8 Reasons the New Testament is Reliable (w/ Dr. Ben Shaw)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Can we trust that the New Testament is reliable? As a Christian, Dr. Ben Shaw had no good reason to explain why he believed the NT was trustworthy. So, he dove in to study the textual, archaeological, extra-biblical, and internal testimony for himself. He recently published an EXCELLENT book laying out 13 reasons to trust the NT. We briefly discuss his story and then unpack 8 of his arguments. This is one you will enjoy and want to share with other Christians and skeptics.
READ: Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament (amzn.to/4cZhuFS)
CHECK OUT: www.coreapolog... for more resources.
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
Thanks guys. I was hoping for my next book to be on reliability of the New Testement, perfect timing, God is always so kind to me. I've read books such as Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but I'm getting older and I'm just working class, these things seem to slip my mind over time. I want to love my brother/neighbor and to give a reason for the hope as Peter says. McDowell is a treasure, a great American voice, and often great for resources. Sometimes I wish I was as smart and as educated as these guys but: not many were of noble birth, etc, as Paul says in Corinthians. Thanks guys, much gratitude, and much love. Prayers, always, for the whole McDowell family. God bless you Sean, you are not only brillint you are tuly a soulful brother.
Thanks Darren, you’ll enjoy Shaw’s book.
I think the verdict demands some objective evidence.
Religion is the biggest threat to the survival of the human race and always has been and always will be. All religions must be denounced. Stop the stupidity and use your brains people. The Earth was not created by God. It was created by the sun.
@@SeanMcDowellif one of God's 10 commandments is both just and UNJUST ie violence you must teach all commands are just and UNJUST. You still going to lead young people astray?
@@SeanMcDowellis lying just and UNJUST
I just preached a sermon last Sunday about reliability of the Bible and used Bart’s quote about the variations, and even shared him saying in a presentation “of the 300,000-400,000 varieties none of them have any bearing on anything other than to show, the scribes couldn’t spell any better than my students“
Another example I gave when it comes to the dating of the writings. I live in Dallas the city where JFK was assassinated the amount of time between the assassination of JFK and today is about 60 years. I could today interview and eyewitness of JFK‘s assassination and get a good reliable historical account, the same way we have good reliable historical accounts for Jesus, within 60 years.
In all this was a great interview thanks!!
See, if you actually wanted to show if you're correct, you'd look at scientific studies that clearly show people manufacture or distort memories. But keep citing that you "could" do something as evidence. Why don't you actually ask people? Ask them the date, time, day of the week, and other salient information, and while a few people might remember, I'd wager just as many or more would get things wrong.
To give you an example, I have much better memory than most people as determined by actual psychological testing. I was in middle school when 9/11 happened. Do I remember a lot? No. I remember where I watched news of it, but I couldn't tell you the time. I probably couldn't tell you the day if it weren't part of the name. I don't remember what I saw or how long I watched it. I think we got to go home afterwards, but I can't remember clearly. I don't remember what anyone said. I just knew it was a big deal.
So there, an anecdote against yours, but really neither matters. Simply look at the actual scientific findings, which indicate that memory is a very fickle thing.
@@bsedgal wow, that’s is just fantastically false information. This is a PRIME example of where people are willing to believe flat out lies before they will believe the truth. But thanks for sharing.
@@WaterCat5 well, that’s an interesting anecdote for sure. But it also ignores the fact that we do have eyewitness accounts still used in trials and other places on a daily basis. As for your “date, time, day of the week” argument none of that is relevant since no first century historical data asks those questions. Rather they explain situationally what happened. And as for your 9/11 example just because I can’t tell you off the top of my head that information doesn’t deny that 9/11 happened, or that we can have good reason to believe the basic facts about the situation, right? I remember A LOT about 9/11 especially since I had very close friends that lived in New York at the time, and I’ll bet if you were physically there as an eyewitness you would have a MUCH better memory of it rather than watching it on TV. So again, your analogy fails to fit the narrative I shared.
You keep talking about “science” but history doesn’t work in the same fashion, science must be repeatable, that’s part of the methodology. History isn’t repeatable, so you are using the wrong methodology for your conclusion.
@@RandallChase1
We only use eyewitnesses in courts because most of the time that’s all what we have.
But if we also have contradicting empirical evidence then we automatically dismiss the testimony no matter how many accounts we have or how certain the witnesses claim to be.
Of course it’s even worse when all we have are anecdotes that are anonymous internally written by authors who don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t identify their sources.
bet thousands came to jesus, do tell fanboi.......
I like as evidence: 1.) Luke 1:1-4. 2.) John 21: 24, 25. 3.) Rom. 9:1. . 4.) Heb. 2: 3,4. 5.) 1st Pet. 5:1 6.) 2nd Pet. 1: 14-18. 7.) 1st Jn. 1:1-3. and 8.) Galatians 1: 10-20, and 9.) 1st Corinthians 15:3-8.
😊
evidence? no...!
We have at least 5000 copies of the New Testament.
That’s amazing… but fewer than 100 of them were written before the 5th century.
But even if you had the originals in mint condition that wouldn’t make the stories true.
True. But they, along with writings outside of the Bible and archeology, give the best answer to the question, "How did Christianity begin?"
I hadn't thought of the unplanned accindents part before. That's actually a pretty strong evidence.
Gary Habermas as you Hockey Coach is DOPE 😂
I had Dr Gary as a prof in 1983-85 at Liberty. He was brilliant back then. Amazing
@@paulseigeldorf9461
Saint Doug of Pine Creek had Habby on his show.
18:46 Luke never states that he talked to those who where eyewitnesses. "Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" Luke 1:2
"Handed down to us" or "delivered to us" has nothing to do with talking to the eyewitnesses.
I think a case can be made that it does mean he spoke with eyewitnesses. Luke was a coworker of Paul and John Mark (Philemon 1:24, 2 Tim 4:11), both of whom had close connection with the apostles and presumably other eyewitnesses. Given how orderly and accurate Luke’s account is, it seems completely plausible that he interviewed or spoke to them for his accounts, which he then described as “delivered” or “handed down.”
@@gilwaa I think you first have to prove that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke. Then you have to prove that the Luke that Paul refers to in Philemon is the same Luke who wrote the gospel. Then you have to prove that the gospel that Luke wrote is more or less what we have in our hands today.
I think then, yes, we have the basis to make a case that Luke spoke to eyewitnesses and somehow wrote down their accounts, and didn't just relied on Mark or Q or whatever, and just gave them a new ordering "...write it out for you in an orderly sequence..." Luke 1:3
@@davidpinheiro9650 I think the work you are referring to has already been done by textual critics and NT scholars.
luke i am your father, your mamma never told you. i mean dave. you have a sister too ... kinda. she looks just like ya.
*Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World*
*"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.*
So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was *miraculously conceived by the god Apollo,* or how his birth was *presaged by a new star in the heavens,* or how Julius Caesar was seen *ascending into the heaven* after his death or how Vespasian *healed lame and blind people* who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.*
And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian:
"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81)
Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11).
*Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous.
*One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and *later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status.* The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, *with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm.* Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was *taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death.* The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been *taken up by the gods."*
If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years.
*Answer*
What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora
You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
Is there a book like this but for the Old Testament? I have found some older ones, but I’m looking for more recent books defending the Old Testament.
The Comforter to bring to remembrance and comes with comfort concerning written within thee all!
Noone can contradict come here in front and remind! LORD from thy Permanent Foundation.
Great program - thanks gentlemen !
Reactions I can make to three points after listening to this: Firstly, when apologists talk about “thousands” of copies of the NT you should realize that the further you go back in time, the less manuscripts there are and the more fragmentary they become. More importantly, just because there might be a lot of copies (i.e. It’s popular) doesn’t mean the contents of the manuscripts are true. On the criterion of embarrassment, just to point out one flaw with this tact, if I wanted to pass off a false story as being true then adding something embarrassing might be a useful flourish to help make the story pass. Lastly, as for the most profound objection, speaking personally, any stories containing unverifiable, supernatural tall tales are going to be placed in the doubtful file as a matter of policy. I won’t waste my time elaborating further on that except to say you Christians likely wouldn’t be so quick to believe these stories either if they were cloaked by the veil of a different faith than yours.
Hey Dale, sounds like you are a smart guy. When you get a chance read the gospel of John in the New Testament. John 3:16 says “God so loved the world ( Dale included) that He gave his own Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life”. Turn to Jesus with all your heart Dale and He will forgive and welcome you into His heart.
@@jasonkellar8585 As if I’m unfamiliar with the gospel of John. I'll "turn to Jesus" just as soon as there are sound, rational reasons to believe the claims Christians make about him are true. If you haven’t considered the grounds to be skeptical and care about whether or not what you believe is true you should look into them. A good first place to start are the articles that are available for free in the Modern Library of the Secular Web site. I'd post a link but I don't think RUclips allows links to sites other than RUclips so you will have to google it. A good RUclips source is Paulogia's channel "Where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians."
That reminds me of the one time when I met Angelina Jolie and she immediately fell in love with me. We went to her hotel and had amazing sex… but then Brad Pitt knocked on the door and I had to climb out of the window totally naked.
Man… that was embarrassing.😅
Why would someone write false tales about a religion Just to deceive believers? Just for the Fun of It? I don't think It is too much Fun to study a ton of geography, religion, history, probably politics, etc, and Waste all your money buying expensive papyruses and ink to write unnecessary things, all without modern technology, just to deceive a small group of people that you don't like and don't take seriously
@@jasonkellar8585 This "Jesus" did not exist.
They might have tons of copies, but the earliest copies are decades (some times 100’s) after Jesus died. We have no originals. Things were passed on orally because of illiteracy and thus it introduces tons of errors. That author is omitting facts which is not honest.
Satan isn't actually a name. Did Jesus call Peter the devil Lucifer? Or did He just call Peter an adversary?
Thank you Ben and Sean, so very illuminating.
From when are the oldest copies of the New Testament? Anyone???
The strongest consideration I have had personally is that the events in the New Testament are historically cited elsewhere. This Miracle was witnessed first hand by all the people who lived there and then. This is why that almost the entire area became Christian in such a short time frame. They had no doubt that God is Real and neither do I! Embrace unconditional love and you will begin to open your heart to the Joy that is the Living Christ
Meanwhile in reality none of the events are mentioned by anyone else… especially not the miraculous stuff.
And almost no one converted until centuries later when all eyewitnesses were long dead.
400 years really isn’t that short.😂
Why say? Lord creation and all thy shared Feet SUSTAINED! Well said
My Forefathers thy SON will say, what is my Shalom comes with rejoicing, my Hallelujah, and my Amen?
Thank you Ben for attending unto our OWN! Love you too! Sean Gratitude and Honor love you!
Yes, Who is the Author of the creation itself?
Yes it is a reliable account of the prophecy’s of the OT coming to pass. The Israelites preparing for the end of the age and coming into a new covenant with God.
What is an Author?
So, let’s all agree that there are more copies of the New Testament than any other book. Does that make it true?
Saying that there are more copies is not an answer to the question whether magic is real. There are lots of copies of the Koran, does that mean the claim that Muhammad rode on a winged horse or split the moon in two is true?
How do historians determine whether supernatural claims are true. What is their investigative methodology? Books like this present a red herring that misleads or distract from the most important questions. Is it true?
In fairness, they did not say it is true or trustworthy just because of the copies. It is, however, an important prerequisite. From the second paragraph of Shaw's chapter on textual criticism, which is available for online (see below):
[[Of course, having the right words does not automatically mean
that the content of those words is accurate. As scholar Jacob Peterson
points out, “𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁.”
Nevertheless, once we are confident that we have a reliable text, then we
can test the claims of that text to see whether they are reliable. This
is why being confident that we have the right words is directly relevant to New Testament reliability.]]
You can view the entire chapter for free on InterVarsity Press' (IVP) page for Shaw's book. They provide it as a sample chapter.
(This was a second attempt at a post as the initial post included the link, but YT apparently would not allow us).
Additionally, Shaw wrote a chapter in his dissertation on the question of historians and miracles. It is available online as well. The title is "Philosophy of History, Historical Jesus Studies, and Miracles: Three Roadblocks to Resurrection Research"
It does not make it true. I agree. And im a christian. 😅😅😅
@@coreapologetics3526
Well… the earliest tiny fragments are from the 2nd century and for most of the parts of the NT the first manuscripts are from the 3rd and 4th century.
That’s pretty good… but in the end it is totally irrelevant.
Even if you had the complete originals it wouldn’t change anything.
We can confirm that the authors got many mundane and irrelevant details right… but the stories are almost entirely unfalsifiable.
@@ramigilneas9274 As noted, having copies is important because it is a prerequisite for knowing what was claimed. We can then evaluate the claims. There are plenty of details that are not "mundane and irrelevant" that we can know (e.g., Minimal Facts). There are several things we can know. Of course, unfalsifiable is different from false. I'm reminded, and I'm sure you know people like this too, of a comment from F. F. Bruce: “Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experiences that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate.”
Peace.
@@coreapologetics3526
Even the minimal facts… aka the very few things about the story that historians agree on actually happened are very mundane and pretty much irrelevant when trying to prove the resurrection or any of the other miraculous claims of the stories.
And of course if you had the originals then the number of copies wouldn’t matter whatsoever.
But even if you had the originals of the gospels… that would only mean that you would know what was claimed 40-80 years after the event but not what was claimed before the story got embellished and exaggerated and turned into a legend.
Shaw seems to regularly confuse ‘corroborate’ and ‘collaborate.’
Michael Kruger has extensively written on this as well
Yes he has!
Looks like this will be a good (although short at 160 pages) read. Just added to my wish list.
I’m only half way through, so far there hasn’t been anything to address my distrust of the NT. In short, there are miracles in the NT, and I think miracles are incoherent. I’ll keep listening and we’ll see…
When you look at books on the reliability of other ancient writers you don't often see discussions of miracles in them despite the fact that most ancient historical writiers discuss them too. Historians nevertheless find these writers to be reliable even if they have various questions on miracles or, like you, may think they are incoherent. The coherency vs incoherency of miracles would not be primarily a historical discussion, but a philosophical one. Robert Larmer has probably written the most on the subject.
@@coreapologetics3526 I’ll check out Robert Larmer, as you suggest. And if this is Ben Shaw I’m talking to, I should say I read parts of your dissertation with great interest. Maybe the crux of our difference lies in this sentence: “Historians cannot restrict, a priori, the answers to open historical questions” (117). Not only do I think historians can, I think human beings cannot do otherwise. This is why I don’t think Hume is the one for Christians to contend with, it’s Kant.
As you said, the coherency or incoherency of miracles is primarily philosophical, but the philosophy of history is an important part of historical reflection, and has a major influence of what we accept to be historically factual. I suppose I take it for granted that incoherent explanations cannot be factually accurate.
I agree that even if one thinks that miracles are incoherent, a historical text that reports miracles isn’t entirely unreliable, but miraculous explanations are. Even then, the Bible is still a valuable historical source. But if miracles are excised from the Bible and we’re left with a sort of Jeffersonian Bible, or at most a whole lot of wondrous events with no viable explanation, then we don’t have anything like Christianity.
@@coreapologetics3526 I’ll check out Robert Larmer, as you suggest. And if this is Ben Shaw I’m talking to, I should say I read parts of your dissertation with great interest. Maybe the crux of our difference lies in this sentence: “Historians cannot restrict, a priori, the answers to open historical questions” (117). Not only do I think historians can, I think human beings cannot do otherwise. This is why I don’t think Hume is the one for Christians to contend with, it’s Kant.
As you said, the coherency or incoherency of miracles is primarily philosophical, but the philosophy of history is an important part of historical reflection, and has a major influence of what we accept to be historically factual. I suppose I take it for granted that incoherent explanations cannot be factually accurate.
I agree that even if one thinks that miracles are incoherent, a historical text that reports miracles isn’t entirely unreliable, but miraculous explanations are. Even then, the Bible is still a valuable historical source. But if miracles are excised from the Bible and we’re left with a sort of Jeffersonian Bible, or at most a whole lot of wondrous events with no viable explanation, then we don’t have anything like Christianity.
@@coreapologetics3526 I’ll check out Robert Larmer, as you suggest. And if this is Ben Shaw I’m talking to, I should say I read parts of your dissertation with great interest. Maybe the crux of our difference lies in this sentence: “Historians cannot restrict, a priori, the answers to open historical questions” (117). Not only do I think historians can, I think human beings cannot do otherwise. This is why I don’t think Hume is the one for Christians to contend with, it’s Kant.
As you said, the coherency or incoherency of miracles is primarily philosophical, but the philosophy of history is an important part of historical reflection, and has a major influence of what we accept to be historically factual. I suppose I take it for granted that incoherent explanations cannot be factually accurate. And from that, a source that is filled with incoherent explanations is on it's face a suspect source.
That said, I agree that even if one thinks that miracles are incoherent, a historical text that reports miracles isn’t entirely unreliable, even if the miraculous explanations are. The Bible is still a valuable historical source. But if miracles are excised from the Bible and we’re left with a sort of Jeffersonian Bible, or at most a whole lot of wondrous events with no viable explanation, then we don’t have anything like Christianity.
Did you figure out what all the pretty red letters were for, before grad school. great to see the normal apologists misrepresentation of your betters. you go girls! keep shrinking the flock, you are doing what i cannot do alone.
Thanks. To fully answer the atheist objection about the NT, I want someone to write a book about what would have to be true for the Gospel, or the resurrection, to have been made up. That would be really telling, IMO.
There is an article free online by Jeremiah Johnston that may interest you. It is called "How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story" and can be found via Google.
@@coreapologetics3526 Thanks, I'll look that uo.
Professors at BYU make the same argument for the book of Mormon.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Which argument?
@@grantbartley483 That the book of Mormon couldn't possibly have been made up. Even though it obviously was.
What is beyond can contain?
Nor who among can interpret therein?
Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM all made that are made including all Thy shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! FEET resting upon HIS FOOTSTOOL!
Ben is cute cute CUTE!
Beloved a little Child "i" longing to LEARN. What is contradiction?
Raised the little poor RICH YOUNG RULER and nations resting upon HIS SHOULDER!
Meeks shared "i" AM will say, Who sleeps and awake day and night! In the MIDST of the LIONS DEN!
Some will say who is that little child born "i" in the midst of all the wise of this world and scribes?
Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, can't ye all see! Ye 3 HIS FOREFATHERS! Fighting one another so GRIEVES HIM!
Many trying to reach don't belongs!
Sean, Homer and Plato are not asking you to believe their writings relate to historically accurate events. They are not claiming to be the truth and the way. The Bible is asking us to accept that magic is real and in order to be saved you have to believe it. Comparing religious writings to non religious writings is at best disingenuous.
They cover that in the conversation, and I assume the book does as well. I don't have the timestamp, but it is the section where they talk about propaganda. That is, the Bible is not written for outsiders. Further, you are missing the point that the New Testament's authenticity stands up to contemporaneous works despite there being far more copies. Compare the authenticity against other religious texts (e.g. Buddhist text, Koran) and you'll see it stands out.
And I would not say you have to believe the Bible to be saved. As Paul says in Romans, the Universe clearly shows the existence of God. Failure to accept that leads to confusion, disorder, and a breakdown in human relations. While not a Christian nation, everyone acknowledges the United States is more divisive and mistrusting than it was a century ago.
The assertion that Christians believe in Magic and non-Christians don't evinces someone who accepts the dogma they were taught rather than look at the evidence. The material humanist worldview, of which I assume you are a member, asserts that only the material world exists. However, that worldview cannot reasonably explain how the Universe got here. "Something blew up billions and billions of years ago." Yes, but where did that something come from? Science cannot prove that; by definition it cannot.
That worldview cannot explain the irreducibly complex machinery of a single cell. Nearly two centuries after Darwin, we now know how complex DNA is, and all the proteins and components of the cell. There is an amazing YTube video that shows the checksum protein that checks the DNA's correctness; a relationship that is impossible by chance. Darwin conjured up that all life was related when they were still bleeding people for illness. Yet you continue to cling to a belief that Science cannot support. Science has outstripped Darwin; but the material humanist worldview (a modern term for religion) can not.
Now you're going to start penning an attack on me. You're either going to say I don't know what I'm talking about, come up with what you consider to be a similarly implausible solution (FSM, anyone), or you are going to attack me personally. The latter shows that you know you have no leg to stand on. The former shows that you've not sat down and honestly evaluated your own beliefs skeptically. The third is just grasping at straws and confirms for me that you dogmatically hold to what you don't know.
The Bible instructs Believers to be skeptical. "Test all things; hold fast to what is good." (1 Thes 5:21); "The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps." (Prov 14:15); and "...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." (1 John 4:1) The material humanist worldview feigns skepticism without first challenging its preconceived notions. I know this because I once did not believe. Challenge your assumptions and wake up.
Peace.
@@JustBCWi
Well… even if Abiogenesis would be proven to be impossible… Macroevolution would still be a proven scientific fact.
When you say that science can not explain something you forget that God doesn’t explain anything. 😂
For the NT you have fewer than 100 manuscripts that were written before the 5th century.
In the first two centuries you got almost nothing.
That’s still pretty good but irrelevant to the question if any of the stories happened at all… because no one noticed any of the amazing miracles that Jesus supposedly performed.😂
@ramigilneas9274 yes they did noticed, it's in the eye witnesses accounts and that's why even hostile sources like the Talmud say he "practiced sorcery".
@@Volgdewaarheid
Sure… they noticed it a century after Jesus died when they first heard about the existence of Christians.😂
@ramigilneas9274 I know you think you're funny, but you sound really silly. Do some research my brother in humanity.
Some will say, who is that little child born "i" in the midst of the LIONS DEN?
6:15 Is the biggest non-sequitur of Christian apologists.
So what if you have a billion billion billion copies?
Is the JW Bible true or the Mormon books true because they have a lot of copies?
It's entirely 100% meaningless how many copies we have, and comparing to Plato and Homer is deceptive, it's meaningless and it's designed to lie and manipulate.
What matters are two things:
Was the material that was written down even true or is it fiction?
Were the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies and so on actually copies of the originals? We have no idea.
So, like the JW bible, whereas, oh say in John 1:1 they've added a single letter, just "a" an article, and it changes the meaning, the idea that the JWs have printed millions and millions of their verison of the bible is meaningless to whether it's true.
If the Jehovah's Witnesses print a trillion trillion copies of their version of the bible, does that make it authentic or reliabile?
NOPE.
So your entire argument is just to deceive people as it's meaningless.
You’re right that they’re not answering the question of the truthfulness. They are only answering the question of whether we have the original text more or less that’s all it is.
There’s Jewish textual criticism too, you know, regarding the texts of the writings that Jews accept to be scripture. The traditions that gave us accurate copy techniques (especially considering it all had to be done by hand) were developed by them, were quite brilliant, and they were so particular about it because it is God‘s word.
But for those of us who realize how many messianic prophecies in the Old Testament Jesus fulfilled, prophecies that he would have had no control over if he was not of divine origin, and the rich symbolism in Jewish history regarding the atonement necessary for the forgiveness of sins, repeating patterns of type type and finally the antetype, we just cannot “unsee” Christ in all scripture. Read the New Testament book of Hebrews to understand why. We understand why you reject Jesus. Honestly, it’s the same reason Islam rejects Jesus as being divine.
But if you want to argue with Christians, you should probably be familiar with why they believe what they do. The apostle Paul (who isn’t necessarily the author of the book of Hebrews, we don’t know who it is for sure ) was a Pharisee of Pharisees. It seems strange to think that he would not have given that up lightly, especially knowing that it would likely end in his untimely demise.
And all of the other disciples were martyred as well , with the exception of John , who was exiled.
I don’t know maybe you should read Sean’s dad’s books.
@@paulacoyle5685 I did read Josh McDowell's book.
Total trash.
He had no expertise to write the stuff he did, he just made stuff up.
It's evil what he did.
Your idea of Paul is silly. You have no idea what he gave up, he was a cult leader, like Joesph Smith, he made up his own religion and used that for power and money.
Jesus was a Pharisee, a Torah observant Jew, and Paul changed that, getting rid of the Law, the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.
You're likely, if you're an evangelical, following Paul and not Jesus at all.
Jesus said he came not to do away with the Law, which is why Paul and Peter hated each other.
In fact, I did a stream with a researcher who wrote a paper about how it might be true that inner Christian fights might be the reason Peter and Paul were killed. I.e. by their own fellow Christians but from different camps.
Your idea that all these early Christians were martyrs is a myth.
Even Gary Habermas only has 2 or 3 maybe martyrs, the rest are fables, myths, just traditions of early believers, not historical at all.
Peter was a believer, I don't don't that, but lots of people are mislead and believe stuff that's not true and then are willing to die for it.
Happens all the time, even in modern times.
Nothing special about it.
MB, I agree. The New Testament manuscripts could have been perfectly preserved and we could have all the originals, but that says nothing about their veracity. As you point out the number of manuscripts is just a distraction from the real issue; is it true?
The discussion, however, doesn't start at 6:15. Just before this point, at 5:02, there is a discussion on why textual criticism is important for reliability. Knowing what the original authors wrote is a prerequisite for testing the claims. If we don't know what they claimed, we can't test anything.
So we agree that it would be an bad argument to say that just because there are a bunch of copies, that the claims are therefore true. However, that was not the argument here nor is it in the book. From the second paragraph of Shaw's chapter on textual criticism, which is available for online (see below):
[[Of course, having the right words does not automatically mean
that the content of those words is accurate. As scholar Jacob Peterson
points out, “𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁.”
Nevertheless, once we are confident that we have a reliable text, then we
can test the claims of that text to see whether they are reliable. This
is why being confident that we have the right words is directly relevant to New Testament reliability.]]
You can view the entire chapter for free on InterVarsity Press' (IVP) page for Shaw's book. They provide it as a sample chapter.
Additionally, there were 7 other arguments discussed here and in Shaw's book there are 12 others.
(This was a second attempt at a post as the initial post included the link, but YT apparently would not allow us).
@@coreapologetics3526 We cannot possibily know what the original text said, every argument that what we ended up with was the "original" is wishful thinking and conjecture.
And a lot of circular reasoning and special pleading.
All that said, even if the text we have today was 100% accurately copied, that says zero about whether it's true, so we're back to square one.
Mark comes first.
Matthew and Luke copy Mark and therefore are not sources, they cannnot be independent.
John creates a new Jesus and changes so much we know it's fiction, well, at least Mark, Matthew, and Luke would all say it's fiction as the changes Jesus entirely.
Paul knows nothing of the life of Jesus, no miracles, no birth narrative, no dying and rising via an empty tomb story.
Secular mentions of Jesus come late and the eariest say nothing about Jesus, no mention of virgin births, dying and rising, etc., just a mention some guy named Jesus existed and some people formed a cult out of Judaism based on his teachings.
Once we get into the middle and late 2nd century we have the full blown growth of a legend, all based on Mark and whatever oral traditions he used (or maybe a Q source).
That's it, the entirety of Christianity is built on one guy, Mark, and one charsmatic (and violent murderer) who created a brand new religion, Paul. Who dismissed Peter and Jesus' teaching that Christians were supposed to follow the Torah.
Christianity is no different than Mormonism, it's a cult of a previous religion created by a dude who wanted access to power and money.
That's the plain and obvious truth.
That grown men, adults, don't see that shows the extreme power of indoctrination.
Fowl of the Air will say, and Heaven above!
According to the Will of God of the Living and the Scriptures.
A little Child born "i" AM will say, what is Noone can contradict? Keep watch!
Sorry can’t watch the sound is too bad.
Religion creats a basline background for the rest of society to be built upon
Great. Doesn't make it true
Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!
Oh really? Tell me more! Always interested in hearing stories of successes.
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.”
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
It's great for djs who wan to mix ineresting music
My own. What is the NEW Jerusalem, the New Pillar, nor the KINGDOM OF GOD OFFSPRINGS PRESERVE as promised? Thy SON of MAN sitteth
Thanks guys. The Muslims say their book is just as reliable as yours and they give pretty much the same reasons as you lot. Great to see you've figured out a way to make a living out of it though🤣
Most historians agree that what Uthman collected is pretty similar to what exists of the quran today. So it makes sense that some arguments for historicity are similar. The same is true for other ancient books (though usually with less copies and manuscript evidence). The big question is... Was the spirit whispering revelations to mhmd a good one, a bad one, or a figment of mhmd's imagination. Likewise, was Jesus the real deal or a quack who thought he was God. To figure that out we read the books and make a decision.
@@bsedgal @bsedgal Fair enough. There are no serious historians that entertain the idea that Jesus didn't exists due to the overwhelming evidence. But if you go down that path, be prepared to question the existence of Muhammed, Julius Ceasar, Siddhartha Gautama, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, Ramses, and many other famous figures from ancient times.
@@bsedgal True, we can question the existence of Jesus, Muhammad, Julius Caesar, Siddhartha Gautama, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, Ramses, and many other people from the ancient world. Nearly all historians accept the existence of Jesus due to the overwhelming evidence.
Without lies Islam dies
@@LukeClemens BS
For none!
😂The question is not that its reliable. Question is why is it filled with contradictions?
Contradictions or not, either way you have Jesus dying by crucifixion and rising bodily from the dead.
@@spacenie we have people throughout history who were presumed dead and they wake up in their graves. They were not turned into God. 💯✅✅✅
@@spacenie through out history people were buried only to discover they woke up. So they were not declared God. So I am unconvinced that Jesus a man is God. 🤔💯✅✅
@@0786AHA True, but even non-christian scholars believe that Jesus did die on the cross. Even Muslims believe that a person truly died on the cross; it just wasn't Jesus.
Jesus was tortured close to the point of death and to make sure, a Roman Centurion rammed a spear into Jesus' side, right into His heart. Jesus was dead.
Along with this, how could Jesus claim to have resurrected if he was somehow revived in the tomb? How would He have rolled the stone away, being a breath from life support? Would Jesus' disciples really thought that He resurrected if He had the same body and could barely move? It doesn't add up.
@@0786AHA The difference would be that those who later woke up, died again. Of course, even in the OT and NT there are people who are dead and come back to life, they are not considered to be God either. The famous critic David Strauss pointed out long ago that Jesus could not merely have revived since a revived and recently crucified person would be been unable to convince the disciples that Jesus was not Prince of Life and had conquered death! They would have called a doctor!
On a somewhat related note, Habermas and Shaw have a chapter on near-death experiences. Habermas has several writings on the subject.
Sean please get rid of commercials here. Very annoying. Enjoy show, but i for one will unsubscribe if these continue while i try to listen to your interviews.
Thanks for watching. There are some expenses for editing and managing the channel, for my team, and four click-through commercials in an hour helps cover those expenses. I don’t ask people for funds otherwise and want to keep the channel free, but those keep it afloat.
I highly recommend Brave browser. I haven't watched a youtube ad for years.
That the Gospels are anonymous is a myth.
Must be why none of the canonical gospels have an author stating their name and location. Of course the canonical gospels are anonymous. Do you know what "anonymous" means?
@@TheDanEdwards Dr. Brant Pitre writes about this in his book, “The Case for Jesus.”
No anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. As far as we know they never have.
When it comes to the titles of the Gospels, not only the earliest and best manuscripts, but all of the ancient manuscripts- without exception, in every language- attribute the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
@@spacenie What are the dates of these "earliest and best manuscripts"? Have you checked? Have you compared that to the dates at which the names of the authors were attributed to the Gospels?
@@Nai61a Your point being?
@@spacenie Why don't you answer the questions? I think my point would become clear if you did.
From Monotheism to Trinity & from repentance to crucifixion, this is blatant Bible corruption
What part is corrupted?
What, what are you even saying ? What is bible corruption ? If you don't see trinitarianism is the same thing as monotheism, because I don't comprehend rocket science, does the logical conclusion say that nasa and all rocket science and engineering is a corruption of mathematics ? Of course not, when a unitarian, or a muslim or an LDS member who do not comprehend the trinity, that's not an issue with the almost 2k year old theology and philosophy on the doctrine of the trinity. I am not following your logic of what you say is, "corruption" ?
That is an interesting conclusion. How do you think the Trinity is contrary to Monotheism? Do you think the Trinity means 3 Gods?
How does the sacrifice (crucifixion) contradict repentance? Do you think that our salvation is based simply on our action of repentance? Without needing to accept the crucifixion of Jesus?
Please do give evidence for your claims.
@@RandallChase1 _Please do give evidence for your claims._
The Tanakh and any Jewish Rabbi could straighten you out.
The thing is, Christians don't care about the truth, you care about supporting your version of this fantasy created out of the Jewish Hebrew scriptures.
In what you call the Old Testament, there isn't a requirement for blood to be shed to receive forgiveness, all that was required was repentance.
The sacrifical system was designed for unknown sins or general sins of the people, not because the god, Yahweh, required blood to forgive.
And the Trinity, how are three distinct gods not polytheism?
If the Trinity means one god, then you must think that the Hindus are monotheists as well?
If 3 can logically be 1, then 1,000,000 gods can be one god. The math illogic here would be the same, unless you special plead.
The story of Jesus dying and rising is just cribbed from other legends/myths, it was a common fable in that day, translations, which is why Mark ends with such, just an empty tomb, a common trope.
Christianity is clearly not true.
Only indoctrinated people believe it.
@@michaelsbeverly really,big word seeing as Christians follow the way and the TRUTH and the life, and all rabbi's like who ? I would pay to see you debate rabbi eduardo of radar apologetics, the jews early to combat the christians abandoned there 2 powers in heaven jewish theology. Just so they don't have to see jesus as messiah and they already had 1 God with distinct persons in the Tanak. And rabbi's today are far from orthadox Jewish beliefs, and what rabbi would set that commenter straight, rabbi tovia sanger ? Wow, don't think your using the critical thinking skills our God gave us saying silly things like this ?
الحمد لله على نعمة الإسلام
اللهم لك الحمد والشكر
Gospels is fake and corrupted
Just like the Quran is just a cheap and dumbed down version of the Bible.😂
Your Quran says something diffrent.
@@Volgdewaarheid
Qur'an and jermahia 8 :8 said lying pen wrote gospels
@@Egyptian_muslim_1 lol stop lying. Quran says God's word can't be changed 6:115, 18:27. And that God send doen the Injil 3:3. The Quran clearly states christians should judge according to the Gospel 5:47. Why would it say to judge according to a corrupted book? And let me get this straight. If i take a pen right now, and I write in my Quran here at home that Egyptians_Moslem_1 Logic is silly. I just add a Surah with that text. Did I then change God's words?
@@Volgdewaarheid
Allah said that about qur'an only..
So you must prove your lies..
You said Allah said he will save twrah and injeel. Show me this lie.. It is your lie .. Prove it.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀