies and obsessions. I mean seriously, the punishment for a Jew blaspheming in Jerusalem, death. Punishment for a Jew not keeping Sabbath, death. And for minor crimes, the punishment was generally stoning. Paul saw the future of Judaism. And I would argue that MOST Jews today are in the mold of Paul in regard to his views of Halakha, minus the whole wacky Christological fantasy. But for completely different reasons. Most modern Jews, something like 70-80%, don't believe Torah is divine word. don't believe a messiah is coming, don't believe in resurrection, don't believe in the supernatural and ridiculous bits. Today Jews eat with gentiles, dress like gentiles and generally don't keep Shabbat. And I really think, at least some of Paul's words, are a forerunner to this, all be it 2,000 years earlier.

Before Abraham and at the time of Abraham the known western world was polytheistic, Abraham and maybe the zoroastrians were the only groups that were monotheistic. Was Paul just adressing gentiles who had fallen away or all gentiles even those who had never been Jewish in the first place?

I still knock on wood and throw salt over my shoulder and not sing at the table or whistle in the bed 🛌

Lenny Bruce had some apt things to say about Paul condemning sex.

U know Paul didn't write Acts right? Also, the gospel writers almost certainly read pauls letters or heard him preach.

Dr. Walsh mentioned that the later Rabbis don't think much of Paul's claim to be a Pharisee. Here's the best example: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hHWgsa2CnJTIhJM.html

smb got himself a science qt 😍

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is really a mixture of Pharisaic and Essene Judaism. A lot of people call Rabbinic Judaism, just "Judaism", but it's not. It's just a single branch, a tradition of Judaism. And some claim they are the Pharisees. This is also incorrect, the Pharisees were a party of sorts, and there weren't many of them. They generally pandered to the uneducated masses, while the Sadducees had the aristocracy behind them as they were led by the upper priestly class. I don't think most people realize that Jewish life is a caste system, similar to that of the Hindu, with a priestly upper class elite, their middle class Levitical caste, and then the rest of Jews, just called "Yisrael", meaning a mix of all tribes with no specific tribal or societal role. Aside from the "House of David" of course which is supposed to be the Monarchic line. Who are supposed to the from the tribe of Judah, not just the Kingdom of Judah where the term Jew comes from. But then, it's almost certain these tribes were "lost" 1,000 years earlier, if they ever existed in the first place. It appears at least, as though the Levitical caste started out as a Priestly sect, not a tribe. And kohen, perhaps a subset of this sect who eventually overthrew their Levitical peers and took control of Yhwh worship. And tithing. I mean it's not a coincidence that Kohen/Levi are the only single "tribe" that still persists in the Jewish world. Because Jews have been living as a caste system for at least 2500 years. Yet the castes seem to have their origin in a social injustice and possible violent massacre. At least if the myth of the Levites murdering the makers of the golden calf, as symbolic or related to what might have actually occurred. Well, really, it appears that this caste dynamic probably originated with the Josian reforms. When Deuteronomy was "found" after centuries of being hidden in a temple. I mean, it's probable that the Josian monarchy wrote the majority of the text right there and then. And of course this new found text, tells the people that God wants the Kohen, the Zadokites/Aaronides, to replace the 1st born of each tribe, which would have been how priests were decided before the "transgression:"" ramblin on

At about 51:30 Dr Walsh says Paul 'has to address these issues' answering/explaining to his listeners about people who are buried and going to arise. Yes. Because people had questions. They. wanted. details. So. Back to why Paul never talks about details about a historical Jesus. People MUST have had questions IF they understood Paul to be talking about a historical Jesus. They.would.want.details. (even if Paul would rather talk about other things) Imo, people did NOT understand Paul to be talking about a historical Jesus and so that is why he never has to answer questions about one - because nobody thought he was talking about a historical guy. It doesn't 'work' for me, to tell me Paul just didn't feel like talking about Jesus details. As Dr Walsh points out- people ask questions... and she says Paul needs to address them. Of course. But if people are NOT asking questions about a historical guy it's probably because they DO understand - Paul is not talking about a historical guy so no historical details are expected and no historical details are asked. There was no guy and that was not a problem, not an issue, for Paul's listeners. It is just as important, and telling to me, that Paul's LISTENERS (and enemies?)were not seeking any historical details. Why not? It makes more sense to me that THEY knew Paul was not talking about a historical Jesus.

A Greek enlightened orthodox lady told me that there were 2 Pauls , one was an imposter...i think it is Saul who took the name To steal his identity

Is?

God wanted us to FREELY choose to love him, but to make that possible we had to be able to FREELY choose not to love him. For that reason God created us with a sinful nature so we could FREELY rebel against him, if we wanted. That proved more successful than anticipated, and people were sinning all over the place. God then invented Hell to scare the daylights out of us in an effort to intimidate us into loving him. That didn't work. Now, God really, really did not want to burn everyone in Hell--he's not that kind of guy--so he concocted a plan. God impregnated a girl to give himself a virgin birth so he could be like the other Pagan gods who came down to earth at that time. Without a virgin birth, you're obviously not a god, so that was necessary. Having established his status as a god, Jesus came to earth as a human, so he could die in a sacrifice--to whom?--to himself. Who else was there? After God arranged for humans to torture, maime, and crucified him, now God could forgive us for offending him with our sins. God's sacrifice was necessary to appease His anger at us for committing sins, and that made it possible for him to forgive everyone and save us from the punishment of Hell, which he devised for us in the first place. Now--stick with me--even after God's sacrifice saved everybody from Hell--Hallelujah, Praise Jesus--God continued to burn just about everybody in Hell because we still didn't love him. God did all of these things--not because he is crazy--no, no, no, but because he loves us as a father loves his children. OK? What's not to believe?

Thanks Robyn and Derek. I am disappointed that Robyn seemed to completely avoid the issue of Jesus ‘pre-existing’ in Paul ‘s view. Instead ,a lot of smoke was generated about ‘daemons’ in the sky and angelic armies later. Why? I see see trinitarian formulas as divorced from the monotheism of Paul and James. John can be understood in non- literal pre-existence terms: messianic anticipation of Jesus’ role.

@TorianTammas

6 ай бұрын

The birth is the beginning. To imagine a god sits nine month in a womb, then grows up, never writes down anything and dies. Afterwards dozens of different stories pop up, contradict each other as if the guy never said anything.

26:49 😅

In Paul's early life her tried to destroy the church of God and then he did.