Is the Bible Reliable?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- I often hear from skeptics and atheists on my channel who say that there’s no evidence for the things that Christians believe about Jesus. As soon as they are presented with the volumes of written material about the life and miracles of Jesus, including those of the New Testament, the immediate response is that those sources are inadmissible because they are written by Christians and this makes them biased and, therefore, unreliable.
The first problem with this objection is that it doesn’t follow. Just because someone believes the things that they’ve recorded, doesn’t mean that they aren’t telling the truth. In fact, that’s a pretty strange objection.
If I were an objective observer of the events of the events of Jesus’s life, and I witness miracles and his resurrection from the dead, I wouldn’t just record those events and then remain neutral. I’d likely become a follower of Jesus.
Saying you won’t believe in something without evidence and then refusing the evidence on grounds that it supports a position that contradicts your assumptions and then claiming that there is no evidence because you’ve refused any possible evidence that could be offered is a sure sign that the only thing that will satisfy you is your own prejudices.
The fact that there are hardly any sources about Jesus that talk about him the way tepid currents within secular society today talk about him is because our version of Jesus, the kind, semi-socialist, hippy, is not the Jesus of history. That version of Jesus is a modern invention fabricated from our own biases.
If Jesus really did the things that are claimed about him, then of course there wouldn’t be sources for him that just describe him as a groovy nomadic teacher and medicine man. The fact that nearly all the sources we have for them, which are substantial, describe him as a miracle worker, is evidence that… he actually was a miracle worker and a herald of the Kingdom of God.
Witnesses don’t take the time to document things that they aren’t convinced happened. So if someone were to witness the miracles of Jesus, and not be a hostile witness, they would, inevitably become a Christian which is why it’s logically incoherent to expect a non-Christian source to document the life of Jesus and include evidence for his divinity.
Dismissing historical sources of Jesus because those writers couldn’t help themselves but become his followers is like dismissing claims about Socrates because the primary sources we have for his unsurpassed wisdom are his students, like Plato.
It’s like you’re saying, I won’t believe those sources until they confirm my presuppositions.
The second objection stems from this idea that the New Testament has been relentlessly copied through the centuries which created thousands of variants in the texts which means they can’t be relied upon to tell us what the original writers recorders.
And this might sound incriminating at first glance until you understand what it means. Unfortunately, when people hear something like this, they tend to conjure up an image of children playing the telephone game which always produces a message that is distinct from the original. And, even more embarrassingly, I’ve heard this illustration used by skeptics to make their case.
In the game of telephone, you get a message secretly transmitted by one person at a time with no outside accountability or scrutiny. So this means that at any point in the chain, one person has complete control over the transmission of the message. If they are malicious or careless with it, it won’t be passed on accurately.
But in the case of the early manuscripts of the New Testament. They weren’t copied and then the original destroyed and nor where they copied once. They were likely copied multiple times which could have produced several variants but if a particular source has 10 copies and one of them has a variant, all we have to do is compare it to the others to see if they have it too and if they don’t, then we know that it’s a variant. Even if the original manuscript is lost, you can piece together what it said by the copies that were made from it in this way.
Something else to consider about the variants is that, according to Professor Dan Wallace and other Biblical scholars, 75% of them are spelling mistakes, 15% are variations of synonyms which don’t compromise the meaning, 9% are variants that do impact the meaning, but are from later translations and can be compared to earlier ones, and about 1% are variants that do impact the meaning from early manuscripts.
But, of that 1%, none of them affect the essential doctrines of Christianity, which Bart Ehrmen, who is often the source of skeptical positions, admits himself.
Twitter: / briankeepsworth
Facebook: / brianholdsworthmedia
Business: www.holdsworth...
Ironically in this case believing is seeing.
Ex atheist, now believer! 👌
I ask too.
+Blake Galey Start simply. Find a non-prescription study group. Or just read the New testament (one book at a time) and discuss its pros and cons with a trusted friend. Try a rip it to shreds, challenge your intellect and what you read 📖.
Seek and you shall find.
@@plusbonus9017 so you do you belive in evolution?
+Blake Galey Yes Blake, I would be deluded not to.
The books of the bible are not a scientific journey but a spiritual compass.
I have been humbled to count my self among minds immeasurably superior to mine who find Wisdom and direction in the history and teachings of the Book.
@the Lost Q I dont know about the other person but what helped to change my mind from athiest to open minded searcher to believer was this; When Jesus was being beaten and dragged around by the Roman soldiers his (saintly!!!)disciples did what any of us would've done , ran and hid !
"hey buddy If your really the Son of God , you got this ".
The sheer human cowardice adds truth to the message. Anyway , they all hide and deny Christ because he's dead right. They saw the cross and shit themselves (you dont play games with the Romans).
Then three days later , after appearing to a WOMAN first, then the disciples ,they knew they had the genuine deal with them !
They then spent the rest of their lives spreading the experience to anyone and everyone till the day they died (horribly)for their knowledge.
If Jesus hadn't emboldened them with his post death presence this sect would have faded into the Palestine dust.
Their newfound courage enabled you and I to search for the truth.
Regards Renny.
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
@bucketsandshims ✌
@El Pacificador What?
So evidence is not necessary for Christiainty? So why don't you believe the prophet Muhammad?
@@arussell-bishop4438 if you were an attorney, you’d know that multiple forms of hearsay are indeed admissible in courts of law, and virtually all hearsay is admissible in non-judicial administrative proceedings. Furthermore, all hearsay is by definition, evidence. Whether it’s admissible is the next question. I declare all contemporaneous hearsay contained in the Bible admissible.
@@arussell-bishop4438 perhaps you are not a lawyer and don’t understand how the Rules of Evidence function, including hearsay evidence and the 28 (depending on jurisdiction) exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Such as
1 Excited utterance.
2 Contemporaneous account.
3 Past recollection recorded.
4 Indicia of reliability.
Etc etc…
We need a video on the history of the Rosary and the Jesus Prayer!
I second this, the Rosary the most powerful weapon we can use
So true,. You put it so elegantly in your explanation. I often hear a skeptic tell me that there is no evidence, then I will point to evidence - then they will deny the evidence and say they need to investigate on their own. I will then ask if they will likely investigate on their own (so that I can send them some resources to help get them started), and they will say it is not worth their time. This goes to show that the apparent objections given are not often the real reason behind the reason - it is a heart issue. Once someone decides that it is important enough, they will start to investigate and see the fallacy of their original objections.
What you point to as evidence is hearsay, Brian skips over the fact that the Bible was not written by the apostles the ones who were supposed to have witnessed the events but decades later by people who have had these stories handed down to them so I guess that it comes down to how much weight you put on hearsay as being actual evidence of anything, and then even if for some reason you but a lot of weight in hearsay as being credible evidence of something you then have the issue of the Gospels containing material that contradicts each other. So now you have variously handed down tales which contain material which contradicts itself in parts as the evidence.
@@blindtruth4614 A lot of history (like 99 percent) is based on 'hearsay.' If history were forced into courtroom-like burdens of proof, we would have no idea what our forefathers did for us.
@@blindtruth4614 I think you are reading into my comment what is not there. This is not a court room, but a youtube comment section. I never suggested that the evidence spoken of was proof of my religion. It is hearsay to you, but not to me. In other words, I am saying that the experiences of interactions that I have had with several skeptics as well as what I have heard from some others act as evidence to me - not the kind of evidence I would expect to convince others, but just convince myself.
I do have objective and verifiable evidence which points me towards my faith that no one can deny - though not being able to reasonably deny it does not mean they will believe. In fact, that was the very point of my first comment - which you seemed to miss as a general point. I specifically said that I offered evidence to skeptics (not hearsay proof), and that they did not care. I am not sure how you missed that part.
As for your accusation of the Bible being hearsay, this is a common myth that has been debunked over and over again. The gospels were written while many of the people in the stories were still alive - the gospels themselves even make mention of this. An account is not hearsay if it can be verified by multiple people and accounts - both adversaries and allies. Perhaps you should read the Gospels in this 2019th year of our Lord, Jesus Christ. They don't change an entire calendar system over a simple hearsay fairy tale.
Lastly, you accuse Brian of 'skipping over' some detail that your smart detective skills picked up. You cannot honestly expect someone to cover every single detail in a short youtube video. Anyone who makes such content has to pick and choose what to leave out - it's not some sinister plot lol.
@@CatholicK5357
Keith as the gospels are not written by the people who originally spoke then and are known to have been passed down by oral tradition it is hearsay but that does not mean that they might not be kept pure and taught word for word when doing so even if I very much doubt it (look at how Goliath grows over time for example) but perhaps they were, if these scriptures are evidence to you then that is perfectly fine and do not let me or anyone else for that matter tell you otherwise, I do appreciate how much faith can mean to you, I recall how real it felt when I was a Christian myself. It is a very fine lime to try and respect the person who has the belief while still being able to discuss what I see as being wrong with that actual belief without offending the believer.
@@blindtruth4614 I don't think it is true that the gospels were not written by those who were there - or at the very least not all of them. Some of them are even introduced in a way that shows it as the testimony of one of the Apostles who walked with Jesus. That is why it is often referred to as 'the gospel according to...'. Much of the old testament was first passed down in oral tradition before being written down - and then was written out of fear of losing their identity once in Babylonian captivity. The new testament however was written down as witnesses were still alive, meaning that it was both written and oral in the way that it was handed down. We also don't just have the four gospels (chosen out of the many apparent writings which were provable as being authentic), but we also have the letters from St. Paul, the other Epistles, the vision of Revelation from St. John the Apostle, the book of Acts and so on. It was actually very important at the time to systematically approve certain writings while rejecting others, because heresy was just as rampant then as it is now.
Scriptures are evidence to me, but not the only evidence. I also have the lives of the Saints, the documented and investigated Catholic miracles (incorruptible bodies, Eucharistic miracles, flying Saints, and so on). Everyone has a certain amount of evidence they need to convince them of one thing or another - and eventually once that is met, one has to take a leap of faith, whether in choosing belief or unbelief. I see the evidence provided as a package deal that all fits together. Faith to me is not always a feeling. I learned long ago to not rely on my feelings and emotions because they are fleeting and so easily change. I experienced what you might call a faith feelings burnout as a former evangelical. Once the feelings were gone, I had to put the pieces back together and decide if my faith was only due to feelings, or something more. Hopefully the feelings will come back one day, but I still believe.
I do appreciate your attempt at being respectful as well as your lack of pretension in your response.
One of the reasons we know so much about Jesus is because of the writings of his enemies - those Jews who did not accept him as their Messiah but especially Romans of his day.
@Voice of the Wizard The philospher, Mara bar Sarapion, the historian Flavius Josephus, Pliny the younger, is more generous towards Christians, acknowledging their seemingly high moral principles. Whereas the historian Tacitus wrote in the first century that Christians seemed to be for the most part, criminals and that the founder of the Christian religion had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate (who also commented on Christ) under the reign of Tiberius. The writer Suetonius also considered Christ as an insurgent. For Jewish sources, research the Talmud. There are many, many negative examples of Pagan, Jewish and Roman accounts of Christ, including the Roman census of Jesus' day. If you would like to seriously research them, this is a good place to start: www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/jesus-christ#A._Pagan_Sources
@Voice of the Wizard perhaps it is because i come from a place of belief. I shall stand, one day, before Christ and am saved. I hope you are too because life here on earth is short compared to what happens to us after. May you read Matthew 25: 1-13 with belief and conviction. I shall pray for you and God Bless.
@Voice of the Wizard Thanks for your nice words. This life is indeed beautiful and precious but have you also considered that there are archaelogical proofs? eg: We know a lot about Kind David from excavations that happen to tie in with the Old Testament history of David. The Pontius Pilate stone, 26 - 30AD (about the time of the crucifixion).
I should also have mentioned The Early Church Fathers, who wrote a lot. Their work is useful for textual criticism of the Bible, especially the Gospels where we have a faithful account of the life and times of Christ as found in the New Testament.
@Voice of the Wizard hmmm - all valid points. I wonder if you would like to find out if God is real? If so, you can simply ask The Holy Spirit for the gift of faith. Pray, pray and pray again, always with an open and contrite heart. It worked for me when I asked a group of Christians to pray over me. My husband even asked me, at the time, whether I had experienced anything (like a thunderclap!) but nope, nothing. Over the following weeks though, I realised I did not doubt anymore and felt incredibly at peace, knowing Christ was with me. I can't prove it, but despite that, I know that I would rather feel the way I do now, than the doubter and scoffer I was before. Finally, read Galatians 5:22-23.
Great video! I love the format of your videos and how well-thought your arguments are. It reminds me a lot of Bishop Barron's early material on RUclips, which was one of the things that got me back into Catholicism. It brings me so much hope that people like you and Barron are fighting the intellectual war on the side of the Church. We need more of that and less of the "feelings are everything" approach which completely discredits the rich intellectual tradition of our religion. Honestly, thank you for all you do, Brian! Keep it up!
Bishop arron is a bit too pc though. This guy is calmer and more thoughtful yet doesn't fear being truthful
Could you show me a video where Barron is debating someone? Everyone says that Barron is an excellent defender of the faith. However, I have yet to see the evidence.
What do you mean by "debate," @Gaius Claudius Glaber? I ask because the current connotation of that term indicates more of a standoff duel, two people going head to head. There are videos of Bishop Barron discussing with non-Catholics in quiet debate, where he listens carefully, then repeats it back to make sure he understands what was said, then he presents Catholic teaching. That's dialogue. I know it upsets some people to dialogue with others. I suppose their faith is to be admired, even if their diplomacy skills could use some tweaking.
@@kimfleury Please share the debate.
Pretty sure we have worse justification for our works of Shakespeare than for The Bible. You can't even make Hamlet coherent as a story if you use the full text, a composite of multiple copies, that we have for it.
People haven't gone to war over Shakespeare though...
@Anton Babani did Crusades happen? 🤔
@Anton Babani so why wasn't there a crusade as soon as the Holy Land was attacked? Why weren't there Crusades into Scandanavia when Britain was attacked in 9th century?
@@rat_thrower5604 even Wikipedia as a real good summary of the events. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Thank you. We now have two volumes of books that are unreliable. That doesn’t make the Bible reliable.
Hey, Brian. Could you start listing your sources in the description? That would help me spread that truth with better credibility. Thank you in advance
the actor @ 2:53 is a cool dude. met him on set!
Another claim many people make is: "Why we have only four Gospels if so many people met Jesus?".
Assuming everybody in the I century A.C. perfectly knew how to read and write and had enough money and will to write a book and didn't want to just collaborate with the four canonical writers in writing a smaller number of more complete texts.
Actually there were more gospels (Gospel of Thomas, etc.). The bishops who had the responsibility for selecting the books of the New Covenant did not view them as inspired, so they were left out of the canon.
@@paulmiller3469 These are the Gnostic gospels. I can assure you, that if you were knowledgeable in Gnosticism, you would understand why they were considered contrary to Christian teaching. Gnostics were dualists, they believed that the physical world was bad and that the spiritual is good. This is reliant on Platonic belief. However, if the Spiritual is good and the physical is bad, then why did God resurrect back to the physical world? If death is the great escape from the struggles of the physical, it is illogical that the resurrection of Lazarus or the the resurrection of Christ are good. However, essential Church teaching shows that that is not the christian belief. It is good that God took physical form, and that claim is contrary to Gnostic theology. Along with this, Gnostics believe the God of the old testament was Evil, and that New Testament God is good. However, the teachings of Christianity show that God is goodness itself, so God by definition cannot be evil. It is not that Gnostics were dissenting Christians, in reality, they were imposters, taking the figure of Christ and warping him into a platonic deity.
@@paulmiller3469 Canon?
@@htoodoh5770 Yes, the books and epistles that the Catholic bishops in the fourth century determined are inspired, which all mainstream Protestant denominations today accept in terms of the New Covenant. There is today some renewed interest in gnosticism, as Nicholas mentioned, but I chalk that up to ignorance and the continued floating away of some Protestant boats from the Catholic flag ship, into questionable and, in this case, wholly unchristian waters.
Also the church chose which gospels they would include in the bible. There are many non canonical gospels that say completely different things.
Of course the Bible is reliable. We have absolutely no other hope for mankind, other than the truth found in the Bible.
Man is a sinner in the sight of a Holy God. It has been proven that man can do absolutely nothing to please God or to achieve the standard which God requires to save himself from wrath and the Lake of Fire after the great white throne of judgement.
The Bible is the only book which gives us the way - provided by God - for our deliverance and salvation. THAT IS GOD HIMSELF.
The Bible is about Jesus Christ in 'type' or in actual record, from the start of the Bible to the end in Revelation. It shows how God the Father has in His purposes and counsels from eternity past, planned it that the redemption of mankind should be accomplished in Christ Jesus. All the Old Testament types which Israel lived by were 'shadows' of Christ in His person or in His character or what He would accomplished in Himself when He came into this world in human form approximately 2000 years ago.
It then tells us that God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, took on human form to die a sacrificial death to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, in fulfillment of the will and purposes of God, to the complete satisfaction and glory of God the Father.
When you come to the New Testament, the teachings of the apostles show us how God the Holy Spirit who has been sent from Heaven by the exalted Christ, now indwells the believing sinner and is the power by which we come into the good of what Christ has done for the glory of God the Father. It goes on to tell us how the Holy Spirit joins us to Christ, the Head of the Body in Heaven, and that we are 'living stones' forming the Body of Christ here on earth and that we are a habitation of God by the Spirit. It also reveals the future blessings of the Christian church as well as the blessings which God will bestow on the believing remnant of Israel during the Millennial reign when Christ comes back to earth as the Son of Man to judge the Beast and Antichrist and also the gentile nations and set up His kingdom reign for 1000 years.
IT IS THE LIVING WORD OF GOD. It is completely up to date and the remedies for sin and for life practices are shown clearly therein.
Why then does mankind not appreciate the Bible? Simple. The Bible is a spiritual book. It can only be spiritually discerned by those who are born again of the Spirit of God and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Truth. The Bible is God inspired through the Spirit, and therefore can only be understood through Him.
When the natural man, or the ungodly man tries to understand it, they just come up with 'rubbish'.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of God will endure for ever.
Thank you, this really helps with one of my debate preps for a class I'm in. Really good stuff and well conveyed
@Brian Holdsworth Good video. I was wondering if you could give a list of recommended books to deepen my knowledge on Catholicism (besides the Bible and the Catechism). I have a few books already, but, in your opinion, what should an ideal Catholic have in his/her library? Thanks in advance.
Are you interested in documentaries? About marian dogmas, papal infallibility, salvation, and so on...
@@PedroAntonioLea-PlazaPuig Books every Catholic should own. The "must haves"
Really love your videos Brian. You express things that I was thinking myself and I'm encouraged by your thoughts. Keep it up, want to see you viral!
Bible is written with the inspiration of Holy spirit . It meaning resignates with direct experience of Christianity. Meaning is beyond human logic. You can find many prophecies about Christ in the old testament written 1000 years before Christ. My point it is not book that can be just approach with cold human logic.
Great video, Brian. Great points and well-explained. Keep it up! Subscribed, liked, and followed on RUclips and Facebook. May Our Lord bless you and your family. Peace.
I've never found historical arguments very convincing because of the nature of the thing does not permit any reasonable certainty. I think what we today have which is of divine origin the church and the scriptures by examining them and seeing the goodness and wisdom and consistency can be a testament to veracity.
Which version Bible do you use and why?
Important to note that the four canonical gospels were all written in Greek - while Jesus of Nazareth followers Matthew and John were illerate Aramaic speakers. Moreover an early church leader iraneus was the arbiter of saying who the authors were.
The authors themselves didn’t tell us - they wrote them anonymously.
Βut the problem is that the gospels are not eye witness acounts, this has been proven. And even if they were, there are so many contradictions that you can't be sure about who Jesus really was. Jesus never called himself God, only in the Gospel of John he talked about his divine nature.
Intelligent presentation!
You deserve more subs. Finally, an unapologetic christian channel! God bless!
Interesting, but sometime we heard that the exact same reasoning could be applied to many other religions and cults. How would you respond to that?
This channel is super underrated.
And what to make of Backward Christology -the concept that as time went on, Jesus followers made even grander claims of his divine nature.
1. Before written gospels - the early tradition was “exaltation christology” - a regular human dies and becomes a god at death. This is plain vanilla mythology of the time.
2. Then in Mark gospel - the story morphs a bit and Jesus is adopted as son of god by god at baptism by John the Baptist. Again - this is common in myths of the time. So here when Jesus is crucified- he is already god.
3. Matt and Luke push the divine nature of Christ yet farther back by putting a birth story to Jesus - though they baldly conflict with each other. But here again a god impregnating a human was common plot line in myths of the day. So now - the whole time Jesus is on earth - he is god.
4. Finally in johns gospel - Jesus has been divine and sitting next to god since beginning of time.
Unfortunately then - it seems the clear answer is that “No” the Gospels are not reliable in a historical sense
Degrees Of Faith:
- Low faith (miracle, positive thinking, hyper-grace) -> New Believers
- High faith (Stephen, Paul, Jesus disciples, suffering to die and as if God does not help) -> Mature Believers
"As if God does not help"
What does this mean? From what I have read from the saints, it's more like "as if I do not help".
I find it very odd to see Stephen and Paul excluded from the category of "Mature Believers."
i think theres a difference between accepting history (or your comparison to knowledge of the ancient world) and relying on old, non-specific text that misses a lot of context in order to determine how to specifically live our lives in a modern world where some of these matters are life or death
Step 1- assert that supporting evidence exists
Step 2- provide no evidence
Step 3-???
Step 4- profit
He should have cited sources. I think he was doing simply an overview, but it is still lacking.
I’m catholic and agree for the most part but I am curious if we used this same method when approaching any other historical text such as the Quran, that we’d gain the same conclusion
Brian do you have a video about the deuterocannocicals? Thanks.
are you ironically trying to look like jesus?
Lol!
You think Jesus had long hair?
Is the Qur'an reliable? Could you not use the same arguments to support Muhammad's night journey?
Nope, because Muhammad was the only "witness". Already believing Muslims at the time said, "what do you mean, you were in your tent last night"
Also important is timing of writing of canonical gospels. All of which were done after Paul’s letters were written in the 50s.
So these were documented 35 to 60 years after Jesus death - so direct quotations from Jesus should be taken with salt grains.
The better analogy than a “game of telephone” is to think back to some significant family event from 1992. Then go back and ask 3or 4 family members at the event to give you their recollections - kind of like a witness would. There will be differences in there recollections - without a doubt. That’s just to get one gospel - not the four canonical variants.
God bless. Christ saved me and still is
He made a decent argument for accepting that most of what the Bible says today expresses what the original authors wrote. That doesn’t in any way make what they wrote accurate. They were not eye witnesses, and there is no way to know their motivation for writing what they wrote. What we DO know is that Paul (who never met Jesus) wrote first. Then the author of Mark wrote. Then the authors of Mathew and Luke plagiarized Mark. So, getting to understand what was originally written does not get us to reliability of what was written. Just because I can find an ancient text that talks about Zeus, doesn’t mean it is reliable proof that Zeus was a god. This video is clearly meant to convince believers to keep believing. It does nothing to convince a neutral party to believe. I assure you. If I am presented with a rationally convincing reason to believe in any god, I would believe in that god. Clearly, this video falls far short.
This video is not meant to be a rational reason to believe that a god exists
around the year 116 tacitus did write about the incident of nero blaming the Christians for the burning of rome, but he doesn't talk about jesus and his miracles. I believe jesus existed but the evidence for the miracles and Christian theology is sketchy at best because of a dearth of corroborating testimony and contradictions in the bible. if you tell me you've experienced Christ I believe you. but, if you say "I can prove jesus walked on water. was born of a virgin or rose from death," then i'd say you're skating on mighty thin ice.
Not sure where you are finding these atheists, but the copying of manuscripts is not really where the telephone game comes in. It’s before that. It’s the generation or two of recruitment, conversions, etc., before being written down by people who weren’t there.
The copying of manuscripts, to me, is a non issue, peaked a thousand years later, and does little either way. Since we can see 80% of Mathew and Luke were copied from Mark. Who we know weren’t Matthew, Mark and Luke anyway and who don’t claim to have been there.
And John, a hundred years on, doesn’t claim to have met Jesus, but a vision he thought was Jesus.
Even if we had an original signed manuscript actually written by someone who went through those times with Jesus, we would still be left with a story to evaluate.
The world is full of stories the author claims to be true but that we know aren’t. How can we stake a belief in the supernatural on a 2000 year old story by people who weren’t there and that had a generation or more of telling and retelling to get to the version written? I don’t get how this is enough for people.. surely you must have doubts too..?
I would like to see you on EFDawah channel since you have the knowledge.
Religious authorities were not happy to dispense with the Old Testament altogether, since it had supported and kept them together throughout their history. In the interests of preserving what they thought to be valuable in the old dispensation, they suppressed any description of the "person" Jesus was.
Religious authorities built their own edifice of "sacred beliefs" on what they wanted to preserve from Jesus' life and teachings. They only taught and consolidated what they deemed to be valuable to people.
Consequently, they distilled what they could use and they "let go" most of what Jesus termed the "secrets of the Kingdom of God" for they never understood them. Nor found them desirable in the creation of a new perception of the Divine, the Father.
To preserve the belief in "salvation from punishment for sins" by means of sacrifice, the "person of Jesus" was adopted as the "supreme" sacrifice who had paid for men’s sins by his crucifixion.
It gave Jesus' death on the cross a valid and heroic reason. It proved to the people that Jesus was the "Son of God" who had carried out a specific mission to the very end of his life.
This belief also proved to be of great comfort.
Consequently, it was greatly comforting to hear that "Jesus Christ" had overcome death and retained his body. Too much human thought, life was not possible without a body. Therefore, life after death could only mean the resurrection of the body.
It also kept Jesus' name constantly alive in the minds of people. Jesus was the "historic figure" who had valiantly died to ensure that men should be freed of all fear of hell and damnation. Providing they believed in "Jesus," they could walk as "freed men."
That´s not the point ( for me ). The problem is this:
«I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.»
John ,16: 12
What are those many things that Jesus say that the disciples could not "bear them now"? They are important things that are not written in the bible but we needed so much to know! What is missing in the christian narrative that we do not know?
And yet, we seem to know everything about all subjects! But something very important is missing and we don´t know because Jesus didn´t think that we could handle it! So,...what is missing?
Thank you as always please cite the artist @ 1:42! Be well!!
You're welcome. It's Alexander Ivanov.
Like the video, crazy I'm going to film a video about the Bible too 👍🏼
I remember kids bragging, after the fact, that they had totally changed the telephone game message to things like “farts are funny”
Nice video, with facts.... I am tired of all "American" fundamentalistic spin on these questions.
This video sorta relies on the Bible being written by eye witness which it is not
He describes exactly what Christians do. This is so flimsy and in parts just wrong in his assumptions
This is a good video. It simply explained why the biblical text is trustworthy.
One commentary I would like to hear is on the use of “you” in old and New Testament. The concept of the individual separate from a group identity was unknown until about 15-16th century, or so. My Q is when scriptures refer to “you”, Americans assume scriptures are addressed to them , personally. I don’t believe it. Scriptures are addressed to “you all” ... as a matter of explaining it.
There are a LOT of examples in which individuals were addressed and identified in the OT. God routinely had conversations with individuals from Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, and on an on.
Brian Holdsworth - thank you .. but my question is not asked well. .. even to this day , there is not an a individual identity among Jews. If one sinned, it is considered a wrong against the entire community. When the Prophets spoke they spoke to the entire people of god. There was not a teaching of individual salvation. The entire people of god were responsible for each other in there relationship to god the father. My question asks how often Jesus addresses the individual and how often he addresses the people of god. There was no individual identity at the time of Christ as there is today. If in bringing the message of the messiah, Christ always spoke to the individual, then he would be greatly misunderstood. As Catholics were alwats taught that our faith is not ours alone. When we sin, we sin against all. That Christians share in the guilt and wrongs of others. This carries the shared redemption tradition.
Great as always, Brother
The only sources we have are the gospels, theres absolutely nothing written about jesus when he lived thats independent
What do you mean by independent? You mean someone who is neutral or agnostic about the events. Well, imagine two people witness someone come back from the dead and they both write about it separately. In what world is someone going to speak about that in agnostic terms? Only a deranged person could witness something like that and commit themselves to neutrality on the subject. They will either be hostile to it or converted by it. The hostile ones did their best to suppress the story or fabricate an alternative. The oral history of the Jews, as well as the Talmud, describe Jesus as a sorcerer and the son of an adulterous woman who seduced a Roman soldier. The only other neutral references to Jesus come from non-witnesses, because only non-witnesses would take a neutral position - and yes, those do exist (Celsus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar Serapion, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc).
Why did I never think of this contradiction.
You have to ignore so much to be a Christian or Muslim, as for 900 year old Noah bouncing around, well thats just ridiculous
Excellent argument.
Professor Gary Habermas: "Christianity is on very firm grounds... that Jesus' disciples were willing to die for their faith, which virtually no one will dispute. This shows that they at least believed that their message was true... James was a part of Jesus' family... not only didn't believe Jesus, but thought he was mentally disturbed... (see Mark 3:21; cf 3:31, too)... critics agree that James came to believe from a skeptical mindset.", see garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#hist
the bible is not evidence because the bible is the original source of information where the claim of god comes from. using the bile as evidence is like saying god is real because god is real
The Bible isn't an argument for God's existence and nor is it a sole, original, source for such a claim. The Bible is a revelation from God in the context of a people who already believed in divinity. Every culture, outside of the Biblical context has had some understanding, rational and otherwise, of God.
@@BrianHoldsworth interesting, I'll keep that in mind.
Great work Brian
but, the fact remains that for the first 100 years of Christianity there is no definitive corroborating mention of it by non-Christians. and, sure, it makes sense that most of the chroniclers would have themselves been Christians, but, not even one mention by a non-believer? many other religions and movements were described by non-participants. plus, there are so many examples of unresolvable contradictions in the new testament.
That means every supernatural claim from every religion is true, like Islam 's claim are true.
No it doesn't. In fact, it underscores what's different about the Bible. Again, the NT was written within the context of a community (multiple authors who were known to the community) and in tandem with an existing oral tradition (also known to the wider community). The Quran was written by one person based on what they claimed to have experienced. IOW, the narrative was completely controlled by one person giving it the same weakness as the telephone game. It wasn't written by eye witnesses or a community based consensus. This is how a plethora of cults find their origin. The distinction is carried further by the fact that other religious texts are written like myth, not within the context of history.
Brian: This is a good video, but I think it is more important to give solid evidence for the Jewish origins first and foremost, show that Christ fulfilled all prophecies, philosophically prove that miracles may indeed happen, philosophically show the necessity for a savior in the fallen nature by way of Thomism, THEN show the truth of the Gospels. It will help.
Most of the "prophecies" about Jesus in the New Testament are Old Testament quotes mistranslated and/or taken out of context.
Not at all. Well first you have to understand, as I say many times in my own vids, that it was written by countless people over centuries separate from each other. And translated through the cultures. And parts may be based on historical events--to an extent. But it has also been modified for the Hebrew culture and later the early Christian viewpoint. The virgin birth is not novel to Christian faith. Neither are the Ten Commandments Christian nor Hebrew. Or the flood story which is neither Christian nor Hebrew. And the real problem is where is the actual evidence for the supernatural? Or actual authorship of witness to Jesus? There is none thus far and period, end of story. Cheers, DCF
But there's no evidence of supernatural activity...out of all the years of life besides in the early centuries when people were unaware how to describe what they were seeing in a logical view.
There's many events in the last century, ranging from a few witnesses to tens of thousands, which some would explain by saying it was supernatural activity. Are you saying those people are not using logic to describe what they saw?
From what I've seen, skeptics will remain skeptics until some scientist can create Jesus in a lab, and even then, they might argue the experiment wasn't controlled or repeatable.
"The ancient sources are bad therefore Christianity is true."
Awesome Teacher!
Illogical on many levels.
Well said.
The short answer is no
Awesome content man, keep it up!
As always, great job.
No.
Great points. Thanks so much
Great.. Blessings
Another inspiring video!
Don't waste my time and tell me ; Which one is True (2. Kings 24:8 or 2 Chronicles 36;9 ). 😜. Both? ? I want make assumptions?? Religion on assumptions??? 😜.
but you didnt adress the fact that the bible is written anonymously decades after jesus christ and the writers coppied from eachother
Written accounts of historical events from within decades is considered extremely reliable compared to a lot of what we have for other historical precedents. They were not anonymous at all. Everyone in the Church knew who wrote them and that's how they became associated with their authors. Lastly, there's nothing wrong with copying each other, but even then, there's no evidence that they did other than the similarities that exist in their accounts. This is a ridiculous argument though. If their similar, people complain that they copied each other. If their different, they complain that they don't corroborate each other. You can't say both alternatives, when one is necessary, are evidence of it not being true.
Boss, what skeptics are looking for is hostile witnesses..... There is a book about it
People who saw Jesus but didn't like him?
Those who requires hard proofs to believe have weak faith to start with. In my case, I do not give a damn about historical and scientific proofs. I "believe" and that is all that matters to me. I don't feel obligated to convince others. I have a strong Christian faith and I believe in science. I do not see it as a requirement to reconcile the two.
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Even Jesus did not push for a unified reconciliation. Keep science and faith separate.
@the Lost Q
You have completely missed my points.
I challenge anyone in this world to reconcile science and religion. Those who believe have achieved this are hypocrites and lairs. If reconciling science with Christianity is a requirement for you to have faith then good luck with that.
Christianity did not come to teach us about Atoms and the theory of relativity. It came to strengthen our spiritual relationship with God and fill our spiritual void. When was the last time you opened the Bible to study Chemistry? What was the last time you opened a Physics book learn more about God?
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
You remind me of doubting Thomas
An excerpt from John 20:25 "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
@the Lost Q
You stated "Surely if Christianity is accurate, (if the natural claims made in the Bible are accurate) that shouldn't be an issue."
Alright then please show me scientific proof that the great flood really happened!!!
Please show me the scientific proof that there was a exodus from Egypt!!!
Please show me the scientific proof that that the red sea could be parted!!!!
Please show me the scientific proof that that the 10 plagues of Egypt really happened!!!!
Reality is that reputable archaeologists do not take any of the above seriously anymore because they did not find a shred of scientific evidence any of it happened. In fact they view those who pursue proving many of the Bible accounts similar to the way many view those who pursue Big Foot sightings.
@the Lost Q
"The the lack of proof is exactly what puts belief in the Bible, and belief in Bigfoot on equal footing."
Referencing "Big Foot" in my last reply was obviously a sarcasm. But you are actually equating the belief in Big Foot at the same level as the belief in the Bible. According to you, you seem to suggest we should either accept Jesus' miracles and Big Foot as facts or we should reject both. I am speechless!!!!!
I think I am done here.
@the Lost Q
I am speechless because you do not seem to have a coherent logic!!!!!!
But wait! Maybe I misunderstood where you are coming from. Do you consider yourself a Christian? Do you believe the divinity of Jesus Christ? If you don't then I guess your responses would make sense; however, if you answer "yes" to both questions then I do not know how to debate someone with incoherent logic, hence, my speechlessness.
@the Lost Q
Oh OK now your previous responses make sense. I was getting confused because I took it for granted you were a Christian and your responses were inconsistent with my assumption.
Back to your question about Jesus. I do not have to prove anything to you because believing is faith. That was the main original point of this exchange. Faith does not require the believer to provide any proof; otherwise, it will not be called "faith" but rather "fact". My faith in Christianity is meant to fulfill a personal spiritual void. It is NOT meant to fulfill scientific voids -- colleges and universities are meant for that. I can't prove to you that you are wrong about Jesus but then again it does not matter to me whether you are right or wrong. To each his own!!!!
Thanks for the video. Christianity is the only religion that has objectively proof of his veracity. NASA has studied the resurrection of Crhrist. Miracles made on the name of Christ are happening every day. Christianity was mostly transmitted verbally because very few people new how to read up to 100 years ago. Up to 300 years a go very few people had access to the books it was just to expensive.
I don't know why most people assume Jews were illiterate and could not read. This was highly impossible at the time for a Jewish boy, because they studied and learnt the books of law from a tender age upto 12 years so as to be ready for their induction into the Hebrew culture. U simply must have had to know how to read otherwise you would fail the tests by the Teachers of the law. So most followers were poor not illiterate.
Alexiscom1 you just made my day, thanks. .....nasa has studied the ressurection of Christ.......!!!!!!!!!!!!\
.....and....?????? whats the official report saying....???
NASA? With what? Telescopes/ Do you know what NASA is?
Superbly logical video! Well presented. Good job!
Sorry but religious claims require higher standard then historical claims. Religious claims - like miracles, resurrection etc. contradict current scientific knowledge. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
I'd say the mass amounts of people willing to die in the 2nd century for these claims are pretty extraordinary....
What is your view on the evidence of Eucharistic Miracles?
@@JMLFUS Yes, the christian claims are de facto extraordinary in themselves, not least because they have withstood the test of time for almost 2000 years.
Are these the jokes?
😊🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
OK...But why weren't the gospels signed ??? Why did they wait 40-80 years to write... Can u tell me if u were walking around with Jesus u would wait 40 years to write the 1st one...Book of Mark....and not even sign it,...AND THEN PUT A FAKE ENDING ON IT.... AS FAR AS EVIDENCE GOES...why don't we have any WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF THE SO CALLED 500 THAT SEEN JESUS...remember about 10% of people could write....why didn't any of the Roman's see Jesus walking around ??? Why didn't anyone write about all these graves opening up with all these dead people walking around when jueus was crucified.... COME ON....u say u have evidence...that would be evidence...LET ME PUT THE FINAL POINT ON IT. WE ALL HAVE TO ADMIT JESUS SAID HE WOULD BE BACK IN A VERY SHORT TIME AND THAT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN....SO IS HE A LIAR ???? U TELL ME ???? OR A FALSE PROPHET ???? U TELL ME ????
Who are you to say that 2000 years is not a very short time?
The Gospels were kept via oral tradition from roughly Jesus’ death to the 50s CE. They began to be written down in various pieces starting in the 40s CE until around the 70s CE (the Gospels were not the first time anything was written down. They got their sources from somewhere, explained more later). The Gospels were then written down as full complete narratives of Jesus’ life in the 60s CE to about 95CE. By about 150CE, the four gospels we read today were agreed to be included as the canon, but it was not until about 370CE that the full New Testament we read today was finally canonized.
The oral tradition of the gospels actually began during the life of Jesus. In fact, many believe the Apostle Peter was dictating the stories/events to Mark (John Mark) as they were unfolding, eventually becoming the Gospel of Mark. And, we do know that people were reporting to others and sharing what they were seeing (see Matthew 11:4). All four gospels were written in full within 25 years of Jesus’ death. And, only much later did they become officially canonized by the church (and state) around 313 AD. So yes, the gospels are very reliable, though not intended to be perfect as some inerrantists may claim.
@@markpugner9716 They weren't written all that long after Jesus died. While scholars debate the exact dates, the four gospels were all written somewhere between AD 60 and AD 95. That is, within 60 years of Jesus's death at the most.
Two of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John, were disciples of Jesus and knew him personally. So as elderly or old men they sat down and wrote their biographies from first-hand knowledge. Mark was a translator for Peter, and Peter was another of Jesus's disciples, so Mark wrote based on what Peter told him. (Some speculate that Mark was an eye-witness to at least some of the events in his Gospel.) Luke was an educated man and approached the role as an historian. He interviewed friends and family of Jesus to write his book.
@@markpugner9716 Furthermore, analysis of Matthew and Luke has led scholars to conclude that they include material from another source, that has come to be called "Q". This book apparently was a collection of quotes from Jesus: excerpts from his sermons and catchy statements that he made. So two of the writers used an older source, even closer to the time of the original events.
The Catholic Bible is.
Very well explained.
Old books full of claims about “the supernatural” are insufficient evidence for me to proclaim any knowledge about “the supernatural”.
The religious mind set exists only in that part of society that hasn't yet evolved from that old falty reasoning of taking for granted their hypothesis.
It's all wishful thinking
According to Rom 1 everybody knows that Lord God exist. Universe have an beginning, without an creator that breaks against Newtons motions law, we have an consciousness, an conscience, absolute truths exists, we see order around us without an creator it breaks against the thermo dynamic laws, DNA have code, a national survey of 1,100 physicians, conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute 2004 found that 55% have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous, 1 Cor 15 that is an Eye-witness testonomy say that over 500 persons meet the resurrected Jesus. Rom 10 say that faith comes by hearing the Word of God, "Suffering Gives Way to Rejoicing" by Pastor Chris Rosebrough from Kongsvinger Lutheran Church, Oslo MN, AALC, www.kongsvingerchurch.org/sermons/2019/5/19/suffering-gives-way-to-rejoicing
I'm not a Christian anymore because I, personally, cannot reconcile critical thinking with belief in the Resurrection. Matthew Ferguson, a Classics Ph.D. student, played a critical role in persuading me to think more critically about scripture. As it so happens, in 2017 he was on a panel debating the historicity and reliability of the Bible, which can be found here: celsus.blog/2017/08/13/riverside-panel-debate-about-the-historical-reliability-of-the-bible/
I changed my mind about Christianity before that, though, and if you're interested, these are three of what I believe to be some of his most compelling writings on this subject:
Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament: celsus.blog/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/
Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels: celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/
Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic: celsus.blog/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/
Reconsider if you still have an open mind. Check out Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology by Roch A. Kereszty. Absolutely a "tour de force," as reviewers love to say. Not a popular book, nor an easy one, but brilliant, written by a true scholar. What is meant by historicity is one of his arguments that you'll want to pay close attention to, to begin with.
Is the Bible Reliable ? Short answer no. The bible is not evidence it the clam. If some one eye witness Moth man dose that make moth man real ? BTW it not called telephone it's called Chinese whispers
Whenever my faith begins to falter, I quote my favorite Bible verse. I repeat it over and over again. Ezekiel, speaking of an Israelite woman in the land of the Egyptians, states, in Ezekiel 23:20 - "And there she lusted after her lovers, whose penises were like those of donkeys and whose ejaculation was like that of horses." Praise God!
So,… why does this strengthen your faith, exactly?
@@Joefrenomics Why "exactly"? It exactly proves the Bible is a flawed, fallible, errant document that contains hardcore pornography and is anything BUT divinely inspired. It's one of several examples of its literary filth, unfit for children to read.
ye
Nonbelievers would still acoount a story that would be mirroring the gospels in some aspects, maybe it would not comment on it with divine intervention here or there.
NO
When someone talks on behalf of any god, should be immediately taken as an unreliable source by obvious reasons of posible misinterpretations.
That should be obvious now a days, but we’re closer...
Look at this fucken savage.
My first thought
You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity.
Bart Ehrman has pointed out that there were many miracle workers in the Roman Empire at the time of the writing of the Gospels, and belief in such workers was prevalent then. That the writers of the New Testament believed in miracles, does not mean that they happened. I am a Christian btw, who had to struggle with this issue.
How many of them came back from the dead?
@@BrianHoldsworth My point is that Jesus may not have risen from the dead even though it is written in the Gospels. The Gospels themselves may even have been written by others than eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. We really don't know who wrote them.
The German theologian and historian, Adolf von Harnack, wrote the following in his famous book What is Christianity?: "But who among us can maintain that a clear account of these appearances can be constructed out of the stories told by Paul and the evangelists; and if that is impossible, and there is no tradition of single events which is quite trustworthy, how is the Easter faith to be based on them? Either we must decide to rest our belief on a foundation unstable and always exposed to fresh doubts, or else we must abandon this foundation altogether, and with it the miraculous appeal to our senses. But here, too, the images of the faith have their roots in truth and reality. Whatever may have happened at the grave and in the matter of the appearances, one thing is certain: This grave was the birthplace of the indestructible belief that death is vanquished, that there is an eternal life."
@@Arnarstyrb Most historians are basing the facts of the resurrection not on the gospels but on 1 Corinthians 15 and the early Creed
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."
On this issue is Habermas
"An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to AD 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation. No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”
- Gary Habermas, “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts,” God is Great, God is Good
See also
• The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]
We know who wrote one of the Gospels, because it's described in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. The "iffy and fudgey" claims about inconclusive evidence regarding the Gospels have turned out to be fabrications, or quick judgments. In studying the canonical selection process, there are many written testimonies of authenticity to support which Books were to be included in the Canon that would be used to teach the Faith.
It should also be noted, @Arnar Styr Björnsson, that simply questioning the veracity of Scripture is not an argument, nor is it evidence, against such.
Christ should have left behind DVD players and videos of his sermons.
What you're saying could apply equally to Muhammed's midnight ride. Why don't Christians believe in that?
I believe that many Islamic miracles and happenings are true. However, the context points to those supernatural events being more likely demonic or otherwise. Islam and Christianity usually do not deny eachother's miracles, yet the attribution and conclusion of the miracles may differ.
@@samanthastudios618 Muslims say The Bible is corrupted by Iblis.
I find the type of objections tackled in this video a bit too weak.
As an atheist my objection the reliability of Bible would likely be something like this:
The current books which constitute the Bible, more specific (let's consider only the story of Jesus out of all of it's entirety) four Gospels - were artificially collected and picked out of a huge variety of so-called apocryphal Gospels. Of course, the Gospels that were picked had suited the Church, which, let's be honest, was a huge power in the middle ages, corrupt and violent as any other. All of them depict Jesus as a miracle doer son of God. But out of hundreds of apocrypha there may be (I am not 100% sure, but I do think so) ones that will show him simply as a man of blood and flesh, no divinity attached. I ought to blindly ignore texts like that for no visible reason except for "Church doesn't approve".
"four Gospels - were artificially collected and picked out of a huge variety of so-called apocryphal Gospels."
You're presupposing an agenda from the outset. What evidence do you have to reinforce this narrative? The earliest Christian writings we have as well as the behaviour of the Christ's earliest followers reinforces the notion that they believed he was divine and rose from the dead. How else do you explain their willingness to die brutal deaths for this belief.
The notion that the Canon was chosen to support and consolidate the power of the medieval Church is also not well supported as the Gospels and the theology that they support was well established in the ancient Church. The Church fathers quote this theology hundreds of thousands of times. In fact, you could reproduce the new testament just on Church father quotations.
@@BrianHoldsworth
What I'm saying is a well known fact, not a narrative. The four gospels were canonized, if my memory is correct, around year 390. Before that they were kind of anonymous Christian writings, one of many. More popular than others, but that's all to it.
That's also the reason of mentioning the church. Because the people who canonized them were... Well. People. For instance, they can be mistaken. Or driven by ill intentions, or could have even misinterpreted messiah's message. All kinds of faults may have happened.
To sum it up. I have a benefit of doubt when I'm asking why these four are canonic and some others are heresy.
I don't see any substantial evidence to state that the four canonic gospels are historically accurate.
Which is, by definition, reliable to me :-)
@@alexeydanilkin3546 The question of their historical accuracy isn't the same as their canonicity. The former is a matter of historical scrutiny. The latter is a question of Church authority. The cannon of scripture that was formalized through Church councils had more to do with the other books of the new testaments. The Gospels were well established in the Church's tradition and usage well before that (going back to the 2nd century) as is supported by the degree of reverance and amount of source material that quotes them as such.
@@BrianHoldsworth
So the gospels are reliable simply because they were well established in the culture?
The star wars lore is pretty well established, at least for the hardcore fans. How can we distinguish pure fiction from facts if being established is enough to be a reliable source?
@@alexeydanilkin3546 No, that's not the point I'm making. You were asking a question about canon and whether these were the documents that held unanimous support from within the Church and that's what I was providing evidence for. Their historic reliability, I believe, is best supported by the arguments in the video as well as the affirmation of the early Christians who gave eyewitness accounts to the events in question under penalty of death.
He could play a follewer of the Ori from Stargate,, no difference to the Christianity he describes, once you are told the gospel, you either become a believer or you are wicked.
The bible is a book of parables. Maybe some won't get the message contained in the parables because they are staunchly opposed to the idea of God. Parables are only stories to illustrate an idea. Just like Egyptian hieroglyphics were a series of pictures of recognize-able things to express sounds. (they didn't have an alphabet to spell out words) So they would draw water to illustrate the sound of WAW. Question based on the work of Anthony Storr's book, "music and the mind". The color green appears in an oscilloscope by adding only one thing a resonance of 528hz. That vibration/sound creates green. Is it possible in that parable,(what we call GOD) didn't actually speak, "Let there be vegetation"... Maybe.. some power/energy/God produced 528hz over a period of time..?
People who write music scores for movies use cord progression to change your mood. You have watched a movie that you're laughing and dancing one moment...the next your sobbing hysterically... How did the movie do that..? It was thru a change in cord progression in the music score. A to A-flat to D (will make you feel one emotion) . change that to A to D-flat to F (you will feel a completely different emotion) . The original Pentatonic (5 note scale) was based on the perfect healing tones of 432hz, 528hz etc... When the Catholic church changed it to an Octave scale (8 note) those healing tones where forever changed/altered to tones that damage cells on a molecular level.(and were no longer healing vibrations) Is it possible that the pipe organs in big churches were constructed as a tool of medical healing thru healing vibrations..? Is it possible that vibrations at specific hertz are responsible for the origins of life...? We know thru science that everything is comprised of vibrations. We are not solid objects..there are no solid objects. I believe the origin of life was God (if that is what you call it) creating a very specific vibration called hertz and that was referred to in the bible, "and Got said..let there be..." I think more accurately, "and God created the vibration... of light..of vegetation..of man/woman.." It isn't God they are opposed to, it is what our concept of God is. What if God were a universal vibration or energy causing the origins of life/creation vibrations & healing tones/vibrations. How would people of science feel about it then...?