The Gospels’ authors are formally anonymous-this isn’t controversial among scholars, including many believing Christians. Respected theologians like Raymond Brown (Catholic), James D.G. Dunn (Protestant), and Richard Bauckham (Evangelical) agree that names were added later, mostly to lend authority. - "Early attributions" - Figures like Irenaeus naming the Gospels long after they were written doesn't make it more historically accurate. Scholars like E.P. Sanders and Dale Martin point out that these early attributions were more about lending authority than recording fact. - "Eyewitness claims" - Language, theology, and structure show these texts weren’t firsthand accounts. Even conservative scholars like N.T. Wright and D.A. Carson agree. - "Patristic sources" - Early church figures were more interested in affirming tradition than recording history. Even Papias’s statements are vague and don’t match up with what’s actually in the Gospels. Many church historians, including Martin Hengel, note that these early statements are more theological than factual. Believing these works were anonymous isn’t radical-it’s recognized by Christian scholars across denominations.
100%. Catholic here and they are anonymous and the names were added later, and I learned this in a history of Christianity class I had at a Catholic school. It really isn't a controversial thing at all. We also learned about the Q hypothesis and how these very well could not be the "most original" gospels in the first place... Tbh it just isn't that important.
I have heard what you say about the gospels in high school, when I learned about religion. However today there are many scholars who do not agree with this statement any more. One reason is that for example we say the book "De Bello Gallico" (About the Gallic war) was written by Julius Caesar. We have ten copies of this book., which are dated 400 years after Caesars died. All copies have no author name on it. How do we know when these books were written and by whom? We have other sources that state that this book was written by Caesar. Actually, the first 7 volumes were dictated by Caesar to a slave and the8 and last volume was dictated by Caesar's legate Lentulus as Caesar was in Italy at that point in time. Irenaeus says that the gospel of Johannes was written by the apostle Johannes. Who was Irenaeus? A student of Johannes. He should know. The gospels include a lot of detailed knowledge about Juda as it was during the time of Jesus and Jewish customs at that time. One example. According to the gospels Jesus was crucified and buried the same day. If you know Roman customs this statement makes no sense This is just not the Roman way. If you recall the fate of the slaves which were captured after the slave revolt under Spartacus, they were crucified and left to rot on their crosses until the fall of crosses. This was Roman custom everywhere except in Juda until 70 AD. This was the year of the Jewish revolt. Until then the Romans buried crucified people the same day to comply with a Jewish religious law as they did not piss of the Jews. This was the only place and time where they did this. So the story that Jesus was buried the same day makes sense..
@@Factsmatter2000 they certainly would not have made an exception, especially when trying to make a point. The whole point of crucifixion was to embarrass you and take away the right of funeral.
"Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses; The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham, page 290, in his seminal work. One of his "praises" comes from James D.G. Dunn: "Another blockbuster from the productive pen of Richard Bauckham...not to be missed." Maybe you were misinformed?
My understanding is that the original gospels were written in Greek, and in very good Greek at that. It was unlikely that the original followers of Jesus could read and write, much less be accomplished writers in Greek, this implies that the gospel writers were well-educated, which does not match the apostles. If Jesus was a deity, then why did he not write a gospel himself?
Another fallacy, Koine Greek was a very common language in that region at the time. Luke was a doctor, you don’t think he spoke Greek? Matthew a tax collector, you don’t think he spoke and wrote Greek? Peter a fisherman, he would have to write out receipts, you don’t think he spoke Greek?
@@sinclairj7492 Those were all Aramaic speakers. Aramaic is close to Hebrew. They only needed to have basic Aramaic language skills. The gospel authors show high proficiency in Greek, and low proficiency in Judaism and Hebraic culture.
What would it prove if Jesus wrote a gospel Himself.I would not be surprised if somebody claimed that Jesus wrote it.and In that case I would have no hesitation in calling thatSpurious.Matthew must have had some education He was a tax collectorLLuke was a physician and there are indications in the Gospel that John had close contacts with the priests.That leaves Mark.Remeber he was Pauls companion and Paul was a scholar.The tradition is that He may or may not have been a witness but the tradition is that he got his racts from Peter.Even if you assume that they were illiterate.what was to prevent them from learni g Their level of motivation would have been very high higher thN that of William c,Carey a cobbler who learned so many Indian languagesjust to translatr the Bible
@@ptk8451 If Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and I believe he did based on the evidence, then it was not a surprise that he could speak, read and write Greek. He was a Greek doctor. Mark was a member of the Jewish upper class and therefore could read and write Greek as this was the language that was used for writing in that region since the conquests of Alexander the Great. Johannes Markus to use his full name was according to Luke the travel companion of Peter and wrote down the memories of Peter, who could not read and write. Mathew was a tax collector and had to be able to read and write based on his job. John was fisherman. However he was not a normal fisherman. According to the bible he was the cousin of Jesus and his father owned all fisher boats at Gezemane.So his father was rich and therefore John was educated and could read and write. The people who are supposed to have written the gospels could all read and write in Greek.
@@Factsmatter2000 Luke copied Mark to a large degree. Neither are eye witness accounts, nor do they claim to be. Which is a really odd thing to leave out of the narrative if they were eyewitnesses and apostles. That's just not plausible.
Scene 1.. A cafe in Greece. Matthew Mark Luke and John sat at table Mark: Thanks for coming guys. I know you are all busy and none of us are getting any younger. It took us all forever to learn Greek but we have done it. Our projects are now complete. We have each managed to produce our books. However, before we can go any further there is one last thing we need to agree on. Luke: What could that be? Mark: A title. John: what? Mark A title. Matthew: Is that really important? I was going to go with The Gospel of our Lord. John: I was going to go with “What the Beloved Disciple saw”. Mark: (muttering) Beloved my ass John: What was that? Mark: Nothing Luke: Why do we need the same title? There are lots of other books that they are collecting together that don't use group titles? Mark: I just think it will be more convincing if we have our names at the top. John: I just wrote my entire book as a “who dunnit” deliberately avoiding mentioning my name and using only “beloved” to give the reader hints as to who I am Mark: (snorts) John: If I put my name at the top that will look stupid. Luke: How about “The gospel according to ….” Mark: Well that would work.. However, that leads me to our second agenda item.. Royalties. John: Well if we are going to publish together we just split 4 ways. Luke: That sounds fair. Mark: Well it would be if you two (looking at Luke and Matthew) had not just cut and pasted my entire book into yours. Luke: Dude yours was short and boring. Did not even have a birth narrative. Mark: You two did not even compare notes! We now have two completely different stories about Jesus' birth! You just made it up! And YOU (looking at Matthew) were so desperate to stuff prophecies into your book you made the holy family look like idiots. .. many hours later Mark: So we are all agreed. In order to make sure no one ever thinks that our books are anonymous and were later assigned an arbitrary title we are all going to agree on “The Gospel according to Me” Though I still think you two should be using “The gospel according to Mark with a few things I made up by Luke and Matthew” Matthew / Luke: Oh sod off.
Have you noticed that the gospels, chronologically as written, add more details as more time passes? Starting with Mark, thought to be the earliest, which is devoid of many details that later show up in Luke or John, for example. This suggests that the tale grew with the telling, much like sitting around a campfire and telling ghost stories. Each participant adds something that they just invented. No one ever asks them to prove it.
Have you ever done an incident investigation and listen to eye witness account? If you have then you would know that the way the the gospels tell the story, the sound like eye witness accounts. It is not that Mark as least details and John has the most. Mark, Mathew. Luke and John add different details. It is true that Mark adds the least details and that the other three add more. They don't add the same and some details in Luke are explained by details added by Mathew or John. This is what you would expect from eye witness accounts. Did you also note that all people named as authors were people who could read and write Greek?
@@Factsmatter2000 Your scenario, while possible, is entirely consistent with 4 writers making everything up, drawing upon a previous writer for the basic story, and adding whatever they thought should have happened. What they add might be a correction or enhancement. They were religiously motivated, had a vivid imagination, and a different attitude towards history than we do now. Instead of reporting the truth, what they imagined became "truth" for future readers & writers.
@@Shermanbay How did you come to the opinion that the NT writers were making their accounts up with a great imagination? Why do you think that their idea of history was so different than ours? What motive would they have for reporting lies? And finally, which parts do you think are not historical, given that several secular historians of the time confirm the basic ideas? Namely, that Jesus lived, taught, died by crucifixion, and His disciples believed He had risen from the dead?
@@churchforskeptics There's no resurrection in the earliest gospel and in the latest gospel there is Jesus coming down from heaven flying with an army of angels. Can you see the progression?
Wow, tell me you don't know how to do a proper historical analysis without telling me you don't know how to do a proper historical analysis. This should be titled "History for believers; start with the conclusion and cherry-pick some evidence to satisfy your confirmation bias".
Месяц назад+3
NO the only 2 options are NOT known authorship or pure invention. The gospel writers probably had Paul's letters, and certainly had oral traditions. Way to "think" that through lol. Since your first sentence is complete nonsense I don't need to waste time on the rest, thanks.
Let's see, the gospels were written by people who knew Greek really well. None of the apostles seemed to know this. While there could have been excellent Greek speakers in Jerusalem, the writers also knew Greek myth and writing styles, even fewer people had this training but hey yea, there "could" have been an eyewitness with this background hanging around. But not likely.
Месяц назад+3
The Gospels were all written after Jerusalem was flattened in the Jewish War circa 70 AD. The odds of an "eyewitness" to anything being alive and available then are about nil. Paul was writing in the 50s and HE was not an eyewitness,
Your comment proves you have not even read the Gospels. The first thing you would realize is that the writers were sincere writers, not lying for any reason. Secondly, why would a scattered huge group of believers read and pass on their manuscripts if they and their claims were not part of the Church? 3) Why is there anything written by the Church to expose the supposed fallacious names given to these Gospels. 4) On the other hand, the Church tradition, always considered the Gospels as belonging to the known writers. I mean, even the fact that their names were not on the manuscripts is evidence that they were that well known and accepted by the Church. -If we are sincere, there is no true based doubt as to who the writers were. Having said that, even if one wants to provokingly proclaim that they were not the writers, it doesn't matter. What matters is if they are saying the truth and for you to know that, you need to have an encounter with the living Jesus Christ they speak of. after that, in time, you will realize that all the books of the New Testament were intentionally provided by God.
Месяц назад+2
@@bt5029 Pretty close to impossible. If Mark was written about CE 70, then a person who was 20 at the time of Jesus' alleged death in CE 30 would be 60 as of AD 70. That person would have to survive and somehow be available to the Gospel writers who were writing in far distant cities in a different language. And of course that person would have to see something miraculous and credibly report it. The later Gospels would have an even bigger problem. Notably NONE of the Gospels say that happened.
Месяц назад+3
@@thebestisyettocome8620 I have read the Gospels several times and I probably know them way better than you do. The fact that YOU think the writers sound "sincere" is unpersuasive. The writer of the Harry Potter novels sounds sincere too so what. The fact that believers believe is also trivial. Lots of people believe OTHER religions but you don't believe THEM. Well I don't believe you. Same thing.
Started watching. Saw the dishonesty and straw man in the opening, gave a few seconds after to see if it was setting up something to take down. Skipped to the end to see basically an affirmation of the original position. You have the burden of proof and all the arguments backwards here. The issue is that you can't assert that anonymous authors are eyewitnesses. The positive argument of the authors not being eyewitnesses is based on chronology and language and things like the author of Matthew reading a Greek mistranslation, a long with the literacy problem and Matthew (supposedly an eyewitness) copying from Mark (who wasn't, when by tradition). Luke 1 even spells out the info is gathered from others, precluding him from being an eyewitness. In John, it's explicitly said to be based on the testimony of the "beloved disciple" and the author being a different person. There is zero chance of authorship by any eyewitnesses, at least to the whole thing.
Well, a whole library of scrolls dating to the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D. was recently discovered at the Villa Dei Papyri in the city of Herculaneum. On many of those scrolls a tag can be found affixed to the end of the scroll, which gives the title of the work and the author’s name. That indicates it was common practice at the time. The importance of this is that one can easily look up and see the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament (via an online scan) and find that the authors names are clearly stated on the manuscript itself, in a header (e.g. "The Gospel of Mark") which directly proceeds the text itself. In other words, all the Gospels are identified in the earliest manuscripts with “file” like place names. Sure, there is dispute on whether they are written by the author’s themselves or tagged by the faith communities that were their custodians for sake keeping. However, there is no evidence that an earlier form of the Gospels ever circulated which did not contain the author's name. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that the texts were likely written by their stated authors, for the same reason that we assume that the modern-day books are likely written by their stated authors. The superscription indicates that at the origin the gospel (as the words and deeds of Jesus) were felt to be something that should be attributed to Jesus (even if delivered through or according to, kata, intermediaries). Jesus was the real “authorial source.” The external evidence of extent manuscripts having a superscript tag, identifying the authors, along with an abundance of early church testimony is pretty compelling. Mark wrote what Peter preached. External evidence points towards Matthew and John being eyewitnesses. Luke did research in both the reading of, and likely also the interacting with living witnesses, in the early church. I recently have been putting out videos entitled, "My Apologetics Faith Journey" (see Podcast #5 in particular) where I explore these type of arguments for the Christian faith. I invite those interested in exploring more the topic of evidential apologetics to check them out.
@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 So, the names ascribed to the gospels by the early church in an extraordinary coincidence also happened to be the correct names of the author? What are the odds? It must be a miracle.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 The scrolls from there as far as I know were discovered in the 18th century. Can you point me to a primary source that supports your contention? Because I'm pretty sceptical about what you are claiming.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "However, there is no evidence that an earlier form of the Gospels ever circulated which did not contain the author's name" Well that's not really true? Do we have any manuscripts prior to 185 CE? No, I wish we did but we don't. But what we do have are the writings of the absolute earliest Church Fathers of that time. And they quote from the Gospels. What do they call them? Not one of them, not once, attribute any of their quotations to a Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. None of them. And sometimes call them by other titles. Even when they do name the authors of other works they quote. Now why would this be? Coincidence? Possibly. But this is actual evidence the names may not have been there that early one. It's things like this that scholars look at.
In answer to your question as to "Why" they would add apostolic attributions to the Gospels? I find it hard to believe you have not run across the simple answer to this question in your readings. It's because by the time the names were likely added, there were numerous apocryphal Gospels in the circulation. Many of them very popular (some almost making it into the Bible itself). And most had apostolic attribution. Why Mark instead of Peter? Because one of the most popular apocryphal Gospels was already attributed to Peter. To add Peters name would have been confusing. Who were the most important early apostles? Peter, Paul and John. Covered conveniently by Mark, Luke and John. It's all right there for you if you have the eyes to see and an open mind?
And given how many apocryphal gospels were in circulation and attributed to various people shows the enthusiasm in which manufacturing narratives were pursued. It doesn't inspire confidence in me that they were true and correct.
What the strawman is this? One: YOU have pre-supposition. Not the scientists. Two: The NC did not come from nothing. It came from the OC writings and the bak-then current political and cultural climate.
So you compared the message of Almighty God to human to a letter of a soldier? if God wanted to send a book he would send it like the Torah and the Quran, not in a form of anonymous biographies redacted many times by Greco romans who are not among the people of Jesus..
I think the reason why Erhman thinks the gospels were written by people who did not know Jesus has less to do with their anonymous authorship and more to do with when and where those gospels were likely written. A generation or two after the death of Jesus and in a city far away from where Jesus lived and taught. And the earliest gospel fragments that we have, which reveal authorship, are later fragments, not early ones.
Ok show me an ancient Book whose eatliest fragments were found closer to the time of the originals than the gospels..What you should see is whether the gospel writers get the facts right about the land and its culture
@@ptk8451 I cannot show you. But I fail to see how this:- "What you should see is whether the gospel writers get the facts right about the land and its culture" - therefore means that people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels. Nor does it mean that people who knew Jesus must have written them or that they had access to people who knew Jesus. FWIW you can go to any bookshop and pick up lots of books with correct names, places, dates, and events yet the books are essentially fiction. We call many of those books "novels".
This guy's arguments are so stupid and offensive to anyone who knows a little and has at least has a brain. For esample: The argument I heard before I stopped watching is "why would they invent superfluous names?" which he thinks is a rhetorical question... Well, they answer is that they could have invented names the same way later non canonical Gospels invented names like Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar (which the Gospel of Mathew never say they were three nor kings) or names like Dimas and Gestas for the "good and bad thiefs" crucified with Jesus, or Anna and Joachim for the parents of Mary. It is really annoying when believers gives us their stupid arguments, thinking that we are as stupid or ignorant of the scriptures (both canonical and not) as they are. Another thing is that it makes strawmen arguments when he says that Bart Ehrman says that the Gospels were invented later, he doesn't say that all, he says they are based on earlier documents like the proposed "Q" and on oral tradition. As for why Irenaeus affirmed that the Gospels were written by Mark, Mathew, Luke and John the answer is simple: They needed them to be connected to the apostles (with Mark supposedly being the secretary of Peter and Luke a follower of Paul). That is the reason: because the church says it is apostolic so their scriptures have to have an apostolic connection.
I'm going to stop reading your comment now the same way you didn't bother to actually listen to the whole argument. The whole argument you missed was: Why would they invent names to attribute to the gospels _that don't have high authoritative value?_ The non canonical gospels you brought up all have prominent names attached to them, whereas the real gospels have two authors who weren't even apostles, and one that was a tax collector, the most hated profession of the community it was written to. John is the only one that would make sense to make up, and even if you got rid of John, you still have the same message intact in the other three.
@@DiggitySlice Read the articles referenced below by Doston Jones. --------------------------------------------------------- *"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.* Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."* *As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress Also, look up: *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"* *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
@@ptk8451That doesn't mean anything. Lots of people have faced persecution for multiple reasons, including in the field of different religions to the Christian one. That doesn't make their beliefs true.
If the new testament was written by eye witnesses then Yu have a problem .why did Mathew and Luke have to copy mark write word for word and sentence for sentence They would have written .. here's how I remember the events.insteaf they copied mark who was not an apostle
I'm an Aluminate' that teaches One Humanitarian Truth Under God. The doubt comes in with these Gospels because none of the authors wrote in the first person. Matthew is written like the author at most only knew who Matthew was. Luke is written like he asked people what happened in the first chapter. Mark at most just heard stories, and John maybe be he doesn't write in the first person. And being most people were illiterate in those times it's highly likely that these are just stories that circulated about Jesus and people probably added some mythology and misunderstanding over time. This is not to say Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, the holiest prophet and role model of behavior. It's just to say the stories about him probably are basically but not entirely accurate.
Can a human being live a normal life without having read fiction books, as the Old Testament or the New Testament, or any of the billions of fiction books that have been written, as Harry Potter?
If the first step of your investigation is to make the assumption that every religion is fiction, then you're not actually interested in the truth. Why are you here?
@@DiggitySliceChristianity is messed up, good sir. When we read about the means employed to spread Christianity around the world, the history of the church, the crusades and the inquisitions, the sordid history of the clergy and leadership, and their present meddling in the politics of other countries, do you seriously take Christianity seriously. Is it a way towards SALVATION.. Any christian who is serious about knowing the TRUTH should first dump Christianity and deconstruct the indoctrination. Or else be prepared for the frying pan and the fire.
@@DiggitySlice If you are interested in truth, then you'd realise that Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam are derivative of *older* mythologies. Listen to the lectures referenced below by Professor Christine Hayes. --------------------------------------------------------- *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei (Especially the first six paragraphs) *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
By your standard, most of accepted history is so so messed up. You athiests have no idea how much history you have to throw out to reject the Bible. Not to mention you think people would make this stuff up at the cost of being tortured and killed. Makes no sense, and you would agree with _any other historical event,_ but not this one because you don't want to face your own sin.
Месяц назад+3
@@DiggitySlice We don't have to reject any history to know that the Gospel authors are anonymous. In fact, historical analysis compels that conclusion. The rest of your rant is irrelevant.
The Gospel was written by eyewitnesses or people who knew the eyewitnesses.
Месяц назад+2
@@sinclairj7492 He asserted, with no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, none of the Gospels writers even claim to be an eyewitness or to know any eyewitness. Shoulda stayed in school.
The details that are revealed in the Gospels are things only eyewitnesses could’ve known or people who knew the eyewitnesses, it doesn’t need to be in writing to figure that out lol, you should’ve stayed in school.
It's funny how athiests never think about the totality of apologetic arguments, sometimes not even full sentences. Every word out of an apologist's mouth needs to be absolute proof of Christianity, otherwise it cannot be true. Ridiculous standard, athiests wouldn't survive if they treated all knowledge with that standard
@DiggitySlice ask them about forced conversions. They have an answer. Ask them about colonialism. They have an answer. Ask them about slavery. They have an answer. Ask them about corruption, sleaze, scandals, pedophilia, killings, coziness with nazis. They have an answer. For them, God is a tool of self gratification.
Pauli i repeating the creed.Most scholars are agreed that the Epistles of Paul predTes the gospel.He xoesnt say that he saw Jesus in the same wzy as Peter.But he doesnt have to be an eyewitness to report whst the church Believed,Even a christian hater like Tacitus reported what Christians believe
18:47 "the book of Mattew, who ever wrote it"
The only true sentence in this video
The Gospels’ authors are formally anonymous-this isn’t controversial among scholars, including many believing Christians. Respected theologians like Raymond Brown (Catholic), James D.G. Dunn (Protestant), and Richard Bauckham (Evangelical) agree that names were added later, mostly to lend authority.
- "Early attributions" - Figures like Irenaeus naming the Gospels long after they were written doesn't make it more historically accurate. Scholars like E.P. Sanders and Dale Martin point out that these early attributions were more about lending authority than recording fact.
- "Eyewitness claims" - Language, theology, and structure show these texts weren’t firsthand accounts. Even conservative scholars like N.T. Wright and D.A. Carson agree.
- "Patristic sources" - Early church figures were more interested in affirming tradition than recording history. Even Papias’s statements are vague and don’t match up with what’s actually in the Gospels. Many church historians, including Martin Hengel, note that these early statements are more theological than factual.
Believing these works were anonymous isn’t radical-it’s recognized by Christian scholars across denominations.
You cant argue facts, logic, and reason with a Christian.
100%. Catholic here and they are anonymous and the names were added later, and I learned this in a history of Christianity class I had at a Catholic school. It really isn't a controversial thing at all. We also learned about the Q hypothesis and how these very well could not be the "most original" gospels in the first place... Tbh it just isn't that important.
I have heard what you say about the gospels in high school, when I learned about religion. However today there are many scholars who do not agree with this statement any more. One reason is that for example we say the book "De Bello Gallico" (About the Gallic war) was written by Julius Caesar. We have ten copies of this book., which are dated 400 years after Caesars died. All copies have no author name on it. How do we know when these books were written and by whom? We have other sources that state that this book was written by Caesar. Actually, the first 7 volumes were dictated by Caesar to a slave and the8 and last volume was dictated by Caesar's legate Lentulus as Caesar was in Italy at that point in time. Irenaeus says that the gospel of Johannes was written by the apostle Johannes. Who was Irenaeus? A student of Johannes. He should know. The gospels include a lot of detailed knowledge about Juda as it was during the time of Jesus and Jewish customs at that time. One example. According to the gospels Jesus was crucified and buried the same day. If you know Roman customs this statement makes no sense This is just not the Roman way. If you recall the fate of the slaves which were captured after the slave revolt under Spartacus, they were crucified and left to rot on their crosses until the fall of crosses. This was Roman custom everywhere except in Juda until 70 AD. This was the year of the Jewish revolt. Until then the Romans buried crucified people the same day to comply with a Jewish religious law as they did not piss of the Jews. This was the only place and time where they did this. So the story that Jesus was buried the same day makes sense..
@@Factsmatter2000 they certainly would not have made an exception, especially when trying to make a point. The whole point of crucifixion was to embarrass you and take away the right of funeral.
"Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses; The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham, page 290, in his seminal work. One of his "praises" comes from James D.G. Dunn: "Another blockbuster from the productive pen of Richard Bauckham...not to be missed." Maybe you were misinformed?
That is not what Erhman said. They do this on a regular basis, misquote the scholars with whom they disagree..
That is why we have dishonest religious charlatans.
They did not claim to be eyewitnesses
Exactly. Information impossible to miss out.
My understanding is that the original gospels were written in Greek, and in very good Greek at that. It was unlikely that the original followers of Jesus could read and write, much less be accomplished writers in Greek, this implies that the gospel writers were well-educated, which does not match the apostles. If Jesus was a deity, then why did he not write a gospel himself?
Another fallacy, Koine Greek was a very common language in that region at the time. Luke was a doctor, you don’t think he spoke Greek? Matthew a tax collector, you don’t think he spoke and wrote Greek? Peter a fisherman, he would have to write out receipts, you don’t think he spoke Greek?
@@sinclairj7492 Those were all Aramaic speakers. Aramaic is close to Hebrew. They only needed to have basic Aramaic language skills. The gospel authors show high proficiency in Greek, and low proficiency in Judaism and Hebraic culture.
What would it prove if Jesus wrote a gospel Himself.I would not be surprised if somebody claimed that Jesus wrote it.and In that case I would have no hesitation in calling thatSpurious.Matthew must have had some education He was a tax collectorLLuke was a physician and there are indications in the Gospel that John had close contacts with the priests.That leaves Mark.Remeber he was Pauls companion and Paul was a scholar.The tradition is that He may or may not have been a witness but the tradition is that he got his racts from Peter.Even if you assume that they were illiterate.what was to prevent them from learni g Their level of motivation would have been very high higher thN that of William c,Carey a cobbler who learned so many Indian languagesjust to translatr the Bible
@@ptk8451 If Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and I believe he did based on the evidence, then it was not a surprise that he could speak, read and write Greek. He was a Greek doctor. Mark was a member of the Jewish upper class and therefore could read and write Greek as this was the language that was used for writing in that region since the conquests of Alexander the Great. Johannes Markus to use his full name was according to Luke the travel companion of Peter and wrote down the memories of Peter, who could not read and write. Mathew was a tax collector and had to be able to read and write based on his job. John was fisherman. However he was not a normal fisherman. According to the bible he was the cousin of Jesus and his father owned all fisher boats at Gezemane.So his father was rich and therefore John was educated and could read and write. The people who are supposed to have written the gospels could all read and write in Greek.
@@Factsmatter2000 Luke copied Mark to a large degree. Neither are eye witness accounts, nor do they claim to be. Which is a really odd thing to leave out of the narrative if they were eyewitnesses and apostles. That's just not plausible.
Scene 1.. A cafe in Greece. Matthew Mark Luke and John sat at table
Mark: Thanks for coming guys. I know you are all busy and none of us are getting any younger. It took us all forever to learn Greek but we have done it. Our projects are now complete. We have each managed to produce our books. However, before we can go any further there is one last thing we need to agree on.
Luke: What could that be?
Mark: A title.
John: what?
Mark A title.
Matthew: Is that really important? I was going to go with The Gospel of our Lord.
John: I was going to go with “What the Beloved Disciple saw”.
Mark: (muttering) Beloved my ass
John: What was that?
Mark: Nothing
Luke: Why do we need the same title? There are lots of other books that they are collecting together that don't use group titles?
Mark: I just think it will be more convincing if we have our names at the top.
John: I just wrote my entire book as a “who dunnit” deliberately avoiding mentioning my name and using only “beloved” to give the reader hints as to who I am
Mark: (snorts)
John: If I put my name at the top that will look stupid.
Luke: How about “The gospel according to ….”
Mark: Well that would work.. However, that leads me to our second agenda item.. Royalties.
John: Well if we are going to publish together we just split 4 ways.
Luke: That sounds fair.
Mark: Well it would be if you two (looking at Luke and Matthew) had not just cut and pasted my entire book into yours.
Luke: Dude yours was short and boring. Did not even have a birth narrative.
Mark: You two did not even compare notes! We now have two completely different stories about Jesus' birth! You just made it up! And YOU (looking at Matthew) were so desperate to stuff prophecies into your book you made the holy family look like idiots.
.. many hours later
Mark: So we are all agreed. In order to make sure no one ever thinks that our books are anonymous and were later assigned an arbitrary title we are all going to agree on “The Gospel according to Me” Though I still think you two should be using “The gospel according to Mark with a few things I made up by Luke and Matthew”
Matthew / Luke: Oh sod off.
So you claim you know something no one can know, seems dishonest, but that`s religion...
Correct, he is just making stuff up.
Have you noticed that the gospels, chronologically as written, add more details as more time passes? Starting with Mark, thought to be the earliest, which is devoid of many details that later show up in Luke or John, for example. This suggests that the tale grew with the telling, much like sitting around a campfire and telling ghost stories. Each participant adds something that they just invented. No one ever asks them to prove it.
Have you ever done an incident investigation and listen to eye witness account? If you have then you would know that the way the the gospels tell the story, the sound like eye witness accounts. It is not that Mark as least details and John has the most. Mark, Mathew. Luke and John add different details. It is true that Mark adds the least details and that the other three add more. They don't add the same and some details in Luke are explained by details added by Mathew or John. This is what you would expect from eye witness accounts. Did you also note that all people named as authors were people who could read and write Greek?
@@Factsmatter2000 Your scenario, while possible, is entirely consistent with 4 writers making everything up, drawing upon a previous writer for the basic story, and adding whatever they thought should have happened. What they add might be a correction or enhancement. They were religiously motivated, had a vivid imagination, and a different attitude towards history than we do now. Instead of reporting the truth, what they imagined became "truth" for future readers & writers.
@@Shermanbay How did you come to the opinion that the NT writers were making their accounts up with a great imagination? Why do you think that their idea of history was so different than ours? What motive would they have for reporting lies? And finally, which parts do you think are not historical, given that several secular historians of the time confirm the basic ideas? Namely, that Jesus lived, taught, died by crucifixion, and His disciples believed He had risen from the dead?
@@churchforskeptics There's no resurrection in the earliest gospel and in the latest gospel there is Jesus coming down from heaven flying with an army of angels. Can you see the progression?
That’s what happens when people tell the same story from their point of view. Would be very suspicious if they told the same exact story.
Wow, tell me you don't know how to do a proper historical analysis without telling me you don't know how to do a proper historical analysis. This should be titled "History for believers; start with the conclusion and cherry-pick some evidence to satisfy your confirmation bias".
NO the only 2 options are NOT known authorship or pure invention. The gospel writers probably had Paul's letters, and certainly had oral traditions. Way to "think" that through lol. Since your first sentence is complete nonsense I don't need to waste time on the rest, thanks.
It's weird how you refer to Ehrmon's evidence-based conclusions as "presupposition"
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Names were assigned to the gospels for reference purposes, same as chapters and vereses because originally they werent there either 🙄
So, your lame excuse for not having an author"s name is because ofAIR?????
Let's see, the gospels were written by people who knew Greek really well. None of the apostles seemed to know this. While there could have been excellent Greek speakers in Jerusalem, the writers also knew Greek myth and writing styles, even fewer people had this training but hey yea, there "could" have been an eyewitness with this background hanging around. But not likely.
The Gospels were all written after Jerusalem was flattened in the Jewish War circa 70 AD. The odds of an "eyewitness" to anything being alive and available then are about nil. Paul was writing in the 50s and HE was not an eyewitness,
Odds are small, but not entirely impossible
Your comment proves you have not even read the Gospels. The first thing you would realize is that the writers were sincere writers, not lying for any reason.
Secondly, why would a scattered huge group of believers read and pass on their manuscripts if they and their claims were not part of the Church?
3) Why is there anything written by the Church to expose the supposed fallacious names given to these Gospels.
4) On the other hand, the Church tradition, always considered the Gospels as belonging to the known writers. I mean, even the fact that their names were not on the manuscripts is evidence that they were that well known and accepted by the Church.
-If we are sincere, there is no true based doubt as to who the writers were.
Having said that, even if one wants to provokingly proclaim that they were not the writers, it doesn't matter. What matters is if they are saying the truth and for you to know that, you need to have an encounter with the living Jesus Christ they speak of. after that, in time, you will realize that all the books of the New Testament were intentionally provided by God.
@@bt5029 Pretty close to impossible. If Mark was written about CE 70, then a person who was 20 at the time of Jesus' alleged death in CE 30 would be 60 as of AD 70. That person would have to survive and somehow be available to the Gospel writers who were writing in far distant cities in a different language. And of course that person would have to see something miraculous and credibly report it. The later Gospels would have an even bigger problem. Notably NONE of the Gospels say that happened.
@@thebestisyettocome8620 I have read the Gospels several times and I probably know them way better than you do. The fact that YOU think the writers sound "sincere" is unpersuasive. The writer of the Harry Potter novels sounds sincere too so what. The fact that believers believe is also trivial. Lots of people believe OTHER religions but you don't believe THEM. Well I don't believe you. Same thing.
Started watching. Saw the dishonesty and straw man in the opening, gave a few seconds after to see if it was setting up something to take down. Skipped to the end to see basically an affirmation of the original position.
You have the burden of proof and all the arguments backwards here. The issue is that you can't assert that anonymous authors are eyewitnesses.
The positive argument of the authors not being eyewitnesses is based on chronology and language and things like the author of Matthew reading a Greek mistranslation, a long with the literacy problem and Matthew (supposedly an eyewitness) copying from Mark (who wasn't, when by tradition). Luke 1 even spells out the info is gathered from others, precluding him from being an eyewitness. In John, it's explicitly said to be based on the testimony of the "beloved disciple" and the author being a different person.
There is zero chance of authorship by any eyewitnesses, at least to the whole thing.
Yep, the gospels don't claim to be eye witness accounts. It would be odd for them not to do that, if in fact they were.
Well, a whole library of scrolls dating to the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D. was recently discovered at the Villa Dei Papyri in the city of Herculaneum. On many of those scrolls a tag can be found affixed to the end of the scroll, which gives the title of the work and the author’s name. That indicates it was common practice at the time.
The importance of this is that one can easily look up and see the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament (via an online scan) and find that the authors names are clearly stated on the manuscript itself, in a header (e.g. "The Gospel of Mark") which directly proceeds the text itself. In other words, all the Gospels are identified in the earliest manuscripts with “file” like place names.
Sure, there is dispute on whether they are written by the author’s themselves or tagged by the faith communities that were their custodians for sake keeping.
However, there is no evidence that an earlier form of the Gospels ever circulated which did not contain the author's name. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that the texts were likely written by their stated authors, for the same reason that we assume that the modern-day books are likely written by their stated authors.
The superscription indicates that at the origin the gospel (as the words and deeds of Jesus) were felt to be something that should be attributed to Jesus (even if delivered through or according to, kata, intermediaries). Jesus was the real “authorial source.”
The external evidence of extent manuscripts having a superscript tag, identifying the authors, along with an abundance of early church testimony is pretty compelling. Mark wrote what Peter preached. External evidence points towards Matthew and John being eyewitnesses. Luke did research in both the reading of, and likely also the interacting with living witnesses, in the early church.
I recently have been putting out videos entitled, "My Apologetics Faith Journey" (see Podcast #5 in particular) where I explore these type of arguments for the Christian faith. I invite those interested in exploring more the topic of evidential apologetics to check them out.
@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 So, the names ascribed to the gospels by the early church in an extraordinary coincidence also happened to be the correct names of the author? What are the odds? It must be a miracle.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 The scrolls from there as far as I know were discovered in the 18th century. Can you point me to a primary source that supports your contention? Because I'm pretty sceptical about what you are claiming.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "However, there is no evidence that an earlier form of the Gospels ever circulated which did not contain the author's name"
Well that's not really true? Do we have any manuscripts prior to 185 CE? No, I wish we did but we don't. But what we do have are the writings of the absolute earliest Church Fathers of that time. And they quote from the Gospels. What do they call them? Not one of them, not once, attribute any of their quotations to a Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. None of them. And sometimes call them by other titles. Even when they do name the authors of other works they quote. Now why would this be? Coincidence? Possibly. But this is actual evidence the names may not have been there that early one. It's things like this that scholars look at.
In answer to your question as to "Why" they would add apostolic attributions to the Gospels? I find it hard to believe you have not run across the simple answer to this question in your readings. It's because by the time the names were likely added, there were numerous apocryphal Gospels in the circulation. Many of them very popular (some almost making it into the Bible itself). And most had apostolic attribution. Why Mark instead of Peter? Because one of the most popular apocryphal Gospels was already attributed to Peter. To add Peters name would have been confusing. Who were the most important early apostles? Peter, Paul and John. Covered conveniently by Mark, Luke and John. It's all right there for you if you have the eyes to see and an open mind?
And given how many apocryphal gospels were in circulation and attributed to various people shows the enthusiasm in which manufacturing narratives were pursued. It doesn't inspire confidence in me that they were true and correct.
What the strawman is this?
One: YOU have pre-supposition. Not the scientists.
Two: The NC did not come from nothing. It came from the OC writings and the bak-then current political and cultural climate.
So you compared the message of Almighty God to human to a letter of a soldier? if God wanted to send a book he would send it like the Torah and the Quran, not in a form of anonymous biographies redacted many times by Greco romans who are not among the people of Jesus..
I think the reason why Erhman thinks the gospels were written by people who did not know Jesus has less to do with their anonymous authorship and more to do with when and where those gospels were likely written. A generation or two after the death of Jesus and in a city far away from where Jesus lived and taught. And the earliest gospel fragments that we have, which reveal authorship, are later fragments, not early ones.
Ok show me an ancient Book whose eatliest fragments were found closer to the time of the originals than the gospels..What you should see is whether the gospel writers get the facts right about the land and its culture
@@ptk8451
I cannot show you.
But I fail to see how this:-
"What you should see is whether the gospel writers get the facts right about the land and its culture"
- therefore means that people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels. Nor does it mean that people who knew Jesus must have written them or that they had access to people who knew Jesus.
FWIW you can go to any bookshop and pick up lots of books with correct names, places, dates, and events yet the books are essentially fiction. We call many of those books "novels".
This guy's arguments are so stupid and offensive to anyone who knows a little and has at least has a brain. For esample: The argument I heard before I stopped watching is "why would they invent superfluous names?" which he thinks is a rhetorical question... Well, they answer is that they could have invented names the same way later non canonical Gospels invented names like Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar (which the Gospel of Mathew never say they were three nor kings) or names like Dimas and Gestas for the "good and bad thiefs" crucified with Jesus, or Anna and Joachim for the parents of Mary. It is really annoying when believers gives us their stupid arguments, thinking that we are as stupid or ignorant of the scriptures (both canonical and not) as they are. Another thing is that it makes strawmen arguments when he says that Bart Ehrman says that the Gospels were invented later, he doesn't say that all, he says they are based on earlier documents like the proposed "Q" and on oral tradition. As for why Irenaeus affirmed that the Gospels were written by Mark, Mathew, Luke and John the answer is simple: They needed them to be connected to the apostles (with Mark supposedly being the secretary of Peter and Luke a follower of Paul). That is the reason: because the church says it is apostolic so their scriptures have to have an apostolic connection.
I'm going to stop reading your comment now the same way you didn't bother to actually listen to the whole argument. The whole argument you missed was: Why would they invent names to attribute to the gospels _that don't have high authoritative value?_
The non canonical gospels you brought up all have prominent names attached to them, whereas the real gospels have two authors who weren't even apostles, and one that was a tax collector, the most hated profession of the community it was written to. John is the only one that would make sense to make up, and even if you got rid of John, you still have the same message intact in the other three.
@@DiggitySlice Read the articles referenced below by Doston Jones.
---------------------------------------------------------
*"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.*
Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."*
*As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).*
*"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
Also, look up:
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
You forget that the church fathers had to face persecution
@@ptk8451That doesn't mean anything. Lots of people have faced persecution for multiple reasons, including in the field of different religions to the Christian one. That doesn't make their beliefs true.
the poster child, for nonbelief....hmmm.....oh yeah....next...
If the new testament was written by eye witnesses then Yu have a problem .why did Mathew and Luke have to copy mark write word for word and sentence for sentence
They would have written .. here's how I remember the events.insteaf they copied mark who was not an apostle
I'm an Aluminate' that teaches One Humanitarian Truth Under God. The doubt comes in with these Gospels because none of the authors wrote in the first person. Matthew is written like the author at most only knew who Matthew was. Luke is written like he asked people what happened in the first chapter. Mark at most just heard stories, and John maybe be he doesn't write in the first person. And being most people were illiterate in those times it's highly likely that these are just stories that circulated about Jesus and people probably added some mythology and misunderstanding over time. This is not to say Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, the holiest prophet and role model of behavior. It's just to say the stories about him probably are basically but not entirely accurate.
Can a human being live a normal life without having read fiction books, as the Old Testament or the New Testament, or any of the billions of fiction books that have been written, as Harry Potter?
If the first step of your investigation is to make the assumption that every religion is fiction, then you're not actually interested in the truth. Why are you here?
@@DiggitySliceChristianity is messed up, good sir.
When we read about the means employed to spread Christianity around the world, the history of the church, the crusades and the inquisitions, the sordid history of the clergy and leadership, and their present meddling in the politics of other countries, do you seriously take Christianity seriously.
Is it a way towards SALVATION..
Any christian who is serious about knowing the TRUTH should first dump Christianity and deconstruct the indoctrination. Or else be prepared for the frying pan and the fire.
Some live without ever reading at all, just look at you for example.
@@DiggitySlice If you are interested in truth, then you'd realise that Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam are derivative of *older* mythologies.
Listen to the lectures referenced below by Professor Christine Hayes.
---------------------------------------------------------
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
(Especially the first six paragraphs)
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"*
(Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@Wisdom.Phoenix wisdom does not come by reading.
Christianity is So so MESSED UP. Minister, most of your suppositions are flawed to start with. Makes your inferences wrong
By your standard, most of accepted history is so so messed up. You athiests have no idea how much history you have to throw out to reject the Bible. Not to mention you think people would make this stuff up at the cost of being tortured and killed. Makes no sense, and you would agree with _any other historical event,_ but not this one because you don't want to face your own sin.
@@DiggitySlice We don't have to reject any history to know that the Gospel authors are anonymous. In fact, historical analysis compels that conclusion. The rest of your rant is irrelevant.
The Gospel was written by eyewitnesses or people who knew the eyewitnesses.
@@sinclairj7492 He asserted, with no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, none of the Gospels writers even claim to be an eyewitness or to know any eyewitness. Shoulda stayed in school.
The details that are revealed in the Gospels are things only eyewitnesses could’ve known or people who knew the eyewitnesses, it doesn’t need to be in writing to figure that out lol, you should’ve stayed in school.
I think...I believe...I suppose...👍
It's funny how athiests never think about the totality of apologetic arguments, sometimes not even full sentences. Every word out of an apologist's mouth needs to be absolute proof of Christianity, otherwise it cannot be true. Ridiculous standard, athiests wouldn't survive if they treated all knowledge with that standard
@@DiggitySlice Well, you can't just argue "because faith" every time over every single issue that's being debated
Please debate with Bart Ehrman not with us
Validity of mythology ? meh.
Nonsense.
Good argument.
@DiggitySlice ask them about forced conversions. They have an answer.
Ask them about colonialism. They have an answer.
Ask them about slavery. They have an answer.
Ask them about corruption, sleaze, scandals, pedophilia, killings, coziness with nazis. They have an answer.
For them, God is a tool of self gratification.
@@DiggitySlice 😆😆😆
You have no proof, you have no claim.
Correct, he is making it all ip for the gullible.
*The reason the author's didn't put their name on their writings. Was fear of being beheaded like Paul.*
you can't possibly know that, and there's no good evidence that Paul was beheaded
That guy talks some nonsense 😂
You are under no obligation to accept Bart Erman as gospel truth
And Vice Versa
Pauli i repeating the creed.Most scholars are agreed that the Epistles of Paul predTes the gospel.He xoesnt say that he saw Jesus in the same wzy as Peter.But he doesnt have to be an eyewitness to report whst the church Believed,Even a christian hater like Tacitus reported what Christians believe
6 of the 13 Pauline epistles are considered to be fake. The last part of Mark was a later addition. We know the Bible has been altered.
What Christians believed is about as significant as what Scientologists or Mormons believe. The beliefs of a group of people are not facts.