Видео

I would say "Yes", based on the fact that Jesus is the major focus in these few verses, but I could be persuaded that it is a reference to God the Father if the image of Jesus as "Shepherd" could be shown not to be present among the very first generation of believers, as it was later on.

@@storynt I see. I wonder if someone took the position you mentioned, then what of Christ's image as the 'Shepherd' in Mark 14:27; Hebrews 13:20 (cf. Ezekiel 34:23; Zechariah 13:7) even apart from John's Gospel.

Yes, I'm aware there are arguments to defend Pauline authorship of all the letters attributed to him. Some of those arguments are more convincing than others, but they do not settle the matter.

@@storynt yes I know good video btw Bart Ehrman admitted that all of his problems with the supposedly forged letters can be solved if the Apostles had simply relied heavily on scribes. For example, I read that because Peter was an illiterate Galilean fisherman (along those words) that he couldn’t have written his letters, but it makes perfect sense that he used a secretary.

@@storynt the early church Rejected Pseudonymous Letters(2 Thess. 2:2) The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters. Ironically, 2 Thessalonians (a letter believed by some to be pseudonymous) admonishes believers to “not…be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Early church leaders emphasized the authenticity of Christian documents. Tertullian while teaching on his acceptance of complementarianism discredited a letter involving Paul and a woman named Thecla because it was falsely attributed to Paul. Eusebius tells the story of Serapion. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch. Serapion chided the church at Rhosse in Cilicia for their use of the the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote, “We brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”[6]

​@@storyntalso do you think the gospels are early or late

​@@storynt13 Now when the men of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) saw the confidence and boldness of Peter and John, and grasped the fact that they were [f]uneducated and untrained [ordinary] men, they were astounded, and began to recognize that they had been with Jesus. And when it says uneducated it means They had no formal religious training in the rabbinical schools.

Such as? Please provide the reference where you find what you believe is the correct information. Thanks.

Please provide the source that documents that there were specific laws "in the ark". Are you referring to instructions given to Noah that are stated in Genesis 6-9?

@@storynt Genesis 6 9 Doesn't mention any instructions. The Laws I am talking about are The 10 Commandments, God's Laws which where written on stone with his finger, placed in the Ark of the covenant. All the other laws where written on papyrus and placed next to the Ark, these are the all the other laws of Mosses, laws the that deal with sacrifice. After Jesus payed the ultimate price for our salvation, there was no more need for sacrifice and that is why the law is done away with, but not the 10 Commandments. So there for the Sabbath is to be kept along with the other 9.

We have so little besides some few shared vocabulary to be confident that JB was an Essen. How does one determine for certain that there was a church in a place that is designated as "Essen quarter" in Jerusalem? What is the source of this suggestion. Who thought Nazareth was an Essen community? Where does some suggestion come from?

@storynt two great resources #1 Ken johnson is one of the best in this area of research. #2 Robert Eisenman has a good reputation and discusses Essen history, I highly recommend his talk titled: the dead sea scrolls best interview ever. Can be found on James Tabor site/tube. Finally the Essen quarter is well known of in current day Jerusalem it's one of the main tour's most messianic Christian's visit when they go to Israel.

Where in this video do I mention that Paul's concern with the veil was out of notions of purity? Also, a Jew or Jewish Christian living in the diaspora could be or would be still concerned with issues of purity. That was not simply an issue for Jews living in Palestine.

Thank you for your kind words, Richard.

Amanda, thank you for your questions. I'm sorry, but I cannot give you any information about the Knight's Templar and their rituals and how they compare to those of the Essenes. To the best of my knowledge, there is no direct evidence of Essenes "branching off" into "esoteric beliefs" (not sure how you are using that term and what would constitute an "esoteric belief" among apocalyptic Jews like the Essenes). There are shared vocabulary and ideas between John the Baptist, Jesus and early Christianity. But one must use caution when identifying those similarities. Just because one can see a similar idea of the Essenes in the New Testament does not mean we know that the NT authors got any ideas directly from them. Ideas can be in circulation which are shared by groups who have no direct connection with each other. There is no (despite what a few scholars have claimed) any evidence that shows John the Baptist, Jesus or any specific NT author had contact with Essenes. But it is certainly not impossible that they did. It is simply that we cannot prove that they did with the scant material we have. Hope that helps.

Glad you like them, but I do not make my slides available separately.

Shawn, it is likely that Essenes, as well as many other Jews, did not care for Herod the Great or Herod Antipas or Herod Philip or for that matter the Romans. The DSS, if they are an Essene product as some scholars believe, indicate that the community was awaiting an intervention into human affairs by God and an angelic force that would replace the current political environment, including the Temple high priests, with a Davidic-Levitic Kingdom.

Thank you JH

Nick, that is an important question. So does this mean that the tradition that claimed the apostle Matthew was the author of this Gospel is flawed since literary dependence seems highly likely (though not obviously 100% conclusive)?

@@storynt "does this mean that the tradition that claimed the apostle Matthew was the author of this Gospel is flawed". I don't know. But as you said, it's tradition that says that Matthew is the author, not the author himself. And that tradition came generations after it was written most likely. You probably know as well as I do how complicated this can get from an historical perspective. But you're right that it's tradition that claims the authorship, not the Gospels themselves. The attributions were added later. For me, just looking at what we do seem to know about the Gospels, the answer should be "we don't know". The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died, in a language Jesus didn't speak, by educated Greek speaking authors, based on oral stories that had been told for decades. This doesn't sound like the disciples to me. Throw in that Matthew and Luke copied almost all of Mark (the first Gospel written) and it just seems like "we don't know" is the best and most honest answer we have. But the evidence we do have would make one think that Matthew Mark Luke and John didn't write the Gospels that bear their names. That it's simply "according to" as the titles state. And that's based on tradition as you said.

I'm aware that some scholars (e.g. Crossan) want to date GT into the first century, but I do not share their optimism. I'm more convinced that GT's use of material in Matthew's Gospel points to a somewhat later date (depending of course on when you date Matthew, which I would date into the 70s or 80s). I do not put any trust in a comment about James the Just as a leader in GT. I doubt the historical Jesus would refer to his brother as "James the Just" and besides that the saying could have been written down as a memory of early disciples without intending to imply anything about whether James is currently alive. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

@@storynt Interesting point, but perhaps James got his name “the Just” from Jesus Himself. There is some dialogue in GT that is very reminiscent of dialogue in the 4 Gospels. Look at GT verse 15 and verse 53. Now look at Matthew 11:11, Matthew 19:12, Mark 14:21, and John 3:3-5, and John 16:21. As you see with these verses, Jesus has a fascination with being “born” and uses the term a lot. The language and fascination is also in GT with those previous verses I showed you

@@storynt Luke 14:26 has Jesus telling you to hate your father and mother. There is not much context to this verse. But then in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands upon this teaching!!! Thomas verse 101. Please, tell me your thoughts on this. No one has been able to reply to me on this. You sound like you’re passionate about this and as if you truly care about what the Bible says, so please tell me your opinion on these verses.

@@storynt I would say that Thomas uses a lot of material from Luke. But he’s using material from Mark and Matthew as well. Thomas verse 6 and Thomas verse 21 talk about being naked and removing your clothes. Reminds me of what happens in Mark 14:51-52.

@@storynt that’s the thing though. Is James the biological brother of Jesus? Or is James the legal brother of Jesus? As in, James is from a previous marriage that Joseph had. James is not the son of Mary. Some people think that Mary stayed a Virgin, the text does not say one or another. So maybe James is not actually Jesus’s brother. I think it’s fine that Jesus calls him by “James the Just”. It’s a title that distinguishes him from James the son of Zebedee. “Sons of thunder” is a seemingly ridiculous name, but Jesus gives that title to the sons of Zebedee as shown in Mark 3:17.

Filip, I would recommend Christopher R. Hutson's commentary "First and Second Timothy and Titus" by Baker press under the paideia commentaries on the New Testament series. He provides both sides of the argument and can point you to additional scholarship on the topic.

The book by Wright that I am discussing here is his Scripture and the Authority of God.

Yes you may. Glad you find it helpful.

You are welcome, Brie.