EARLY Dating of the Gospel Accounts - Just 2 Reasons in 2 Minutes!

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 14 ноя 2023
  • ◆ Apologetics ◆ Polemics ◆ Theology ◆ Street Evangelism
    🖐️ Click JOIN to become a channel member and help growing this ministry!
    / @danielapologetics
    🧡 Patreon - bit.ly/3uZzo4A OR 💙 PayPal - bit.ly/3gkWIVs
    👀 SUPPORT by boosting the RUclips algorithms (Like, Comment, Share, blablabla..!)
    🙏 PRAY for this work - and for fellow Christians, especially those that are persecuted...
    ... "GOD takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked; but rather that they turn from their ways and live." ... ✝️ (Ezekiel 33;11, OLD TESTAMENT) ✝️
    ⬛🟨⬛
    Many skeptics will claim that 4 gospel accounts are written late, but there many external as well as internal evidences that goes against that claim. In this video, I will present 2 internal reasons within 2 minutes, that shows that such objection is not the most logical one - and rather ad hoc.
    Hope you find this video helpful and memorisable. If you do, feel free to share it with someone.
    ⬛🟨⬛
    👀 BUT, BUT, BUT?
    Why am I not a muslim? ... What about gratuitous evil? ... Divine hiddenness? ... Trinity? ... Atheist objections? ... Bad things in the Old Testament? ... Objections to the New Testament and Jesus' resurrection?
    → Watch This Playlist: bit.ly/3ErEdZA ←
    🦁 ABOUT THE CHANNEL:
    I hope to serve you all well here on the channel, both Christians and non-Christians, with what mostly is aimed to be topical and concise 5 minute videos related to Apologetics, Polemics, Theology and Street Evangelism - though longer and different videos is not off the table.
    🙋‍♂️ ABOUT ME:
    Let the content presented speak for itself, and fact-check it with reliable sources.
    Regarding sharing my background and credentials etc... Who I really am, is not important...
    I am not a RUclipsr, I have a very busy offline life working a 50 hrs/week self-employed day-job.
    Just consider me a random dude on the internet for all I care.
    If the content is good and helpful, to God be the glory!
    🌍 WEBSITES:
    ★ Official Website ★
    www.danielapologetics.com
    ▬ All links for Social Media, Backup, Support and more:
    linktr.ee/danielapologetics
    💬 COMMENTS:
    ⬬ No heart or reply to your comment, does NOT mean that I'm not grateful for your support.
    ⬬ Unanswered skeptic comments, does NOT mean it was solid refutation that I can't answer.
    ⬬ 50 hrs/week day-job, family and video production allows LIMITED time for the comment section.
    📈 MONETIZED:
    For the first 3 years, I didn't want to monetize the channel for a good handful of reasons. But upon requests from subscribers who wanted to support the channel through RUclips Supers' features, and learning that RUclips indeed promotes monetized videos to a higher degree than non-monitized videos, I decided to activate it.
    🎬 FOOTAGE & MUSIC:
    ■ RUclips.Com
    🛑 DISCLAIMER:
    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
    #danielapologetics
    #gospels
    #newtestament

Комментарии • 39

  • @Gideon-vk8eu
    @Gideon-vk8eu 7 месяцев назад +12

    Mister Short n' Concise delivers again! Two great internal evidences!

  • @chrisatspeakerscorner
    @chrisatspeakerscorner 7 месяцев назад +10

    I completely agree with this - using Acts as a yardstick to establish the latest date for the gospels seems consistent and logical.
    Awesome vid Daniel

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +1

      Glad you liked it brother! And yes, it is - and also easy to memorize.
      Lord bless you

  • @rickintexas1584
    @rickintexas1584 7 месяцев назад +5

    Great video. Gary Habermas has demonstrated that the Christian creed (Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will come again) was established 3 to 5 years after the cross.

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +3

      Praise and glory to Jesus! Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, that is actually a majority position among historians - including atheist scholars.

  • @helior.mendietajr2788
    @helior.mendietajr2788 7 месяцев назад +4

    Goođ Morning Daniel... Amen Anđ Gođ Bless You Brother...
    👑💞✝️🫂🙏🏼

  • @I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid
    @I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid 7 месяцев назад +4

    Excellent point!

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +2

      Glad you like it my friend! To God be the glory

  • @750DonutsOfDoom
    @750DonutsOfDoom 7 месяцев назад +3

    Word💪

  • @SFC4EVR
    @SFC4EVR 7 месяцев назад +2

    Great stuff. Thank you for work for the Kingdom.

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +1

      To God be the glory! Glad it served you well, Terrance

  • @samuelflores1419
    @samuelflores1419 7 месяцев назад +2

    Well done, Next! God bless you brother and your ministry!

  • @logosul-
    @logosul- 7 месяцев назад +2

    Fair enough

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +3

      These are 2 of many points I find extremely strange and ad-hoc in the light of the skeptic argument against the early dating.

  • @jfr45er
    @jfr45er 7 месяцев назад +1

    Funny.
    I’ve heard scholars will not accept early dating of the gospels because of the prophecies mentioned about the temple being destroyed.
    But this argument really does flip all that on its head.

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад

      Yes and yes. In light of the Matthew and Luke / Acts argument presented here, its EXTREMELY ad-hoc to say that they are late.

  • @truthmatters7573
    @truthmatters7573 5 месяцев назад +1

    Scholars be like: we will conveniently ignore this, because it does not suit our preconceived notions influenced by anti-supernatural bias

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  5 месяцев назад

      Exactly. And there are so much more points that could have been brought up. There are really no good reasons to date the gospel accounts and Acts late - except for a "supernatural bias". There too much stuff that can't be ignored.

  • @WiseAsSerpentsHarmlessAsDoves
    @WiseAsSerpentsHarmlessAsDoves 7 месяцев назад +2

    💯🔥

  • @jperez7893
    @jperez7893 7 месяцев назад +2

    the gospel of john and revelations can be thought of as two volumes like luke and acts. the mark of the beast 666 is verified by the other manuscript evidence that puts his number as 616 which is the same gemmatria of nero without the letter nun. this puts its construction before the death of nero. most likely at the end of 67. and since john has no dramatic language similar to revelations, we can date this to before the fire of rome in 64. in fact all the pastoral epistles can be seen as evidence of a peaceful existence within the roman empire prior to the neronian persecutions prior to 64ad

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +1

      May have to look into that a bit further. As argued, its extremely ad-hoc to push late dating of Matthew and Acts for the reasons mentioned here. John I have not previously had issue to date after temple destruction (though it may be before). I do believe it was written by him - and in an older age, later after synoptics. A lot of his account is proper polemic against gnostic heretics about Jesus not being just a divine avtar - but proper human. Truly God, truly human.

    • @jperez7893
      @jperez7893 7 месяцев назад +2

      @@DanielApologetics whereas the talmud laments the destruction and disappearance of the temple, and therefore evidence of its post-70 compilation, revelations is forward looking and although apocalyptic, does not hint about the most traumatic episode in the history of judaism. The imagery still preserves the mosaic sacrificial system and temple worship

  • @ProfYaffle
    @ProfYaffle 7 месяцев назад +2

    Nice. Did you think of that yourself?

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +2

      Not on Acts, but the argument from Matthew, yes. I've been studying his account harf this year and noticed that this is a pattern of his writing style again and again. Its so frequent throughout it that it seems unthinkable that he would not include Jesus' prophecy as a apologetic proof - if it was post 70 AD. Not Matthew, because he loves pointing to this stuff.

    • @ProfYaffle
      @ProfYaffle 7 месяцев назад +1

      @@DanielApologetics nice. Thanks. I'm thinking Anthony Rogers pointed out the Temple thing, but it might have been somewhere else I heard it. So I wondered if you'd found it independently just out of curiosity.
      It's a good video.

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +2

      @ProfYaffle - the temple argument is (G)OLD. But one can still say its argue from silence in very weak sense to not include it. But not at all when topping it by considering the writing style of Matthew and his dozens fullfilled prophecy comments. Thats just too much ad-hoc of an objection.
      Praise God! Glad you liked it, and thanks for all support. LORD bless you

  • @danielanthony8373
    @danielanthony8373 7 месяцев назад

    The Gospels were written early within the lifetime of eye witnesses of Jesus

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад

      Absolutely. Definitely where the evidences points to.

  • @jsilvanus240
    @jsilvanus240 7 месяцев назад +3

    The Quran is Extremely too late..

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +4

      According to the standard islamic narrative, in 652 AD, Ibn Tabid sent to 5 complete Qurans to 5 muslim controlled cities that are still muslim cities and states today. Where.Are.These?

    • @DanielApologetics
      @DanielApologetics  7 месяцев назад +5

      Yea, my friend. Big problems with SIN. First mention of Mecca, which should according to islam be the greatest amd oldest city of all, is not mentioned in history before around 750 AD (!?) - and does not show up on any maps until 16th century, I believe.