4. The Reliability of the New Testament (Authorship & Dating)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
It is now time to look at the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels and good reasons we can date them within the lifetime of the Apostles.
Sources:
Fabricating Jesus - Craig Evans
Jesus of Nazareth - Maurice Casey
The Relationship Among the Gospels - Albert Lord
Trusting the New Testament - JP Holding
Against Marcion - Tertullian
Against Heresies - St. Irenaeus
Adumbrationes in Epistolas - Clement of Alexandria
The Muratorian Fragment
Ecclesiastical History - Eusebius
The Earliest Gospel - John S. Kloppenborg
The Text of the New Testament - Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman
• Who Wrote the Gospels?...
The Historical Figure - E.P. Sanders
Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke - John Wenham
Jesus and Eyewitness - Richard Bauckmann
The Gospels - Gerd Theissen
Music Credits:
Adventure Western Music - The Wild West
• ♩♫ Adventure Western M...
Epic and Exciting Music - Treasure Hunter
• ♩♫ Epic Adventure Musi...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"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."
I am continually impressed by your ability to condense such vast and useful information into single sittings that are laymen friendly. Your use of diagrams and visuals, and your citations of primary sources, always makes it extremely easy for anyone to understand what the historical case for Christianity is fundamentally based on. Most importantly of all *you always stick to standardized methods of historically investigating the New Testament and other early sources*-- which is, in the end, what lends the New Testament (and people like you) credibility.
Keep up the outstanding work IP! In an age of popular non-serious one-liners and militant atheists, your works consistently stand out as a breath of fresh air to seekers who sincerely want to understand exactly what the evidence is.
Steve Bennett Well said!
i guess it's kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good website to watch new series online?
@Cain Prince Try flixzone. Just search on google for it =)
@Layton Tucker Yup, I've been watching on Flixzone for since april myself :D
@Layton Tucker Thank you, I went there and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :) I really appreciate it!!
There's so much evidence for Jesus that you have to be completely ignorant not to believe!!
needtoknow204
Only looking at a single side of the issue with a confirmation bias has that effect.
***** "Only looking at a single side of the issue with a confirmation bias has that effect."
That is precisely why I was an atheist. It's what I was cultured into, and that position was reinforced by many of my college professors. We looked at proofs for our position, and never felt any desire to investigate the Christian claims.
Now that I've examined both positions, Christ wins by a landslide.
Betsy Ross
I've gone the opposite way. I've found too many holes in Christianity for me.
***** Odd how - and where - the Spirit works, I guess. I wasn't open to Christ, and I certainly wasn't seeking answers for my life; I thought I had most needed "answers", and plenty of time to gather answers as questions might arise.
IOW, I was completely hostile to any notion of religion, hostile enough that some Christian had the nerve to adopt me as her personal prayer challenge. Worse, she enlisted the help of her prayer group, and had the audacity to continually say, "We're praying for you". I didn't have a "group" that would dream of going to some "higher power" to get her off my back and out of my life. She had all the right weapons, and I had my textbooks and a life of rebellion. I was simply no match for her, her group, and her Commander-in-Chief, Christ. I learned, experientially, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Yet, when I was dead in sin, He was full of mercy.
Who can understand the depth of such love?
Betsy Ross
Sound to me like you were blissfully ignorant and an angry little idiot rather than genuinely sceptical. I've been there, even though I was raised Christian I didn't become a Christian for myself until I was in my early twenties.
I got into apologetics, but never questioned the authority of the Bible, only sought to understand it. At first, I was more interested engaging with the cults (particularly JWs), but over the years I began to take more of an interest in those who didn't see the Bible as an authority. I began studying issues in order to have valid and consistent answers for others who may ask. The problem was, many times I couldn't come up with valid and consistent answers. Praying about it didn't help either. One by one the pillar that held up my faith in the Bible collapsed, yet ironically I'd actually gone looking to (in a sense) strengthen my beliefs, but instead lost them. BS excuses will only spread so thin.
This entire series that IP has done on the reliability of the NT is simply a smokescreen. You only need to start scratching the surface of the arguments presented to realise how flimsy they are. Most won't thought, because they will only seek to confirm their bias.
Your evidence is more convincing than Bart Ehrman.
LOL! Yeah a Christian fundamentalist knows better than a scholar with a PHD
@@biotorex8999 we have new testament historians with PHD...that also agrees with this guy....always 2 sides to the coin so what's your point??? Coz I don't see one
@@biotorex8999 to be fair, this channel is not at all "fundamentalist" he has very out there doctrine and believes in macroevolution. Nevertheless, he is very great at research and presenting indisputable evidence for most of his videos
@@biotorex8999 there is definitely evidence not revealed to the general public, go look it up... Muslims have the place bordered by a fence, a trespass warning, and soldiers armed with guns... the very tip mountain is black as if it's been burned, as stated in exodus. There is evidence of people worshipping a cow as stated in exodus. There is a huge rock split in two, with obvious evidence of water flowing from the rock, as stated in exodus. They found coralized chariot wheels with the axles with the correct spokes Egyptians would've used at that time, at the bottom of the sea, they also found horse hooves coralized. Not sure what else I forgot but do some research if you truly even care and are genuine in searching for the Truth.
IP does not seem fundamental to me at all.
This current presentations on the Genesis account make the most sense to me (a Christian and scientist) in the light of ancient near eastern culture. Fundamentalists would reject that.
Regarding the dating of the gospels. There will always be a wide spectrum on opinions. Our job is not to appeal to Authority. But to arguments. That means, just because some liberal Christian scholars are with Ehrmann, doesnt mean they are right. And here we make the appeal to the argument. That means, we ask WHY they say so. And then we can bring up arguments that would refute theirs.
In this video IP presented a lot of arguments that argue for an early dating of the gospel, as well as arguments for the authority of the writers. Not all his arguments are good, one or two I thought were close to an argument from silence, but all in all his presentation seemed pretty conclusive.
If you simply disregard his presentation/opinion because of a false and preconceived notion then this shows that you are not looking for the truth. But for confirmation.
This video is OUTSTANDING!!! I was impressed at all the research based information given as proof of the New Testament being valid and the possible timelines for the writing of the gospels. Thank you so much!!!
Thank you for taking the time to make this. It really helps.
The Bible is lies, falsehoods, errors, contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, pseudography, forgery and myth. A flawed work of man capped off with the 27 books of the New Testament written in poorly composed Greek. The deity portrayed in the Bible is a phantom. The God of the Bible is just a reflection of humanity including some of its worst aspects. Jesus though, was actually a real historical figure. History and reason tell us the following: 1) Jesus was a gob-shite preacher from a shit-hole province of the Roman Empire 2) Jesus thought the World was gonna end and he was wrong 3) Jesus thought he would be ruling the new Kingdom of God as the hand of God on Earth and he was wrong about that too. 4) Jesus was a jew 5) Jesus and his immediate followers did not believe Jesus was God. They were right. They expected Jesus to return from Heaven during their lifetimes. They were wrong. 6) Jesus and his immediate followers after his death had little interest in reaching out to non-jews and they insisted that any members of their communities convert to Judaism 6) Jesus would be enraged by the crazy fucked up religion which grew up in his name during the 200 years after he died. He would laugh untill he fell down with cramp if you told him that his Mom is said to be a virgin. But he would not be happy to learn that Christians claim him to to be God eternal in some woo woo idea of a triple deity where deluded Christians think they can do magic and turn wine into his blood and bread into his bones and then consume it.....Jesus would go unholy FREAK if he knew this...And as for the unclean practices of Christians where men do not need to be circumcised, have sabbath on the wrong day and where it is considered OK to eat food prepared by a woman who is having a period, Jesus would go totally postal/ape-shit. Christianity is a fucked up religion invented by people who lied, plagiarised, altered, and forged the gospels and tried to glorify the ordinary man Jesus (real name Yeshua) and embellish his memory with invented miracles and an exaggeration of his supposed God-hood. Jesus was nothing other than a faith-healer and rural community exorcist. If Jesus was taken inside a Church today and someone showed him around explained to him what was going on inside there would be one unholy WTF moment. Jesus would flog the very skin off the backs of the idiot gibbering Christians he found inside and then do a big shit on their stupid alter!!! Go-Jesus. Them their Christians are fucking crazy!!!
@@agritrend4812 whew man you are making a lot of extraordinary claims - without any extraordinary evidence! That's some pretty awesome blind faith you've got there.
@@godcodes He doesn't even realize he's talking about modern day churchanity, not Christianity. This video explains the difference
ruclips.net/video/adhUelxFaFI/видео.html
God bless you
@@CuteyPie01 That they believe AGRITREND claims or the video's claims?
@shaz Sorry for the late response,RUclips doesn't really notify people sometimes. But yes you are correct,the catholic church did put the bible together however we shouldn't obey the church but Jesus and his teachings. But I don't really understand how I'm a "cultist".
God bless you
It always amazes me how much evidence we have for the truth of Christianity.
Where is it exactly?
Reese Chronological Bible complied by Frank R. Klassen (Bethany House Publishers, 1977) indicates that the Israelites entered the Promised Land in 1422 B.C. (Joshua 1) and that Joshua died in 1372 B.C (Joshua 24:29
Amarna letters (14th century bc), cuneiform
The letters show that Egypt held considerable power over these Canaanite kings. One letter written by a king of Babylon named "Burra-Buriyas" complains about the killing of Babylonian merchants in Canaan and reminds Egypt's pharaoh that "the land of Canaan is your land and its kings are your servants."
An Egyptian amulet bearing the name of the Egyptian ruler Thutmose III was found in Israel dating back around 1200 bc. Here are some sources: (Jerusalem Post, Biblical Archaeology Society, The times of Isreal, Breaking Isreal News, Isreal National News).There are many more ancient Egyptian artifacts in Israel.
Asked how the Egyptian amulet could have reached so far as Jerusalem, Dr. Barkay told the City of David, “For more than 300 years, during the Late Bronze Age, Canaan and the city state of Jerusalem were under Egyptian dominion.”
basalt stele( currently at the Israel Museum) excavated at Beth Shean( Northern Israel) depicts the victory of the pharaoh Seti I, who reasserted Egyptian rule over Canaan in the 13th century B.C.
Also had the battle of Kadesh (1274 Bc) which a treaty was signed between the Egyptians and Hittites who lived in current Turkey. This proves Egypt again at this time, had full control of what is now Israel because they would of gone through Isreal. (Kadesh Treaty tablets are displayed in Istanbul Archeology Museum)
Àmen xx
@Tony Mario what video, didn't offer one?
@@hansOrf He probably meant the video above.
You have a gift brother, thank you for your work. All praises to the most high Yah.
Great point: The early Church made up authors fails when they didn't do the same with the book of Hebrews, but left it anonymous except for Syriac copies that had the title "Paul's letter to the Hebrews."
Also, I watched a Vsauce video that pointed out that life expectancy at those times was dramatically lowered by high infant mortality. If you survived infancy, you could expect to live 60-70 years. This, in combination with the fact that adults were considered such at 14 or so, I am lead to believe that the apostles could have very well lived on for many more years after Jesus' death in 33AD. Really, all John had to do was live 40 more years and considering he could've been 15-20 years old at that time, it would have been no problem.
- Irenaeus, Eusebius & Jerome confirm that John lived until AD 98.
- Polycarp, John's disciple, died in c. 155/156 at the age of 86 years old, meaning he was born about AD 69/70. So assuming he was 16+ years of age when he encountered/learnt under John, it woulld mean John must've been alive & active at least past 85 CE.
So even with the general dating of John's Gospel at AD 90-95, it still fits well within the probable lifetime of John the disciple.
@@bromponie7330 Awsome
Why assume John waited so long to write? The actual destruction of the Temple is never even mentioned in passing in the whole NT. I don't see why we should believe any of it was written after 70 AD.
Look at how they dealt with Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy. They point it out as often as they can. How much more would they want to point out Jesus' prediction came true regarding the most important place on earth to a jew? Instead, the whole NT reads as if the Temple is still there.
Im stunned, amazed by this video.. So much knowledge, so well spoken en so well edited.. Amazing..
Big thanks 2 the maker of this vid..
It is highly likely that if one lets the evidence lead them, one would date the gospels anywhere from 45ad - 80ad(john). I find the skeptics reasoning why they must be dated after 70ad absolutely unreasonable
@@tomasrocha6139 "argument from silence" Is a valid reasoning... BUT when an author mentions every major event but fails to mention the climactic event, then its highly likely that the event hasnt happened yet
I like how you change the liberal "C.E" to "A.D" when you read out the text.
+RoyalGiraffe Doesn't really matter, we know what it means, and all indications indicate 1CE/AD was not the year Jesus was born anyway. Really, I feel common era is just as appropriate, since it demarcates a time that everyone can agree that we are now counting from. Plus it removes any confusion when using about Julian dates.
+TheCinnaman123 True enough. Although I wouldn't discourage the use of A.D. for religious, or at the very least, non-scholarly purposes.
RoyalGiraffe. Shows his bias .No academic would do so.
Royal Giraffe. Are you a Trump Lover?? Are you covered in the blood of Jesus? The Bible is lies, falsehoods, errors, contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, pseudography, forgery and myth. A flawed work of man capped off with the 27 books of the New Testament written in poorly composed Greek. The deity portrayed in the Bible is a phantom. The God of the Bible is just a reflection of humanity including some of its worst aspects. Jesus though, was actually a real historical figure. History and reason tell us the following: 1) Jesus was a gob-shite preacher from a shit-hole province of the Roman Empire 2) Jesus thought the World was gonna end and he was wrong 3) Jesus thought he would be ruling the new Kingdom of God as the hand of God on Earth and he was wrong about that too. 4) Jesus was a jew 5) Jesus and his immediate followers did not believe Jesus was God. They were right. They expected Jesus to return from Heaven during their lifetimes. They were wrong. 6) Jesus and his immediate followers after his death had little interest in reaching out to non-jews and they insisted that any members of their communities convert to Judaism 6) Jesus would be enraged by the crazy fucked up religion which grew up in his name during the 200 years after he died. He would laugh untill he fell down with cramp if you told him that his Mom is said to be a virgin. But he would not be happy to learn that Christians claim him to to be God eternal in some woo woo idea of a triple deity where deluded Christians think they can do magic and turn wine into his blood and bread into his bones and then consume it.....Jesus would go unholy FREAK if he knew this...And as for the unclean practices of Christians where men do not need to be circumcised, have sabbath on the wrong day and where it is considered OK to eat food prepared by a woman who is having a period, Jesus would go totally postal/ape-shit. Christianity is a fucked up religion invented by people who lied, plagiarised, altered, and forged the gospels and tried to glorify the ordinary man Jesus (real name Yeshua) and embellish his memory with invented miracles and an exaggeration of his supposed God-hood. Jesus was nothing other than a faith-healer and rural community exorcist. If Jesus was taken inside a Church today and someone showed him around explained to him what was going on inside there would be one unholy WTF moment. Jesus would flog the very skin off the backs of the idiot gibbering Christians he found inside and then do a big shit on their stupid alter!!! Go-Jesus. Them their Christians are fucking crazy!!!
@@CuteyPie01 exactly
Statistically speaking, you could make one of these videos every week for the next 50 years and there would still be atheists. The issue isn't reliability as much as personal preference, as you have thoroughly and painstakingly demonstrated. Christians win the battle of logic.
TheLastAbacus I'm honestly surprised to find some (emphasis on "some") atheists/agnostics who say they wouldn't follow Christianity (or any faith) if it were proven to be true. In one article I read these (on why they wouldn't follow):
One response was "He (God) would have to convince me that what he wants for me is what I want for me." Another was "I hope I would be courageous enough to dedicate my life to rebellion against God." And "My own goals are all that I have. I would not yield my autonomy to anyone."
Maybe some of you've read this?
ipso246 01 The most common amongst laymen seems to be "If God exists, then he is an a**hole unworthy of worship. I would spit in God's face if he presented himself to me now." They then describe certain events which were not divinely resolved, therefore they refuse to submit to theism. Quite honestly, atheism should not be the primary concern, as I reckon it will dissolve soon and doesn't stand well on its own to begin with.
Our greatest concern should be vehement denial of the virtues of Christ. Those who will follow nearly anything so long as it specifically ISN'T Judeo-Christian inspired. Worship of worldly aspects has always been the enemy of God.
*Statistically speaking, you could make one of these videos every week for the next 50 years and there would still be atheists*
True - just as there were those in Jesus' time who did not believe in him.
Still, grateful to IP for an astounding array of videos for those that *want* to know more.
TheLastAbacus ....dude you obviously didn't study logic, since any thing you say after the statement.... "it is likely that" is simply a guess. And the first question you need to ask is how likely is your supposition... then the second question... how likely is an alternative explanation that also account for the evidence. Now here is how logic works..... pay attention carefully because I can tell that you are not very clever... when you say 'it is likely that....' and there is something else that is even more likely, then the truth is.... you are actually proving it is less likely, so this entire video is literally saying it is 'less likely' that the Gospels are dated before 70 CE. But you seem to like to leave words out conveniently and so instead of hearing 'less likely' all you are hearing is 'likely' the truth is you guys need to just stop looking at evidence because there's nothing that anybody can say that will stop you believing what you want to believe. You have associated part of your identity in the Bible and so many attack on the validity of your belief is a personal attack on you. No scholarly work can ever be achieved from this point of view. Therefore there is no point in even trying my friend. The truth is it is possible but less likely that is the truth
Peter
..... you don't want to know you want to believe. Somebody who wants to know doesn't start with the belief that they already know.
God can't tell you his truth until you stop telling the world your truth.
All I can say brother is thankyou, thankyou and thankyou for your videos! Such a blessing!
I'm looking forward to when you come to the evidence for the resurrection :)
***** I should have the introduction out in December.
Do a youtube search for j warner wallace - the cold-case for the resurrection.
Yeah, by the style of the video, I expect a scientific proof for Jesus walking on water and parthenogenesis among humans producing male offspring with a sigma-5 significance.
@@rursus8354 Ha HA!!! proof of walking on water and virgin births. I wonder if Jesus ever tried to turn piss into wine... The Bible is lies, falsehoods, errors, contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, pseudography, forgery and myth. A flawed work of man capped off with the 27 books of the New Testament written in poorly composed Greek. The deity portrayed in the Bible is a phantom. The God of the Bible is just a reflection of humanity including some of its worst aspects. Jesus though, was actually a real historical figure. History and reason tell us the following: 1) Jesus was a gob-shite preacher from a shit-hole province of the Roman Empire 2) Jesus thought the World was gonna end and he was wrong 3) Jesus thought he would be ruling the new Kingdom of God as the hand of God on Earth and he was wrong about that too. 4) Jesus was a jew 5) Jesus and his immediate followers did not believe Jesus was God. They were right. They expected Jesus to return from Heaven during their lifetimes. They were wrong. 6) Jesus and his immediate followers after his death had little interest in reaching out to non-jews and they insisted that any members of their communities convert to Judaism 6) Jesus would be enraged by the crazy fucked up religion which grew up in his name during the 200 years after he died. He would laugh untill he fell down with cramp if you told him that his Mom is said to be a virgin. But he would not be happy to learn that Christians claim him to to be God eternal in some woo woo idea of a triple deity where deluded Christians think they can do magic and turn wine into his blood and bread into his bones and then consume it.....Jesus would go unholy FREAK if he knew this...And as for the unclean practices of Christians where men do not need to be circumcised, have sabbath on the wrong day and where it is considered OK to eat food prepared by a woman who is having a period, Jesus would go totally postal/ape-shit. Christianity is a fucked up religion invented by people who lied, plagiarised, altered, and forged the gospels and tried to glorify the ordinary man Jesus (real name Yeshua) and embellish his memory with invented miracles and an exaggeration of his supposed God-hood. Jesus was nothing other than a faith-healer and rural community exorcist. If Jesus was taken inside a Church today and someone showed him around explained to him what was going on inside there would be one unholy WTF moment. Jesus would flog the very skin off the backs of the idiot gibbering Christians he found inside and then do a big shit on their stupid alter!!! Go-Jesus. Them their Christians are fucking crazy!!!
@@rursus8354 well, unfortunately I don't see "science" doing that. Science as a field of study, is bias against supernatural things like miracles. Now history, I believe can do that. There is a video called "Jesus in the Talmud"... that is interesting, Even Jesus' 1st century enemies, the ones who wanted him cricified admit that he did marvelous works, they could not deny that. His enemies statements against prove that he existed and that he did miracles. If someone dosent believe these things, then maybe they need to look inward, maybe they don't WANT to believe. But God can change those hearts.
Thank you for building our faith @IP. God bless
This is a really good video and teaching IP.Keep up the good work.
The Bible is lies, falsehoods, errors, contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, pseudography, forgery and myth. A flawed work of man capped off with the 27 books of the New Testament written in poorly composed Greek. The deity portrayed in the Bible is a phantom. The God of the Bible is just a reflection of humanity including some of its worst aspects. Jesus though, was actually a real historical figure. History and reason tell us the following: 1) Jesus was a gob-shite preacher from a shit-hole province of the Roman Empire 2) Jesus thought the World was gonna end and he was wrong 3) Jesus thought he would be ruling the new Kingdom of God as the hand of God on Earth and he was wrong about that too. 4) Jesus was a jew 5) Jesus and his immediate followers did not believe Jesus was God. They were right. They expected Jesus to return from Heaven during their lifetimes. They were wrong. 6) Jesus and his immediate followers after his death had little interest in reaching out to non-jews and they insisted that any members of their communities convert to Judaism 6) Jesus would be enraged by the crazy fucked up religion which grew up in his name during the 200 years after he died. He would laugh untill he fell down with cramp if you told him that his Mom is said to be a virgin. But he would not be happy to learn that Christians claim him to to be God eternal in some woo woo idea of a triple deity where deluded Christians think they can do magic and turn wine into his blood and bread into his bones and then consume it.....Jesus would go unholy FREAK if he knew this...And as for the unclean practices of Christians where men do not need to be circumcised, have sabbath on the wrong day and where it is considered OK to eat food prepared by a woman who is having a period, Jesus would go totally postal/ape-shit. Christianity is a fucked up religion invented by people who lied, plagiarised, altered, and forged the gospels and tried to glorify the ordinary man Jesus (real name Yeshua) and embellish his memory with invented miracles and an exaggeration of his supposed God-hood. Jesus was nothing other than a faith-healer and rural community exorcist. If Jesus was taken inside a Church today and someone showed him around explained to him what was going on inside there would be one unholy WTF moment. Jesus would flog the very skin off the backs of the idiot gibbering Christians he found inside and then do a big shit on their stupid alter!!! Go-Jesus. Them their Christians are fucking crazy!!!
@@agritrend4812 God's Blood. For you.
ruclips.net/video/LeDTzPYiSPA/видео.html
For those of you who struggle with the Epistles of the Bible, Bart Ehrman says this:
“Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings.”
I remember watching a Simpsons episode where Homer becomes a food critic and he is asked to write reviews for the food he eats, but he tries twice to write a review by himself but both attempts fail. Lisa volunteers to write and proof read for him (because most of the stuff that comes out of Homer’s mouth is nonsense) and he dictates his opinion to her, which she notes down and even edits because as I said, he would talk nonsense.
Hope that helps!
Do you have the Ehrman reference?
Page 134 of Forged. I saw Mike Licona quote it.
While at a family reunion last month I was looking through the family Bible, which was dated around 1870, and it lists Matthew as being written in the 30s and Luke as being written in the 50s. I just found that interesting and thought I'd pass it along.
Triggerman1976 Sounds interesting to a layman as me, considering the opening statements and greetings from Luke to Theofilos.
It makes sense that Luke comes after Matt and Mark because Luke says he has conducted his "investigation", as he puts it.
Very interesting. Of course, this is evidence that the dating of the NT books has been in dispute for centuries and that "the majority of scholars" have held differing views at one time or another. Another example is found in American scholar Moses Stuart's assertion that in his day 1835...the majority of scholars held that Revelation was finished before 70 CE.
@@SugoiEnglish1 That may be correct, though. Revelation is explicitly anti-Rome, so it is almost certainly a response to the Neronian persecution and never mentions or hints at the destruction of the Temple. John A.T. Robinson wrote in the 1970s that the entire New Testament was probably completed before A.D. 70.
1 Cor 15: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day *according to the scriptures* :
Paul was referring to the gospels as scripture in 1 Cor 15. It is the gospels only that mention about Christ rising on the 3rd day. From the OT one can deduce Christ dying for our sins (Isa 53) but only the gospels provide the information of the resurrection on the 3rd day. Hence 1 Corinthians was written after the gospels (at least one of the 4 if not more), not before them.
@@roobaba5415 If so, then that would mean that the earlier dating of Mark that IP dismissed as not having enough evidence would be correct.
This video is amazing!!! Commenting for the algorithm, needs more views!
I love the Bible. Thank You Jesus!
Finally came across this and it was right up my alley for a personal project I am on. Thank you
Awesome video!!!!
This is 🔥God bless you brother.
I love the dedication to your videos. I would like to see a video defending your stance of billions of years, how it would be interpreted biblically, and why you aren't swayed by young earth arguments. I hope to see the same level of professionalism in future videos. Wonderful work!
Thomas Bunn I did a while back: ruclips.net/video/yf5ovSpS2GU/видео.html
Excellent presentation,
your style of speaking is so good the background music volume, in future videos, needs to be halved.
Man I love you channel so much.
Thank you. God bless.
Brilliant video!
This video is awesome! Debating a friend who is new age and a uneversalist that believe all basic lies on why the Bible isn’t reliable
This is really good representation honestly!!!
Very well done!
Man, if only today's skeptics were also that skeptical about other ancient writtings. Why don't we see internet atheists analyse works like Res gestae divi Augusti with such skepticism like they have for the NT documents?
That aside, great video IP! I hope that one day I could get my hands on those scholarly books that you use (It's pretty hard to find them in my country)
Sean Armstrong '' historical document outlining what is purely naturalistic events, versus a historical document containing supernatural assertions!'' a correction. Both report events. Some report supernatural events others report natural events. Also it's only a problem for someone who's got a fixed in idea that there is no supernatural. Also, don't throw in the word ''assertions'' when you speak about the supernatural just because you don't believe in it.
Also, if you want to use that logic, we should throw out the majority of ancient writtings because almost all of them report some supernatural event.
''Not really. Cuz it's a perfectly ordinary claim.'' Correct
''would you analyze my claim? You should!'' Not really, and here is why. A dog, by definition can't speak Latin, or fly or throw fire. So whatever you have in your house is not a dog, by definition. So the chanses are more probable that you just made it up (obviously, right?). That's why I wouldn't bother analysing your claim.
Maybe if you reported some supernatural event that seems less made up like (for example) you claiming you saw a man levitating or something. Then I would analyse your claim.
But let's put that aside for a moment, since your next comment is the key.
'' the supernatural assertions mean further sceptical investigation is warranted and justified!'' this is actually correct. However, how much ''further'' does it need to go? When can we say that enough evidence has been given for us to say that a supernatural event has happened?
Here is my point: I don't doubt that some (if not most of) supernatural reports are just natural events that have been misunderstood. However, that doesn't give me (or you) the right to claim that all supernatural events are actually natural.
Also, we can be skeptical of a supernatural report since the supernatural is not very frequent. But we need to draw the line somewhere and say ''enough, the supernatural has been proven''.
As for my example with the Works of divine Augustus, it was to show how internet atheists make a fuss about how untrustworthy the Bible is because a few textual ''problems'' but then not apply that same skepticism to other works who have just as much textual ''problems''.
Sean Armstrong '' and what is your line?'' well give me some historical examples and I'll tell you if it seems good enough. For starters, I believe supernatural events recorded in the NT (and OT but that's a different subject) are true, esspetially the resurrection. The supernatural events surounding Muhamad's life also seem pretty possible (note, we are talking about it from a historical perspective not a theological one). The supernatural events surounding Zevi also seem possible. The events surpunding Nostradamus don't seem supported enough. and so on...
What about your line?
''Clearly as a Christian you believe bible is sufficient to justify the supernatural, and clearly I don't.'' I can trow this back at you too. Clearly as a atheist (naturalist) you believe that the supernatural events in the Bible can't count as evidence.
'that is NOT the argument I would make at all'' good
''It would still not be enough to justify the supernatural.'' yeah, my point exactly. It would not be enough for you (Key words) since you are a devoted atheist, or naturalist, or whatever. Your belief in naturalism (that there is no supernatural) is what gives you a bias and because of it, you throw out evidence like the Bible. So just because you throw it out claiming it's not evidence doesn't mean it should be thrown out. That's just your presupposition.
''if EVERYBODY on this planet EXCEPT YOU all believe Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, but we have no evidence to offer you except our words, would you believe in FSM? '' nope, I'd ask for evidence. But I'm not gonna play with one hand behind my back. You also have to first justify your belief in naturalism before having to make claims of what counts as evidence and what doesn't.
Also, the FSM is by definition made up (by fundy atheists on the internet to parody God), so no I wouldn't believe it. Try some different example other then the FSM.
All in all, you don't get to say what evidence is and presuppose your world view to be correct without evidence for it.
I'll get back to you tomorow.
Sean Armstrong '' Do I have evidence to justify why naturalism is true? No i don't.'' and that's the problem. You have a belief with no evidence for it and it affects your ability to determine something without a bias.
''because I don't believe in supernatural'' and you need reasons for not believing it. You can't just assume it's ok to be a naturalist and the based on that belief to make your own criteria.
'' simply because of other people's testimonies'' well that's just silly (note it's not an insult, but it is a silly think to claim).
I mean by this logic, nobody can give you enough evidence. What if a 100 people saw a person levitate or something like that and they spoke about it to everyone, claiming that they checked and there were no wires or any tricks etc... you would just throw it out? Come on... You are litereally throwing out evidence you don't like because it goes against your belief.
''INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE'' well as long as you get to descide what is ''INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE'' then we can't get anywhere. I mean come on, it's like me saying to you to porve to me that your grandmother is alive and then you intorduce me to her and show me her ID and so on, and I reject all those claims for no reason.
''every other wild claims such as UFO abductions or bigfoot or Lochness monster...'' Just as long as you don't reject naturalism, right? Please, let's not make such claims. I'm honestly open to anything as long as there is some evidence. Heck, I'd even believe in aliens if someone shows me proof (but I personaly don't care about aliens). You on the other hand ask for evidence and when presented, you just reject it. Well that's not how the world works sorry.
''replacing FSM with Hindu Gods'' a bit beter.
''if they all claim to have personal revelations from Hindu Gods? '' I'd ask what the heck they mean by that and ask for some arguments for this belief. If the arguments are sound, then sure I'd believe them. If not then no i wouldn't. That is why I'm a Christian, because of evidence. Why are you a naturalist?
On a side note, can we keep it shorter please?
Sean Armstrong '' if I personally witness a supernatural miracle in'' so only if you see it would you believe it? That's not very openminded. What if something supernatural really happened and everyone testified to seeing it and it was all over the news and so on... yet you wouldn't believe it because you didn't see it? Sorry but that's really biased.
''show me a video-recording of the event which has been verified to be genuine '' well there are videos all over the internet where some supernatural phenomenon was supposedly couth on camera. So there, go and look at some of them for yourself and determine what's real and what's fake.
''I simply do not trust the words of others when it comes to justifying the supernatural.'' well that's not really objective investigation is it? Is it possible that you have a bias against the supernatural and that you're just moving the goalpost (a logical fallacy)? Again, it's a question, not an insult.
''even if everybody else believe it so'' I said if their arguments (or evidence) are sound, then I'd believe them. I didn't say that just because everyone believes something that therefore I believe it too. I think I even wrote that.
'' If all they got are mere words'' do these ''words'' include eyewitness testimony of these deities? You can't just throw out eyewitness testimony (we will just assume that Hindus have eyewitness testimony of their deities, for the sake of argument).
'' have a videotape capturing a footage of their god coming down in material form'' let me ask you something, and I'd really want an honest answer. If someone showed you this video, would you believe it or would you automatically start searching for some naturalistic explanation (like effects, or a hoax or whatever)? Just think about it and then reply, ok?
''Something like a videorecording would be nice, for start.'' indeed, but when would you say that it's enough evidence without trying to find some explanation that's too ad hoc? Where's the line?
Sean Armstrong ''know human minds are very prone to delusions...of course we should remain skeptical.'' skeptical, ok. But don't you think that your line of reasoning is going from skeptical to biased? We should first see if our beliefs affect how objective we are about some topics.
''ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION believe in god(s) which you do not think to be true!'' yes, but as I said, I believe because of evidence for my world view, not because the majority believes it.
'' NONE of them have ever been confirmed by actual experts to be true?'' what experts have done this research and concluded that the videos aren't true.
''Come on dude, seriously?? Internet videos?'' ok, it does sound corny I admit. So let me rephrase it. Videos of some supernatural event that has been posted on the internet for people to see. It sounds better now.
'' your post is too long so i basically stopped reading after that quote..'' ok
Great video thanks for sharing
This is absolutely brilliant!
This is a great series of videos!
Excellent work!!
Wow. Excellent video
Ya know… your videos are EXCELLENT.
You should have pointed out that there exist NO ANONYMOUS MANUSCRIPT: in either the first or last page there is always the title that points to the traditional author.
Thank You for your excellent work and presentations. I am making regular use of them for my class on Jesus and the Gospels at my church.
I was just thinking:
John mentions how Peter would die when Jesus talked to Peter about others getting his clothes and taking him where he didn't want to go. This would mean John wrote his gospel after Peter died, right?
Very well done, concisely written, and lots of convincing documentation. Excellent!
Superb synopsis!!! Should be in the minds of Christians everywhere.
2:42 - 3:22
Hey, two good pieces of evidence that St. Peter ended his life as Bishop of Rome, before his martyrdom in 70 AD! Not to mention no other city claimed the honor of being his place of death.
Thanks for sharing!
God bless you!
Again a very good video.
Just to contribute to each case for the traditional authorships of Mark, Mattew, Luke & John:
Let me know what you think, IP ;)
*THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK ( AD 40 - 70 )*
1) Written early, within Mark's lifetime.
2) Most manuscripts ascribe themselves to Mark.
3) No manuscipt or person attributed it to anyone other than Mark.
4) Unlikely nomination, since Mark was not part of Jesus’ inner-circle of three, one of the 12 disciples, nor was he even an eyewitness to Jesus’ life that we know of.
--- INTERNAL EVIDENCES & CLUES: ---
1. The author centralises slightly more on Peter than the other two Gospels.
2. The author minimizes or omits several details and passages that might portray Peter in an embarrassing light.
(The internal evidence is weakest for this one)
--- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES ---
1) Luke (55-80 AD) associates it with eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4, Mark is a source of Luke).
2) Papias (100-117 AD)(or technically "the Elder", possibly an apostle) attritutes it to Mark.
3) Justin Martyr (150-155 AD) attributes it to a follower of an apostle and also calls it Peter's memoirs.
4) The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 AD) attributes it to Mark.
5) The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (160-180 AD) attributes it to Mark.
6) The Muratorian Canon (~170 AD) most probably attributes it to Mark and also asscociates it with the apostles.
7) Irenaeus (180 AD) attributes it to Mark.
8) Clement of Alexandria (~195 AD) attributes it to Mark.
9) Tertullian (207 AD) attributes it to Mark.
10) Hippolytus (~225 AD) attributes it to Mark.
11) Origen (~240 AD) attributes it to Mark.
12) Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) attributes it to Mark.
13) Treatise on Rebaptism (~255 AD) attributes it to Mark.
14) Dionysius of Alexandria (~255 AD) attributes it to Mark.
Furthermore: authoritative citations, references, quotes, allusions or traces of Mark’s Gospel can be found in:
- Matthew (50-80 AD)
- Clement of Rome (95-97 AD)
- Ignatius (107 AD)
- Polycarp (110-140 AD)
- Epistle of Barnabas (130 AD)
- etc. …
*THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW ( AD 50 - 80 )*
1) Written early, probably 60-65 AD, within Matthew's lifetime.
2) Most manuscripts ascribe themselves to Matthew.
3) No manuscipt or person attributed it to anyone other than Matthew.
4) Unlikely nomination, since although he was part of the 12 disciples, Matthew was not part of the inner-circle of three, and he was a publican / tax collector, someone often detested by the Jewish folk.
--- INTERNAL EVIDENCES & CLUES ---
1. The author is most likely a Palestinian Jew.
- He is well acquainted with the geography of Palestine.
- He is familiar with Jewish history, customs, ideas and classes of people.
- He is familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures.
2. Matthew could communicate in Aramaic and Greek.
- Matthew was a publican - a Jew hired by Rome to impose Roman taxes upon his own people.
3. The terminology used fits well with that of a tax collector.
- The author uses several sophisticated terminology and terms for money which occur nowhere else in the Gospels.
- Matthew is the only synoptic Gospel that speaks of gold, silver and brass.
- There are more money-related issues present in Matthew than in any of the other Gospels.
4. The ‘call of Matthew’.
- Only in the Gospel According to Matthew in ‘the call of Matthew’ is Matthew referred to as “Matthew”. In the parallel passages found in the other Gospels, that of Mark and Luke, he is simply named “Levi”.
--- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES ---
1) Papias (100-117 AD) possibly attributes it to Matthew.
2) The Epistula Apostolorum (~140 AD) indirectly attributes it to a disciple.
3) Justin Martyr (150-155 AD) attributes it to an apostle.
4) Theodotus (160-170 AD) attributes it to an apostle.
5) Claudias Apollinaris (160-180 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
6) The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (160-180 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
7) The Muratorian Canon (~170 AD) indirectly attributes it to an apostle.
8) Celsus (177 AD) indirectly attributes it to a disciple.
9) Irenaeus (180 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
10) Clement of Alexandria (~195 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
11) Tertullian (207 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
12) Sextus Julius Africanus (220-240 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
13) Origen (~240 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
14) Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
15) Dionysius of Alexandria (~255 AD) attributes it to Matthew.
Furthermore: authoritative references, quotes, allusions or traces of Matthew’s Gospel can be found in:
- Clement of Rome (95-97 AD)
- Ignatius (107 AD)
- Polycarp (110-140 AD)
- Didache (80-150 AD)
- Epistle of Barnabas (130 AD)
- Epistle to Diognetus (130 AD)
- Hermas (140 AD)
- 2 Clement (150 AD)
- etc. …
*THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE ( AD 55 - 80 )*
1) Written early, probably ~60 AD, within Luke's lifetime.
2) Most manuscripts attribute themselves to Luke.
3) No manuscipt or person attributed it to anyone other than Luke.
4) Unlikely nomination, since Luke was not part of the 12 disciples or the inner-3, nor was Luke thought to be a direct eyewitness to Jesus’ life.
--- INTERNAL EVIDENCES & CLUES ---
1. The author had access to eyewitnesses and eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-3).
2. The author was a companion of Paul.
The “we”-passages in Acts. The author presents himself as a companion of Paul, by switching to the 1st person on some of Paul’s travels/journeys using pronouns such as “us” and “we”.
3. The author is most probably either: Mark, Jesus, Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, or Epaphroditus.
In Paul’s prison epistles, there are a number of people who were with Paul while he was in a Roman prison. There is a definite probability that the author of Luke-Acts was one of them. Excluding the people already named in the “we”-sections, these people are named.
4. Luke’s absence in the 2nd and 3rd journeys.
Luke isn’t in the epistles of Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians and Romans. But since none of them were written during a period covered by a “we”-section, this corroborates the tradition.
5. The author’s use of medical terminology compliments Luke's profession as a physician.
The author includes and focuses more on medical-related instances than any of the other Gospels.
--- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES ---
1) Marcion (130-140 AD) most probably associates it with Paul (we can make this link by the fact that Marcion adopted Luke into his canon while believing Paul to be the only one true apostle/receiver of the gospel).
2) Justin Martyr (150-155 AD) attributes it to a follower of an apostle.
3) Theodotus (160-170 AD) links it to an apostle.
4) Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (160-180 AD) attributes it to Luke.
5) Muratorian Canon (~170 AD) attributes it to Luke.
6) Celsus (177 AD) indirectly associates it with a disciple.
7) Irenaeus (180 AD) attributes it to Luke.
8) Clement of Alexandria (~195 AD) attributes it to Luke.
9) Tertullian (207 AD) attributes it to Luke.
10) Julius Africanus (220-240 AD) attributes it to Luke.
11) Origen (~240 AD) attributes it to Luke.
12) Novatian (250-257 AD) attributes it to Luke.
13) Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) attributes it to Luke.
14) Treatise on Rebaptism (~255 AD) attributes it to Luke.
15) Dionysius of Alexandria (~255 AD) attributes it to Luke.
Furthermore: Authoritative references, quotes, allusions or traces of Luke-Acts can be found in:
- Clement of Rome (96 AD)
- Didache (80-150 AD)
- Polycarp (110-140 AD)
- Hermas (140 AD)
- 2 Clement (150 AD)
- etc. ...
* [ Continuation in the replies. ]
*THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN ( AD 85 - 96 )*
1) Written early, within John’s lifetime.
(Irenaeus, Eusebius & Jerome confirm John lived till AD 98. Judging by Polycarp's age and his association with John, it can also be concluded that John must've lived past AD 85.)
2) Most manuscripts ascribe to John.
3) No manuscripts attribute it to anyone other than John, so there's near unanimous agreement that John is the author.
--- INTERNAL EVIDENCES & CLUES ---
1. The author is most probably a Palestinian Jew.
- Understood & used the Old Testament.
- Was familiar with the Jewish customs.
- Was intimately acquainted with Palestinian topography.
2. The author is an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus.
- John 1:14
- John 19:35
- John 21:24
- 1 John 1:1 (It must be noted that the Johannine corpus - the Gospel & epistles - most probably share a common author)
3. The author is St. John the Evangelist.
- The author never mentions John the Evangelist by name, instead referring to him[self] as “the beloved disciple”.
- The author uncharacteristically identifies John the Baptist only as “John”, which may indicate that his audience knows how to differentiate the two Johns.
- The author identifies himself as 'the beloved disciple' who is one of the inner-3. Peter is clearly distinguished from the beloved disciple, and James died too early to be the author, so through the process of elimination, John is the only candidate.
--- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES ---
1. Ptolemy (140-150 AD) attributes it to John.
2. Epistula Apostolorum (~140 AD) attributes it to a disciple (and may indirectly hint at John's involvement).
3. Justin Martyr (150-155 AD) attributes it to an apostle.
4. Theodotus (160-170 AD) attributes it to an apostle.
5. Heracloen (~170 AD) attributes it to a disciple (and even clarifies that it's not [John] the Baptist).
6. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John (160-180 AD) attributes it to John.
7. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (160-180 AD) attributes it to John.
8. The Muratorian Canon (~170 AD) attributes it to John.
9. Celsus (177 AD) indirectly attributes it to the disciples.
10. Theophilus of Antioch (180 AD) attributes it to John.
11. Irenaeus (180 AD) attributes it to John.
12. Clement of Alexandria (~195 AD) attributes it to John.
13. Tertullian (207 AD) attributes it to John.
14. Hippolytus (~225 AD) attributes it to John.
15. Origen (~240 AD) attributes it to John.
16. Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) attributes it to John.
17. Novatian (250-257 AD) attributes it to John.
18. Treatise against Novation (~255 AD) attributes it to John.
19. Dionysius of Alexandria (~255 AD) attributes it to John.
Furthermore: authoritative references, quotes, allusions or traces of John’s Gospel & epistles can be found in:
- Ignatius (107 AD)
- Polycarp (110-140 AD)
- Papias (100-117 AD)
- Epistle to Diognetus (130 AD)
- Epistle of Barnabas (130 AD)
- Didache (80-150 AD)
- Hermas (140 AD)
- etc. ...
Wonderful video brother thank you so much
Could you do a video on the Mosaic Law and why it no longer applies?
I love your videos, man they have helped me. Also that music, I recognize it from a game that’s great!
wonderful video, just turn background musing a bit down pls
What puzzles me, is if Mark wrote down Peter's teachings, why does LUIKE, not Mark, mention after Peter denied Jesus thrice, the Lord turning to look upon him, and then Peter going out and weeping bitterly?
The leading answer I've heard is that Peter wouldn't want to include this embarrassing episode out of shame. I would recommend Testify's video on the traditional authorship of Mark where he makes the point further that we often see Peter try and shift blame off of himself in Mark.
Due to some more recent research, I have come to the conclusion that even your dating is probably too late. The research of John Robinson, Jean Carmignac and Claude Tresmontant, which was largely ignored, demonstrated that all 4 gospels were originally written in Hebrew or at least drew on Semitic language sources, which would point to an earlier date of composition before being composed in Greek. Robinson concludes that the entirety of the New Testament was completed before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tresmontant concluded that Matthew was written first *no later than A.D. 40* and possibly *within months of the Crucifixion* , while Carmignac held to Marcan priority, but held that it was originally written by a different scribe of Peter in a Semitic tongue before A.D. 40 and then translated into Greek by Mark when he was in Rome with Peter.
Can you give the name of their research.And is it available online?
Can you tell us where you found this?
@@mitchelli.o.9028 richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf
@@Nameless-pt6oj richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf
Yes. AT Robinson cited the plain fact that if such an event like the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem wasn't mentioned, it is likely those books were written BEFORE the fall of the city! richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf
Can I make one small critique IP? The best way to build timelines is to start with the broadest possible timeline and then to start slicing it down through process of elimination.
For example, you point out that some certain sources show that John could have been written between 66-96 A.D.
From there, I would suggest that you fuse other sources that begin to eliminate some of those dates.
But you actually did it the opposite way. First you pointed out the pool of Bethesda, and then you moved to sources that show a broader time line.
The key, though, is to fuse them both together. Start with the source that allows the broadest timeline (66-96 AD), and then combine it with the pool of Bethesda to eliminate any of the post 70 AD dates. Ultimately what you get, when you fuse all of it together, is that John must have been written between 66-70 A.D.
Mark and Luke must have been written between 59-62 AD
And Mathew must have been written either before 59 AD or some time within the 59-62 AD timeline.
Steve Bennett Thanks :)
Steve Bennett
Well, Paul wrote first a,d wrote his letters around 50/56 so we should not supose too close dates
Awesome video 😊
Absolutely Brilliant!
Great video! Very helpful.
In addition to all the evidence sited, the fact that ALL the ancient documents that include the relevant portions of the gospels have the names of the traditional authors on them in the form of "Titles" (According to Matthew, etc.). While this is not absolute proof that the traditional authorship is correct, it is additional evidence in favor of traditional authorship.
Will you still be doing a series on the individual books of the bible? Would love that!
My God! This is highly respectable and commendable work. Bless you.
Could you please provide the citation for Tacitus and Thucydides being published anonymously? As far as I know, this isn’t the case and I would really appreciate it if I can use this citation. Thank you.
He doesn’t name himself in the text. The likeliest place for a self-identification would have been in a preface (like the dedication at the beginning of Pliny’s Historia Naturalis) but we don’t have one for the Annales. This might be because he died before completing the work.
However we do know that (at least after the 5th century) the circulating edition contained both the Annales and the Historiae in 30 books: we can see this in a reference by St. Jerome to “Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote the lives of the Caesars in 30 volumes from Augustus down to the death of Domitian” which would have included both the Annales and Historiae. At least some of the manuscripts we have now are clearly parts of that combined edition: the oldest (11th century) manuscript of what we call book 2 of the Historiae actually ends
Cornelii Taciti liber octauus decim explicit
that is, “Here ends book 18 of Cornelius Tacitus,” because the 16 books of the Annales were regarded as part of the same work. It seems to have circulated under the title of Ab excessu Divi Augusti, “from the death of the deified Augustus.”
Both of the oldest manuscripts do explicitly attribute their contents to Tacitus, so we know that books 1-6 were attributed to Tacitus as early as about the year 850 and books 11-16 by the year 1000 or so.
-Comment from a Quora Article
Loving this series!
Share this vid to all Muslims who say our Bible is “corrupt”😂
Awesome information brother,you are doing a great service for the body of Christ.
Thanks Again. I think the John Rylands papyri fragment of the Gospel of John is dated 125AD almost as OLD as the original date of composition, 90---100AD.
Thank You for the video.
Brilliant
I’m a Christian myself but I have a question, how come do these Church Fathers recieve the information that the Gospels were all written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
Dude. This hurt my brain 😂
Great video as always. Really enjoying these videos. Keep up the great work, man.
Also, I have a question. Would ever consider making a video of your own personal testimony? Telling us how you found God? No great debates or anything like that. Just a simple personal testimony. I know it is not typical for you, but I would be interested to hear. So many of these youtube atheists like to post videos about how they lost their faith or something like that. I think It would be nice to hear one from the other way around from one of the most respected Christian minds here on youtube. Of course, I know such things may be too personal and if you feel that way then I understand.
And as always, keep up the great work, man. God bless you for all of the work you are doing for the Lord. I wish I could be a fraction as intelligent as you. God bless and thank you.
ParadoxicalRepetition Maybe some day, I don't like to pot things about me.
***** Ok, I understand completely. Regardless, keep up the great work and I can't wait to see your next video. God bless and thank you for all of your help.
Sean Armstrong It is simply something that helps others feel inspired. It is good to know that there are others out there that have faced similar challenges and have had similar issues and have come through. This is not confined to just Christians, either. Most people are like this. You are simply thinking that way because the word "testimony" refers to personal stories as they relate to God. But it is a universally accepted fact that hearing the stories of others helps others who face problems of their own.
Also, to a Christian, a testimony is a way to glorify and thank God for all of the good he has done in persona X's life. It is a way of worship and a way to publicly announce that God has entered your life and has made great changes in you. It's really just that simple.
So, in the end, it is basically this: 1) a way to publicly glorify and thank God and 2) a nice, inspiring, true story. If you don't like to hear that sort of thing, that's fine. But it is very odd that you seem so mystified by others enjoying it. I mean, I do not like romance movies. But my girlfriend loves them. Even though I don't like them, I am not mystified as to why she likes them so much, nor do I berate her about like them and tell her that since I personally don't like them, it therefore makes no sense that she does like them.
Sean Armstrong I....Didn't say anything about using testimonies as evidence. I simply said they are used as an inspiring form of worship and fellowship. I never advocate the use of personal testimonies as evidence unless you intend to make an argument that is supposed to be nothing more than a pure appeal to emotion. But even then, I hesitate to recommend it. A testimony is not meant to be used as evidence. It is only meant to be a form of worship, fellowship and personal inspiration. I am not sure where you got the idea that I was saying to use it as evidence because I did not even imply such a thing.
Sean Armstrong Fair enough. But, I would also like to argue that I have seen much of the same thing in reverse as they relate to atheists. I can not tell you how many atheists I have met that site personal tragedies or heartaches as evidence against the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. All we people like us can do is try our best to never let personal issues affect what we base our beliefs on and try to remain logical and fair minded in our thinking.
IP! IP! IP!
Thanks for this
picture of Papias isn't actually one of Papias (although it appears as though it is) but of st. Romuald whose feast day you posted the video on. nice "coincidence"
Excellent documentation and a logical and
There's a lot of stuff here. NT is one of my passions (I'm strongly considering a PhD in it), so I want to try to make everything as fair and objective as I possible can.
1. Maurice Casey was an agnostic, not an atheist. His student, James Crossley, who also dates Mark very early, is an atheist. Mark 13's date is independent of Jesus' deity (or lack thereof). The fact is that Jesus is describing a pretty general way that siege warfare was conducted at the time. Buildings were destroyed. The same issue appears with Luke, where Jesus gives a very general description of siege warfare. The persecutions are another issue, possibly related to Nero, but also possibly to earlier persecutions.
2. Irenaeus is actually quoting Papias with regard to Matthew and Mark. Papias, wrote a 5 volume series called The Exposition of the Sayings (Logion) of the Lord, of which we have almost nothing. Papias' material comes from the early 2nd century, by way of Polycarp, who probably knew John. Irenaeus, however, according to Eusebius, confused John the Apostle with John the Elder (Bauckham's candidate for Johannine authorship).
3. The Gospels probably first circulated with the names of the authors attached. They don't seem to have been later additions. That is, they said "According to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John." With regard to Luke, the letter that calls him an associate of Paul is disputed. Nobody knows if Paul wrote it or not.
4. According to Raymond Brown (among others), in the ancient world, it didn't really matter who wrote these documents. The authority behind them mattered. Therefore, attributing them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of whom were at least somewhat prominent in the early Christian mission, gives them authority. There are some issues with that hypothesis, which I'll point out later.
5. There's a good argument to be made that Matthew, at least, knows about the Temple's destruction. Mark may not, and Luke may, but not attach importance to it. Again, that's tenuous, but it's possible.
6. Matthew is writing to a Jewish Christian audience. That is, Christians who are observant of Jewish customs/traditions/etc., but believe in Jesus. Matthew ends with the risen Jesus commanding the disciples to evangelize the Gentiles.
7. Yes, the passion narrative in Mark is ancient. Mark is making use of a preexisting narrative, or at least parts of one. I think Brown argues this in the Death of the Messiah. Crossan, ironically, also argues this with his Cross Gospel idea (which has severe problems).
8. This is a commonly raised objection that I think is less convincing than a lot of people think. The second half of Acts is devoted to Paul's trip to Rome. Once Paul gets to Rome, the story ends. There's no need for it to continue. The purpose of the narrative has been fulfilled.
9. It's also been hypothesized that Matthew wrote a gospel called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which we have only fragments remaining of. That gospel could've been changed into Matthew. There are likely Aramaic roots of Mark, and possibly of Luke and Matthew (Casey's Aramaic Roots of Mark is a good source on this).
10. I promised I'd get to the issues with the authority hypothesis (apologies for length, but I wanted to be as thorough as I could be). John Mark is a very problematic character. He's left out of a mission by Paul, so Peter would possibly have been somewhat reluctant in taking him along. It seems odd that the early Church would ascribe authorship to someone so problematic.
themetsfan861 Yes, I would add those that Richard Bauckmann points out Irenaeus had other sources than just Papias. So he had other witnesses at hand.
I would disagree the 2D half of Acts is about just getting to Rome, but also being released so he can continue to minister and evangelize new areas, but Acts never gets to that.
Can you give some of the Aramaic roots of Mark?
Good points, thanks for the contribution.
*****
You're welcome, and the guy's name is Richard Bauckham, just for accuracy's sake. I would agree that Irenaeus had different sources too. With regard to the Aramaic roots of Mark, I would have to look through Casey's book on it a little more thoroughly than I have. One of the more striking instances, however, is when Jesus cries "Elohi, Elohi, lama sabacthani?," which is a transliteration of the original Aramaic. There are some other instances, but again, I have to examine Casey's book in detail.
themetsfan861 Yeah, I always want to say Bauckmann because I have a friend with that last name, so it always throws me off.
I have heard "Elohi, Elohi, lama sabacthani" used before. Some use that as an argument fro Matthew priority.
*****
I haven't heard that argument for Matthean priority, but to be fair, I don't know of many scholars who hold that view.
themetsfan861 John Wenham does and he lists several others in the opening of his book. I don't hold to it anymore, but I did at one time.
Presuppositions aside, one doesn't necessarily have to have supernatural abilities in order to read the signs of the times and make accurate predictions. Mark 13 is such a weak argument for late dating.
Matthew was probably written in AD 30-31. There are traditions that Matthew wrote at the scattering from Jerusalem, and if one works out the chronology of Galatians and Acts, one finds that the scattering occurred in AD 30, as did all of Acts 1-9. What is most interesting is when one reads Matthew's Gospel in this light. Everything comes into sharp focus. The gospel is thoroughly Jewish because the Gentile mission hadn't started yet.
most scholars date it much later. There were 3 major rebellious conquest of Jerusalem. Earlier ones before those. Jesus was probably like David Koresh trying to have his own kingdom. Paul's letters were like recruiting propaganda, and the gospels were a whitewashing and deification of a long dead rebel leader. No god was necessary, just people willing to create documents.
Most scholars...There are reasons beyond the text that drive scholars to date it late. Matthew is prior to 70 CE.
As FF Bruce, in his Are the NT Documents Reliable pointed out, "if Christians were embellishing the story of Jesus, there were people still living who would serve as a type of corrective to any myths about Jesus."
For Matthew's dates roughly 60-65 see John AT Robinson's "Redating the NT."
Th1nk3r I agree. To say that people would have been a corrective element(Sanchez's repeating of someone's apologetics) assumes those people had the political power to do so. Which was not the case.
Please keep up the good work. I look forward to part 5 an 6 (but please, that weird background music is very distracting.)
Nothing but straw men. No, Mark is not dated first only because of the temple prediction and it's being short, that's a hilarious oversimplification. Ehrman even admits that he thinks Jesus predicted the temple's destruction.
If Erhman admits that Jesus predicted the temples destruction, then that supports this videos arguments even more, for it means that it was written before 70 AD as the video claims.
@@Adrian-ri8my I should have been more clear, Ehrman admits that it's possible that Jesus predicted the Jewish Temple's destruction. Nevertheless, the historical Jesus making a prediction is much different than later gospel writers writing that prediction down, which could have happened anytime after.
Brian McFadden That is true, however it is unlikely as this video mentions that the prophecy was given, but was not stated as being fulfilled as the others had been. Since if the writers had fabricated the prophecy after the fact, they would say “Jesus predicted the temple destruction, and it has been fulfilled in the year...” But they do not do this, and instead write as if it had not yet occurred. Don’t get me wrong, it is still plausible that the prophecy is fake, but I believe the available evidence supports the authenticity of it more.
Brian McFadden But they mentioned the famine that was prophesied, even though that would have been common knowledge as well. And Mathew quotes scripture to show Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and those prophecies would also have been common knowledge.
Not to mention how the gospels and Acts speak of them in a positive light on multiple occasions, which they wouldn’t have done after the horrors of 70 AD. Also, they mention locations that wouldn’t have survived past 70 AD as if they still existed. So even if you believe that the writers not mentioning the prophecies fulfillment is evidence against its authenticity , that can be overcome by the surrounding context.
@@Adrian-ri8my What famine prophesy are you referring to? These texts are so poorly written, I don't think we should assume everything is going to have literary cohesion. They could mention one prophecy being fulfilled, but not the other: there's no requirement that they all be mentioned as fulfilled. Also, the temple being destroyed is not even an accurate prophecy: Jesus says "Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” but you can still see large sections of the temple, with stones stacked one on top the other, to this very day.
another great video.........but, are you saying the authors were at the event in their 20's and then wrote the books in their 70's-80's. Did they see with their own eyes or was it word of mouth and then they wrote their stories?
If you put debunking bart ehrman in your title you'd get massive views!!!!!!!
just go point for point and crush what bart is saying in his debates!
atheists unite Haha, I am sure, but i don't mention Ehrman so it would be dishonest to do that. Well, Mark and Luke did not see Jesus, but had to rely on eyewitness accounts. They were writing like investigative reporting, but John and Matthew did. I would say John was still a teenager when he became a disciple of Jesus, and according to the evidence i gave the synoptics were written about 30 years from the ministry of Jesus. So not that far off, except for the Gospel of John. It would be like reading a book on WW2 from a surviver who wrote in the 1970s, which has happen, and since the experience was life changing it more likely he or she could remember accurately. Add that to the fact that the Disciples continued the work of Jesus so they would have continued that work every day. Sorry, went off on a rant there.
***** "" It would be like reading a book on WW2 from a surviver who wrote in the 1970s""
I thought most scholars dated the stories about 50-60 years after, but doesn't matter.....i am absolutely not a biblical scholar.
Ok.........can we question any sentence of what a man wrote down 30-50-70 years after the fact? Do we have to follow what the guy said.......100%? These guys are just human, who can make errors.
Anyway......i've watched 2-3 debates by bart ehrman and in my mind he annihilates his opponents. I think you could get a ton of atheist followers if you directly address all of his points. Most of the time in debates the other guy does not address the points the other is making....(including atheists).....it would be interesting if you did.
atheists unite Yes, they can make errors, but that doesn't mean the whole story is wrong or the core important claims they are writing about. John could have gotten wrong the two Jesus preached in, but that would not threaten the overall message or change anything significant.
Well, In part 1 and 2 I address Ehrman's arguments directly:
ruclips.net/video/rml5Cif01g4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/WYEzxD2kcGQ/видео.html
I'll take a look at those videos.
Nice, so when one of the authors said women should not teach men and should be silent in church. We can disregard what that author or editor said because we've moved passed that in civilization.
We can disagree with what the authors said!!!!
Especially, if they're bringing up magical activities along side with ridiculous rules.
atheists unite It depends on what Paul meant. Scholar note Paul was responding to a cult in Ephesus and directly addressing what they said: ruclips.net/video/IQ44jx7J63g/видео.html
awesome bro
Can you do a video on evidence for jesuss miracles
John Mcgraw Yes, that will be the goal after I finish new testament reliability.
***** Please include the evidence from the Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin - Evidence it is authentic
Excerpt: In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html
Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old - video
www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101
The Sudarium of Oviedo
www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm
In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically.
New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - video
www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339
The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating:
Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow-brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm
Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory:
Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review:
Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/
This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers’ paper:
“Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. - Robert Villarreal
www.ohioshroudconference.com/
Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Press Release video
www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193
Now that the flawed carbon dating is finally brought into line, all major lines of evidence now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic.
***** I fell for the myth that mark was written in 70 ad. And you got me out of it,thank you
John Mcgraw Glad to hear it :)
***** I have this dire question on Facebook can you get back on it
If Lazarus isn't mentioned in the Synoptic gospels for his protection, that wouldn't explain why the miracle isn't mentioned at all. As you point out, the man who cut the soldier's ear off is anonymous in the synoptics and only named later in John. Why couldn't the raising of Lazarus have been likewise anonymous in the synoptics and later identified by John? And why doesn't John name the various other anonymous people in the synoptics?
Also, most of the rest of John isn't mentioned in the Synoptics either. The Synoptics don't mention Nathaneal, Nicodemus, the Beloved Disciple, or the woman at the well. They don't mention the turning of water into wine, the restoration of sight to a man born blind, or the healing of the man who had been lame for 38 years. They don't mention any of Jesus' "I am" sayings that are in John, nor any of his discourses. Nor do they mention the washing of the disciples' feet or the doubting of Thomas.
Are we really to consider that Jesus went around saying that he is God (e.g. "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father") and the authors of the Synoptics, some of whom were alleged eyewitnesses, simply forgot to mention this? Or they thought it wasn't important enough to include?
This is to speak nothing of the numerous inconsistencies and outright contradictions between John and the Synoptics (to speak nothing of between the Synoptics themselves).
***** I'd love to hear your take on identity in Christ, it's in my opinion a pivotal role in following Christ. Just would like to hear your thoughts on it, thanks for the videos!! :)
Bart Ehrman said a terrible thing. That Iraneus made up the authors name and muslims are taking advantage on that
Let me first state that I do believe that Jesus was God incarnate and had predictive power.
With that said, you don't have to assume Jesus had prophetic powers to point out that his prediction of the destruction of the temple probably predates the actual destruction. At least two pre-Christian Jewish texts (Daniel and I Enoch) make this prediction. Even if we accepted a purely atheistic mindset of Jesus being a human apocalyptic preacher without divine gifts such as prophecy he still would have made this prediction.
What's maddening is that most scholars, regardless of their worldviews, are aware of this but many of them still point to this prophecy as proof that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple. My only conclusion for this embrace is that they're so scared of attributing supernatural powers that they'll even ignore naturalistic explanations. I don't know.
Sean Armstrong I think you took away from my comment something that I'm not saying.
My comment is that scholars date the gospels post 70AD because they're too scared they might be attributing supernatural powers to Jesus. I'm condemning this practice that scholars (mostly atheists and naturalists) are doing. I'm pretty sure my comment is about as opposite to how you read it as can be!
My point is that the prediction itself predates Jesus. Therefore you can't use this prediction to argue for a late date for the gospels.
As to the supernatural side of things you still have two jewish texts accurately predicting the destruction of the temple bt at least two centuries and repeated by Jesus by several decades before the event.
My argument isn't that supernaturalists are grasping at straws. It's that the naturalists are and you can beat them here at their own game!
These people died because they new the truth and god will give them there great blessing when they come home,
If should be noted that first century church fathers referred to a Gospel of Peter, which we have copies of, but later fathers found it was not worthy of being canon. Furthermore, 1st century fathers refer to the Gospel of Matthew, but it is referred to as a collection of the Lord's sayings, not as a narrative like Mark or Luke is.
Additionally, Mark does write acknowledging that the destruction of the Temple had already happened, or was a very near future event. See his parenthetical after the prophesy saying "let the reader be aware", presuming only a fool would not be aware of the events described.
Furthermore, Matthew was indeed known for using a great many old testament passages to support his claim. However, close examination shows he did not know the context for many of the passages he used (see Matt 2:15 -> Hosea 11:1). Worse yet, he often shows a lack of understanding as to the geography of Judea, claiming certain cities were on the way to others, when in reality, they were far past the destination, or otherwise placing cities in completely erroneous places.
I would tend to agree about Matthew bring written to a Jewish audience centered at Jerusalem, although the example provided in the Field of Blood seems moot, since Acts also mentions the field, but wasn't written specifically to Jews in any capacity.
Based on the rest of the evidence presented here, it would be reasonable to come with the dates you have presented. As I mentioned, I would push Mark back at least to 65, and have a possible post 70 date. I would also argue that, since Luke wrote at the request of Theophilus, it would seem reasonable that Luke only included events in the timeframe he asked for, explaining the abrupt ending to Acts. Lastly, I would like to mention that there were two Gospels of Matthew, as I stated before. Sure, he could have written both, but I would be more willing to believe that the just sayings we lost to be his, considering the errors in Matthew itself, potentially pulling that date closer to our post 70.
Otherwise, great presentation! Good food for thought. I'll definitely be including some of this insight in future studies. In case it wasn't obvious, I have been writing this comment alongside the video, so if I repeat myself, forgive me.
+TheCinnaman123 Thanks for your insight, if I amy I wish to respond to some points:
Which first century church father referred to the Gospel of Peter and where? Only Crossan think the Gospel of Peter is very early, and a few others, the majority of scholars place it well into the 2nd century.
"1st century fathers refer to the Gospel of Matthew, but it is referred to as a collection of the Lord's sayings"
- You are thinking of Papias, who only calls it the logia of which it is debated what Papias meant by that term. He does not say it was a list of sayings. So can you clarify what you mean?
"See his parenthetical after the prophesy saying "let the reader be aware"
- Mark 13:14 is still in prophetic language. It is not saying this has already happened. Mark just inserts that for his audience. It in no way shows it already happened.
"see Matt 2:15 -> Hosea 11:1"
- I actually did a video on this:
ruclips.net/video/m9Msn2oHCso/видео.html
"he often shows a lack of understanding as to the geography of Judea, claiming certain cities were on the way to others"
-Like what?
"at the request of Theophilus, it would seem reasonable that Luke only included events in the timeframe he asked for"
- I don't think there is no evidence of a given time frame.
+InspiringPhilosophy To keep things brief, I'll just respond to each paragraph of your response in like manner. Enjoying the thought provoking discussion.
Clement, in particular, made the quote from the Gospel of Peter. Only since a manuscript was found can we confirm that this was a quotation, but the reference in fact can be found in 2 Clement 5:2-4. Perhaps the Gospel was written later, but Eusebius seemed to think there was religious significance there.
The logia is exactly what I am talking about, which might be the missing quelle in scholarship. This is the only time I am aware of that there is any writings directly attributed to Matthew. This is not to say that early fathers were not aware of what we call the Gospel of Matthew, as Ignatius quotes the text, but of the top of my head I can't remember him attributing the quotation to Matthew in particular. It should be noted that logia generally means oracles or divine insights, and is used in a few places in the New Testament to describe the sayings of Jesus, making it reasonable to assume that the logia is a collection of his sayings.
I can concede on this point, although I do still feel that he wanted the reader to make a connection there. I suppose we cannot really know the author's intent in this situation, though I at least feel that he is at least warning his readers of oncoming retribution from the Romans. Around 65 there must have at least been rumours and indicators of the Jewish revolt, which would at least be telling of the toppling of the great buildings referred to. Otherwise the parenthetical seems out of place or at least inserted later by a copyist, akin to 16:9 and on.
I don't believe the video linked to is the correct one. That video is about Jesus being a Nazerene not being referred to by any prophet. I would love to talk about the argument in that video, but that would be off topic.
I did misspeak when I attributed this error to Matthew, when the confusion lies more squarely on Mark. My apologies. Regardless, Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by Sidon, which would be a detour north of about 50km. Or the Gadara being several kilometers from any cliff overlooking an ocean. Other minor details can be found in other gospels, resulting in simply confusing routes across Palestine, but these are two most glaring.
I would think there is evidence for this proposition. For one, I would think that the Gospel of Luke ends rather abruptly. It seems odd that in this book he would not include the fulfillment of the commandment of Jesus in 24:49, but rather end with the disciples worshiping. It would seem that there was a specific request by Theophilus for the account to be made, and it would seem reasonable that he would have asked for an account of all Jesus' doings on Earth, which ended at the ascension, excluding his appearance to Paul.
>Even still, mentioning that Paul settled in Rome seems along a similar vein to the ending of Luke, in that it ends with an encouraging thought with as many people doing God's work joyfully as possible. Why would you include the downer of Paul and Peter being executed when people at this time needed to know that there is joy in serving God. I would have never considered the ending of Acts inappropriate even if the final fate of Paul or Peter was plastered on every corner. You want to remember the work a man did fondly? Then you don't need to talk about how bad his end was.
Great discussion. I appreciate the timely and thoughtful response. Send me the right link on the misused prophecy, and I'll be sure to watch it. Cheers!
TheCinnaman123 "Only since a manuscript was found can we confirm that this was a quotation, but the reference in fact can be found in 2 Clement 5:2-4."
- But does Clement say it existed? Could not the Gospel of Peter just have quoted Clement, since Clement was considered by some to be scripture?
" I can't remember him attributing the quotation to Matthew in particular."
- None of our early sources attributed them to the authors, that was a later custom that caught on.
"It should be noted that logia generally means oracles or divine insights"
- Right, but remember the Septuagint adapted the term logion to mean Word of God, and Philo considered the entire old testament logia. Acts 7:38 seems to suggest the first 5 books of Moses are logia. Romans 3:2 and 1 Peter 4:11 suggest the word can refer to the entire old testament. So Papias could have meant the entire Gospel. This is what Richard Bauckham points out in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses."
"That video is about Jesus being a Nazerene"
- My mistake, I would refer to the scholarship work on how New Testament authors quoted the old testament. They did not think Jesus fulfilled this, as we think, but to them it meant Jesus was living out the old testament to complete it. In a sense Jesus was re-enacting the strory of Israel in the old testament (out of Egypt, number 40 days/years in wilderness, entering the promise land, etc). Paul Copan has a good article on it, if you are interested: enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201302/201302_026_misquote_OT.cfm
"Regardless, Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by Sidon, which would be a detour north of about 50km."
- Now this one I do I have a video on, I did one very recently. We need to take a look at a topographical map before we accuse Mark of making an error, because there are mountains in the way: ruclips.net/video/PDDW4OCB6nQ/видео.html
"include the fulfillment of the commandment of Jesus in 24:49"
- Was this not covered in Acts though? So Luke did mention it, he just waited until the second book, because it was about the Apostles, not the mission of Jesus.
Where as Paul, was an apostle and his trial should have been included, if Luke was writing about the Acts of the apostles.
"in that it ends with an encouraging thought with as many people doing God's work joyfully as possible."
- It is generally agreed Paul was not planning on staying in Rome, as the letter to Philemon suggests. Once he was released he went back out again to preach. So why would such a pivotal moment be left out? It would have been the perfect ending, as finally Paul can continue his mission. You don't have to include the later execution, just that he was released and went back out to preach the Gospel.
I hope that answers your questions.
Certainly. This will provide a jumping off point for future studies. Thanks for taking the time to point these things out, and answer me so clearly. While I don't think we see eye to eye on every issue here, I feel this discussion was quite productive. Thank you very much.
Just a correction, 2 Clement wasn't written by Clement of Rome and dates c. 150 CE.
brilliant!! thanks for light our flame up tirelessly
Great finally
"The evidence for the authorship of the gospels is people 100+ years later telling us who the authors were." Utterly and totally laughable
Nope..Papias wrote in 125 AD which is less than 60 years from the original.
@@alangervasis Which is still not demonstrate evidence. Asserting someone you’ve never met wrote something you didn’t witness being written based on what other people said or wrote is insufficient to posit authorship.
@@XandrdC - The authorship is corroborated through the early church, resulting in the writings of those Church fathers. This is better proof than many other writings of the time, who evidentially no historian doubts. So, you're just applying significantly harder standards to the gospels, and not to other writings; Your bias is showing.
@@rockweirdo8147 Church fathers repeating the unsubstantiated claims of authorship don't corroborate the truth - it just perpetuates the initial assertions. Claims about claims are not evidence. Either way, bravo for the whatboutism + straw man. You have zero idea what standards I apply for other historical claims, but please spewing your ridiculous assertions. I need the laugh.
@@XandrdC - These claims are substantiated, as those peoples would have been the disciples or the disciples of the disciples, being corroborated by many other sources; That's how we decide on historical evidence.
Your claim that they are anonymous, would be against the manner in which we tell if something is or isn't from a specific writer, as we use other people's writings, even if they are from a slightly later time, if they would have better knowledge.
This is not whataboutism, this is being consistent, we shouldn't apply a different standard to writings we don't like. The fact that you're okay with applying another standard, shows me the pure bias that you're writing through. Think about it objectively, not through a neo-atheistic bias.
The Prophets, who came before Jesus, already knew that the second Temple was going to be destroyed. It’s in Daniel 9:24-26. Jesus was restating what the prophets already told them. The people just chose not to believe it.
Correct, the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple are predicted in the Old Testament quite a few times, including Isaiah, Zechariah and Daniel. It was standard in the eschatological narrative of the late Second Temple period. Jesus and the New Testament writers put a time limit on it: the First Century generation from 33 A.D. i.e. by 73 A.D.
Daniel does put a time limit of sorts on it with the 70 sevens, but that is not supposed to be taken as exact or literal, rather, it places the event in the far distant future from Daniel, and in the distant future from the time of writing and reading, about 150 B.C.
John the Baptist interprets and applies Daniel to Israel, the Pharisees and the Sadducees of his day, as an immanent judgment, as the kingdom of God is near and the ax is at the root to destroy Israel in fulfillment of Dan. 2 and 7. John the Baptist identifies the feet of iron and clay as Israel, and the Pharisees and the Sadducees of his day. Correctly, as this was the originally intended target of the judgment in Daniel.
The Lord applies Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12 to Israel of his generation and the fall of the Second Temple. Again, Correctly in terms of Daniel’s original message and audience.
Paul gives more details about the rebellion and the great tribulation of Dan. 7, 9 and 12 in 2 Thes. 2 and Rom. 12:19 - 13:4. The rebellion will be by a figure who arises from Israel and takes over the Second Temple, and it is a rebellion against Rome. The rebellion fails when Rome judges the rebel forces as God's agent of wrath bearing the sword and revealing the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven in flaming fire.
At 6:10 you said the majority of ancient biographies do not name their authors, but are attributed based on external evidence. This is very interesting to me and I've been wondering about this so I'm glad you mentioned it. Can you tell me where you got this info from? I'd like to use it to help defend against the claim that the Gospels are anonymous and therefore aren't reliable. And also, why would an anonymous history be deemed higher than a named one?
Thank you
I believe the Q source, if composed by Matthew originally during Jesus's ministry and in the years following His death and resurrection (so between 30 and 40 AD), is actually a good explanation for how the major pieces were preserved. As John 21:25 says, what we see in the gospels is only a part of what actually happened, so we can be sure they were only recording the parts they felt were the most important.
And while we shouldn't posit unnecessary entities, I just don't see all of the stories we read being preserved by just oral traditions. Thus I think Q is actually a favorable hypothesis for Christians, not inspired Scripture but an explanatory entity for what we see in them.
5:50 Hebrews was written late second century. Along with 1 and 2 Peter they did not make the Muratorian fragment.
There is a school of thought that says Mark was present at the Garden of Gethsemane, he was the man who fled naked when the Roman soldiers arrived. Only Mark himself would have known this.
That passage of the fleeing naked man is interesting, but then again, other early writers such as Papias (AD 95-110) have directly stated Mark is not an eye-witness of the Lord. So it renders that interpretation less probable in my opinion.
9:08 The Roman Martyrs would probably bite you or something .Imagine the persecution of Chinese Christians in the Boxer Rebellions being described as "the Chinese killing Christians" .
Thankyou for this excellent video. I shall post a link to it at non-christian Matt Baker's new video discrediting the authors of the Gospels..
IP, is it possible the writers simply wanted people to think the gospels were written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D? Good video, and thanks in advance!
Why would they care back then? There is no reason they thought it was as important as it is to us.
InspiringPhilosophy ok cool