Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
1
-
1
-
@laymanchristian1138 There will be NO HUMILIATION when we look up the validity of the famous story of the adult eress woman, one that is the GO TO STORY pointed to, as the most beautiful of teachings of Jesus, and we realise that it is remo ved from modern translations because the story was A CONFIRMED INTER POL ATION, a froidd, AND NOT IN THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS. Even though this story, is a big part of our faith, which we use to show Jesus was all love 🤦. We will not care. ( I mean the story itself contra bicted our beliefs, because we belive Jesus is si nless, and so should have st0n 3d the woman, but he didn't, meaning he was also a s1nner! But stop it. We don't use our brains and question nonsense. We says it's a mystery and blindly accept it)
So what if church and Paul teach DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.
So what if Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, and is called by all those close to him! We will change the meanings of words to remain upon falsehood. GOD is now also a prophet because Jesus bought a message, and multiple ano nee mous authors centuries in some cases after Jesus wrote about him, but church taught later that Jesus is God and so God can also be a prophet.
( again, don't bother pointing out that if Jesus was indeed God, then that means he was D3C3IV ING THE PEOPLE, letting them believe he was a prophet when he was actually their God!, because we won't care)
most of us haven't heard verses like john seven teen .3, 2wenty.7teen, unambiguous clear cut, not open to interpretation statements that clearly d35 troy our whole existence, because church pastors like to keep them quiet.
So what if most of the statements we depend on, are metaphorical, and clearly refuted by verses from Jesus, so what if Jesus saying he is " Alpha and omega" is removed from modern translations because its yet another fraudlent insertion. Rev1.eleven
john 5ive sev7 is one of our most famous frwdulent insertions, the trinity formula, johanine coma, it is also removed from all modern translations, because it is yet anothwer froid. Even though, all the inter pol ations, fraud and mi15 stranslations seem to be around who God is, and who Jesus is, alarm bells wont go off ringing.
We will instead, insist the bible isn't kurpted. We will get angry with the Qur'an and Muslims for daring for suggesting it.
Even though God says He doesn't accept human s4c rifice, we will insist Jesus the man, d13d for us. We know God is immortal, so we will reconcile by creating a second dimension of Jesus, where he is 100% man and 100% God, so we have a loophole.
When muslims tell us God is immortal, and so Jesus can't be God, we will be able to say "his human nature d1 3d".... and if the Muslims say that God hay 8s uman s4c rifice, we can say "He was God in flesh" and it was a divine s4c ri fice!
We appreciate when Jesus was asked the all important question about what was required for salvation, he didnt say believe i will dy for your sins, no, Jesus said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is one,...HOWEVER, we prefer the story paul and church taught us, this is much better for us as we don't have to s4c ri fice anymore, we just belive Jesus paid for our sins, and be sorry and bingo!
And as you have seen so far, we aren't very s1n seer, so we see no in just iss when an innocent pays for the s1ns of the guilty, or when children inherit s1ns for krymez that had nothing to do with them. Even though this goes against all the previous messages and teachings, and original s1n is only found in pauls work and the last gospel John, we will accept this 3 vil concept.
Again, we don't care that in Eze kiel 8teen .2wenty God tells us he hay 8s ORIGINAL S1N, BECAUSE HE IS JUST, and that we can be saved through repentance, not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin through his mercy, WITHOUT BLuD. ( WE COMPELTELY IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT IS ISLAM ) ....also we can point to our false pro pet paul, who said we can do away with the old covenant. ( even though Jesus said that not one JOT shouldn't be kept until heaven and earth disappear ) they don't call us paul followers for nothing.
We will insist Jesus is the only begotten son of God, even though David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. And we will say that the title 'son of man' is a divine title ( don't remind us eze keel is called son of man more times than Jesus )
We will claim Jesus was a willing s4k rifice even though Jesus begs, and cries all day to be saved from the cruc fiction. Jesus 'will' was to be saved, but he said he would accept whatever was God's will.
We believe God DID NOT ANSWER Jesus prayers, and our God was stripped n4k3d, bee ten whyppd and kil d by men against his wishes.
Even though all the disciples deserted Jesus, and there were no historical eyewitness, we will argue there are ( we only have jos ephus, who wasn't an eyewitness, and reported on rumours )
We will point to eye zayya 53, where Jesus meets absolutely NONE of the criteria, and ignore salm 9one where Jesus is mentioned by name, and says not even a bruise or cut would come to Jesus as God will send angels to protect him and raise him up
We will ignore the letters of ignacious which writ to challenge the popular belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion. This proves in the 1st century, people were unsure if Jesus was crucified.
We will insist a plural godhead of 3 fully God's is PURE MONOTHEISM. even we know its absurd, but if we keep insisting, we can be at peace with it.
Our bible attributes much bad and f17th to Jesus that we wish it didn't, but we are good at spinning and miss represen tation of text, so we will twist our way out of it.
Although we believe Jesus is God and always was, we will run whenever people respond to our critique of Islam, by showing 10x worse stuff our God Jesus commanded in the o.t.
And for any of the bad stuff they show us from the n.t., we just say Jesus was teaching a parable 😉 always works 💪
We will continue spreading l13s about Islam, because it is the biggest thret to xtianity, many of our pristes, celebs, and in particular, our woman, are leaving paul anity for Islam by the fastest rate. The conversion rates are the highest, and most ree verts to Islam are white xtian woman!
But, as malcolm once said, the media can make the innocent the gylty and the gylty the innocent, and the sion media is on our side, look at how easily we made the world believe they did nine wane wan, look how we lyde about sad damn, ga daf, luted them countries and now we are helping the sionist juws carry out a g3n 0cide on the nay tivs. ( we don't care the ones we help LITERALLY belive our God Jesus is boil ing in x crement and sea men)....
1
-
1
-
1
-
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
1
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man…
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal…
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
1