Directly addressing some critical comments from my video "Theophilus to Autolycus"
ORIGINAL VIDEO: [ Ссылка ]

1:22 Historic Perspective
4:50 THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST
7:08 c. 111 AD - Letter of Pliny to Trajan
13:29 180 AD
16:24 Reasons for this video
21:25 POINT 1 - He tells us he is a Christian because he has been 'anointed'. No other reason given.
27:47 POINT 2 - Defends resurrection by pointing to the rebirth of nature and the moon. Nary a word about Jesus resurrecting.
32:31 POINT 3 - Spends a long time quoting the Hebrew Bible as 'scripture'.
35:50 POINT 4 - To him the trinity is God, Wisdom and Man. No father, son and holy spirit ?
41:20 (end of 'lacuna')
54:57 POINT 5 - He knows the prologue to John's gospel but doesn't seem to know the Jesus story. Makes you think that the prologue was plaigerised by the 'authors' of John's gospel.
1:01:33 (end of 'lacuna')
1:02:38 POINT 6 He gives just a few quotation from the gospels he knows and still no life of Jesus. Were these gospels just lists of wisdom proverbs with no narrative or specific person behind them? (Q source type material maybe).
1:05:37 POINT 7 When he quotes these sayings from the gospels he never puts them in the mouth of Jesus.
1:08:49 POINT 8 Not once does he mention the name 'Jesus'. He doesn't seem to know that character nor the stories he appears in.
1:09:33 POINT 9 Not a single mention of Paul.

свернуть