Are The Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2018
- The gospels. Beautiful stories about the life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus. They have permeated culture and religious thought for nearly 2000 years. Often from fundamentalists, I hear that these are first hand accounts of what happened. Of course they contain many contradictions. Some of which can be reconciled and others which cannot. This video will be addressed to those people who think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I've often said in videos that nothing about these books shouts "eyewitness testimony," but none of the videos were really about that. So today, that is the question I will be exploring. Are the gospels eyewitness accounts? And how do we know?
Make sure to like and Subscribe!
Follow us on Facebook to see what we're up to: / atheistcommunityofmilw...
Follow us on Twitter: / mkeatheists
Support us on Patreon: / mkeatheists
Check out our new website: www.MilwaukeeAtheists.com
Milwaukee Atheists Official Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/milwauke...
Sources:
Bart Ehrman - Jesus, Interrupted
David Fitzgerlad - Nailed
Lee Martin McDonald - The Biblical Canon
Awesome! And really great points here MA!
Really? I must've missed them, because I found none.
Brom Ponie name one bad point and why it's a bad point?
Matthew writing in the 3rd person - many historians adopted the 3rd person narrative when writing their histories, including Josephus and Julius Caesar (Funny that they use this against Matthew, but dismiss it when Luke uses the 1st peron narrative... ). Or how none of the authors claim to be eye-witnesses - they just have ignored John 1:14 and 1 John 1:1-3 (yes, they share a common author). Or how they draw some very unwarranted conclusions from Luke 1:1-2 and ignore Acts 16 where the author clearly portrays himself as Paul's companion.
The only fair point that I'm willing to concede as decent is Matthew using Mark as a source. (But even that is not exactly persuasive in light of everything else.)
+Brom Ponie: To find those good points one needs to fulfil these two requirements: (1) Brain should exist and (2) IQ above 70 is required. First make sure you fulfil both the conditions.
I have to admit that there are alot of better arguments for how we know the authors weren't eye witnesses than the ones presented here
Just to note. As an officer, when we write reports, we write as the 3rd person. So this is not evidence that the Gospels were far from eye witnesses accounts.
You are correct. Your reports are formal writing. That is, it is governed by rules to make the presentation uniform. The military is awfully keen on things being uniform. You are also correct that writing in the 3rd person does really mean anything. Both fiction and non-fiction have been written in the 3rd person.
@Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam Even if they claimed to be eyewitness accounts, which they don't, they could still be lying, correct?
The author referring to themselves in the 3rd person was the norm in those days. Thucydides, Josephus, Xenophon, and Caesar. All of them usually, and sometimes exclusively, refer to themselves in the 3rd person in their writings.
Sooooooo, people writing in the 1st century were following the writing standards of the 1st century. I'm amazed at the level of presentism people hold to. Assuming that the standards we have today are the standards that have always existed and always will exist.
@@Crosshair84 Prove it! I love how Christians just pull claims out of their ass as if that makes them facts. Hey genius, how do we know when we're reading a book of fiction? How about when it has a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, zombies, a demigod with superpowers, etc? What's the most likely explanation for such uncorroborated claims in an ancient story? 1) these are actual events that really happened, or 2) liars lied? We have *LOTS* of evidence that liars exist and are common, that fiction books exist, that human liars have made up fake gods and fake religious claims throughout human history, etc. But we have *ZERO* evidence for stories about talking snakes being true, etc. Try learning some critical thinking skills.
@@Crosshair84 Just to debunk your claim about Josephus, he writes in the *FIRST PERSON* about events he claimed to have personally witnessed. "I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed." (Josephus,THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS : L.8, C.2.)
www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.ix.ii.html
Clearly, you're either ignorant or a liar.
Please keep this series running. I love your work. Big thumbs up.
Luke 1:2 |
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter is a proven forgery: "Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere - except for our friends among the fundamentalists - will tell you that there is no way on God’s green earth that Peter wrote the book." Dr. Bart Ehrman, www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
"Most scholars agree, against the author's insistence, that this book was not written by Jesus' disciple, Peter. The author of 2 Peter, moreover, is not the same as that of 1 Peter. Many early Christian books were written in Peter's name, and we should add this book to that list of pseudonymous texts." Dr. Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter4/
"And even in ancient times, many Christian leaders proclaimed 2 Peter to be a forgery, an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today." www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html
"all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph [forgery]" (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4) www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
"The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity [forgery] of the epistle is almost universal."
bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s
@tsimahei And you *STILL* have no evidence for absurd claims by anonymous cult members in a book of debunked ancient fairy tales that Jesus was a *VIRGIN BORN MUTANT HALF-HUMAN DEMIGOD WITH SUPERPOWERS* or that his *ROTTING CORPSE MAGICALLY RETURNED FROM THE DEAD* , or that believers in him have magic poison-resistance: “And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301
@Blaster MasterWhy Weren't the Rulers of the Roman Empire able to Falsify the Resurrection of Jesus? czcams.com/video/6SSBwTG358w/video.html
@Blaster Master Duh! All the Romans had to do was produce the body, write a tome giving a natural explanation, or reveal the true authors of the four Gospels if they weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John whenever they were published. Christianity has an epicenter, and it's your job to come up with a natural explanation based on actual empirical historical evidence, so we can weigh both to see were the weight of the evidence lies. So start doing your homework. We already know you are an unbeliever. Blessings.
@Blaster Master Apostolic churches named the same four authors throughout the ancient Mediterranean world long before 313 A.D. when Christianity became legal. So try again, the Knights Templar order was formed c. 1119 A.D. a few years after the Edict of Milan, so back to the books and try again. Blessings.
They are written in Greek... Is that not a clue that they were not written by contemporaries in Aramaic but by Greco-Roman scholars in retroactive fashion?
Apostle Paul was an educated Roman citizen and wrote 1/4 of the new testament in koine Greek the common language of Eastern Rome
@@raysalmon6566 Precisely but that does not help the theist case. The Romans sought to subdue the Jewish rebellions. The Jews were waiting for a militaristic messiah. The very smart Romans used Jewish turncoats and collaborators like Josephus who adopted the Flavian name in honor of the Roman Emperor to revamp and even create the gospels based on Roman events. Although we know the authors of the Gospels were not the simple folks they claim to be, we know because of the style of writing used that they were educated men, tasked with re-working the Jewish religion into presenting a docile messiah that instead of fighting would turn the other cheek. This way the mostly illiterate population would be easily controlled. The system is called typology and it backdated events inserted to coincide with already known events such as the burning the Jewish temple, etc. The fact they are not written in Aramaic as they should have been only adds to it. Paul of Tarsus and Josephus have such parallels that one wonders if one is the creation of the other. Just as we all know that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are pseudonyms too. It is time for the people to wake up and realize they have been duped for over 2,000 years with a very profitable and tax exempt enterprise called, the church. The Flavian signature is undeniable ending with Constantine Flavius Nicean council and subsequent decree of 325CE.
@@raysalmon6566 Dr. James Tabor, Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "Paul’s name was used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”" www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/
@@raysalmon6566 Dr. Bart Ehrman, "At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries...Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds." religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
@@raysalmon6566 Serious question: how gullible do you have to be to believe promises about magic poison resistance from an ancient fiction book written by proven liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies....then it *MUST* be a reliable source, right? LOL!
You’re forgetting the fact that they used scribes to write their accounts for them. Not everyone in the ancient world could read or write and it wasn’t an uncommon practice back then. That’s why the ending of John has that line, please take this into consideration.
they got the President. The Deep State Democrats and Press have attempted an assassination on Trump by purposely infecting him.with covi. Call off the Election Niow. The CCP Antifa and Democratic party are attempting a Hijacking of our Government
d3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net/staging/2020-9-2/114239777-44100-2-2f5904564155e.m4a
Fitz Fitzgerald What does that have to do with my comment?
@@randomango2789 Citizen with Covid19 Tells the President how to recover. I got over it Mr. President and even with no health care and barely surviving because My job has seen income cut 50% God kept me and will keep you.
czcams.com/video/CRmzHgtDpcs/video.html
@@fitzfitzgerald1249 is an example of what religion does to people. Freaking fries their brains. Pile on thousands of hours of garbage media and boom batshit nutters.
@@nickrioz Yes Dick, I'm bat crazy. Re ligion hmmm I wonder if you know the etymology and linguistic origin of the term. Feeding thousands of homeless people and orphans, rehabbing addicts, prostitutes and the sick. Yeah guess I am bat crazy.
1 Corinthians 27-28 " For God has subjected all things to him. (When we
say that all things have been subjected to him, that of course does not
include Him who subjected them to him.) But when all things have been
subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to Him who
subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all."
Why should we care?
now that is some bona fide wordsalad bullshit right there.... and...,
nobody gives a rats ass about what your bible says...
It's not like the bible is full of lies, right? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html According to world-renowned New Testament expert Dr. Bart Ehrman: "the bible is full of lies", the gospel stories are "fabricated accounts", and the books of the New Testament are "forgeries built on lies." www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
Awesome! And really great points here MA!
How is it that you see the passages as them not claiming to be eyewitnesses? Just curious. In my studies and readings. I see multiple times that they actually say we are eyewitnesses of these things.
Where's your reference? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels." - Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels
Very nice iconography at the beginning.
Orthodox art. Very beautiful.
Excellent content and voice. It will be perfect if it is spoken more slowly giving more weight to what is being said. Keep in mind that some, perhaps many, of the listeners are unaware of the details in this topic and these details should not be run through in a hurry. I emphasize this with a view to your next videos be more than excellent, perfect. Cheers and good work.
I thought that “the one that Jesus loved” was referring to Judas. I think I picked that up from JesusNeverExisted or Dr. Carrier. Not sure.
No that was Lazarus I believe.
@@ghostriders_1
If you read that text that way then yes it's Lazarus, but keep in mind the background information that we know about these gospel
1. Lazarus was a supposedly fictional character invented by Jesus to tell a parable
2. For millennia we know that there were only 12 disciples that was being emphasized in the story of jesus
3. The date on when the gospel of John supposedly get written.
So it's hard to believe that Christians would accept suddenly there were 13 disciples, where none of the previous gospels ever mentioned this new person. It's kinda obvious that's why for ages Christians think that the beloved disciple is John, although as Carrier pointed out, upon reading the gospel of John itself Jesus there seemed to be overly liking the Lazarus character and that it's kind of odd if suddenly the disciple John would get preferential treatment over others in near the end of the story itself.
It's not really clear who was the beloved disciple was, even less clear about why such a special person existed in the narration anyway, I can imagine the gospel of John was written by someone who had a weird fetish over Jesus more than the usual Christian veneration of the character, lol.
@@Napoleonic_S Thanks for that Napoleonic
What? No mention of the apocryphal gospel according to Ringo?
And the gospel of St. Peter Best!
John clearly says he was a first-hand eye witness in the following verse..."That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life- (1 John 1:1, ESV)
Ed Smith So a character in a book saying that they witnessed events is compelling evidence to you? Seriously?
@@Mark-Stone The statement in the video says that the Gospel writers never said they were eyewitnesses when if fact The Scriptures say otherwise.
Ed Smith ok. I missed the bit in the video that said that. It’s all epidemic, as Del Boy would say, because the bible is a work of fiction. The biblical character John saying that he was an eye witness means neither that the events occurred, nor that John existed.
Mark, no amount of dialogue will ever overcome your unbelief, only God can do that. Blessings
Ed Smith you’re absolutely right, dialogue won’t make be believe in a god. One tiny scrap of credible evidence might make me think about it more seriously, but 2000 years on and there is no scrap of credible evidence.
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke himself, he addressed it to Theophilus.
Look up the word fiction. it is all fiction, poor child, you've been lied to.
There was a guy named Luke at the same time there was a guy named Theophilus? Somebody drew the short straw on cool names...
Luke addressed theophilus that he got hand down information Luke isn’t an eyewitness.
@@chemosh9565 Yes Luke was not an eyewitness, but he wrote the Gospel of Luke based on the eyewitnesses accounts.
@@Tactics592 from reading Luke 1:1-2 it says the author wrote from hand down sources of the copies of the circulated eyewitness accounts. it’s faith based Luke wrote it but we know Paul admits to being a liar romans 3:7.
Why would Mark not mention the destruction of the temple (70AD) in the gospel
Because the author wanted to make it appear that the book was written before this event so that Jesus could appear to prophesy the destruction of the temple accurately. That's how the scam worked. It's the same thing with other 'prophetic' books like Daniel, which is a proven forgery from the 2nd century BC, but pretends to be written hundreds of years earlier so it can correctly 'prophesy' events that had already happened.
Why would Peter write about Jesus saying I am the rock in which the church would be built? These were holy men who did not take pride in them selves, hence Peter would never have wrote such a statement on himself, it would contradict his humility.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Peter even existed, let alone that he said anything attributed to him by the anonymous, proven liars who wrote the gospel fairy tales.
I agree with you, nobody really knows who wrote the gospels, and yet society gets fed this pablum continueously with ever checking out the facts.
Nobody knows and you agree with him? This person "tells" us that he is "certain". . .or "I am sure". . .hahahahahahahahahahaha. . .one of you are way out to lunch dude. . . that Atheist guy or you. . . How can one know and not know at the same time? Watch this one!! Mr. Atheist. . .what comes first. . .them chickens or them there eggs?? Now remember to keep the polemics to yourself. . .I asked you a scientific question. . .one that DNA science can readily answer. . .at the protein level. . . where if one vital protein is missing the others will die. . .they all must be present simultaneously to sustain DNA processes. . .or there is no chicken. . .possible no egg. . .but science will call you a jack azz if you say that either component of protein needed simultaneously to support the process of egg or chicken making! Hehehehehehehehe. . .I guess at the protein level you need to tell me which comes first. . .protein one or protein two!! Remember that them scientists are watching you!!
Try again Sterling. That was approaching something like communication. One more go and I bet you’ll have it
@Greg Gilbert - People don't read. The New Testament says who wrote each gospel. White idiots!! No wonder islam is taking over.
Matilda Faltyn Those names were ascribed in the mid to late second century.
@Daniel Paulson - Same goes for the Old Testament. Didn't that occur to you. Research who were the authors of the OT and you always get the word "is believed to be written by" or "is attributed to". YOU DON'T THINK.
There are Atheists in Milwaukee? I thought there was only snow and beer there.
And cheese.
And fish fries every friday
hey guy Josephus did not come around in till the year 37 when he was born, so how would he know in the year 70 what happen back then, or how they wrote that, he going by what people said at the time not what he knows or what you know.He die in 100 ad
John Powers, I wasn't born when Martin Luther King was alive, nor Malcom X. Am I to say they didn't exist? no.
Why cant mathews gospels have author who was told the apostle mathews story? What im asking is why is it important that it was written by mark rather than a ghostwriter.
I would say you need a pretty well developed imagination, to read Mark 13, and see in it a description of what happened in 70AD: “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.”
Earthquakes? Famines? I do not recall them being mentioned in any historical account of the siege of Jerusalem.
You need a pretty well developed imagination to think that if it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased cult members, then it MUST be true!
the gospels aren’t written to be eyewitness accounts, but biographies on the life of Jesus.
Jesus is the main character not the writer.
Also it was a fairly standard practice in ancient writings to refer to oneself in third person when writing biographies.
The real question is why do the gospels contain traces of eyewitness testimony?. They get a lot right about the time and place. From percentage of names, correct terminology, speech, culture etc. Can we really say this was written by someone outside of the area of Galilee? For a good lecture on this see Peter J Williams videos. He does a great job. I’ll link one below :)
czcams.com/video/r5Ylt1pBMm8/video.html
They also get a lot wrong about the time and place. Jesus's trial for instance - was hardly historical. The Jewish Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohn wrote a book on the trial of Jesus back in 1963 (The Trial and Death of Jesus), and he goes over everything in fine detail.
Being a Jew and knowing the history of ancient trials, he presents a case that is hard to refute - the details of Jesus's trial such as meeting at night at the house of the high priest, meeting on passover, and the actions of Pontius Pilate do not match the real historical Pilate, and there is no historical record of the Sanhedrin ever investigating for the Romans, ect. Half of the details in the trial do not line up with the political situation at the time, and is most likely myth.
Luke gets a ton of stuff wrong also, but that's a different topic.
Feel free to provide any *EVIDENCE* for absurd claims about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies from your debunked book of Middle Eastern fairy tales that promises believers will have magic poison resistance! "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
@tsimahei Wow, hyperlinks! 2048 REASONS CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE - www.kyroot.com/
The Bible Exposed thebibleisnotholy.wordpress.com/
Christianity Disproved - www.christianitydisproved.com/bible.html
Debunking Christianity - www.debunking-christianity.com/
WHY CHRISTIANITY IS BULLSH*T, PART 1: THE BIBLE IS STUPID - www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/why-christianity-is-bullshit-part-1.html
The bible is evil - www.evilbible.com/
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
thechurchoftruth.org/all-pages-3/
101 Bible Contradictions - www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm
194 New Testament Contradictions - www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
www.godisimaginary.com/
@tsimahei And you *STILL* can't seem to provide any *EVIDENCE* for absurd claims about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies from your debunked book of Middle Eastern fairy tales that promises believers will have magic poison resistance! "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
Is there historical evidence for the disciples preferring martyrdom rather than denying Jesus Christ as Son of God?
There is evidence of Christians being charged by Nero for disrupting the peace and being accused of starting a fire in Rome. Josephus and Pliny both mention the existence of Christians in the first century. But to your question, no. The disciples are likely fictional characters.
@@nickrioz With all due respect, you're misinformed. The 'Josephus' reference is from an 11th century manuscript written by anonymous Christian scribes who are proven to have forged the reference into the text. Dr. Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor at Carnegie Mellon University: "The most likely explanation is that the entire passage is interpolated, presumably by Christians embarrassed at Josephus’s manifest ignorance of the life and death of Jesus." - A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63
Dr. Michael Martin, professor at Boston University, "Biblical scholars are almost in uniform agreement that this passage is spurious--a Christian interpolation--and, consequently, that it cannot be taken seriously as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus." - The Case Against Christianity
Dr. Nicholas Peter Legh Allen, professor of theology at North-West University, “apart from Josephus’ Ant [Antiquties of the Jews]…no other genuine historical sources exist to provide valid extra-biblical/scriptural evidence relevant to the historical existence of Jesus…due to the lack of suitable sources, early Christian apologists were often forced to manufacture them. Certainly, if valid proof had been freely available to Christian writers at the time (i.e. before c. 400 C.E.) there would not have been any need for pious fraud.” - Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted, 2020.
Dr. Candida Moss, professor of early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, “the ‘Age of Martyrs’ is a fiction-there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches." The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom
None of the imposters shown in this picture.
Interesting video. Although it seems that you are merely arguing that the New Testament books were actually penned by ghost-writers. Ghost-writers are common, and off hand I see zero reason why the mere fact that a gospel was ghost written should be doubted. For example, if the actual eye-witness is aged, infirm, or unable to write himself, I see zero reason why he ought not employ a scribe.
The 3rd person narrative is interesting too. But you didn't appear to analyze whether - or not - 3rd person narratives were common in that genre. Nor did you analyze whether it would be appropriate for a ghost-writer to use the 3rd person style.
I'm no expert, not at all, but there is also the lingering issue of inspiration that you did not apparently analyze. That might be significant. For example, if the eye-witnesses all claim to be witnesses on behalf of God, then they could - possibly - have instructed the ghost-writers to write in the 3rd person.
It might be more credible, if you analyze the documents in the original Greek, too. I understand there's some differences between the original documents and the current day bible - very important differences. I mean, differences that might tend to provide a false description of God. If your analysis is based on a falsified version, then the issues you raise may be moot.
anyway. I enjoyed your video. don't take my comments as offense. just common critical analysis.
this video is simply stating the view of the vast consensus of New Test scholars. If you want a pretty good break-down of the methods that biblical historians use to determine authorship etc, see Bart Ehrman's library of books available through Amazon etc. His book Forged goes through this question but many of his other books touch on the subject. Many CZcams lectures by him on the topic as well. These gospels were anonymous and the dates are pretty much as stated in the video.
Even Caesar used third person in his book “Gallic Wars’” it was normal back then and is not an issue.
Also being ignored is the chain of custody and how it is used today.
@@phillipharrington9201 If it was claimed that Caesar was a *VIRGIN-BORN DEMIGOD WITH SUPERPOWERS* and that his rotting corpse *MAGICALLY RETURNED FROM THE DEAD* before levitating bodily into outer space, we would properly assign such claims to the realm of fiction, correct?
Myth Buster, normally, unless multiple eyewitnesses over thousands of years even to this day suggest otherwise breaking the formulaic legend of Nimrod most ancient near eastern cultures saw religion through.
@@phillipharrington9201 How does that relate to whether we should believe absurd fairy tales about a *VIRGIN-BORN DEMIGOD BASTARD ZOMBIE* from a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, and 900-year-old men, which promises magical poison resistance to believers? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
Another early work we can compare the gospels to each is Xenophon (probably not how to spell the name). He wrote about himself in the 3rd person and borrowed testimony from another eyewitness, because he did not personally witness every event.
Did Xenophobe write a lot of books about magic and ghosts and demons that people take seriously?
*FACT* - the New Testament contains proven lies by the anonymous, biased fanatics who wrote it. "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). Go ahead! Let’s see you post a video showing you drinking deadly poison without harm. It’s not like the anonymous, biased cult members who wrote Mark were proven liars, forgers and frauds, right? What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" - 2 Drink Strychnine At Service and Die In Display of Faith, New York Times. It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
We understand these theories but I think the gospel stories were known orally before being written down where did they get these names mark john Mathew from it seems these stories to the time when the temple was not yet destroyed 70 ad
But you have no evidence whatsoever for any stories that were "known orally before being written down". Are there audio recordings from the 1st century? All we know is what the earliest manuscripts contain, and these are dated hundreds of years after the supposed events by unknown Christian scribes who were notorious for forgery, fiction and fraud.
Good work
Thanks
Prof. Fazal
Cambridge
czcams.com/video/-7VOKlJyuww/video.html
When God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning , who was there to witness the creation being accomplished by God?
im playing devils advocate: christians would say "well, who was there to witness the big bang?" who can break this down?
@@g0stn0te Yes, but there's a big difference: we have independently verifiable evidence of the Big Bang and new evidence is coming in all of the time.
@The Skeptic Philosopher this napkin is god because it says it is.
i always wondered: when god, by himself, out in space, said : "let there be light".., who was there to hear it, so it could be written down...?
...or, when god was having the first author to write the bible, god said : "yeah, and when I created the sun, I said outloud, to myself "let there be light", make sure you write that down" !
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
THE aNGELS
Will a child ask his parent if they are really his mother and father or was he delivered by a stork
but a child know from bench of people in his own lifetime who is his mother and father.
@@shashanktripathi3398 So I will not question my self " are the gospel eyewitness account" if by my faith in God is the Truth
@@jayaseelenpatchy8879 Serious question: how gullible do you have to be to believe promises about magic poison resistance from an ancient fiction book written by proven liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies....then it *MUST* be a reliable source, right? LOL!
@@shashanktripathi3398 He could have been adopted
Iv often wondered why written gospels from the original apostles and contemporary writers were left out by Catholic monks recopying scripture- Ive never thought a direct chain of leadership custody existed from Peter/James/John to the Constantine era Bishops and Pope.
@John MacArthur It's not like the bible is full of lies, right? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html According to world-renowned New Testament expert Dr. Bart Ehrman: "the bible is full of lies", the gospel stories are "fabricated accounts", and the books of the New Testament are "forgeries built on lies." www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
Thank you! This info was great. Good to know some of us are thinkers
And people who believe the bible aren't?
Think without ending at the solution?
@@christopherbuckenhamphotog368 people who believe in the Bible, already have the thinking done for them
@@raymondgrimaldi9207 Hard disagree.
@@leahcimmmm Anytime you want to prove your book of debunked ancient fairy tales with the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, which promises magic poison resistance to believers---go ahead! "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). So post your video demonstrating the magic poison-resistance superpowers that Lying Jesus promised! It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
I would invite you to read Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony," Ronald H. Nash's book "The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?" (spoiler alert - no they didn't), Michael J. Kruger's two books "The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate," and "Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books," and finally, F.F. Bruce's book "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?"
In Bruce's book, on pages 42-43, we have this statement: “The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered… We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.”
I would invite you to reeducate yourself with facts on this topic rather than merely regurgitating atheist talking points that have been long dealt with.
How stupid do you have to believe promises about magic poison resistance from an ancient fiction book written by proven liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies....then it *MUST* be a reliable source, right? LOL!
I have a few problems with what your saying. The new testament is too early and while it was sometimes the students of the eyewitness the reason they whernt written earlier is the belived jesuses second comeing was imminent so they didn't need to write it down.
Fanciful nonsense! The reason is cos it took a long time to make all this stuff up. Paul wrote earlier and he witnesses nothing that you find in the first gospel.
@@ghostriders_1 have you ever read the Bible
I hate to break your delusions Christopher but the 4 gospels are thoroughly anonymous documents all written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE. None of them say who they are or reveal their sources. Names are only attached to them in the late 2nd century to retrofit them with apostolic authority.
Apocalypse or not Paul wrote in the 50's and he references none of the gospels. Much worse than this he verifies nothing of the wild & fabulous stories related in the gospels.
@@christopherbuckenhamphotog368 Hi Chris, yes I have read the NT, line by line, with copious footnotes to gain a full understanding of what is going on. I reccomend you visit Michael Turton's detailed analysis of Mark's gospel, the one that Matthew, Luke & John based theirs on. Here is the link.....
www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html
If you read this information closely & open mindedly you will learn how our first gospel is not history remembered but a clever work of allegorical literary artifice cobbled together by reworking stories from the OT about Moses, Elisha & Elijah and making them about Jesus. None of these stories was known about by Paul writing 30 years earlier! Another great read, to confirm this conclusion is Randolph Helm's short but interesting book: Gospel Fictions.
@@ghostriders_1 ok then why dosent acts say about the fall of the temple in 70AD then
So according to your main argument, Julius Caesar didn't write the Gallic War because he use the third person for himself ? It was not uncommon for authors at that time to use the third person for themselves. Plus the fact that just for Mathew, the most common theory is that he wrote the logias, so the speeches/paraboles of Jesus, perhaps with some minor biographic events, and that another guy after merged it with Mark. Since he was a tax collector, he was one of the rare who could write and could have started to write down some paraboles even in the 30's as a memory aid while he had to preach. The usual date for Mathiew concerns the _final_ version. As for the second conclusion of John, obviously it wasn't written by him, perhaps because he was already dead after the first conclusion (John 20:31). So what? I used to think that John the son of Zebedee, who was an illeterate fisherman, dictated his gospel, although some suggest that John the Presbyter (who also knew Jesus in his youth) was the main author.
The gospel we call 'Matthew' wasn't written by the literary character of Matthew, stupid. It was just named after him. Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels." - Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels, NPR
Dr. Hugo Mendez, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: “the Gospel of John, and the letters of 1 2, and 3 John are a chain of ancient literary forgeries.” - Everyone’s Favorite Gospel Is a Forgery
Dr. Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at California State University: "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." - Understanding the Bible, p. 355.
@@mythbuster1483 The Irony of you believing Christians believe anything "just because the bible says so" is funny considering you take Dr. Bart Ehrman as a 100% right all the time source.
@@Sm64wii Nope, sorry cultie. I don't take what Dr. Ehrman says on faith, I look at the evidence he presents for his claims. And he's not making absurd claims that are overwhelmingly likely to be false, like stories about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, or some guy's mother being impregnated by a god, etc. LOL!
so thats how creatonists react in adult conversation-
Question - Show me how your claims are backed by good evidence
Answer - as I said, I don't necessarily need good evidence to make a good case.
nothing to add!
Who wrote mathew
Pantaenus also confirmed that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. The great church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, writes that Pantaenus, a church leader in the late 2nd to possibly early 3rd century, came across the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. Eusebius notes that Pantaenus was “a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.”[6] The following is Eusebius’s report of Pantaenus’s encounter with the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel:
I don't suggest too much what creationists propose there is simply just too many serious unexplained problems with evolution. Reading talkorigins is like a museum of invented theories
@@raysalmon6566 Your fake holy book says, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So I'm waiting on your proof of the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies....or that Jesus was his own father and impregnated his own mother before his rotting corpse magically returned from the dead and then levitated bodily into outer space. It's not like the bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, "the bible is full of lies" www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
@@raysalmon6566 Eusebius was a notorious liar who wrote of credulous believers: "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica [Preparation for the Gospel] Book 12, Chap 31)
www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm
@tsimahei And you *STILL* have no evidence for absurd claims by anonymous cult members in a book of debunked ancient fairy tales that Jesus was a *VIRGIN BORN MUTANT HALF-HUMAN DEMIGOD WITH SUPERPOWERS* or that his *ROTTING CORPSE MAGICALLY RETURNED FROM THE DEAD* , or that believers in him have magic poison-resistance: “And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301
According to....
Interesting video
Want to see argument with Inspiring Philosopher/I.P. And you guys if that’s ok with you all. :)
It doesn't matter that the gospels themselves were not eyewitness accounts. *Most* of history isn't written by eyewitnesses (e.g., the first biographies on Alexander the Great weren't written for some 300-400 years after his death).
Vic 2.0 those histories get scrutinized and double checked with confirmable reality, they don't get a free pass.
Obviously. The point was simply that you can't discredit a source by complaining that it wasn't written by eyewitnesses. The accounts of Jesus are still very early compared to a lot of secular history, particularly when you start getting into the pre-Markan passion story and the four-line formula given to Paul which he subsequently passed on to the church of Corinth.
Vic 2.0 true, you can't discount accounts purely on the basis of who wrote them and when if they manage to match up to history regardless. You can discount christian claims that the gospels were written by eye witnesses though.
But as the gospels fail on all levels we can dismiss them as made up stories.
There's absolutely no reason to dismiss the gospels as reliable historical documents, at least not when it concerns the passion narrative or other largely non-miraculous reports. As I said, these are multiply attested and early sources dating back to within 5-6 years of Jesus' death.
Vic 2.0 as both the name 'Jesus' and crucifixions were common I have no doubt that there were Jesus's that were crucified. The question for the gospels would be if the entire Jesus Christ story were true and there's alot of reasons to not believe it starting with the contradictory time spans of when he was born.
If you know of any early recordings of the passion please send me a link because I couldn't find anything but speculation in my search
The gospels contradict each other too much to be eyewitness accounts. And they're constantly getting geographical locations wrong.
Ntwadumela MATA What NO Russian collusion?
+anonymous201096
There are many places in the New Testament where Jesus walks from A to B and makes a stop at C as if it lay right in the middle of them, but it can be hudnreds of kilometers in another direction, so it would take days to reach it and could not conveniently happen on that hike! That and getting wrong which ruler is reposnible for a certain region/town or describing Nazareth as having a giant cliff towards the sea of galilee and many things more.
People have pointed out that pretty much all descriptions of the Sea of galilee speak of the authors being completely unfamiliar with that inland sea/lake... the time it takes to cross it, the degree to which the storms around it are described, that all is not sea of galilee description but transferred from somebody that knows the circumstances on parts of the mediterranean and guessed with a name like sea of galilee it must have been the same... the idea alone that in a 25*10 mile sea you would find boats large enough to transport 15 to 20 people (Jesus 12 disciples and the crew of the boat makes at least 15) owned by fishermen earning their daily breadrolls through fishing... is ridiculous.
The fact that they are alleged to be eyewitness accounts, yet come from wholly anonymous people (written yet still by someone else anonymous decades and decades after the supposed event roughly 2,000 years ago) tells us a few things. One thing being that your opinion that this is in Any way synonymous with or equivalent to personal present-day testimony of Very recent events... Potentially shows some serious faults in your logic and/or a terribly persistent, and likely blinding, bias.
Yes, present-day eyewitness testimony can often be quite harshly flawed and fallible, sure. However that in no way whatsoever exonerates the gospels, in fact it only makes them even more dubious further still.
Sorry, but that's Not what the facts show. The Gospel of Mark, known to be the first of the gospels from which Matthew, Luke, and John are Based on, dates from no earlier than "AD" 66-70. And it can be demonstrated, by their writing styles and several other methods, that they are not first-hand accounts; Also they are only Named after some of jesus' disciples, it's a known fact that literally no one knows who the writers actually were.
anonymous201096 A few corrections:
1) With the exception of Luke, it's probable that they were initially anonymous - in the sense that they don't all explicitly state who their authors were. This, however, is not to say we cannot know who their authors were.
2) John was written more 2 decades after Jesus' ascencion.
Shallow analysis and conclusion.
I love the "written in 3rd person" point. It's like- FACEPALM!
Josephus, Julius Caesar and many other writers also sometimes wrote in the 3rd-person.
Poor point in my opinion...
Actually when writing my PhD thesis, I had to write in the third person out of academic convention, describing myself variously as the author, the researcher etc. I found it absurd to do so, but it was a convention. Now I am not saying that the Gospels are first hand accounts, however we cannot dismiss the fact merely because they do not conform to contemporary notions of journalism.
@tsimahei Christians have basically been wrong about everything. Christians relied on the Old Testament as real history, they were wrong. The existence of Moses and the Patriarchs?--wrong again. The age of the earth?--Christians said it was 6,000 years old. Wrong again! Christians claimed that the sun revolved around a stationary earth, because the bible said so--wrong again! The nature of disease?--Christians said it was from demon-possession. Wrong again! Biological evolution? Christians said impossible, they were wrong. The origin of the gospels?--Christians said they were written by disciples of Jesus, who were eyewitnesses. Wrong again. The reliability of the New Testament? It's been proven to contain fiction, forgery and fraud. Wrong again! It's actually hard to find a single topic that the Christian church has ever been right about.
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing that people believed absurd ancient fairy tales...except for holding back medical science for 1,500 years and the countless deaths that resulted, the promotion of genocide, homophobia, murdering children, misogyny, slavery, witch-killings, and other harmful things the bible promotes. Other than that, rational people could care less what ancient fairy tales that credulous, ignorant people want to believe.
@tsimahei Nice rationalization for your complete lack of evidence for your absurd, supernatural claims! "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof I have *LOTS* of evidence that liars exist and are common, and that liars have made up imaginary gods and fake religious stories throughout human existence, and I have *ZERO* evidence for a *MAGIC INVISIBLE SKY FAIRY* , or for a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, or the existence of virgin-born demigods with superpowers, or zombies. If you claim that debunked ancient fairy tales written by anonymous fanatics are true...where's your evidence?
@tsimahei *CLAIM* "When you make a claim or claim something, you're demanding it or saying it’s true...With any kind of claim, you're going to have to prove it." www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/claim
"That's assuming that thirty years later Mark got it all down right!" -- John Cleese.
Cleese at his snarky best, and the more earnest Michael Palin, were debating the devoutly Catholic Malcolm Muggeridge over (the brilliant) Life of Brian, which featured a Sermon on the Mount where people in the crowd were hearing very different things ('blessed be the cheese-makers . . ') Mind you both Cleese' and Palin's respect for Muggeridge otherwise bordered on awe, since he was the first to report on the horrific extent of the Stalinist Purges 45 years earlier.
The most significant fact about the Gospels, of which few Christians are aware, is that they were written after the Pauline Epistles (late 40s to early 60s), the first real documents of the New Testament, and toward the end of supporting the dogma described by Paul. Mark, the earliest, probably dates from the 70s, and Matthew, Luke, and John from the 80s and 90s, i.e. 50 to 60 years after the ministry of Jesus.
The other thing about the Gospels -- and this is something about which I am in no position to comment on authoritatively -- is apparently they are all written in scholarly koine Greek, of which the original disciples were probably as ignorant as I.
Thomas 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' Jefferson is famous for saying "I embrace the moral teachings of Jesus. I reject the revelations of scripture" and was the first person to actually take a stab at figuring out how much of the Gospels actually is the saying of Jesus.
not just "koine greek" (which simply means the ancient form as spoken and writtena t that time ... but WELL formulated and educated greek.
Those were not just scribes able to write down something and protocolling the thoughts of a random jewish guy "called" to the following of Jesus like the Apostles and Paul, these were seriously trained literary writers and studied folks that knew rules of rhetorics and a lot of ancient moral and philosophical concepts. Not something you find in abundance in rural galilee or even Jerusalem... sso it's very likely that the gospels are bearing witness of different forms of worship having been spread from the "holy land" to the greek diaspora around the eastern mediterranean, in centers like the congregations that were written to in Paul#s letters or Alexandria or similarly large cities in Asia Minor and on the Levante... Why isn't there e,g, a Letter to the Damascens? Tyre? Or the midianites? Instead Corinth and Rome? yeah, sounds legitimately direct earwitness accounts from the small parts of the roman empire that was called Judea and Galilee half a century earlier...
Makes sense as for Greek vs. Hebrew. The Greek says Jesus is the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end, it does not mean as much as if it were Hebrew, let me explain. The first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet is "Aleph" and it was originally drawn as a Bull and later stylized asnd in English turned upside down on it's horns "A"...
It's original meaning was "Strenght, might, leader". A bull was the sacrifice in the Tabernacle for the sins of the priest, which Jesus fufilled being sinless.
The last letter in original Hebrew pictograms is the "Taw" which was a cross symbol that meant "Covenant" 1,500 years before Christ.
Yes, all the books of the New Testament were reportedly written in Greek. Contrary to what many believe, the official language of the Roman empirer was Greek, not Latin. And, only the well educated could read and write in Greek.
BTW, that automatically eliminates the Apostle John as the author of the Gospel of John, as, according to the Acts of the Apostles, John was illerate. He was a poor fisherman who couldn't even write in his own language, Aramaic, let alone Greek, the language of the political and social elite.
@@mike62mcmanus
Such a load of bullshit.
First of all any jewish writing system was derived from older, e.g. phoenician and other related "adjabs" (that#s what Linguists call their Alphabets as they don't use Alpha and Beta) and while your claim is true for a very crude and ancient form of that writing, it has been out of style LONG before Jesus and wasn#t even used at his time.
Secondly, the "turning upside down" of the egyptian and phoenician bull shaped glyphs happened much sooner than "in English". The greeks got their letters from the same source and it already had rotated almost perfectly into the A shape, just without a crossbar back then... so more like /\ . The A as we know it came from etruscan and roman variations of the writing greek colonists had brought into southern Italy about the same time as the Hebrews stopped writing in the "Bull and Cross" Style and slowly wen tover to the modern "square" style, which transition was finished in the sixth century BCE. Jesus might have QUOTED an old Testament verse playing with the Ox and Cross symbolism, but he sure a shell did NOT know about it as a hebrew of the first century CE!
Also it is basically uncontested that Jesus and his disciples - should they have been real humans and not just literary figures - would have spoken ARAMAIC. But the New Testament still only exists in greek writing, no original "hebrew" manuscript has ever been discovered. And the whole Pauline body of work makes it seem ver yunlikely to ever discover something like that as Paul chronicles how Christianity had to missionarize the heathens (Greeks) as the Jews did not want to convert in menaingful numbers. And the belief changed as evidenced by Paul loosening the strict food and behavioral rules of judaism. So the gospels were written accounts REFLECTING that changed demographic and outlook on the nature of the young religion, way more realistic to assume it happened mostly in the greek diaspora than to locate it all in Palestine with the jewish centers.
@@jayejaycurry5485
"Contrary to what many believe, the official language of the Roman empire was Greek, not Latin. And, only the well educated could read and write in Greek."
No, in the western half Latin was always the official language, although wealthy romans that could pay for a good education for their children had them learn greek like wealthy Europeans in the middle ages and modernity had them learn latin as sign of cultivated knowledge... They always had a bit of a inferiority complex for their more sophisticated and educated cousins from the Peloponessus and the myriad islands. Thus the conquest of the last remnant of hellenistic greece soon after the change of times. And greek slaves that could write were very popular in roman households that could afford them... especially due to this role as teacher.
The Eastern half (and when Rome was destroyed around 450 CE also the regions of it reconquered by Byzantium under Belisar's strategy) used greek, because there it was the lingua franca ever since Alexander had conquered all of the old Persian Empire. The type of Roman that would be sent out as a governor or military commander would already know greek, the soldiers and bureaucrats would usually be local and thus speak it, so there was no reason to disrupt the daily routines by forcing everybody to speak or write latin. Greek was used as "international" means of communication long into the muslim period as the wealthy class of the Sultanates also liked to learn the classical language and study the old literature and science. And on the lower level it was much easier to find people knowing greek in the whole levante and so on, than to find a common dialect of arab or turk or whatever.
Mark, Luke, Paul were not apostles, Paul was a demon possess liar by his own admission 2 Cor 12:7 but this does not seem to phase Christians who hand on his every word. Mark simply wrote down stories told about Matthew and the other apostles. Mark never claimed to be an eyewitness, he was a Roman and had no grasp of Hebrew, the reason his story of events conflicts with that found in Matthew who wrote in Hebrew. Luke also a Roman wrote down hearsay events, and later became Paul's historian. Luke did not witness any of the life of Paul as Paul simply borrowed most of his stories from Greek mythology or from Torah. Paul was saved from his enemies by being lowered in a basket, Moseh was saved from Pharaoh's ordinances by being placed in a basket. Paul's many and conflicting accounts of his conversion story include the most famous quote from Greek mythology the Dionysus quote "You cannot kick against the goad" Paul put this quote into the mouth of his Jesus. Christian commentators have been making up stories in an effort to explain that one for centuries.
John 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him
God includes prophecy with all that He inspires to prove God is speaking, you can believe as you like. This prophecy was made for those who would ignore the messiah and cling to Paul. Paul opened many of his letters introducing himself by his personal Roman name. Most of what Paul scribed included the words I Paul say, or mark my words, or I am not a liar. Leaving one to think Paul spend a great deal of his time lying and not many were taking him too seriously. You have made a video on Marcion so no need to explain why the Roman church would cling to the lies of a fellow Roman who attempted to negate the Hebrew God the Romans despised.
The book of Daniel obviously to predates the fall of Rome and the rise of the Roman catholic church, yet both are predicted in it's pages. If not then Daniel made a damn good guess as to the kingdoms that would rise and fall in succession to that of Nebakanezer. The prophet Habakkuk was also very lucking in predicting Paul of Tarsus would come and create the religion of Christianity, so accurate that Paul quoted the prophecy to mock its accuracy.
Don
You can't read to well from your comment on 2Cor 12:7. Boy!
Hes forgetting that we have found manuscripts from outside the bible that attribute the gospels to matthew mark luke and john
These documents, they have a name?
Against Marcion 4.2.1-2 by tertullian attributes the gospels to their traditional authors
Also Against Heresies 3 .1.1-2, written by ireaneas say that the gospels were written by the apostles they are credited to
@@conner200 I don't think Tertullian ascribes the gospels to their " traditional authors" as you say. As far as I'm aware there is no authorial tradition before him. Kata Marcon does not mean written by Mark. It means some bloke called Mark told this tale to your anonymous author. The other 3 gospels are just redactions that went unnamed until very late in the 2nd century.
Whethor mark wrote his gospel by his own hand or told the story to someone else who proceeded to write it down is irrelevant. Iether way the information still comes from mark. Also the other gospels arent just repeating the same story. They contribute new information that mark doesnt and most likely had another source besides mark. But even if I did agree with you about tertullian for the sake of arguement, Ireaneas still says very clearly that the gospels were written by matthew mark luke and john
@Charels Ellis im not familliar with those writings but I'll read them and get back to you
According to the New Advent John Mark was killed in a riot in Alexandria in 62 CE. So, it would be impossible for him to have written the gospel c 70 CE.
The author of John's Gospel claims to be an eye witness in the 1st chapter. Just read it.
Are you referring to John 1:6-7? "(6) There was a man sent by God whose name was John. (7) This man came as a witness in order to testify concerning the Light, that all men through Him might believe."
If so, you need to read that chapter again, more carefully. That John was John the Baptist, and not the author of the Gospel According to John.
No, Jn. 1:14, "We beheld His glory". Means we(the Apostles) looked at him. That's an eyewitness. Also in John 1st letter in the 1st chapter he uses the word eyewitness. Read 1st John 1:1-5.
@@rev.j.rogerallen9328 Does "we" really mean the Apostles, or Christians in general? Again, in 1 John, the author uses that very same "we". WE have no idea who the author(s) of these books are. It certainly isn't John the Apostle, because he couldn't read or write in his own language (Aramaic), let alone in Greek, the language of the social elite, the language of the New Testament.
You have been watching some of these non historical you tube channels. Greek was the language of commerce in the Roman Empire. If you wanted to buy or sell anything you had to speak and write in Greek. Many of the Apostles were in the commercial fish selling business. They had have an extensive knowledge of Greek to sell their products. Is a myth invented by modern so called scholars that people of the 1st century were all illiterate. Most people spoke and read numerous languages. In the case of the Apostles and Jesus also, they had to be able to read Hebrew to read in the Jewish Temple. They had to read and speak Greek to buy and sell anything. The had to have some speaking knowledge of Latin when dealing with Roman government officials and of course they all spoke Aramaic within their own circle. This was true of most people living in the 1st century and it is still true today. If you want to learn some history about ancient peoples, read a history book. Go to the encyclopedia Britannia or type in Ryan Reeves on you tube. Do not believe the myths and lies that are being spread on you tube.
@@rev.j.rogerallen9328 Actually I've not seen anything about it on CZcams. I took Classical Studies courses in college, as well as several Religious Studies courses. I've also taken many courses in Rome and Roman History, not to mention studied much of the Bible, and Jewish and Christian history.
While Jews may have learned to read and write Aramaic, it was certainly not true of the majority. Peter and John were identified in the Acts of the Apostles as being among the illiterate. Some may have learned to speak Latin in their dealings with the Romans. Greek was the scientific, philosophical, political and diplomatic language of the Roman empire. It was taught only to Greeks and the social elite, and not to fishermen or merchants.
I've noted that Christian tend to make up stories when they paint themselves into theological corners.
No, moving on
as Atheists you might not be so neutral in your line of thoughts
You think this entire confusing setup (the bible and its collection of books and translations) is an efficient way for god to communicate with us?
It's not like Christians are deluded, brainwashed fanatics who are stupid enough to believe absurd fairy tales about a virgin-born demigod mutant zombie, talking snake, talking donkey, or 900-year-old men with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* , right? So where is it? "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof The Bible isn't full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman: "the Bible is full of lies" www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301 What happens when fools believe liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). The inevitable result? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
You are missing the purloined letter: The are God co-written. You need faith. Can't be analyzed
What is your definition of faith?
are they eyewitness accounts? ... nope. thanks for asking! :D
I'd have to disagree - they were.
@@bromponie7330 : elaborate.
The Gospels are composed by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, all of whom are or are linked to eye-witnesses.
hahahaha nope!
Several reasons.
The abundant early external evidence in the form of the testimonies of Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Novation, Hippolytus, that of Justin Martyr, Papias, anti-Marcionite prologues, Origen, etc. etc.
Also the titles, and the internal evidence that point to said authors, such as Luke being Paul's companion in Acts, John 1:14, etc.
They were no eyewitnesses to the life of the man they called Jesus.
@Ronald bessard - Another dumb white. Yes four witness accounts in the New Testament. Countless archeological evidence. Paul who was a heavy duty persecutor of Christians became the greatest apostle. Oh but you better go back to your Netflix shit white boy.
@@matildafaltyn6253 With all the countless evidence have you ever wondered where are the mummified remains of "any" biblical characters? They show you some paintings on a rock, or a boat the size of a Cadillac in the mountains and people believe it. But you can find several Egyptian mummies that predates these biblical characters thousands of years. The man never existed lady. Jesus is the sun🌞 not the son. They created the "man" Jesus at The Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Read the story of Josephus Flavius and you'll find the crucifixion story. Also the greeks copied the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph from the Temples in Egypt. The story of Osiris, Isis, & Horus is where it came from. You've been lied too. The Greek God Christos meaning the "annointed one" became "Jesus" later on. The Bible was written in allegory and ppl take it literal. The next time you see the sun shine over water it's going to look like it's walking on water. Without the sun grapes won't grow and there will be no wine to drink. It's common sense. The real concept of Jesus is the sun🌞
@TpTv Too Live - Mummified remains of biblical characters? Are you right in the head? They were living under Roman occupation and the only people that got mummified were royalty. No that is not what the Council of Nicea did - WHO TOLD YOU THAT BALONEY.? The Council role was to cull out the heretical gnostic texts and decide which books were to be the New Testament.
Your babylonian osiris etc has nothing to do with this. HAVE YOU EVER READ A BOOK IN YOUR LIFE?. Yet you criticise something you haven't even read yourself. If you are a sun worshiper then enjoy worshiping Baal and iphone.
@@tptvtoolive8640 This argument about Jesus being a carbon copy of mythology has been debunked years ago. Everything you stated came from the movie Zeitgeist, which was destroyed by actual historians, egyptologists, etc.
How was Jesus created in 325 AD when Christians were being persecuted in the mid 1st century? Read about Nero Ceasar who was an evil Roman emperor killing Christians. This was in 64 AD.
There were 42 different people who wrote about Jesus within 150years after his death and resurrection. This includes secular writers, meaning those who weren't believers. Two of them were hostile towards Jesus and the Christian movement; Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Read what they wrote about Jesus and Christianity, not good. Now why would nonbelievers write about Him as though he was a real person if He wasn't. Why not write about Him being a made up created by such and so and so???
Jesus is the Son of God, it doesn't mean Sun in the sky. This was made up by occultist such as Halena blavatsky, Gerald Massie, Kearsy Graves I. the 1800s. Please stop listening to lies and come to Jesus.
@@matildafaltyn6253 Anytime you want to prove the truth of your ancient book of fairy tales, feel free: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html Wow...what kind of immoral psycho tricks gullible fanatics into KILLING THEMSELVES by lying and saying that Jesus said they'd have magic poison resistance?
Unlike the other gospels, which says Matthew’s house, Matthew’s gospel simply says the house. While this is small; let’s look at the bigger parts, which would be a sign of Matthew’s character. Matthew was a tax collector, so we might expect to find examples of him talking about money more than the other gospels. He mentions money x2 more than Luke. Other authors who wrote about themselves spoke in the third person (Josephus being one of them). If there was already a gospel written, which talked about things that happened before Matthew was converted, and Peter, the 12’s leader, was behind it, why wouldn’t Matthew use it?
Dr. Bart Ehrman: "Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" - Jesus and the disciples - were doing, never about what "we" - Jesus and the rest of us - were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself." - Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels
The anonymous author of the book we call ‘Matthew’ claims that an angel appeared to Joseph in three dreams, and he quotes the supposed words of the angel 80+ years after the supposed events (1:20, 2:13 & 2:19-20). The author claims to know about Joseph and Mary's sex life (1:25), writes a word-for-word conversation between the Devil and Jesus while the latter is alone in the wilderness (Matt. 4), etc. This is clearly fiction, and the ‘omniscient narrator’ is a technique of fiction writers who always know what their literary characters are doing, saying and thinking, because they are making up the story.
some are , the story that we here been moved in the way of man's thinking .
These are just silly Jesus stories which make no sense at all. Many good points presented in the video.
Yeah nah, I still maintain that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John authored the Gospels...
What language did they write in?
Brom Ponie
The gospels were written anonymously. Period.
@@@mrsbrownandhercat Koine Greek. Maybe an Aramaic version of Matthew initially, but that's doubtful.
@@@joeb4847 The Gospels were authored by Mark, Levi, Luke & John. Period.
That's what the early historical evidence indicates.
@@bromponie7330
Bullshit. If you have proof of this then lets see it!
The book that came down were many , some most people do know .
INTRODUCTION to The Nag Hammadi Scriptures:
"For more than 1,500 years, most Christians assumed that the only sources of tradition about Jesus and his disciples are in the New Testament. Those who first investigated these writings realized that some of them date back to the earliest centuries of the Christian movement, but assumed that they must be false gospels. Besides the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth, some of the “church fathers” attacked them as heresy. Irenaeus of Lyon, who wrote around 160 CE, denounced passages from the Secret Book of John. Irenaeus called the other writings as illegitimate and heretical. He insisted that of the dozens of gospels revered by various Christians, only four were genuine-Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. All the rest are illegitimate because, “there cannot be more than four gospels”. He claimed that since there are four corners of the universe, and four principle winds, there can be only four gospels."
What about the Gospel of Thomas? In The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, the Introduction to “Thomas”: “The Gospel of Thomas presents a figure of Jesus who does not die for anyone’s sins, and does not rise from the dead.” Actually, it is Judas Thomas who was believed by some to be the twin of Jesus. (didymus-twin). The introduction to the Book of Thomas says that Thomas is the surname of Judas (Jude), the twin of Jesus.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels says biblical historian Gary Greenberg in his latest book, "Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions". At least, not the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John of Church tradition, he adds.
Source: www.bibleandhistory.com/bookpages/gospelspage.html
"Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle".
"The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century".
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased members of a death cult, then it MUST be a reliable source?!!
@@mythbuster1483 Hah Very good reply. Oh ye of little faith. Thanks.
Very interesting how you have devoted your life to atheism. I wonder what takes more faith believing in no god? Or in God?
Definitely takes more faith to believe in god. If there were sufficient evidence for the existence of god, faith wouldn't be required would it?
To think we randomly evolved from a ball of slime takes tremendous faith. There isn’t a shred of evidence for evolution., only theory. The proof of God is everywhere in all his creations. To think nothing was made from nothing takes huge faith.
@@andyscheurer6336 um read what the definition of "theory" is. I think you have it confused. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. We see microevolution all the time. Those small changes eventually add up good and bad to macroevolution. Scientist are able to get amino acids (building blocks of life) to form in a lab setting using the elements that would have existed when the earth formed. If/when they get them to form life, would you give up your religion?
When you say you can see god in creation, there is no valid reasoning for that conclusion. Baiscally you imply life is complex, therefore god. What proof is there for that claim?
For evidence of evolution they would need a fossil showing the transformation into another species which doesn’t exisit. So it’s an unproven theory.
In my opinion it takes more faith to say we evolved from slime and nothing was created from nothing.
This video is also full of generalities, count how many times he says “probably” .
@@andyscheurer6336 I'm not sure if you're just confused on what evolution really is, or you purposefully don't care to know. Here is a link to some examples.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/amp/
Your doubt not gonna effect people have relationships with Jesus because this is the work of Holy Spirit , natural man cannot understand , you said that mark may be heard from Josephus , how about if this is not true , why people mind go always opposite because they don’t experience Jesus
The bible has been debunked as fiction by science, archaeology and biblical scholarship, but you can prove that it’s false yourself with a simple experiment. First, the bible claims that Jesus appeared to people after his supposed death (1 Cor. 15:3-8), including the claim that he appeared to 500 people at once, and appeared to Paul. So Jesus supposedly proved his resurrection by appearing to people, showing that it was necessary to appear to people in order to provide EVIDENCE that he was really resurrected. Further, the gospel stories claim: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" (Matt. 21:22). “Whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you" (John 16:23), "whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24). So go ahead and set up your video camera and pray for Jesus to appear to you right now! If my atheism is correct, nothing will happen. But feel free to prove it to yourself that Jesus is imaginary.
1) If Jesus is real, and is a god, he COULD appear to you, or to anyone.
2) He supposedly appeared to others in ancient stories that we have no evidence for.
3) Jesus supposedly promised to appear in response to prayers.
4) FACT: Regardless how much you pray or ask...he won't appear.
The most likely explanation for the above? Jesus won’t appear because he CAN’T. Fictional literary characters can't hear prayers or do anything in real life. Praying to Jesus is no different than praying to Spider-Man or Gandalf.
Feel free to list your excuses for why Jesus doesn't appear. I'll play 'logical fallacy bingo' with your responses.
Also, why am I accurately able to predict the outcome in advance? “The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testable predictions.” By the way, liars like to say, “Do not put my lies to the test,” but those telling the truth don’t mind if you validate their claims. Right?
Very informative, thank you...
MA, who is your GOD?
I’m sure you’re not some credulous moron who would believe RIDICULOUS CLAIMS about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies just because some anonymous, biased religious nut said so in a debunked book of ancient fairy tales, right? You must have found some actual EVIDENCE that these ABSURD STORIES are actually true, right? So where is it? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
@𝕻𝖗𝖊 𝕹𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖊𝖆 Are YOU alright? Don't murder any unbelievers today just because some MAN claimed that God said so: "And whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" (2 Chron. 15:13). If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased cult members, then it MUST be a reliable source, right?
If the gospels were written after 70 AD then why dont they mention the siege of jerusalem. Who could forget THAT!!
Because they were made up storys maybe
The Gospels are about the life and teachings of Jesus. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are not part of that story. Why would it be mentioned? It would be like including the attack on Pearl Harbour in the history of World War I.
Jaye Jay Curry
They are in fact part of the story. Luke is collecting all the information and eye witness accounts and details surrounding Jesus in an “orderly form”
He seems to record prophecy about Jesus being fulfilled, like the rooster after 3 denials from Peter.
If the gospels are just made up fiction constructed a hundred years after the fact and Luke’s goal is to paint Jesus as the greatest Man who ever lived and God himself, then why wouldn’t he include fulfilled prophecy about Jerusalem being destroyed?
Furthermore, if someone is making a comprehensive history of New York, and include almost all major events that happened up until the year 2000, yet somehow forgets to mention that the twin towers were destroyed in year 2001, then the most likely explanation, the inference to the best explanation is that Luke completed his Gospel prior to 70 AD.
Almost all scholars( including the skeptical ones) agree that Luke was written sometime around 62 AD.
Additionally, there are 84 confirmed historical details surrounding the book of Acts and are confirmed by PHD scholarship (Collin Hemer)
This shows and proves that Acts is eye witness testimony far far beyond a reasonable doubt.
Below I included the 84 confirmed details.
They are as follows:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports [Acts 13:4-5]
2. the proper port [Perga] along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus [13:13]
3. the proper location of Lycaonia [14:6]
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra [14:6]
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra-Lycaonian [14:11]
6. two gods known to be so associated-Zeus and Hermes [14:12]
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use [14:25]
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates [16:1; cf. 15:41]
9. the proper form of the name Troas [16:8]
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace [12:14]
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony [16:12]
12. the right location fro the river [Gangites] near Philippi [12:13]
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing [16:14]
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony [16:22]
15. the proper locations [Amphipolis and Apollonia] where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey [17:1]
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica [17:1]
17. the proper term ["politarchs"] used of the magistrates there [17:6]
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing [17:14-15]
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens [17:16]
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens [17:17]
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora [17:17]
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul [spermologos, 17:18] as well as for the court [Areios pagos, 17:19]
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character [17:21]
24. an altar to an "unknown god" [17:23]
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection [17:32]
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court [17:34]
27. A Corinthian synagogue [18:4]
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth [18:12]
29. the bema [judgement seat], which overlooks Corinth's forum [18:16ff.]
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions [19:9]
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis [19:24]
32. the well attested "great goddess Artemis" [19:27]
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city [19:29]
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus [19:35]
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans [19:35]
36. the correct name to designate the goddess [19:37]
37. the proper term for those holding court [19:38]
38. use of plural anthupatori, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time [19:38]
39. the "regular" assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere [19:39]
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios [20:4]
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos [20:4]
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas [20:7ff.]
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location [20:13]
44. the correct sequence of places [20:14-15]
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural [Patara] [21:1]
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds [21:3]
47. the suitable distance between these cities [21:8]
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety [21:24]
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area [21:28] [Archaeological discoveries and quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One inscription reads: "Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death."]
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort [chiliarch]at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times [21:31]
51. the flight of steps used by the guards [21:31, 35]
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time [22:28]
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship [22:29]
54. Ananias being high priest at this time [23:2]
55. Felix being governor at this time [23:34]
56. the natural shopping point on the way to Caesarea [23:31]
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time [23:34]
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time [24:1-9]
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus [24:27]
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens [25:11]
61. the correct legal formula [25:18]
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time [25:26]
63. the best shipping lanes at the time [27:5]
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia [27:4]
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy [27:5-6]
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the fact of the typical northwest wind [27:7]
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds [27:7]
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea [27:8]
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead [27:7]
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale [27:13]
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale [27:15]
72. the precise place and name of this island [27:16]
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight [27:16]
74. the fourteenth night-a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgement of experienced Mediterranean navigators [27:27]
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic [27:27]
76. the precise term [Bolisantes] for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta [27:28]
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind [27:39]
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape [27:42]
79. the local people and superstitions of the day [28:4-6]
80. the proper title protos tes nesou [28:7]
81. Regium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait [28:13]
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way [28:15]
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soliders [28:16]
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living "at his own expense" [28:30-31]1
With these facts in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that the author of Acts [who I believe was Luke] was an eyewitness of the events recorded or at the very least had access to reliable eyewitnesses.
It is also of interest that in the Book of Acts, the author records 35 miracles.
@@stephenmancuso3314 And you *STILL* can't seem to provide any *EVIDENCE* for absurd claims about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies from your debunked ancient book of Middle Eastern fairy tales written by men who LOVED killing babies: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137:9).
@@mythbuster1483 Why so much rage? If you've ever met a true Christian in every sense of the word, they would be the first to help you, with anything. First to feed you, first to clothe you, first to offer to help you move, first to tell you they are only human, struggling to learn how to love and forgive in the purest sense of the words. To calm your rage would be utmost in their prayers.
you should respond to erik mannings videos on the subject
Here is cited a pseudo quote from scripture "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, ..." but in the original instance it was "You are Kephas and I will build my ekklesia,..."
Ekklesia is Greek that means assemblage or congregation, but not church. I think Christ was referring to a group of people rather than an institution. You are perpetuating a fraud to justify the church, which was man-made.
Not mentioned the contradictions. If the gospels were written by four eyewitnesses, why are there different last words of the crucified Jesus or different stories about his birth and so on. And why are some other passages word for word identical? Why should an eyewitness copy and paste a report of another eyewitness?
And who when why taught aramaic peasants the greek language? Why are there no aramaic accounts?
Matthew, John, Luke, Mark are not Gospels; neither Jesus nor Paul quoted them.
However Paul preached the Gospel at the Aeropagus in Acts 17.
Besides, it is the Gospel and not the Gospels as in plural...
5:51 I don't understand how that proves John is not the author. It looks to more as a way of speech, by witch he relates the Gospel in the third person, but then right at the end says: this is the disciple who testified to these things and written them (me, 'cause else ,who else would the disciple be) and we (you and him) know his testimony is true (because he told you, because he wrote it).
I mean, I totally get it if you don't buy his claim, but it looks to me that this is his claim, he wrote it.
The Gospel called 'John' never claims to be written by John in the text. Go ahead and prove me wrong---quote the scripture. Dr. Hugo Mendez, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: “the Gospel of John, and the letters of 1 2, and 3 John are a chain of ancient literary forgeries.” - Everyone’s Favorite Gospel Is a Forgery
@@mythbuster1483 Well that is my argument against if John 21:24
@@danstoian7721 First, John 21:24 does not identify the author as 'John', which is the whole point. It also says, "we know that his testimony is true", admitting that the authors are not the disciple. Second, John chapter 21 is a forgery added on to the book at a later time by anonymous scribes. Dr. Burton Mack, professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology: "Since chapter 20 provides a clear and appropriate conclusion to the gospel (especially in light of John 20:30-31, which states the purpose for the gospel as a whole), many scholars have noted that chapter 21 must have been tacked on at some later time...This means that the person who added chapter 21 also invented the fiction of authorship for the whole gospel. pg 218-219, Who Wrote the New Testament
@@danstoian7721 Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries...Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds...only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul - 7 of 13 - were actually written by him. Paul's remaining books are forgeries...there were about 100 forgeries created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church." - Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says, CNN
@@danstoian7721 Dr. Gerd Ludemann, New Testament scholar at the University of Göttingen: "Demonstrating the degree of authorial invention uncovers the considerable amount of forgery to be found in the texts of the New Testament, and thus undermines the almost unlimited authority that is commonly accorded them. In doing gospel studies we should always be suspicious, remembering that the text in front of us has gone through the hands of 'Christian authors' who, supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, edited and falsified large parts of the four gospels." What Jesus Didn’t Say
No there were no "eyewitness accounts" by anyone who bothered to write one word of it down. The gospels were written by people who would have been born after the fictional Jesus' alleged death. There were over 30 gospels, and the authors were anonymous.
Actually, many non-canonical gospels claimed to be written by apostles of Jesus, such as the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc. See earlychristianwritings.com/
Also, 2 Peter claims to be written by the apostle Peter, who also claims to be an eyewitness. Of course, it's a forgery...but still. "Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere - except for our friends among the fundamentalists - will tell you that there is no way on God’s green earth that Peter wrote the book." Dr. Bart Ehrman, www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
"Most scholars agree, against the author's insistence, that this book was not written by Jesus' disciple, Peter. The author of 2 Peter, moreover, is not the same as that of 1 Peter. Many early Christian books were written in Peter's name, and we should add this book to that list of pseudonymous texts." Dr. Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter4/
"And even in ancient times, many Christian leaders proclaimed 2 Peter to be a forgery, an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today." www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html
"all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph [forgery]" (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4) www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
"The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity [forgery] of the epistle is almost universal."
bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s
No "eye witness " accounts? "That(Jesus)which we have HEARD,which we have SEEN with our EYES,which we LOOKED upon and have TOUCHED with our hands". 1 John chap 1. Same writer as Gospel of John
where does the bible make these claims?
@@claytonhenrickson9326 Well even IF a book of the Bible makes such claims,they can logically be doubted. 2 Peter 1 says,"we did not follow cleverly devised myths,....but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".
@@joehinojosa8314 so, portions of the bible can be "logically doubted"? I'm assuming just the portions you deem and not the portions i deem.
@@claytonhenrickson9326 I don't mean THEY'RE Wrong. I mean SOME people get carried away with pretty much doubting Everything. I say let's take each instance independently and see what we can FIND
But why should we at all? I do not think the god in these book even exists.
We need far more detail than this, far more reasoned argument to persuade that the Gospel narratives are not eye witness accounts. They very well may not be, but this would not persuade me that they weren't....or that they were.
Mark Cyphus will the Catholic Church convince you because the church teaches that these are not eye witness accounts. The religion class in high school that taught me that they are not eye witness accounts. This is how I began to question my faith. Well that and the two creation stories.
@Tasia Last - Really!?! . I went to catholic school and they NEVER said the gospel was false. WOW they are packing shit over Jesus. But worse it's God's wrath for once knowledge of Christ is removed, there will be nothing to stop the machine, transhumanism, transgender.
@@matildafaltyn6253 Dr. Bart Ehrman: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term." www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301
@@matildafaltyn6253 Serious question: how gullible do you have to be to believe promises about magic poison resistance from an ancient fiction book written by proven liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies....then it *MUST* be a reliable source, right? LOL!
Good presentation as always. Just a small point to clarify at or around 3:35 it is stated that Jesus said to Peter you are the Rock and I will build my church upon you. I agree with everything in the video especially where authorship is falsely ascribed but a very common and oft repeated error is that Jesus said he would build his church on Peter. He didn’t. Read it carefully. He said you are Peter (minor rock) and upon this rock (major stone) I will build my church. So it begs the question; what is “this”? It’s the statement that Jesus is the Christ etc... I know it’s a minor argument but it clarifies early Catholic teaching that Jesus is the (Christ) and removes him from what others were saying he was; John the Baptist , Elijah etc... The Greek grammar will Bear this out. Not that it proves anything about the historicity of Jesus or whatnot bc it doesn’t. It just gives us a little more insight into what the upper echelon of the early church was doing and “how” they were starting to establish control over peoples minds.
You have no evidence that Jesus actually said or did anything described in the gospel fairy tales. But we have lots of evidence that the gospel stories are filled with proven fiction, forgery and fraud. "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301
They're not
I thoroughly rebutted the arguments from this video in my latest video
Poor Logan, still trying to promote his stupid site that no one watches. "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" (Matt. 21:22), "Whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you" (John 16:23), "whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24). If that was true, you’d be out regrowing the missing limbs of amputees and healing the blind, right? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" (Mark 16:17-18). So the fact that you’re sitting on your fat, lazy ass making CZcams comments is proof that the bible is false! Otherwise, you’d upload a video proving your magic prayer superpowers, right? LOL!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” - Voltaire. Don’t murder any babies today just because some member of a death cult claims that God said so. "This is what the Lord Almighty says...put to death men and women, children and infants." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). So you’d murder your neighbor’s entire family, including his infant, if some man claimed that Jesus appeared to him and said you should? If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased cult members, then it MUST be a reliable source, right?
What about Paul?
You mean what about the manuscripts we have written by anonymous, biased Christian scribes dated hundreds of years after the supposed events that claim to be copies of edited copies of edited copies of lost originals by Paul? Dr. Bart Ehrman: "Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul’s name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi - lies." www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
Dr. James Tabor, Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "Paul’s name was used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning ‘falsely named.’" www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/
@@mythbuster1483 So there is still 7 of 13 books that are his?
@@htoodoh5770 There are 7 letters that appear to be by the same author and aren't obvious forgeries. They are called the "authentic Pauline epistles" to differentiate them from the proven forgeries. But even those show signs of having been edited and having additional verses inserted by forgers. And we have no idea what the lost originals said, only what the earliest manuscripts by biased, anonymous Christian scribes say. To see a list of forgeries even in the supposed "authentic" letters, see www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/new%20testament/paul/interpolations.html
@@htoodoh5770 Dr. William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas: "Walker demonstrates that Paul's letters contain later, non-Pauline additions or interpolations and that such interpolations can sometimes be identified with relative confidence...Successive chapters then argue that 1 Cor. 11.3-16, 1 Cor. 2.6-16, 1 Cor. 12.31b-14.1a, and Rom. 1.18-2.29 are in fact non-Pauline interpolations, and Walker goes on to summarize arguments for the same conclusion regarding five additional passages." www.amazon.com/Interpolations-Pauline-Letters-Testament-Supplement/dp/1841271985
@@htoodoh5770 Dr. William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas: "In short, it is my judgment that aspects of the literary history of the Pauline letters just mentioned, coupled with the widespread presence of interpolations in other ancient literature, makes it almost certain, simply on a priori grounds, that the Pauline letters now contain interpolations - indeed, many interpolations." Some Surprises from the Apostle Paul, www.amazon.com/Some-Surprises-Apostle-William-Walker/dp/1598151800
You wouldn't say "I know my testimony is true", no one would be conviced by that, it's just self affirmation. A much more forceful way of saying that you're statements are true is by saying that everyone you know, knows that your testimony is true hence John says "we know his [the beloved disciple's] testimony is true". Additionally he writes "his" instead of "my" testimony because in the previous paragraph he introduced himself in the third person as the beloved disciple, so it makes sense that John continues the remainder of the paragraph in 3rd person.
A known sign of deception is that "dishonest people are the first to 'swear' or 'promise'. See "HOW TO TELL IF A WITNESS IS LYING" www.tristarpi.com/blog/how-to-tell-if-witness-is-lying/, "Deceptive subjects often use mild oaths to try to make their statements sound more convincing." Ten Signs of Deception - www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294971184
There is no Jewish nor Romans historical records that refute the resurrection.
No records in fact that refute the resurrection.
*BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA* !!! There are no historical records that refute my claim that I banged your mother while riding a magical flying dragon either. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
So where's your evidence for the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies? We have LOTS of evidence that liars exist and are common. "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies , even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle - Peter, Paul or James - knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery." www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301
Ummm I guse after 4500 AD marvels will holy book and there character will be praised as gods for sure ......
How about in the year 1 billion CE?
@@Napoleonic_S
Earth have no life till 1b
And people will ask proof that such Jissmon J Mathew who predicted it ever existed.
Pls.write a new book that can teach humanity about right, wrong,and most important: how to love one another.
Luis Morales there are a few, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...
"This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).
All Christians should read this!
Eye witness meaning been in the presence of travelling with 24l7
Prove that any of your fake holy books were written by eyewitnesses. Do you have eyewitnesses for the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies?
Also they didn't have churches during Jesus time they had temples and Synogouges .
May be the gospels must have been written by just one man.
Dr. Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Professor of Religion Emeritus at Wells College: "Very few of the books of the New Testament are the written product of a single author. Most underwent several stages in the course of their composition and subsequent editing; literary criticism attempts to uncover, where appropriate and where possible, the layer of the compositional process that resulted in our canonical books." The New Testament: An Introduction to Biblical Scholarship, pg 47, www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Introduction-Biblical-Scholarship/dp/1498235115
They were written anonymously by Greek speaking Christians.
Jesus and his followers were Aramaic speakers.
Most scholars date the gospels 40 to 90 years after Jesus was executed.
So it seems unlikely that the authors were eye witnesses.
They are proven *NOT* to be eyewitnesses. Who witnessed the virgin birth? Were they there? Did they inspect Mary's vagina prior to Jesus being born? Did they have her gynecological reports? LOL! These are absurd claims that are properly assigned to the fiction category, and can't possibly have been witnessed by the anonymous authors writing in the third-person generations after the supposed events.
@@mythbuster1483 There is real evidence that these gospel attributions are bogus. Justin Martyr quoted extensively from so-called gospel accounts during the mid second century yet had no idea who wrote them.
@@shankoff1 And we don't even have anything written by Justin Martyr, only manuscripts by anonymous, biased fanatics dated hundreds of years after he was supposedly alive, that make unsubstantiated claims about what he supposedly wrote. In other words, some anonymous guy pulled a claim out of his ass---which is the entire basis of the Christian faith. Dr Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary: “none of the original documents of any church fathers remains. Almost all the copies of these early patristic writers come from the Middle Ages.” - The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Additionally, the supposed writings of Justin Martyr do not identify any of the gospel books by name or say who their authors are, but only refer to “the memoirs of the apostles”, and this is not until (supposedly) the 150s! Often his quotes don’t match anything from our Gospels. Strangely, he also never mentions or quotes from the epistles. Justin’s quotes from the mid-second century reveal the late evolution of the gospels, which were then apparently still anonymous.
May I please correct your constant mispronunciation of the word "prophesying". You pronounce it as 'prophesizing". There is no such word as "prophesizing". The gerund or present participle is "prophesying".
LOL!
Maybe you should read Richard Bauckham...
Excellent. Thanks!
To bad for you, that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the gospel of Mark and it was buried there before the destruction of the temple
Ralph , wrong try again. We have no original copies.
Prove it.
This is a bold-faced lie, no new testament works are contained in the dead sea scroll.
Take into account who the apostles were. Most were fisherman, one tax collector, a zealot, a treasurer, not a single scribe among them. In those days scribes wrote down the events, but one can say that doing so does not make them historians. I would also estimate that not all the apostles travelled with Jesus to all the locations and would have to consume second hand accounts from the apostles who were present. After the murder of Jesus, it is most likely that the apostles went into hiding for some years and it is also possible the early Christians carried the ministry as spoken by Jesus because that is all they could do as most did not know how to read and write. At some point, some converted scribes started to collect the events as told by the early Christians and later on perhaps proof read by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as they were supposed to be the witnesses to the Christ. This could explain the "According to" that is mentioned. When the Church came in to the scene, I would say years later, they simply took the work of the scribes, compiled them, removed any accounts contradictory to their vision for the Church. Then cobbled the material into a canon and banned any accounts that surfaced later specially if they found them non conforming. After which, the British produced the "Bishop's bible in 1572 most likely translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, which in turn it would get heavily revised and one could even say, that it received a heavily redacted process in 1602 as commissioned by King James and thus "The King James" bible was introduced to the world.
This is how I understand it, I am a believer of Christ and it does not diminish my faith to speak of the Bible in this manner. The 4 Gospels covers the life of Christ, his teachings and his actions. If CNN, Fox News, OANN, The Washington Post, The New York Times existed during the time of Christ , how many of the agencies' stories would match verbatim? How many would simply overlook the Carpenter from Nazareth? How many would misconstrue his words, How many would suggest the Jesus should be silenced? How many of them would camp out outside of the Sanhedrin and pressure the elders to take action against Jesus. How many would misquote Jesus?
-G
The 12 apostles were LITERARY CHARACTERS IN A STORY. if you claim they actually existed, the burden of proof is on you, and you have none. You're simply ASSUMING that the gospel fairy tales are true, on faith. What happens when fools believe liars? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). Show us! Go ahead and post your video drinking deadly poison. It's not like the bible contains proven lies by liars, right? "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, - Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matters.
@@mythbuster1483 Actually, not at all, every body makes their own choice. I am not out to convince people of anything. All I am doing is exchanging points of view, much like you just did. In my view, there are those that require proof, but not seek, and those that seek and not find. Either way, every body makes a choice. There's even those that seek nothing, the world is as it is and are quite happy.
@@g2D1 Basic critical reasoning calls for proposing alternate hypotheses for claims and then evaluating which is MOST LIKELY to be true, based on the available evidence. For instance, what’s the MOST LIKELY explanation for some anonymous religious fanatic claiming that their cult leader’s mother was impregnated by God? 1) A liar lied, 2) the person is delusional, or 3) the claim is true? We have massive evidence that liars exist and are common, and that fools can believe anything on ‘faith’, and that mentally ill and delusional people exist, but ZERO evidence for gods impregnating human women. So it is OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY that the person making this claim is a liar, etc. The burden of proof would be on that person to provide evidence for the claim if he expected to be taken seriously by any rational, educated person, correct? “The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded.”
@@mythbuster1483 Man is flawed, man is corrupt, that is the human condition. From the very beginning, religion has been used as weapon and also for personal gain. The intent of my original comment was to explain that the apostles did not write the 4 gospels, they only proof read it. You are describing something that does not require a PHD to tell you that written accounts dating back centuries could be considered accurate. I personally, do not seek the academic, or the scientific for proof of anything. Even today you have contradicting studies. A person with predisposition assumptions will seek only the proof that supports his theory. I don't know if you have noticed, I have not disputed your statements. I tried to explain to you my perspective. I seek knowledge by reading history and even that has a certain level of authenticity issues because all the people who could corroborate the records are dead, but you have to have a reference point. The new testament was cobbled together because Constantine issued an ultimatum to create it. If you don't do it, then I'll allow Christian persecution to begin again, thus the old testament the new testament was born from the original accounts written in aramaic most likely. Then it was translated into Greek and Latin. Naturally, the Church made it illegal to posses it and made it a crime to translate it to other native languages. Similar to what the British did to William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
Before King James commissioned the bible, a British bishop published his own copy, and basically, from that bible, the King James's version was published, then later heavily modified and or redacted.
I do not study the bible, I study the Teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not preach them, it is my personal choice.
Take care and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
-G
@@g2D1 You have no idea about the "Teachings of Jesus Christ". Did Jesus appear to you and tell you personally? No, all you have are some anonymously-written ancient manuscripts that are filled with proven fiction, forgery and fraud, that CLAIM what Jesus said and did, but you have no evidence that these stories are true. Simply put, you can't prove that Jesus, if he even existed, ever said or did a single thing attributed to him in the gospel fairy tales. *FACT* - the New Testament contains proven lies by the anonymous, biased fanatics who wrote it. "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). Go ahead! Let’s see you post a video showing you drinking deadly poison without harm. What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" - 2 Drink Strychnine At Service and Die In Display of Faith, New York Times. It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Since Matthew, as an apostle, was an eye witness, then why does he copy most of what he wrote from Mark who was not an apostle, or an eye witness?
Mathew joined later than the rest, so theres no reason for him not to use Mark as a source, especially since mark already wrote his he doesnt need to reinvent the wheel, and Mark was the writer of Simon Peter's testimony.czcams.com/video/-7VOKlJyuww/video.html
All the Gospels except John were written before A.D. 70.
The latest dates attributed to the Gospels are: Mark in 65-70th CE, Matthew and Luke in 80-85th CE, and John in 90-95 CE.
None of them mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD besides the prophecy in Mark. Pretty big event to leave out especially for Luke a Historian who pretty much records all the other major events at the time and surrounding Jesus and the Apostles. Even in Acts; which is the second part to the gospel of Luke; the event isn’t mentioned.
Mark: "Estimated Range of Dating: 65-80 A.D." www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
Matthew: "Estimated Range of Dating: 80-100 A.D." www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
Luke: "Estimated Range of Dating: 80-130 A.D." www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
John: "Estimated Range of Dating: 90-120 A.D." www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Acts: "Estimated Range of Dating: 80-130 A.D." www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html
Dr. Richard Carrier: "The only overt evidence of his existence can be tied in one way or another to a single source: the Gospel of Mark, which could have been written as late as 80 or 90 A.D., fifty years after the events it is supposed to describe, and which is unmistakably a hagiography rather than a history or biography, whose interest seems more cultural than factual." infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
US Conference of Catholic Bishops: "This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written...the book is anonymous...Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70." Introduction to Mark, www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Mark&ch=
Doesn't matter. Just claims
Regarding claims, Jesus said: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service"
www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
Long answer... no.
I like this channel because I don't have to do all the studying. I can just listen. Thank you for that.
i am witness of the words and i am not writing it over agen it is what it is know YAH for your self the power of it is real in the Bible that all you need to know now the words come to you all kings and Queens blessings of life
It's not like you've been deceived by proven liars, right? Jesus said: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools believe liars? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service"
www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
The temple was jesus.
Is it possible that Josephus wrote the Gospel of Mark?
No.
No.
I think it is a slam dunk that they were written by Christians.