@e sandstrom My guess is that he believes the Bible points to the Word. Calling the Bible the Word itself is a form of idolotry, because it is calling a thing, "God". Jesus is the Word, as is stated in the Bible itself.(logos).

Thank you for that info! Intriguing.

Agreed thanks for that

Thanks! I love fun facts, especially when they have to do with etymology (word derivation). I think it's fascinating that "In the beginning was the word..","the word" was translated from the Greek word "logos", the root for "logic".

Greek word 'apostolí' means mission. In fact apòstolos [apostle] has two meanings, a person in a mission or someone who has been sent by his Master in a mission.

Good to know

Check out Richard Carrier if you want an intellectual discussion.

​@@halvarmc671😂😂 he said Jesus never existed

​@@halvarmc671Carrier is part of the equivalent of qanon in his field.

Being solidly a non-dual Advaitist this truth telling is priceless....

Its great but uh have you searched at all? There's some great scholars of the Bible/early christianity on KZfaq with lots of amazing content.

WHO SAYS SO

The phone & mail right...PHEW

All the parallels are in Cats, the musical..... You are correct though, it does match "homeless' in our society. And others that go "unseen". And perhaps more similar to the proto-homeless tradition of hobos and tramps that used to ride the trains during the 1st half of the 20th century. Similarly to the early Christians, the hobo community had signs, a language of symbolism they used to pass on message to new travelers about places safe to stop, where to find a bite, perhaps a bed for the night etc..

To be the example and demonstration

He did a lecture on that topic.... "Why paul's church won. centre place".

British Jacobites were supporters of James II

"James" comes from John Wycleff's "heretical" rendering of the Latin bible (which uses Jacobus) into "common tongue English" which was then translated from English into Spanish and other European languages. The excuse that John Wycleff was using a translation from Late Latin ("non-biblical") Iacomus does not hold water because he uses Jacob for the Old Testament (many characters named Jacob) but James for the New Testament (many characters named James). Clearly John Wycleff was making a textual point similar to how Hosea turned to Joshua turned to Jesus, but also how he wanted English speakers (newly conquered left overs from the vanquished Celts) to relate more with the New Testament than with the Old Testament, since Celts already had a name in use James which mean "supplanter/usurper" to them.

I think Santiago is really Sain Tyachus of Cyprus, castanets and all. Who east martyred by the Moslems about 700sA.D.. I say this because Spain had 2200 year history with Cyprus at that time. Saint TYACHUS OF CYPRUS.

Santiago from Saint Tyachus of Cyprus c.700sA.D. Killed by the Moslems. These ate the remains that were taken to Spania. Spania had a 2200year history with Cyprus at that time. As there is many Cypriotes descendants living in Spania. Saint TYACHUS!

There is no James in the BIBLE. The apostols and the king of england have two different names. The Biblical characters are named JACOB OR GIACOBO. I DONT SEE A JAMES ANYWHERE IN THERE.

The music

Paul stoned Steven with the crowd after he prosecuted the case against him. If I'm not mistaken.

@@standandelivery yes and while a Roman citizen he was not Roman but Jewish. Studying under Gamaliel he would have likely spent at least 20 years in education before he appears in Acts

There wouldn't have been any portraits of Jesus even if he had been a historically powerful figure in Judaea with enough cash to actually commission a portrait. Jews had a prohibition against graven images. No rabbi would have dared to commission such a portrait of himself in Jesus' time or allowed one to be made of himself. This is why we have no portrait of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, not even of their venerated Hillel.

@@mickyfrazer786 Also, let's be honest, he probably bought his citizenship. All the modern American religious right-wingers who complain about "citizenship for sale" should remember that.

@@andrewsuryali8540 by he I assume you mean Paul? I have read F W Farrar, who suggests that no, Paul did not buy his citizenship. Paul was from Tarsus. Tarsus had a Jewish presence and about the fist decade AD I understand the city was punished for rebellion or not paying tax or something. To pay the debt they sold many of the inhabitants into slavery. Many would have come to Rome. It is posited that Paul's forebears were some of these. But that they worked and earned their freedom, and with it citizenship. Thus when they returned to Tarsus, their descendents were also Roman Citizens. Thus Paul the Roman and Jew.

Thank you for supporting the channel!

The "apostles" were supported by the community. There certainly were wealth in the community, but many poor as well. And the wealthy tended to support the apostles and the poor that attached themselves to the "apostles" and the respective "churches". Not so different from today, in that wealthy will often support the congregation's needs, like if the church needs a new roof, or they need new prayerbooks etc.. , at least some congregations.

@@jessereichbach588 Thanks for the response. 🙂👍

@@davidmccann9811 Additionally, Acts and the letters of Paul make it clear that wealthy followers who wanted to join the mendicant community had to let go of ALL their wealth and donate it to the community... or ELSE! Remember Ananias and Saphira?

Most could read and write like plato

What a load of krapp

Sorry . What you said was from James tabor who is a credible lecturer. This guy is full of shit

Relics were mentioned in Acts as 2nd order (stuff belonging to) 3rd order (being touched by) and even the shadow of.

The year hasn't always had 12 months. The Roman calendar originally had 10 months, and some traditions used the 13 lunar months, and not all astrology practises had 12 zodiac signs within a year. Learn some history, goober.

they talk to you?

@@yiannimil1 Yes all the time. telepathically. Anytime I like

"Distinct lack of consistency" is the perfect phrase to describe all of "Christianity". All who use "bad history". All though, this channel does it closer to FACT than most.

@@jessereichbach588 no it uses pop-history-ism. New word as one does not really exist. Like scientism that turns science into a pseudo religion there are many today that follow the 28th century led direction of texts down rabbit holes. That try to force the Gnostic texts as part of legitimate Christianity rather than following the evidence to what they were, namely seeking to use bad history and rhetoric in lieu of a true point. Carholic/Orthodox teachings and traditions follow a consistent trajectory back to the apostolic age. 1500 years before Luther began to change things in order to marry et al. The current push from channels such as this is just a natural extension of the departure Luther began.

@@mickyfrazer786 So you are saying you believe theology is history? What's "legitimate Christianity"? If Christianity were "legitimate" there wouldn't be other religions. Or "schisms" to deal with. You are talking about the Roman Imperial faith? That version of "Christianity"?

@@jessereichbach588 no. Theology and history are different, but that does not stop the biblical accounts being historical. The history or theology comes out of how you apply them. By your phraseology it shows your bias against Christianity, or at least to its historicity. We have more copies of the new testament than we have of all other contemporary texts of the time. We have so many that we can see errors and error correction and know how correct and truthful to what was first written. We have historians who question the new testament yet take on trust the self-penned works of julius ceaser. Histories that were written at that time were written as luke was written. They were not as histories are written today. What do you think the Apostles achieved in pushing Christianity after Jesus death? Did they do it for glory and honour, wealth and riches? All were martyred although one escaped said Martyrdom being saved throughout his boiling in oil, John. They lived in commune, not in state. Jesus, despite denials of some, consistently demonstrates and states He is God, throughout all Gospels. He literally leaves but 3 answers to determine who He is. He is a madman, He is a charlatan, or He is God. Most of the OT is the Jews showing how faithless they are, yet God still watches over them. Even now when there are next to no cultures that exist from history, the Jewish people are still here. For some no amount of evidence will demonstrate the truth. Consider when the Jews fled Egypt, Moses heads up Sinai and the Jews seek to make idols. They had just witnessed His power. Yes it's history, to deny it is so is to be arrogant in the face of the evidence. You could argue about its bias perhaps, but it is a document from the time reporting on events of the time and a truly unbiased historian would treat it as such.