Peter's Sword & Jesus' Healing - OVERLOOKED Point!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 мар 2024
- ◆ 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) ✝️
⬛🟨⬛
When Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane and Peter took to sword in self-defense, there is something to the story that we will miss and completely overlook. And on top of that, when looking at what all the four gospel accounts say about the story, there's an apologetic point that can be drawn from it and be added to the puzzle of evidences.
* Link to mentioned video:
"EARLY Dating of the Gospel Accounts - Just 2 Reasons in 2 Minutes!"
• EARLY Dating of the Go...
⬛🟨⬛
👀 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
■ The Passion of the Christ
🛑 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
#jesus
#apologetics
I always found that point fascinating that Peter’s name was left out until John’s gospel! Thank you, Daniel.
☝️✝️
Yes, its fascinating. All the puzzle pieces one can find with carefull reading. Glad you liked the video
Goid spot. I never even noticed!
I never thought the story of Jesus' arrest could be used as an argument for early dating of the synoptic Gospels - amazing stuff Daniel
Yeah brother, the bible is pretty amazing as you know brother. Keep cranking out your good videos
Love you Chris in Christ! Keep fighting the good fight. Keep storing up your riches in heaven because our redemption draws near. God bless you brother and your ministry!
Now THAT is good thinking and apologetics!
Praise and thanks to God! Add it to your tool box and use it for His glory
That’s a GREAT apologetic. Deductive reasoning FTW
Soli Deo Gloria☝️✝️
👊 Ftw indeed!
Thank you Daniel. Excellent point!💙🙏❤️✝️❤️🙏💕
To God be the glory! Glad your found the video helpful, sister
We used the sword everyday...the BIBLE. 😊
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12)
@@DanielApologeticskeep going down the rest of the verses bro!
@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid ruclips.net/video/DvF8iLahosY/видео.html
Thanks! I never actually thought about this name-drop and its implications. Great video.
Praise God! Glad to hear. The bible is so rich! A giant puzzle of amazing connected pieces that even an experience bible teacher cannot grasp all. I truly learn more and more for each time I read it that I missed in the past.
@@DanielApologetics , so true. Every time I read the Bible in English, I discover something I missed before. Now I am reading the NT in the original Greek. Mind-blowing! Translations just don't do it justice. Next I will read the Tanakh in the original Hebrew. Since Hebrew is so nuanced and packed with meaning, I expect to be blown away.
Excellent argument. Ill have to keep this in mind.
Awesome to hear. Yes, keep it in your tool box and use it for His glory!
Excellent point: thank you for this!
Praise God! Glad to hear - use it for His glory!
Dr John Lennox pointed out this event with Peter served as a type of parable that tells us Using violence will cause listeners to stop listening to your message. 👂🏼 🔪
Prof John Lennox I think ...but he's humble enough not to mind!
@@ProfYaffle yeh I think you may be right. Lennox learned the Russian language so he could translate Russian documents as a university side hustle. He’s built different.
@@jfr45er John Lennox is such a blessing
Nice Sabaton shirt.
SubhanJESUS , AlhamdulliJESUS
☝️✝️
Nice find. So basically the Synoptics were all written before Peter’s death and John afterwards. Note it could be even earlier if we consider that the slight would be forgotten about eventually even if Peter was still alive, and that Peter was held in Rome.
Looking into this a couple of years ago, I was really surprised about how weak the arguments are for late dating of gospel accounts are. I have made many videos on it, and Lord willing, I will make more.
Wow! Super, I had never made that connection. Thank you brother 🙏
To God be the glory! Glad the video was helpful!
Well done! God bless you brother and your ministry! Though I can't always catch you, keep running the good race! The best is yet to come!!!
You are a very loyal subscriber, Samuel! Glad you liked the video. LORD bless you
Stay blessed brother! Greatful to have you as a fellow son of the most high ❤🎉
Likewise brother! Thanks for all the support. Peace of Christ to you and yours
@@DanielApologetics thank you so much! 🤩😁🙏
Uh, oh. Was Jesus guilty of evidence tampering?
Well, since Jesus is The Judge (John 5:22-23), I think He would win in a court ;)
@@DanielApologetics Jesus would only have to say, "What evidence?"
Excellent!
☝️✝️
WOW
☝️✝️
Great point on why John used Peter’s name and the other three didn’t.
Glad you liked the video, brother
I think you could have used a bit more emphasis on why it was important that no one named Peter until after he died.
Because if they did name him, then each of the synoptic gospels would be evidence against Peter, and after he died, that didn't matter anymore.
Very, very nice. Did you think of this all by yourself?
Yes! But, I doubt I was the first ever in history xD
@@DanielApologetics I never heard it, but I'd heard the Temple argument.
I'd like MikeLicona to see it
@@ProfYaffle That would be cool.
I like the thought that the Gospel authors avoided mentioning Peters name, but I am not sure about the suggestion as for why Jesus healed the ear.
I do not think Neither Peter nor Jesus would have denied the crime if interrogated. I do however think that the Pharisees never would have tried a case where witnesses would have put a miraculous healing by Jesus to the record as it would have strengthened Jesus following further.
I think the disciples wanted to preserve this miracle story of Jesus. But to put all heat on Peter as the person who drew sword, could put unnecessary spotlight, investigation, etc. specifically on Peter. While a generalized public tradition as "one of them who stood by" in Mark, "one of those of were with Jesus" in Matthew, and "one of the followers" in Luke - topped with a 100% ear-transplant healing job by Jesus, would not only remove all the physical evidences - but also make the list of potential followers, companions and people with Jesus in a Gethsemane garden packed full of pilgrims for Passover - way to long and generalized to pursue.
I also don't think they would deny it, but that's not the point. Look how much the Lord used Peter's preaching and evangelism in the years to come - without all the potential consequences (as mention above). And as for the Pharisees, just as they arrested Jesus in the night in secret and did the trial with a limited "eye-witnesses", I'm sure they would have done one in a similar way here if that was the case.
@@DanielApologetics @DanielApologetics I agree that the synoptics may have avoided mentioning Peters name to spare the man trouble and yes Peter did good for the Kingdom. It is the speculations as of WHY Jesus healed the ear where we may differ slightly. I can not see Jesus modus operandi as one of hiding the truth and the evidence.
@psylegio I agree that that was not the only reason. It does not have to be either or. Jesus said to (Peter) after this "he who live by the sword, die by the sword" - something Peter would have too shortly after if it was not for Jesus' healing.
Furthermore the book of revelations must have been written by the end of 67 because nero died on the june 9 68 ad. The beast is clearly identified by two manuscript families. One gemmatria has the number of nero as 666, while another has it as 616. These two gemmatria serves as a checksum and error correction code of the manuscript
To play Devil's advocate, how would you reject the possibility that the name was inserted in later without proof?
Keep in mind that a maximal case for the gospels would have been presented along with this as one of many arguments.
I think such very specific accusation lands the burden on the devil's advocate to prove, and not for me to disprove.
1:47 Small correction.
Great point overall, and I learned a lot.
Never realized this point about Peter.
But, Peter wasn't preaching a few days later. After Jesus was resurrected he spent some time(I don't think we know, weeks or months) ministering to the Believers in Jerusalem and then after his ascension there was another 50 days before the first Pentecost. Pente means 50. That's when Peter first preached publicly.
❤👍🏻
To God be the glory! Glad you liked it. When I said public, though I can see how it could misunderstood to Acts-type-of-preaching, I meant he, Peter, was testifying about it to the many other disciples, followers and companions of Jesus during his earthly ministry during those days and weeks. Like maybe to the 72 Jesus sent out, the 500 eyewitness from the creed by Paul in 1 Corinthians etc.
@@DanielApologetics
Regarding how long Jesus spent on the earth before he ascended. I was trying to remember where 40 days was mentioned. Here it is.
Acts 1:3 LSB -
3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over forty days and speaking about the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Forgive me for my ignorance. I watched the video 3 times. What does the first 3 gospels not naming him directly and John does have to do with when the gospels were written? My initial thought was “oh they are protecting his name and therefore life by not using his name” but then as you say, there was no evidence either way …. Thanks in advance
Well, I think naming Peter would be evidence in itself, and would give the authorities extra reason to go after him.
How sure are we about the date of Peter's death?
The first mention is from the Epistle of Clement written circa 96 AD. There are also other writers, but it takes a bit of connecting dots to establish 64 AD. But it is the general agreement among scholars. That he was executed on a cross upside down in Rome, comes from Tertullian in 3rd century. But there are many reasons to believe that's an oral correct tradition. Prof. Sean McDowell has done great work on this among others.
@@DanielApologetics
Thank you
We like Sean Mc 🍿
....Daniel....Sabaton? Oh, my goodness...
Yes, old friend. Having an ear for metal and hard rock, + being a nerd for history and wars, Sabaton is fantastic. Compare it to all music today that sing blasphemy, profanity, sex, drugs etc - Sabaton base all their songs on history literature on wars up through history and diary's / letters from fallen soldiers. That's art.
@@DanielApologetics Okay, I'll give you that one. They are over produced to my liking, I prefer older metal. Looking forward to comparing notes about apologetics with you in the coming world
@youlkas likewise! And btw, I love older metal too. I knew for example all Metallica songs as a 9 year-old xD
Previously unnamed characters pick up names in later re tellings of stories. Did you know that the centurion at the cross was named Petronius, or the theif on the cross was named Dysmos?
The Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Pilate were canonical then we would also have a bunch of "this small detail is because the stories are actually true" reasoning and a backstory supposed to make it all fit together
Are you saying as a Christian - that these 2 gnostic text should be in the canon?
Or as a skeptic, that Christianity is rooted in people who were deceived, or who were deceivers?
@@DanielApologetics i dont think either of them count as gnostic, but i am closer to option 2
You can be a Christian and agree that people in stories pick up names over re-tellings, so you shouldnt read into it that much, at least not in the service of applogetics
Your examples seem to be very different, because those characters of the New Testament got new, previously unknown names. But here, the name of Peter is known to all attentive readers, and we must assume that the person using the sword was a close disciple of Jesus, because only those were with him that evening.
@@Achill101 how is that relevantly different? either way, it's a name added to a previously unnamed individual in the retelling of a story, it's the same "who was this guy?" thought process
@Greyz174 - neither the centurion nor the man crucified besides Jesus were disciples. When the disciples later talked about what had happened, they didn't know who those people were. But the man who drew the sword was a close disciple of Jesus, and the other disciples knew him, but they didn't reveal his name. Why not? I think the argument made in the video that they didn't want to reveal the name to the public and, thereby, to the authorities that could punish that disciple has merit.
. . . Was it Peter, as the gospel according to John later wrote? On one side, the disciples knew the name and could have revealed the name later, after the disciple couldn't be punished anymore - on the other side, maybe the writers didn't know the name, but they knew Peter's name and had heard that he could be impulsive. How likely each side is needs to be weighed.
1.) Only John's gospel ever says that it was Peter who cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, (who was also only named in this gospel alone) and only Luke and John's gospels ever even mentioned Jesus healing the cut ear. One could just as easily say that these were embellishments added later to make the story of Jesus' arrest more compelling and flouting his miracle creds. Both John and Luke's gospels were after all the later of the canonical gospels to be dated.
One things that IS overlooked by pretty much all apologists however is that Mark's gospel, considered the earliest among the canonical gospels by most scholars, also mentions that, during the arrest, a man who was practically stripped naked when the loincloth he was wearing was seized and he escaped by leaving the loincloth behind. This little passage is only found in Mark's gospel and adds no particular meaning or credibility to the story of Jesus' arrest, at least, none that any apologist has ever attempted to spin to promote gospel credibility. Perhaps none have ever managed to massage that passage to make it show gospel credibility. Wonder if Erik Manning is interested in giving it a shot? This type of thing is right up his alley.
2.) Mentioning Peter being in danger of being stoned because of what he did doesn't make sense for a simple reason, there were witnesses to the event from the high priest's side. Heck the servant himself could have outed Peter, not to mention any of the other guards that came with them. The fact that Jesus put the ear back on doesn't erase the fact that Peter cut it off in the first place, nor does it erase the fact that others also witnessed that happening, if indeed it ever happened.
Oh and if you're thinking that they would not dare mention it because that would validate Jesus' credibility as a miracle worker, if the stories of his other miracles were not enough to deter them from taking action against him, something like this would not deter them from making a move on his disciples either. In fact just by the fact that they WERE his disciples was already enough reason for them to bring them to the Sanhedrin to stand trial alongside Jesus as being his enablers. The disciples knew this, why else do you think they ran away?
3.) Mentioning stoning highlights a problem with the resurrection narrative. The Sanhedrin could have killed Jesus through stoning the moment he committed blasphemy (according to them) by saying how he sees the "son of man sitting at the right hand of the power".
The High Priest himself declared as much that that was blasphemy and there was no other evidence requires. So why then did they try to then get Jesus on a charge for treason? That was what he was eventually crucified for by the way, or at least that was the reason given as it was officially, the Roman court under Pilate that crucified him on that charge. While the Romans certainly had jurisdiction over crimes like treason, blasphemy was something completely under the purview of the Jewish council of the Sanhedrin as it concerned their indigenous religion, and it was something the Romans did not care much about.
So they could have killed Jesus through stoning without ever involving Pilate or the Romans the moment Jesus uttered his "blasphemous words". But they did not. Instead they sent him to Pilate under the accusation of treason and Jesus undergoes what is essentially ANOTHER trial for ANOTHER completely different criminal charge. The whole thing does not add up if the Sanhedrin simply wanted him dead, the easy option would have more than sufficed for them.
4.) That's not the only thing that doesn't add up in the resurrection narrative. Other details like Judas' completely insignificant and redundant role. The Sanhedrin clearly knew who Jesus was and what he looked like, Jesus himself said it when he pointed out how he sat in front of them in the Sanhedrin, they could have come to arrest him at any time, and even if they were waiting for the RIGHT time, all they needed was to send someone to follow Jesus to await an opportunity. Judas' betrayal was completely unecessary to the entire plot and only serves a role as a plot device in a story. An actual attempt at Jesus' arrest would have occurred just fine without him. So why pay him to do it when they could skip doing that?
Other details that don't make sense include why, if the Sanhedrin somehow wanted Jesus crucified because it was a punishment that carried greater humiliation than stoning, did they then choose to go after Jesus just before the Passover? They knew that if Jesus died before the Passover they would have to bring down his body and that would have reduced his time on the cross. So why didn't they simply choose another time so that Jesus' dead body to hang and rot on the cross for much longer? And don't get me started on the hilarity of the aftermath of Matthew's unique guards at the tomb narrative which essentially proved that SOME people would die for a lie (or at least risk death and grave punishment for a lie)
3:20 Well you know because they name dropped him to make the arrest more compelling and as part of later development embellishment and details.
3:34 Nah, given how so much of the resurrection narrative holds details that simply don't make sense in an actual real world scenario, but would still work as part of a fictional account that allows one to ignore credulity, I'd say this was simply added as part of a later development. You have to know that further evidence of this being simple narrative development was how only the later 2 gospels, Luke and John, even mention Jesus healing the servant's ear, the earlier 2 gospels, Mark and Matthew, do not.
You might buy into Erik's "undesigned coincidences" approach, but I find it relies way too much on relying on motivated reasoning, plus ignoring the notion that other equally viable interpretations exist for each supposed "coincidence" and that there is no clear way in most cases to distinguish which of the 2 is more likely to be valid. Simply picking the interpretation you want while ignoring the existence of other equally viable interpretations is very much how much of the Bible is read by Christians, but says nothing about the truth value of such interpretations save perhaps that they are driven by motivated reasoning.