"The external tradition and internal evidence point towards these being written very early, and that points to them being eye witness accounts." That's basically your argument, isn't it? But is fails for several reasons. 1. Though the external tradition points to (two) of them being eye witness accounts, we know for a fact that early attribution cannot be relied upon because of all the examples of false attributions we know of. That means we must seek external evidence to validate their authenticity. 2 The internal evidence actually points away from them being eye witness accounts. I listed all the reasons in a separate reply. 3. Being an early account simply does not make them eye witness accounts. That logic does not follow. So unless you have something better than that, you have no evidence for the resurrection.
1. The external tradition accounts for all 4 gospels. You’d know that if you watched the video. Other examples of false attributions are pseudonymous, hoping to get support from taking the name of the apostles. I just replied about this on another thread of yours. 2. The internal evidence, as presented in the video, if you watched it, actually points towards eyewitness testimony. Many of your claims against it are addressed. Others, like the style of 3rd person omniscient are irrelevant. Such a claim suggests that the authors didn’t speak with other people to get a better picture of what happened (such as internal thoughts or conversations they weren’t present for). You’re claiming to know better than the author their knowledge and/or style of writing which is outrageous.
@@thegeologian "Other examples of false attributions are pseudonymous, hoping to get support from taking the name of the apostles." Same for the Gospels. "The internal evidence, as presented in the video, if you watched it, actually points towards eyewitness testimony. " Name one piece you feel points towards eye-witness testimony. "Others, like the style of 3rd person omniscient are irrelevant." ...to those wearing god-glasses, I suppose. To rational people, that is certainly relevant. "Such a claim suggests that the authors didn’t speak with other people to get a better picture of what happened " There are cases where they couldn't have done so, or where such conversations would have been nearly impossible. Such as Jesus' secret prayer at Gethsemane, or Jesus trial before Pontious Pilate. Had this been an eye witness narrative, the writer would have included the source for such knowledge. Obviously the writer did not care. "You’re claiming to know better than the author their knowledge and/or style of writing which is outrageous." Actually, once again, YOU are. You are claiming to know they are eye witness accounts.
First quote: Again, the gospels are anonymous. They never mentioned the authors name. Therefore they can’t be pseudonymous. Later Gnostic works claim themselves to be written by church leaders. The gospels don’t do this and are different in material, style, and claims. Second quote: I have multiple times in several threads. Per the quote, “if you watched” the video, you wouldn’t need me to name it. Third quote: taken out of context and you didn’t address my argument at all. Your counter is, what, no? Fine. There were at least three apostles present for the prayer. Some or all of them fell asleep at different times during it. One of the apostles made it into the Sanhedrin meeting. Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, or any other member of the Sanhedrin or guard could’ve easily told them this information. Also, if Jesus truly rose again, he could’ve told them himself! There are several ways for them to have know this information. Again, you’re assuming what they WOULD do? Do you know their motivations and intentions better than they? No actually I said that it “points” towards them being eyewitness accounts. Please don’t misquote me, again.
The only evidence we have for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is early attestation. But that attestation actually occurred decades after the manuscripts were circulated, and we know for a fact that creating pseudonymous books and letters was common at the time. Serval fabricated letters falsely attributed to Paul actually made their way into the New Testament cannon. So it is reasonable and necessary to question the early attributions of gospel authorship. Sorry, but there is too much evidence pointing away from the traditional authorship of the Gospels. 1. They are anonymous. 2. They are written in Greek, not Aramaic. 3. It is unlikely the disciples could write at all. 4. They are written in the third person omniscient narrative form, revealing details and dialogue that would not have been known to the apostles. 5. They show Jesus quoting Greek mistranslations of the Old Testament. 6. The synoptic gospels copy each other, frequently word-for-word. 7. When read in the order of their writing, they show escalating levels of fantastic stories. 8. We know for a fact that the were significantly edited, redacted, and enhanced by Christian scribes over the ensuing 300 years.
So the answer to my question is no, you didn’t want the video. The video goes into detail about the gospels and how they are presented as well as their date of composition. The content suggests eyewitness authorship or at least sources who were eyewitnesses. I will not repeat here what the video you’re commenting on has already detailed. Please watch. As for the viewpoint of writing, you’re suggesting to know someone’s personal style of writing better than them and everything they knew or didn’t know 2 millennia out? That doesn’t make sense. Watch the video and address the claims made in it for further discussion.
@@thegeologian I did watch the video. You said things like "We have accounts written within 15 years, so the claim we have no eyewitness accounts is false." Well, where did you get that logic from? Early accounts are not necessarily eye witness accounts. So you debunked nothing. "The video goes into detail about the gospels and how they are presented as well as their date of composition. " That does not make them eye witness accounts. They obviously are not. Give me an eye witness account, please. Name one.
@cygnusustus @cygnusustus One statement out of an entire video cherry picks information out of context. The video explains that the gospels are usually argued to be written late and therefore cant be from eyewitnesses. Evidence from both the text and outside the text (both discussed in the video) point towards an early date rather than later. The video also discusses specific details of the text which match up with what would be expected from an eyewitness account. I’m not going to repeat them here as, once again, the video goes into detail about them. Watch it. These details corroborate the claims of Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, etc. that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by those who had access to eyewitnesses (ex: Luke or Mark).
@@thegeologian "One statement out of an entire video cherry picks information out of context." That statement was the summation of your argument. And if was false. "These details corroborate the claims of Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, etc. that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses " THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS! That just means some biased person assigned authorship to them and as I have already pointed out, such assignments are suspect. The scholarly opinion is that the Gospels are pseudonymous.
You’d be correct if it was the summation of the video, but it’s not. You’re just blatantly lying or mislead. They are anonymous, not pseudonymous. The gospels don’t mention who wrote it. If they were pseudonymous, it would actually make sense to claim to have been written by an apostle or church leader. Later Gnostic works did just that, claiming to have been written by Peter, Thomas, or even Mary Magdelene. We can also look to those Gnostic works to see what legendary material looks like. I read excerpts of one of them in my video if you actually watched it. My claim is that internal evidence, such as embarrassing details, different perspectives, knowledge of the area prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, specific names and calls to speak with those who saw the events (suggesting these very specific people such as Simon of Cyrene or Joseph of Arimathea or Rufus, etc were still alive. Gnostic works don’t do that.), or even the specific information about Jesus’s wounds which would match effusion of the heart and lungs points towards eyewitness testimony. This is corroborated by early claims of eyewitnesses writing the gospels. Papias and Polycarp, followed up by Irenaeus, cover all 4 gospels. Paul also quotes Luke’s Gospel.
If you are unwilling to believe in the Creator of Everything; God the Father and His Son; Jesus then you are doomed to be deceived into believing in evolution and ETs (aliens) as our progenitors…. God help us all not to fall victim to this “great deception” in the name of Jesus, Amen! (Psalm 14:1 KJV, Matthew 24:24 KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV and to avoid deception John 3:16 KJV)
We have evidence for Evolution. We have no evidence for Jesus or the resurrection. If you are willing to believe things without evidence, and reject things with evidence, then you are doomed to live a life of ignorance and manipulation.
@cygnusustus it depends on what you by “evolution.” What’s your definition of evolution? Also, watch the video. Plentiful evidence for the resurrection.
The Gospels were not only written late, but were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years. There are no eye witness accounts of Jesus or the resurrection. None. And this is supposedly the most important event in human history? The Gospels show all the artifacts of being legend, such as being anonymous, in the third person omniscient narrative form, and showing increasing miraculous events as they progress in time.
@@thegeologian Yes, I did. No, it didn't. Where did it address the fact the the Gospels were not only written late, but were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years? Where did it provide a single eye witness account of Jesus? Where did it explain the increasing Christology as we move from Mark, to Matthew and Luke, to John?
@cygnusustus Literally the beginning of the video. I discuss tradition first and then the text of each gospel. Watch the video. It also explains that details such as the resurrection were extremely early (within 5-10 years). The creed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians contains this creed (appx. 54 AD). He claims to have received this creed from others. These would’ve been the apostles in Jerusalem whom he visitors upon his conversion.
@@thegeologian So you concede that they were written late, as the scholars have concluded? And you concede that they were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years, as the early documents reveal? The creed in Paul's letter to Corinthians is, as you admit, about 20 years after the fact. And a creed is not evidence, so it is irrelevant. "These would’ve been the apostles in Jerusalem whom he visitors upon his conversion." That is your assumption. Paul also claimed he did not receive his knowledge from any man.
@cygnusustus No. Seriously, watch the video. It’s blatantly obvious you’re ignorant of the arguments used in the video. OR you’re just choosing to read/hear what you want. I’m not going to repeat 25-30 minutes of content in text when you choose not to watch and/or pay attention to the video you decided to comment on. The creed is evidence, whether you like it or not, of the early church’s teaching the resurrection and high christology early. Paul claimed his gospel was not the product of man but of God. He doesn’t say that he didn’t learn more from the apostles in Jerusalem. He could have easily received an oral creed from the first church in Jerusalem during his time there. The early date of the creed is accepted by scholars based upon Paul’s writings.
Amen brother 🙏🙏🙏
Amen! 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Amen
"The external tradition and internal evidence point towards these being written very early, and that points to them being eye witness accounts."
That's basically your argument, isn't it?
But is fails for several reasons.
1. Though the external tradition points to (two) of them being eye witness accounts, we know for a fact that early attribution cannot be relied upon because of all the examples of false attributions we know of. That means we must seek external evidence to validate their authenticity.
2 The internal evidence actually points away from them being eye witness accounts. I listed all the reasons in a separate reply.
3. Being an early account simply does not make them eye witness accounts. That logic does not follow.
So unless you have something better than that, you have no evidence for the resurrection.
1. The external tradition accounts for all 4 gospels. You’d know that if you watched the video. Other examples of false attributions are pseudonymous, hoping to get support from taking the name of the apostles. I just replied about this on another thread of yours.
2. The internal evidence, as presented in the video, if you watched it, actually points towards eyewitness testimony. Many of your claims against it are addressed. Others, like the style of 3rd person omniscient are irrelevant. Such a claim suggests that the authors didn’t speak with other people to get a better picture of what happened (such as internal thoughts or conversations they weren’t present for). You’re claiming to know better than the author their knowledge and/or style of writing which is outrageous.
@@thegeologian
"Other examples of false attributions are pseudonymous, hoping to get support from taking the name of the apostles."
Same for the Gospels.
"The internal evidence, as presented in the video, if you watched it, actually points towards eyewitness testimony. "
Name one piece you feel points towards eye-witness testimony.
"Others, like the style of 3rd person omniscient are irrelevant."
...to those wearing god-glasses, I suppose. To rational people, that is certainly relevant.
"Such a claim suggests that the authors didn’t speak with other people to get a better picture of what happened "
There are cases where they couldn't have done so, or where such conversations would have been nearly impossible. Such as Jesus' secret prayer at Gethsemane, or Jesus trial before Pontious Pilate. Had this been an eye witness narrative, the writer would have included the source for such knowledge. Obviously the writer did not care.
"You’re claiming to know better than the author their knowledge and/or style of writing which is outrageous."
Actually, once again, YOU are. You are claiming to know they are eye witness accounts.
First quote: Again, the gospels are anonymous. They never mentioned the authors name. Therefore they can’t be pseudonymous. Later Gnostic works claim themselves to be written by church leaders. The gospels don’t do this and are different in material, style, and claims.
Second quote: I have multiple times in several threads. Per the quote, “if you watched” the video, you wouldn’t need me to name it.
Third quote: taken out of context and you didn’t address my argument at all. Your counter is, what, no? Fine.
There were at least three apostles present for the prayer. Some or all of them fell asleep at different times during it. One of the apostles made it into the Sanhedrin meeting. Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, or any other member of the Sanhedrin or guard could’ve easily told them this information. Also, if Jesus truly rose again, he could’ve told them himself! There are several ways for them to have know this information. Again, you’re assuming what they WOULD do? Do you know their motivations and intentions better than they?
No actually I said that it “points” towards them being eyewitness accounts. Please don’t misquote me, again.
We are getting no where. IF they were truly eyewitness accounts, would you believe them?
@@thegeologian
Are you this stupid? The pseudonyms were applied later.
The only evidence we have for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is early attestation. But that attestation actually occurred decades after the manuscripts were circulated, and we know for a fact that creating pseudonymous books and letters was common at the time. Serval fabricated letters falsely attributed to Paul actually made their way into the New Testament cannon.
So it is reasonable and necessary to question the early attributions of gospel authorship.
Sorry, but there is too much evidence pointing away from the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
1. They are anonymous.
2. They are written in Greek, not Aramaic.
3. It is unlikely the disciples could write at all.
4. They are written in the third person omniscient narrative form, revealing details and dialogue that would not have been known to the apostles.
5. They show Jesus quoting Greek mistranslations of the Old Testament.
6. The synoptic gospels copy each other, frequently word-for-word.
7. When read in the order of their writing, they show escalating levels of fantastic stories.
8. We know for a fact that the were significantly edited, redacted, and enhanced by Christian scribes over the ensuing 300 years.
So the answer to my question is no, you didn’t want the video. The video goes into detail about the gospels and how they are presented as well as their date of composition. The content suggests eyewitness authorship or at least sources who were eyewitnesses. I will not repeat here what the video you’re commenting on has already detailed. Please watch.
As for the viewpoint of writing, you’re suggesting to know someone’s personal style of writing better than them and everything they knew or didn’t know 2 millennia out? That doesn’t make sense. Watch the video and address the claims made in it for further discussion.
@@thegeologian
I did watch the video. You said things like "We have accounts written within 15 years, so the claim we have no eyewitness accounts is false."
Well, where did you get that logic from? Early accounts are not necessarily eye witness accounts. So you debunked nothing.
"The video goes into detail about the gospels and how they are presented as well as their date of composition. "
That does not make them eye witness accounts. They obviously are not.
Give me an eye witness account, please. Name one.
@cygnusustus @cygnusustus One statement out of an entire video cherry picks information out of context. The video explains that the gospels are usually argued to be written late and therefore cant be from eyewitnesses. Evidence from both the text and outside the text (both discussed in the video) point towards an early date rather than later. The video also discusses specific details of the text which match up with what would be expected from an eyewitness account. I’m not going to repeat them here as, once again, the video goes into detail about them. Watch it. These details corroborate the claims of Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, etc. that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by those who had access to eyewitnesses (ex: Luke or Mark).
@@thegeologian
"One statement out of an entire video cherry picks information out of context."
That statement was the summation of your argument. And if was false.
"These details corroborate the claims of Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, etc. that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses "
THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS!
That just means some biased person assigned authorship to them and as I have already pointed out, such assignments are suspect.
The scholarly opinion is that the Gospels are pseudonymous.
You’d be correct if it was the summation of the video, but it’s not. You’re just blatantly lying or mislead. They are anonymous, not pseudonymous. The gospels don’t mention who wrote it. If they were pseudonymous, it would actually make sense to claim to have been written by an apostle or church leader. Later Gnostic works did just that, claiming to have been written by Peter, Thomas, or even Mary Magdelene. We can also look to those Gnostic works to see what legendary material looks like. I read excerpts of one of them in my video if you actually watched it.
My claim is that internal evidence, such as embarrassing details, different perspectives, knowledge of the area prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, specific names and calls to speak with those who saw the events (suggesting these very specific people such as Simon of Cyrene or Joseph of Arimathea or Rufus, etc were still alive. Gnostic works don’t do that.), or even the specific information about Jesus’s wounds which would match effusion of the heart and lungs points towards eyewitness testimony. This is corroborated by early claims of eyewitnesses writing the gospels. Papias and Polycarp, followed up by Irenaeus, cover all 4 gospels. Paul also quotes Luke’s Gospel.
If you are unwilling to believe in the Creator of Everything; God the Father and His Son; Jesus then you are doomed to be deceived into believing in evolution and ETs (aliens) as our progenitors…. God help us all not to fall victim to this “great deception” in the name of Jesus, Amen! (Psalm 14:1 KJV, Matthew 24:24 KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV and to avoid deception John 3:16 KJV)
We have evidence for Evolution.
We have no evidence for Jesus or the resurrection.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, and reject things with evidence, then you are doomed to live a life of ignorance and manipulation.
@cygnusustus it depends on what you by “evolution.” What’s your definition of evolution?
Also, watch the video. Plentiful evidence for the resurrection.
@@thegeologian
Change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Then, yes. If that’s all you’re claiming as evolution, then by all means, I’m an evolutionist. What you said is just good observational science.
@@thegeologian
Well you're the one that scoffed at evolution, and you didn't even know what evolution is?
Sad.
The Gospels were not only written late, but were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years.
There are no eye witness accounts of Jesus or the resurrection. None. And this is supposedly the most important event in human history?
The Gospels show all the artifacts of being legend, such as being anonymous, in the third person omniscient narrative form, and showing increasing miraculous events as they progress in time.
Did you watch the video? It addresses all of your claims.
@@thegeologian
Yes, I did.
No, it didn't.
Where did it address the fact the the Gospels were not only written late, but were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years?
Where did it provide a single eye witness account of Jesus?
Where did it explain the increasing Christology as we move from Mark, to Matthew and Luke, to John?
@cygnusustus Literally the beginning of the video. I discuss tradition first and then the text of each gospel. Watch the video. It also explains that details such as the resurrection were extremely early (within 5-10 years). The creed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians contains this creed (appx. 54 AD). He claims to have received this creed from others. These would’ve been the apostles in Jerusalem whom he visitors upon his conversion.
@@thegeologian
So you concede that they were written late, as the scholars have concluded?
And you concede that they were heavily edited, redacted, and enhanced over the ensuing 300 years, as the early documents reveal?
The creed in Paul's letter to Corinthians is, as you admit, about 20 years after the fact. And a creed is not evidence, so it is irrelevant.
"These would’ve been the apostles in Jerusalem whom he visitors upon his conversion."
That is your assumption. Paul also claimed he did not receive his knowledge from any man.
@cygnusustus No. Seriously, watch the video. It’s blatantly obvious you’re ignorant of the arguments used in the video. OR you’re just choosing to read/hear what you want. I’m not going to repeat 25-30 minutes of content in text when you choose not to watch and/or pay attention to the video you decided to comment on.
The creed is evidence, whether you like it or not, of the early church’s teaching the resurrection and high christology early. Paul claimed his gospel was not the product of man but of God. He doesn’t say that he didn’t learn more from the apostles in Jerusalem. He could have easily received an oral creed from the first church in Jerusalem during his time there. The early date of the creed is accepted by scholars based upon Paul’s writings.