Here are six reasons why you can trust the Bible: 1. All the pieces of the story fit together in a marvelous way. 2. Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled. 3. The Bible addresses our biggest questions in a way that resonates with our intuitions about the world. 4. It accurately records historical events that bear testimony to the reality of supernatural things that happened. 5. The Bible transforms lives. 6. The Bible has survived through time despite attempts to destroy it. For more on this topic, see the following resources: A Short Argument for Early Dating of the Gospels rsn.pub/3HvWlVL Can the Bible Be Reliable if It Had Human Authors? rsn.pub/3Hvvvx7 The Bible Has Been Translated Many Times Over, so How Can It Be Reliable? rsn.pub/42a6wZC How the Bible Authenticates Itself rsn.pub/3UaVktS Can We Trust the Bible? rsn.pub/4b7ld3Q Ancient Words, Ever True? rsn.pub/42dPw51
Referring to Irenaeus as 'some early church father' is again a serious understatement of who he was and his relevance in early church history and in particular the gospel of john
I too am a detective and I have come to a very different conclusion. The Gospel writers were anonymous. The authors are unknown. Neither writer was, or can be proven, to have been a witness to the events they describe. What they describe is "hearsay" and if you are a true detective you ought to know that hearsay is not allowed in American courts but only under rare exemptions.
Moreover, half of Paul's letters are forged i.e., pseudepigrapha, by unidentified authors, presumably his students. No one knows for sure. Biblical scholars say that the New Testament contains "acceptable forgery." WHAT??? And you call this credible?
In conclusion, if I was to offer counter evidence I could show a jury real evidence, and in fact, the gold standard of evidence; DNA. We have evolved physically and socially. Mountains of physical evidence that shows descent from a common ancestor. No witnesses needed here. You, on the other hand, can only show an ancient book that was forged by unknown authors, hearsay, and myth. Sorry brother. You have not made your case well enough to be believed.
Well said. I think this guy knows it all too well.. he's just a con artist trying to convince the gullible to part with their sanity and subsequently wallets. Bastards like him who take advantage of the easily impressionable really piss me off.
It is I How is this respectable man named J. Warner Wallace a con artist? He's even studied theology and got a master's degree in it, and you have the audacity to essentially make the assertion he's a money-hungry pastor. You know nothing and your ignorance and complacency reeks. You're so filled with hate in your heart I'm almost at awe that the cup of wrath on you has not filled up all the way. Make no mistake; it's the grace of God that keeps us all alive after our first sin. I don't even understand what you're spewing here. "...who take advantage of the easily impressionable...". You're eluding to call Christians dumbos with a low IQ essentially and that we're children that need their lolly. You're unbelievably profane and incredibly complacent with your self-deception and visceral vitriol.
Also, the ancient manuscripts are reliable. Here's one reason: "If you were to stack every copy of every New Testament manuscript that we have on top of each other, it would be more than a mile & a quarter high." -- Daniel B. Wallace Wow! Those early Christian scribes were human laser printers.
1) to It is I commenting below. You do not know your facts. Wallace has solved many high profile cold cases. Several of them have been featured on Dateline. 2) to topdogred. You do not know your facts either. Your investigative skills are questionable. The gospel writers were not anonymous. Their identities have been vetted historically with more certainty than the existance of Alexander the Great. Or do you think his existence is a hoax as well? 3). to both: I am always amazed when nonbelievers are arrogant enough to assume all christians must be gullible idiots. My research of the facts do not depend on one or even two sources but rather several. The very fact that I have spent time researching facts and evidence implies; to a truly thinking person, that I do indeed have cognitive skills. I believe the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure and that fact is actually universally accepted by 99% of scholars today, secular and non secular. that he was more than just a historical figure is also quite clear to me.
All 4 gospels are anonymous. Pick up a seminary text book and fact check it. We "think" we know who wrote them by church history and some early church father writings. Alexander the Great was real and I stipulate to that. We actualy have more evidence of his works. As far as I know Alexander wrote nothing; he was not a scribe. I further stipulate that Jesus was an historical person. Divine in some way? Well, that's a faith question. I stick to historical claims. He did exist. I am not a mythysist.
topdogred As far as my investigative skills...I assited in the solving of 2 cold case murders with an arrest last week. www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/10/police_leon_means_admits_killi.html
topdogred Do you realize that the first writings of Alexander the Great's life were not written until more than 400 years after he died? But I'm guessing you would give credence to the events described therein.
I did not say Alexander wrote anything. My point was the evidence for Jeses's life death and even resurrection rival the evidence for Alexander's existence in reliable quantity. Your claim that three of the gospel 'writers' were anonymous does not reflect current scholarship. It is a seeious oversimplification of the facts.
Dr. Dale Martin (Princeton Thoelogical Seminary), "All four Gospels are written anonymously." Dr. Bart Ehrman (North Carolina at Chapel Hill), "The writings of the New Teastament Gospels are anonymous." Dr. Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) "The Gospels were, in fact, anonymous to begin with. I think that’s a consensus of virtually all Biblical scholars. The question is when did the titles-the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-get added to the Gospels?" -Interview in June, 2013. I have done my homework on this. You are out of touch with current scholarship.
He's not much of a detective, Eye witnesses are only of use while they are alive, that's why crooks bump off witnesses before trials, If you can't cross examine a witness their evidence is diminished in the extreme, But hey, he's making money and that's what it's all about
+Tim Spangler You missed the point, an eye witness is only of use if you can question them, There are 1,000's of eye witnesses (dead and alive) who claim to have seen Elvis since he died, I wonder how much "weight" you give their testimony?
+hughjarrse I think you need to do some research on his credentials as he is a retired detective from LA. If you are familiar with cold cases, he brought people to justice only using witness statements, recordings, and any information that was documented 5 to 20 years prior. This is before the luxury of DNA. If you are also concerned about the validity of the bible, you can also find documents that historians have found and validated to be true. The bible can actually be reconstructed using only non-Christian scholars.
There's no evidence to take you from "I think Jesus existed" to "I think the stories on Jesus are accurate". First one is contested, but it's possible that there was a historical self-proclaimed messiah, cult leader and political activist that fits the description. If you're relying on the Bible you're trying to make your conclusion fit the evidence.
apinakapina Any bonafide historian today says Jesus existed. That's a moot point. But what you don't seem to understand is that the eye witness testimonies were just that - eye witness accounts of people writing down what they saw. Remember, the Bible as we know it today, wasn't put into a "book" format until it was officially canonized in the middle of the 3rd century. Prior to that, these accounts were separate documents, being circulated and taught from, and consisted of the disciples' accounts of what happened. So, you can use the Bible to testify about itself since it's compiled by many different authors over a period of time.
Lisa Quintana No, not all do. If you'd just use Google this would become apparent. It's dishonest to suggest that a wide variety of scholars would completely agree on something. No, they were not real eye-witness accounts. What you don't seem to understand is that the biblical authors only claimed that there were eye-witnesses, and wrote vague descriptions of them to bolster their tall tales. There were no historians to confirm any of these events. If you're using the Bible to proof the Bible, that's just completely circular. It's clear that the later authors wrote fan fiction based on the previous texts they knew. They do not prove anything, but the opposite.
apinakapina Google can tell you anything you want to believe, from whatever bias you prefer. What are your sources? Are they reliable? I am not being dishonest when I state that most "bonafide" historical scholars do not question the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. What is of question is who he was. And if you know anything about historical documents, from credible sources, you would discover that the new testaments documents are some of the most attested ancient documents we have. Do your homework. I am doing mine by earning a Master's degree in this stuff. I can back up everything I am saying and more. You are the one making claims that have NO proof - back up what you say first.
That's complete BS. Your claim was that Bible can prove Bible, so you've completely lost the argument already. If you're getting masters degree at stuff that's this unscientific and biased.. well, that's just kind of sad. Of course, I never trust anyone who claims to be an expert on internet, and I'm not the only one. It's about arguments, and yours are lousy so far. Ok, so now you've altered your claim to say that most historians say something. Well, that's pretty different from what you previously said, isn't it? The fact that new testament has been studied is just a mark of the culture, and also points towards an inherent bias over two millennia. Unfortunately this causes stuff like scholars actually thinking that Jesus was a real person when there's no legitimate historical documentation about that. No, mystical storytelling doesn't provide any answer to that no matter how much you want to believe that it does.
apinakapina So are yours. You cannot back one word of what you say, and that is typical. Go ahead, through out all your claims and then don't even show me ONE proof of anything you say is correct. If you want to discuss intelligently, I am very open to showing you what I have researched. If you just want to stay in your mindset, then why are you even bothering with this stuff? Why even watch these videos? Are you truly seeking answers or just want to argue? I think the later.
Here are six reasons why you can trust the Bible:
1. All the pieces of the story fit together in a marvelous way.
2. Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.
3. The Bible addresses our biggest questions in a way that resonates with our intuitions about the world.
4. It accurately records historical events that bear testimony to the reality of supernatural things that happened.
5. The Bible transforms lives.
6. The Bible has survived through time despite attempts to destroy it.
For more on this topic, see the following resources:
A Short Argument for Early Dating of the Gospels
rsn.pub/3HvWlVL
Can the Bible Be Reliable if It Had Human Authors?
rsn.pub/3Hvvvx7
The Bible Has Been Translated Many Times Over, so How Can It Be Reliable?
rsn.pub/42a6wZC
How the Bible Authenticates Itself
rsn.pub/3UaVktS
Can We Trust the Bible?
rsn.pub/4b7ld3Q
Ancient Words, Ever True?
rsn.pub/42dPw51
Referring to Irenaeus as 'some early church father' is again a serious understatement of who he was and his relevance in early church history and in particular the gospel of john
Great. Thanks for posting.
This is an outstanding video! Thanks so much!
Thanks for sharing. This is useful.
....and what was in it for those early writers? They embraced persecution and martyrdom!
I too am a detective and I have come to a very different conclusion. The Gospel writers were anonymous. The authors are unknown. Neither writer was, or can be proven, to have been a witness to the events they describe. What they describe is "hearsay" and if you are a true detective you ought to know that hearsay is not allowed in American courts but only under rare exemptions.
Moreover, half of Paul's letters are forged i.e., pseudepigrapha, by unidentified authors, presumably his students. No one knows for sure. Biblical scholars say that the New Testament contains "acceptable forgery." WHAT??? And you call this credible?
In conclusion, if I was to offer counter evidence I could show a jury real evidence, and in fact, the gold standard of evidence; DNA. We have evolved physically and socially. Mountains of physical evidence that shows descent from a common ancestor. No witnesses needed here. You, on the other hand, can only show an ancient book that was forged by unknown authors, hearsay, and myth. Sorry brother. You have not made your case well enough to be believed.
Well said. I think this guy knows it all too well.. he's just a con artist trying to convince the gullible to part with their sanity and subsequently wallets. Bastards like him who take advantage of the easily impressionable really piss me off.
It is I How is this respectable man named J. Warner Wallace a con artist? He's even studied theology and got a master's degree in it, and you have the audacity to essentially make the assertion he's a money-hungry pastor. You know nothing and your ignorance and complacency reeks.
You're so filled with hate in your heart I'm almost at awe that the cup of wrath on you has not filled up all the way.
Make no mistake; it's the grace of God that keeps us all alive after our first sin.
I don't even understand what you're spewing here. "...who take advantage of the easily impressionable...". You're eluding to call Christians dumbos with a low IQ essentially and that we're children that need their lolly. You're unbelievably profane and incredibly complacent with your self-deception and visceral vitriol.
topdogred Please give sources (such as a name) for your "forgery" claims.
Excellent!
Just listened to our Mithras podcasts....AMAZING WORK,!!
Also, the ancient manuscripts are reliable. Here's one reason:
"If you were to stack every copy of every New Testament manuscript that we have on top of each other, it would be more than a mile & a quarter high."
-- Daniel B. Wallace
Wow!
Those early Christian scribes were human laser printers.
1) to It is I commenting below. You do not know your facts. Wallace has solved many high profile cold cases. Several of them have been featured on Dateline.
2) to topdogred. You do not know your facts either. Your investigative skills are questionable. The gospel writers were not anonymous. Their identities have been vetted historically with more certainty than the existance of Alexander the Great. Or do you think his existence is a hoax as well?
3). to both: I am always amazed when nonbelievers are arrogant enough to assume all christians must be gullible idiots. My research of the facts do not depend on one or even two sources but rather several. The very fact that I have spent time researching facts and evidence implies; to a truly thinking person, that I do indeed have cognitive skills. I believe the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure and that fact is actually universally accepted by 99% of scholars today, secular and non secular. that he was more than just a historical figure is also quite clear to me.
All 4 gospels are anonymous. Pick up a seminary text book and fact check it. We "think" we know who wrote them by church history and some early church father writings. Alexander the Great was real and I stipulate to that. We actualy have more evidence of his works. As far as I know Alexander wrote nothing; he was not a scribe. I further stipulate that Jesus was an historical person. Divine in some way? Well, that's a faith question. I stick to historical claims. He did exist. I am not a mythysist.
topdogred As far as my investigative skills...I assited in the solving of 2 cold case murders with an arrest last week.
www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/10/police_leon_means_admits_killi.html
topdogred Do you realize that the first writings of Alexander the Great's life were not written until more than 400 years after he died? But I'm guessing you would give credence to the events described therein.
Great video.
You came to some of the same conclusions I did.
The gospel of Luke is anonymous? That is incorrect.
You talk about John. Are you assuming that the unknown author who wrote the gospel attributed to John was actually the apostle John?
I did not say Alexander wrote anything. My point was the evidence for Jeses's life death and even resurrection rival the evidence for Alexander's existence in reliable quantity.
Your claim that three of the gospel 'writers' were anonymous does not reflect current scholarship. It is a seeious oversimplification of the facts.
Dr. Dale Martin (Princeton Thoelogical Seminary), "All four Gospels are written anonymously."
Dr. Bart Ehrman (North Carolina at Chapel Hill), "The writings of the New Teastament Gospels are anonymous."
Dr. Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) "The Gospels were, in fact, anonymous to begin with. I think that’s a consensus of virtually all Biblical scholars. The question is when did the titles-the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-get added to the Gospels?" -Interview in June, 2013.
I have done my homework on this. You are out of touch with current scholarship.
He's not much of a detective, Eye witnesses are only of use while they are alive, that's why crooks bump off witnesses before trials, If you can't cross examine a witness their evidence is diminished in the extreme, But hey, he's making money and that's what it's all about
+hughjarrse It is NOT about money. And Witness testimony...whether they are still alive or not...is indeed heavily weighted.
+Tim Spangler You missed the point, an eye witness is only of use if you can question them, There are 1,000's of eye witnesses (dead and alive) who claim to have seen Elvis since he died, I wonder how much "weight" you give their testimony?
+hughjarrse I think you need to do some research on his credentials as he is a retired detective from LA. If you are familiar with cold cases, he brought people to justice only using witness statements, recordings, and any information that was documented 5 to 20 years prior. This is before the luxury of DNA. If you are also concerned about the validity of the bible, you can also find documents that historians have found and validated to be true. The bible can actually be reconstructed using only non-Christian scholars.
+hughjarrse it's about $$$? interesting. I don't think so.
everybody is biased
don't fool yourself and act like you're not
There's no evidence to take you from "I think Jesus existed" to "I think the stories on Jesus are accurate". First one is contested, but it's possible that there was a historical self-proclaimed messiah, cult leader and political activist that fits the description. If you're relying on the Bible you're trying to make your conclusion fit the evidence.
apinakapina Any bonafide historian today says Jesus existed. That's a moot point. But what you don't seem to understand is that the eye witness testimonies were just that - eye witness accounts of people writing down what they saw. Remember, the Bible as we know it today, wasn't put into a "book" format until it was officially canonized in the middle of the 3rd century. Prior to that, these accounts were separate documents, being circulated and taught from, and consisted of the disciples' accounts of what happened. So, you can use the Bible to testify about itself since it's compiled by many different authors over a period of time.
Lisa Quintana No, not all do. If you'd just use Google this would become apparent. It's dishonest to suggest that a wide variety of scholars would completely agree on something.
No, they were not real eye-witness accounts. What you don't seem to understand is that the biblical authors only claimed that there were eye-witnesses, and wrote vague descriptions of them to bolster their tall tales. There were no historians to confirm any of these events.
If you're using the Bible to proof the Bible, that's just completely circular. It's clear that the later authors wrote fan fiction based on the previous texts they knew. They do not prove anything, but the opposite.
apinakapina Google can tell you anything you want to believe, from whatever bias you prefer. What are your sources? Are they reliable? I am not being dishonest when I state that most "bonafide" historical scholars do not question the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. What is of question is who he was.
And if you know anything about historical documents, from credible sources, you would discover that the new testaments documents are some of the most attested ancient documents we have.
Do your homework. I am doing mine by earning a Master's degree in this stuff. I can back up everything I am saying and more. You are the one making claims that have NO proof - back up what you say first.
That's complete BS. Your claim was that Bible can prove Bible, so you've completely lost the argument already. If you're getting masters degree at stuff that's this unscientific and biased.. well, that's just kind of sad.
Of course, I never trust anyone who claims to be an expert on internet, and I'm not the only one. It's about arguments, and yours are lousy so far.
Ok, so now you've altered your claim to say that most historians say something. Well, that's pretty different from what you previously said, isn't it?
The fact that new testament has been studied is just a mark of the culture, and also points towards an inherent bias over two millennia. Unfortunately this causes stuff like scholars actually thinking that Jesus was a real person when there's no legitimate historical documentation about that. No, mystical storytelling doesn't provide any answer to that no matter how much you want to believe that it does.
apinakapina So are yours. You cannot back one word of what you say, and that is typical. Go ahead, through out all your claims and then don't even show me ONE proof of anything you say is correct.
If you want to discuss intelligently, I am very open to showing you what I have researched. If you just want to stay in your mindset, then why are you even bothering with this stuff? Why even watch these videos? Are you truly seeking answers or just want to argue? I think the later.
The bias and methodology being used here is beyond amateurish.
Really? Why?
The bible is the revised testimony of men dead for millennia.
How did you come to that conclusion?
@@bognerprs612 TjBradders took their pulse and decided they were and are still fairly deadish.
When I see Wallace, I see a dry alcoholic who has a psychological need filled with Christianity.
When I see comments like yours, I see no proof.