Dan is using Landscape mode for his video? Blasphemy!

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

Oh hey, you're right! I didn't notice 😅

@MichaelDeHaven

3 ай бұрын

I was setting here saying something is wrong. I was thinking blurry camera, but I had my glasses off. 😂

@sinlatenightsins9657

3 ай бұрын

I can't see what cool shirt he's wearing

@bristolrovers27

3 ай бұрын

Is this the real Dan, no t-shirt and in landscape ? Looks iffy 😂

@bryana8357

3 ай бұрын

Framing looks like it was done in post- it's the mark of the beast!!!

Learning this, it was hard for me to believe in Jesus‘ teachings anymore. We argue so much about what Jesus said, when we don’t really know what he said and did 😵‍💫 This, and seeing that the whole Atonement/suffering doesn’t really make sense, made me leave Christianity.

@MarcillaSmith

3 ай бұрын

Blessed are those who do not see, and yet have faith.

@monteirolobato6830

3 ай бұрын

I think for those who do not already believe, that they might reflect on what the central beliefs of Jesus' messages would mean for them and the world. I'm not talking about the stuff that always gets so many people tied up in a bunch, but the idea that one should love one's neighbour and be forgiving, to put aside greed and lying, to embrace a simple life, etc. (That makes it all sounds easy, but we know how hard it is to lead even part of this ideal. But we try. Trying and not being discouraged. That's a lot like faith.)

@mgeuleinstsear

3 ай бұрын

@@MarcillaSmith No, I don't believe that God expects us to just blindly have faith in some man that we don't even know. There have been too many men and women who have mislead people in the name of religion. I can imagine that He is okay with me using my own God-given reasoning, looking at data, evaluating what I know, etc. Any decent human being would have done the same as Jesus supposedly did. Especially when one knows that the suffering only lasts a few days and you can save all humankind (including your family), be resurrected after three days and receive all of God's glory. Who would turn down that deal?!? Humans have suffered through torture or sicknesses for way longer periods of time than what Jesus supposedly did. The whole Atonement thing also reminds me too much of ancient cultures who sacrificed perfect animals to appease the Gods. Jesus' atonement seems like a remainder of that, but with a Near Eastern influence to it. Also, science makes it difficult to believe in an Adam and Eve who lived in some garden and sinned, thus making an atonement necessary. Also, the whole Adam and Eve story sounds more like a creation myth to try to explain where humans came from. Without Adam and Eve's fall, there is no need for an atonement. I grew up Christian and it was difficult to give up my faith in a Christ, especially since I grew up in Europe where the whole culture is based on Christianity. If there is a God, I believe that He created me perfectly and with everything I need in order to return to Him. It is within me and does not rely on some man that lived 2000 years ago, whose words weren't even written down when he lived.

@stushShulamite

3 ай бұрын

@@mgeuleinstsearWhen you encounter God for yourself, it is very personal and supersedes every argument to the contrary that others present to you. That’s what happened to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus in *Acts 2.* Not trying to convince you, just adding to the conversation. ✌🏼✌🏿✌🏽✌🏾✌️🇨🇦

@UberOtaku001

3 ай бұрын

It's a leap of faith. It's not based in reason or evidence. That is why I cannot be a Christian and find the tradition very alienating. Faith is a rejection of epistemology.

I was under the impression that Acts and Luke shared an author (even if that author was not Luke). What's the current state of the literature on this?

@curious968

2 ай бұрын

I have heard no dissent, liberal or conservative on that aspect of it. I forget the details, but there's good understanding that Acts is simply a continuation of the gospel. The question as far as the gospel of Luke goes is not did one guy write it, but rather, where did the source material come from? The "synoptic gospels" is a nice, scholarly name for "they write very similarly in a lot of places; very, very similarly in lots of places." And then include their own stuff. The whole Q hypothesis exists because there are long stretches where the similarities between the three are too striking to be ignored. This leads to the conclusion that they are not end to end original works, but each relied on other, older source material. Q is one such hypothesized piece of it. But even if there was no Q, something like it must have existed. Nobody claims that they miraculously came up with the same words and phrases. They are just there to be found if you study in Greek and not English translations.

@Bluesruse

17 күн бұрын

@@curious968 Something like Q _might_ have existed, but surely it is not a must. All you need is Luke having both Mark and Matthew to explain Q without needing Q.

@curious968

17 күн бұрын

@@Bluesruse Sure, it is possible, but how likely is that alternative? Books had to be hand copied in those days. The Christian sect was small in the first century and far from united. Some single common source seems the most likely, but unless we belatedly find one, we can only make "this seems more plausible than that " arguments.

@Bluesruse

17 күн бұрын

@@curious968 Well, it doesn't involve hypothetical sources we don't have, so it's inherently more probable in that regard, in my opinion. And, it makes your argument about hand copying documents and Christianity being relatively small work exactly against the Q argument. With the Q hypothesis, you have two authors juggling multiple sources, whereas the Mark->Matthew->Luke hypothesis, you only need 1 author (Luke) juggling multiple sources, and all of which we actually have. Not that Mark and Matthew couldn't have had multiple sources, evidently they did, since Mark is doing that Greek epics syncretism thing, and Matthew mixing a good amount of Jewishness along with some geographic corrections in the mix. But, I digress. Since Luke is already juggling Josephus in the mix, using multiple sources is exactly what we would expect, especially when he himself in the texts acknowledges multiple people writing these types of gospels already. If someone like Luke had access to Josephus, and Mark, is it more likely that he had access to our Matthew as well, or a hypothetical gospel that we don't have, while also NOT having access to Matthew, AND that also both Mark and Matthew should supposedly have had as well?

So is 'beloved disciple' a historical term agreed upon by the state of the field, a formal title used in common parlance, your theology creeping in, or my mistake?

@curious968

3 ай бұрын

"Beloved disciple" comes from John itself. The actual name, "John" is not there, but "the disciple that Jesus loved" is there.

@Paul020253

2 ай бұрын

If you do a very careful study of the accounts of Jesus' Crucifixion in the four gospels and look at which women are there, you will conclude that Jesus and John the beloved disciple are cousins. Wenham in his book "Easter Enigma" makes this point (and goes into detail about his thinking on the matter), interestingly the Orthodox Church has had for two thousand years the same tradition that John was the cousin of Jesus. Wenham only confirmed that the Tradition of the Church was based in Actual Fact

Only one question I don't see addressed here, Dan: Part way through the Book of Acts, the language shifts from third person to first person. Is there weight to the claim that this latter part of Acts was written by an eyewitness to those events, and is it reasonable to suggest that Luke would circumstantially fit with that?

@kathy1154

3 ай бұрын

Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Fragment 6 "Mark having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered... for he neither heard the LORD, or accompanied him" "Matthew put together the Oracles... in the Hebrew language" The Muratorian Canon Fragment I "Luke... when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to belief. Yet he himself had not seen the LORD in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events" "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and overseers, who had been urging him [to write]." The Jews essentially did what they always did, kill someone for not following commandments. End of story. Beyond that, it's all fiction. All made up by Paul. Paul authored the majority of the NT, trying to convince people that Jesus was the Mosiach, and the Jews somehow got it wrong. The Jews got it right! If you read the first Bible (the Marcion Bible), there were no witnesses of Jesus being resurrected. It literally ends at an "angel" told Mary that Jesus had risen from the grave. The Marcion Bible is accepted by many (not all) scholars as the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark. Whether or not Marcion or Mark came first, or (more likely)both had a common precursor, is irrelevant. Mark was the first Gospel written... 40 years after the death of Jesus. The original account in Mark (Codex Sinaiticus) is virtually identical to Marcion's account, as well as the account in the Ethiopian NT. Mary went to the tomb, an angel told her that Christ had risen... THE END. The witnesses were added into later versions.. KJV. Then, Mary and the disciples were the only witnesses, AND none of them even recognized "Jesus"... he manifested in a different form. (Mark 16:12). Matthew was written two decades after Mark... Matthew 28:17 when they (11 disciples), they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Mary doesn't see Jesus, in the book of Matthew, just the 11 disciples). Luke was the next gospel after Matthew, then John. The accounts get embellished, as time goes by. Jesus eats ("proof" he physically resurrected, and the disciples didn't see a ghost/spirit), (doubting) Thomas touches his wounds (the gaslighting of the non believers). Paul goes on to say there were 500 witnesses. The resurrection is the foundation of Paul's religion, literally. I Corinthians 15:12-15 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; And if Christ not be raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised the Christ. 15:19 If for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. Christians are followers of Paul and his gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounters. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings. In his own words. Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man; 1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST. Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season. (Jesus, healed the blind, love your enemies, turn the other cheek. Matthew 7:18-19 beware of false prophets... YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. 24:45 For many will come in my name, saying "I am the messiah" and they will lead many astray. 24:23-26 if ANYONE says to you "look, here is the Messiah"... DO NOT BELIEVE IT.... For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, producing great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the very elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you "look here, he is in the wilderness" do not go out. If they say "look, he is in the inner rooms, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. John 16:10 I go to my father, and ye see me NO MORE. 16:28 I leave the world, and go to the father. 17:4 I have finished the work, which thou gavest me to do. 14:19 a little while, and the world seeth me NO MORE 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world 14:2 I go to prepare a place for you) Acts 9:3 suddenly there shined... a light from heaven 9:5 I am Jesus, whom thou prosecutest 9:9 and he was three days without sight. Acts 23:11 the LORD stood by him and said "Be of good cheer, Paul: as thou hast testified of me... And if you beLIEve Paul's encounter with Jesus, you have to subscribe to 'Jesus' causing Paul to go blind... the guy who healed blind people, and taught people to love their enemies, and turn the other cheek. Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead🤔 20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him. 20:12 and they brought the young man alive.(WOW, a convenient "accidental" death, and resurrection "miracle" at the hands of Paul) (Ye shall know them by their fruit) Acts 18:12-18 Paul's false teachings get questioned in a Synagogue, the gentiles (Greek), that accompany Paul, beat up the head of the Synagogue. Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day, Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. 1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law. 9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some. 20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL. Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY. The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis. PAUL'S GOSPEL CANNIBALISM FOR IMMORTALITY John 6:53 Jesus said.. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. CHILD SACRIFICE FOR IMMORTALITY John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness. JESUS S(L)AVES I Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh I Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

@@kathy1154 apologetics are crap. can you debunk what Dan says or not?

@VincentSapone

Ай бұрын

@@Michael-le5phDan’s view on Papias and Mark is a minor view. He correctly labels Papias 2nd century but he writes ca. 105 so it’s probably within 30 years of when he dates GMark. And he just poisons the well about Papias and doesn’t explain why Eusebius calls him a man of small intellect. His treatment of this issue is largely superficial.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

@@Michael-le5ph The person you're responding is not disagreeing with Dan. They aren't even really responding to what Dan is saying at all. They are posting an (off-topic) reply to @NewhamMatt that doesn't really answer his question, but instead is relating an (over?)abundance of reasons for their own belief that the entire NT is a fictional creation of Paul.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

@@VincentSapone What Dan relates here is NOT a minority viewpoint. And he doesn't "poison the well" about Papias any more than the current consensus of Biblical scholarship in regard to the reliability of Papias. (And it doesn't really matter "when" Papias wrote if little to nothing he wrote is treated as reliable.)

Wow thanks for that. I've heard bits and pieces of it, but it's helpful bringing the pieces together. Could the "sayings gospel" by Matthew have been not Matthew's gospel per se but the unknown source for material in Matthew's gospel that's not in Mark's gospel?

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

I think it's the genre difference. A sayings gospel is different from what the synoptic gospels are. Also there are indicators that show if a document has been translated or not. Puns for example. But I'm not expert enough to know which apply to Matthew.

@MusicalRaichu

3 ай бұрын

@@alexmcd378 according to someone (maybe dale martin?) matthew's gospel was cleverly constructed. sayings gospels weren't as popular, so the author used mark to structure it like a narrative, but spliced in content from a sayings source, incorporating them into the narrative.

@jeffmacdonald9863

3 ай бұрын

@@MusicalRaichu As did Luke, apparently from the same source. They each also add some narrative elements as well - most obviously different birth/childhood stories. Not sure about the "popular" part, it could also just have been "Mark left all this stuff out, I'll fix it!" Mark of course also used a lot of "sayings", so it's not completely different.

@DavidAlastairHayden

3 ай бұрын

There is the hypothesized Q sayings gospel from which Matthew and Luke may have borrowed. Note that those two gospels are very similar to one another and yet quite different from Mark and John. Maybe Dan will do a video on Q some day.

@MusicalRaichu

3 ай бұрын

@@DavidAlastairHayden what i'm getting at is that maybe Q is what papias was referring to.

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life...that which we have seen and heard we declare to you..."

Any commentary on unsigned coincidences?

Love your videos, Dan.

This one is going to stir things up. :)

@waitstill7091

3 ай бұрын

If it does, it means Christianity can be better defined as a cult!

@lde-m8688

3 ай бұрын

**grabs popcorn to watch the apologists**

@benroberts2222

3 ай бұрын

Yep it activated the mythicists, I didn't expect that tbh

@hairiestwizard

3 ай бұрын

​@@benroberts2222all 5 of the mythicists lol

@danielsnyder2288

3 ай бұрын

Naw, this is old news, well known by anyone who has actually read the Bible and done any study

Thanks 4 your presentations

Have you considered including a bibliography so that we can go look up those citations?

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

@ClarkVangilder

3 ай бұрын

@@faithlessfather wow … ThanX!

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

@@ClarkVangilder It took me awhile to get all those! Enjoy! I have a list of messiahs before Jesus as well

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

let me know if you want to see the actual video of NT Wright saying he doesnt know who wrote the Gospels and that no one else does

@ClarkVangilder

3 ай бұрын

@@faithlessfather this clip? kzread.info/dash/bejne/eKeupsiidbXUmM4.htmlsi=A5WQ-4-3E2RQDbRq

Super helpful and insightful as always Dan. You're a Godsend. Ha!

@davidlafleche1142

2 ай бұрын

Yes, the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

@@davidlafleche1142 Find proof -- IN THE GOSPELS themselves -- of a claim to eyewitness account (other than the single one that Dan referenced). You can't do it, so you'd rather just spew mindless drivel at your keyboard, then post it as if you done something to be proud of.

How disappointing it is to be led to think that the Bible is one single text, where all the references to god, angels, the heavens, all agree with each other from Genesis to Revelations, thus making the whole text ʻtrue’ and ʻthe word of God’. Then to find out that much of the Bible was written by people who are not those we thought they were. But what if we did understand all this information correctly to begin with? What would religion look like then? Certainly nothing like it is now. Maybe more like philosophical think tanks.

@chameleonx9253

3 ай бұрын

If we understood all the information in the Bible "correctly," we would see it as a bunch of fables, folklore, poetry, and mythologized pseudo-history written to establish a sociopolitical narrative rather than give an accurate account of past events.

@chameleonx9253

3 ай бұрын

If we understood all the information in the Bible "correctly," we would see it as a bunch of fables, folklore, poetry, and mythologized pseudo-history written to establish a sociopolitical narrative rather than give an accurate account of past events.

@rkn2800

3 ай бұрын

@@chameleonx9253 Agreed.

@jgmrichter

3 ай бұрын

@@chameleonx9253 ... said no-one who actually studied fable, folklore, mythology or ancient history, ever. Anyone who dismisses the tangled web of narratives that shaped literally every human culture that has ever existed as "just a bunch of" anything merely reveals they are just as naively and unreflexively immersed in their own construct of reality as any of those past cultures.

@pherble

3 ай бұрын

The more I learn the more easily reconcile that the Bible is a compendium of histories, social norms and laws, traditions and myths of peoples. Especially when other texts like apocrypha and other writings from other nations are considered. That is much more comforting to me as it aligns to human experience rather than forcing a schizophrenic description of divine agency.

This is a very interesting video. Are there scholars who disagree with any of your statements in this video?

@arcticpangolin3090

3 ай бұрын

Undoubtedly there may be some but what Dan presents is pretty standard. And of those who would disagree let’s just say there’s no a wide demographic of dissenters.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

The existential state of being a "scholar" is to find something to disagree with, so I'm sure there's someone (or more likely, more than one someone) who disagrees with this or that detail, or even with the general shape of the case related here by Dan. But (as @arcticpangolin3090 noted), what Dan presents here is a fair representation of the current state of Biblical scholarship regarding NT gospel authorship.

What does “eye witness testimony” mean in texts written decades after the event?

@transputin

2 ай бұрын

It means "made up sh*t"

I'm optimistic more early manuscripts will turn up to answer some of the questions

@markchristiansen9611

3 ай бұрын

Scholars believe the stories were initailly passed by oral tradition only.

@jonhunter6936

3 ай бұрын

The manuscript base we have is exceptional at the moment, its unlikely we will get significantly more completely early texts bridging what is already a very small gap between writing and first copies compared to other ancient manuscripts. However I believe the issue is the hyper skepticism critical scholars treat the manuscript(s) with if equally applied to all ancient manuscripts would leave us with no ancient documents we would trust. Dans views seem plausible but have no external evidence to support them and are merely constructs that can be argued in the ambiguity created by hyper skepticism, and the demand for levels of evidence which is unreasonable for any ancient document.

@ancientflames

3 ай бұрын

😂

@azurejester1520

3 ай бұрын

@@ancientflames 🤙

@PoeLemic

2 ай бұрын

@@azurejester1520 Yep, God will probably bless us with another child chasing his goat into another cavern, loaded with all the texts we're missing, out in that Great Desert somewhere.

Can you site your sources?

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

Yeah... pretty much every serious Biblical scholar specializing in the early New Testament period.

@UrMomsFavSnack

Ай бұрын

@@RD-jc2euHaha, love the response. *chef’s kiss* 👌🏼🤌🏼

@Jaymiranz

Ай бұрын

He can’t and he won’t dude is a Mormon. They have no problem lying and deceiving people

@xravenx24fe

6 күн бұрын

@@RD-jc2eu So...why does everyone always just say that and never actually give us anything? Like who? Where and when did their arguments and evidences come from? Just saying "the scholars say" is worthless and unhelpful, can you even list more than 5 critical scholars off the top of your head? Do you have the expertise or authority to claim that at all? Do you guys just larp around here "muh scholarly consensus" lol "well duh everyone knows blah blah" or what? Does any critical thinking go on?

Papias made a couple claims that I take seriously and it is why I am skeptical about everything else he wrote. Papias described his own methodology as repeating what people claimed if they claimed it came from the Lord. He delighted only in those who taught the “truth”, which implies that he thought he knew the truth already and filtered out testimony that didn’t match what he already believed.

4:52 "that disciple [Matthew] has a more prominent role in that gospel as well." In the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew has the same limited role that he has in Mark. Jesus calls him and that's it. Anyone have any idea what Dan is talking about?

Really interesting and surprising! Could you provide links to some references that could be used to investigate further?

@Josh-cd4pt

3 ай бұрын

I know your question is for Dan, but all the points made are covered in one of Bart Ehrman’s books if you’re interested. I think it was “Jesus Before the Gospels”

@timandmonica

3 ай бұрын

And if you're looking for starting at the beginning, try The Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch (2021.)

@alanx4121

3 ай бұрын

Ehrman of course who is not atheïst. he's popular among Muslims.

@Josh-cd4pt

3 ай бұрын

@@alanx4121 relevance?

@stephenlitten1789

3 ай бұрын

@@alanx4121 Yeah nah. He's an atheist.

1:31 Book 3, Chapter 11 of Against Heresies "But that this John was truly a disciple of the Lord, and that he was the very person who leaned upon His breast, I do not deny. For he remained with Him until the end, [that is,] until the Passion. And I state, that he did himself give this account, and these things do I again find in all the copies of his Gospel."

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

That has already been discussed on this channel.

Also, there's a very good reason for this: There was no eyewitness account to report.

@andrewclough660

18 күн бұрын

We still can't get a decent carpenter in Australia in 2024!

Image if we found a copy of that supposed sayings Gospel that Matthew wrote in Hebrew stashed in some Dead Sea scrolls type situation. How did they not keep copying that (or the Q text) if they were real?

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

You're referencing what Papias referred to?

@jeffmacdonald9863

3 ай бұрын

@@faithlessfather Yeah. I get that he isn't really trustworthy, but still.

@vixendoe6943

3 ай бұрын

Or Papias is being smeared as being an idiot, but in reality......we all know situations where this has been done. Maybe Papias needs a closer look?

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

@@jeffmacdonald9863 I'm not convinced Papias was untrustworthy, despite what some fathers may have said about him. What I am skeptical of is which text exactly he was referring to when he talked about a Hebraic Matthew. I'm not convinced it is the Gospel of Matthew we have today.

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

@@vixendoe6943 I don't think Papias is an idiot (I'm not just going to believe Eusebius because he's Eusebius). I just wonder what text exactly he was referencing when he spoke of what was written by Matthew.

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

Verify Fact: there is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found in historical record anywhere outside of the new testament from that era. Pliny the elder the main Roman historian from that era make not one mention of Jesus or miracles bringing back the dead a god man healing blind etc etc. No Roman ,No Greek, Egyptian,Persian ,Asian historical record exists.. Josephus and Tactius were born After Jesus died and wrote decades later . One must pause... Excellent channel Thank you 👍

@tchristianphoto

3 ай бұрын

This shouldn't be surprising. There's no historical mention of most people from that era. Even the Romans in charge of Judaea (Pilate, Herod) are barely mentioned in the historical record. Besides, Jesus was small potatoes until his cult started flourishing decades after his death. He was only one of a few known Jewish apocalyptic preachers of that time.

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

@@tchristianphoto i think you're underestimating the historical record of Roman times. Not saying you're wrong about Jesus not being worth mentioning at the time. Although I do think we would have found something about the dead walking the streets if that part in Matthew had actually happened

@shaunigothictv1003

3 ай бұрын

There were many other similar spiritual belief systems which involved celestial deities taking on human form. And all of them PRE DATE Christianity. I am simply requesting the specific data that proves that the Christian version of these beliefs is the only true rendition. The specific data i am requesting would need to be completely independent of the data for a historical Jesus which is an entirely separate argument altogether.

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

@@shaunigothictv1003 cut and paste is uncouth ;)

@shaunigothictv1003

3 ай бұрын

@@alexmcd378 I am just trying to get answers so sorry for my method. I feel like people are just trying to make fun of me by saying the I am dum and stupid and that I don't deserve answers. I think we should all be seekers of the truth. At least tell me why I was lied to about the so called "greatest story ever told". Maybe I was not the smartest guy around. But I feel like I deserve answers.

Is it the position that we can't tell for sure if these are eye witness accounts or that we are certain that they are not.

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

we know they are not eyewitnesses.

Jon is the Lords faithful and true witness.

What is your opinion of, or response to, Bauckham's claims in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006 / 2017)?

@JopJio

3 ай бұрын

There is a reason why the vast majority of scholars dont believe the NT is based in eyewitness accounts. Bauckham is an apologist

@theol64

3 ай бұрын

Nothing. They can't bother themselves to read outside their disdainful bias.

@peterevensen

2 ай бұрын

I came here to all the same thing! Also in John’s gospel: John 19:34-35 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe. And from his first letter: 1 John 1:1 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-

@thomasmiddlebrook9541

2 ай бұрын

The hard thing about this medium is the lack of qualifiers. The "state of the field" covers a multitude of exceptions. Which field? Where? Which pre-understandings? It's not that many of Dan's points aren't supportable; in this case it's true that many quotes from Jesus come to us through a community or through an editor. But neither of those require us to conclude that an eye-witness account isn't still being offered. And then, then there are those with arguments (left unaddressed) like Bauckham's. It's a bit sensationalized. Again, a rough medium. The most unappealing thing is that the primary audience here seems to be those who would like ammunition to attack claims by those with a high-view of Scripture. Sure, load up on "consensus". But, it's a poor way to help people know how to read and think well for themselves. (I guess evangelicals getting all hot under the collar is another big part of the viewership. Which must bring Dan some odd pleasure.)

@thomasmiddlebrook9541

2 ай бұрын

A bit dated, but here's another piece on eye-witness evidence: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eYdqo5eKY7HHj6g.html

Sounds like the Captain Tuttle episode of MASH.

@alanb8884

3 ай бұрын

Berliner Politechnich approved this.

@ftt7429

3 ай бұрын

You might say that together we all made up Tuttle.

@PoeLemic

2 ай бұрын

@@alanb8884 Yes, that's a great medical school, where only the best OD surgeons come from.

@kennethogorman5436

2 ай бұрын

You’re just a typical Christian that can’t look at facts and accept them. No one knows who wrote the gospels and just about all theologians have come to the agreement on that.

Has there been any comparisons done with parables and stories recorded in the Jewish records from early Rabbis

Source?

This is so beautiful. Ive never been this excited about discussing the Bible until now.

@alanx4121

3 ай бұрын

A relief for the conscience

@Mike-bc2wq

3 ай бұрын

Mike sokolowski. My advice to all those watching his video be aware this guy knows nothing about the Bible. He knows nothing about history the written word, the apostles, the witnesses that were there at Jesus Ascension after his resurrection. Be careful what you believe you will be held accountable for his mistakes if you believe him, a good apologist would tear this guy to shreds his theories his beliefs, just one more false profit, trying to disgrace the word of God and Jesus name

@jnobi77

3 ай бұрын

@@Mike-bc2wq saying a biblical scholar knows nothing about the Bible is a declaration of ignorance.

I've been telling them this!

Here are three Bible commentaries that discuss the eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament: Thus you are wrong according to these scholars if you read there commentaries. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: This commentary discusses the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are all considered eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, teachings, and miracles. The New Bible Commentary: This commentary also discusses the Gospel accounts, as well as the letters of Paul and other New Testament writings that contain eyewitness testimony of Jesus. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: This commentary provides a comprehensive overview of the New Testament and discusses the reliability of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus and their importance in understanding the life and teachings of Jesus.

1:21 Why would it have to have been "added later"? An obvious possibility is, for the Crucifixion and the Resurrection + accounts, he borrowed the pen to people who could illico insert the "we" passages. Simply because these were very important.

The best evidence I find in the Gospels for the historical Jesus is that he doesn’t act like a fictional character, but like a real charismatic cult leader: he demands ultimate loyalty, promises infinite reward for those who make great sacrifices for himself, yells at his disciples all the time for their inadequacies, is exceptionally mean to some of them (Peter), is totally incapable of self-reflection, and is weirdly inconsistent (like telling the disciples to bring swords to Gethsemane, then pronouncing a curse on the disciple who actually uses a sword)

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

Hitchens actually convinced me that Jesus existed in some form. If there wasn't a real person, just have them be born in Bethlehem. The census nonsense kind of implies forcing a real person from Nazareth into a prophecy about Bethlehem.

@hairiestwizard

3 ай бұрын

What do you mean? He's the standard apocalyptic prophet figure

@davidlewis3072

3 ай бұрын

that's not evidence however...the evidence currently leads to there no being any eye witnesses and I say currently because if another scroll is found that is dated to the time of Jesus than history will change to reflect that

@chefchaudard3580

3 ай бұрын

Do you know any non fictional character that performed miracles and resurrected?😊 Jokes apart: in the Gospels, the apostles are as dumb as a rock. They live with the Jesus guy, and should be familiar with His ideas and teachings, but he has to explain each and every parable for them to understand, even if there are perfectly clear. There are several literary devices like this in the Gospels, which purpose is to convince people to believe in the god of the Jews, not some biography.

@chefchaudard3580

3 ай бұрын

I must add I am not a mythicist, I think there was an historical Jesus, and some things in the gospels may be true.

With saints like these, who needs atheists?

This is a great summary!

Source: Trust me bro

@thegreatdestroyer6506

Ай бұрын

Yeah. Not like he's got a Phd in Biblical scholarship, has written books and cites many other books written by other acclaimed scholars in many of his other videos. Keep believing in your fairytale.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

Source: Pretty much every serious Biblical scholar who specializes in the early New Testament period.

@negativedawahilarious

13 күн бұрын

@@thegreatdestroyer6506 Having phd in biblical scholarship does not necessarily mean all he says is true , keep believing in random explosion chance reality ☺️❤️

@negativedawahilarious

13 күн бұрын

@@RD-jc2eu Source: "serious' according to me

@sentirongsen2324

2 күн бұрын

They think Phd in bible answers everything😂 The title of the claim has enough nonsense already

Once we accept the anonymity of authorship, and that they were not eyewitnesses, we are free to wonder how and where the authors obtained their information. Presumably, from third-hand, oral stories. This would explain the variations and contradictions between the gospels. But if we cannot be sure of the accuracy of the gospels, can we be sure of any of the story? Probably not. It seems likely that a real person named Yeshua or Yehoshua existed and was an itinerant Jewish preacher/prophet, who urged a return to older values, with a little Hellenic apocalypticism thrown in, but everything supernatural and mystical must be seriously doubted.

@vixendoe6943

3 ай бұрын

That is how I view Jesus, as a prophet or rabbi. In the Gospels Jesus says that through faith, his followers would be able to perform greater miracles and wonders than what Jesus himself had performed. He didn't see himself as particularly special and alluded to the fact that we all are divine, we just have to learn to tap into it and use it.

@theoutspokenhumanist

3 ай бұрын

@@vixendoe6943 We must all be free to believe whatever we feel is right. Of course, believing something does not make it true. My observation is that since Jesus there have been many millions of people with absolute faith, some even prepared to die for it, and yet not one of them has had power to perform greater miracles.and wonders. But if, as you believe, the man was just a prophet or rabbi, why would he have such power or be able to pass it on? Nonetheless, if you beliieve it and you live a good life because of it, the facts don't really matter.

@vixendoe6943

3 ай бұрын

@@theoutspokenhumanist People have pointed out that many of his so called miracles and wonders are things that a Buddhist monk can learn to do. There is a Buddhist monastery that claims to have a manuscript written by Jesus while Jesus was taking instruction there. If this is true, then Jesus was trying to teach his followers that exact thing, that they could be able to do great things. Beyond what the Romans and Pharisees were telling them they could.

@theoutspokenhumanist

3 ай бұрын

@@vixendoe6943 People claim all sorts of things but that doesn't mean they are real. Has any Buddhist monk ever been recorded actually perfroming miracles? Ask yourself why no-one has ever seen this Jesus manuscript or why there is zero evidence of him ever leaving the area covered in the bible. This is precisely the problem with religious belief. Once we allow ourselves to be convinced of things that have not and cannot be demonstrated to be fact, we open our minds to believing any old nonsense. Because we want to believe. The main difference between science and religion is that scientific claims can be demonstrated and experiments can be repeated with the same results. No religious claim has ever been demonstrated to be a fact. Which is why belief is so necessary and so highly prized within all religions. Because that's all religions have. You are free to believe whatever you feel is best but please try to employ critical thinking and seek evidence for the things you are told and do not just accept the word of others or words in a book.

I listened twice and it sounds like no one knows who wrote the Gospels. Some people have made claims about the authorship of the Gospels but those are just guesses.

As far as i know: Mark was written around 60 CE, Matthew after 73 CE, Luke possibly 80-100 CE, John around 100 CE or a little later. There were many other gospels -Thomas, Peter, Mary and many others, in circulation by the early 100's. But the Catholic Church pickled four they liked and tried to destroy the otheres.

Its a hard pill to swollow but its a fact.

My favorite Papias claim is the one that Judas’ body swelled up so big he couldn’t walk down a street, and that it burst when a chariot ran it over. Classy stuff.

We have no data that the composition was changed. We have commentary analyzing the literary structure and content, we have differentiated texts but as you have already correctly pointed out, the protestant assumes the changes can be explained away (and they have very persuasively done just that) and the other people just say the “data” doesn’t confirm it. Well sure, but we are really going out on a limb here with ALL the “data.” The data absolutely doesn’t show that there is no eye witness testimony, you can “deduct” that literarily buuuut aside from just pure speculation you’d be doing the same as a protestant just not as well.

just curious are you a believer in the gospel? the bible?

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

He covers this in his channel intro video. He's Mormon

@charlesswedenburg3798

3 ай бұрын

​@@alexmcd378really? that's interesting

@MrWorldchamp1

3 ай бұрын

thank you@@alexmcd378

@Spiritof_76

3 ай бұрын

@@alexmcd378 There are people who will plainly state that they are jewish and still not believe the supernatural claims of the religion but enjoy the cultural aspects. Perhaps Dan is that type of Mormon. No use tempting the shunning and loss of family ties.

I'd love to know more about how we arrive at the "state of the field," as Dan refers to it at the beginning of the video, and how someone familiarizes themself with the state of the field. I have a vague understanding (scholars review the data, publish, peer review, visit and revisit and build upon questions, meta analysis monitors the body of research, etc.), but I'd love a more in-depth explanation of the process from someone like Dan who's entrenched in it and part of the process.

@UrMomsFavSnack

Ай бұрын

Well, scholars do publish their works either in peer review directly related to the University they work in or from, or they cite their work in books that they then have published and then reviewed by fellow academics/scholars within their specialized field of study, of which they discuss their agreements and disagreements with at conventions or in their respective Universities.

True scholarship, congratulations.

Dan, you talk in terms of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" when I'm sure you know that the correct chronological order is Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Mark was the first and fairly bare bones. The earliest version of Mark did not have a resurrection account. The Matthew and Luke writers then took Mark and copied most of it, adding what they thought they needed to satisfy theological and political concerns of the time. Matthew and Luke added birth narratives, which are wildly different from one another.

@kathy1154

3 ай бұрын

Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Fragment 6 "Mark having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered... for he neither heard the LORD, or accompanied him" "Matthew put together the Oracles... in the Hebrew language" The Muratorian Canon Fragment I "Luke... when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to belief. Yet he himself had not seen the LORD in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events" "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and overseers, who had been urging him [to write]." The Jews essentially did what they always did, kill someone for not following commandments. End of story. Beyond that, it's all fiction. All made up by Paul. Paul authored the majority of the NT, trying to convince people that Jesus was the Mosiach, and the Jews somehow got it wrong. The Jews got it right! If you read the first Bible (the Marcion Bible), there were no witnesses of Jesus being resurrected. It literally ends at an "angel" told Mary that Jesus had risen from the grave. The Marcion Bible is accepted by many (not all) scholars as the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark. Whether or not Marcion or Mark came first, or (more likely)both had a common precursor, is irrelevant. Mark was the first Gospel written... 40 years after the death of Jesus. The original account in Mark (Codex Sinaiticus) is virtually identical to Marcion's account, as well as the account in the Ethiopian NT. Mary went to the tomb, an angel told her that Christ had risen... THE END. The witnesses were added into later versions.. KJV. Then, Mary and the disciples were the only witnesses, AND none of them even recognized "Jesus"... he manifested in a different form. (Mark 16:12). Matthew was written two decades after Mark... Matthew 28:17 when they (11 disciples), they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Mary doesn't see Jesus, in the book of Matthew, just the 11 disciples). Luke was the next gospel after Matthew, then John. The accounts get embellished, as time goes by. Jesus eats ("proof" he physically resurrected, and the disciples didn't see a ghost/spirit), (doubting) Thomas touches his wounds (the gaslighting of the non believers). Paul goes on to say there were 500 witnesses. The resurrection is the foundation of Paul's religion, literally. I Corinthians 15:12-15 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; And if Christ not be raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised the Christ. 15:19 If for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. Christians are followers of Paul and his gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounters. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings. In his own words. Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man; 1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST. Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season. (Jesus, healed the blind, love your enemies, turn the other cheek. Matthew 7:18-19 beware of false prophets... YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. 24:45 For many will come in my name, saying "I am the messiah" and they will lead many astray. 24:23-26 if ANYONE says to you "look, here is the Messiah"... DO NOT BELIEVE IT.... For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, producing great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the very elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you "look here, he is in the wilderness" do not go out. If they say "look, he is in the inner rooms, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. John 16:10 I go to my father, and ye see me NO MORE. 16:28 I leave the world, and go to the father. 17:4 I have finished the work, which thou gavest me to do. 14:19 a little while, and the world seeth me NO MORE 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world 14:2 I go to prepare a place for you) Acts 9:3 suddenly there shined... a light from heaven 9:5 I am Jesus, whom thou prosecutest 9:9 and he was three days without sight. Acts 23:11 the LORD stood by him and said "Be of good cheer, Paul: as thou hast testified of me... And if you beLIEve Paul's encounter with Jesus, you have to subscribe to 'Jesus' causing Paul to go blind... the guy who healed blind people, and taught people to love their enemies, and turn the other cheek. Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead🤔 20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him. 20:12 and they brought the young man alive.(WOW, a convenient "accidental" death, and resurrection "miracle" at the hands of Paul) (Ye shall know them by their fruit) Acts 18:12-18 Paul's false teachings get questioned in a Synagogue, the gentiles (Greek), that accompany Paul, beat up the head of the Synagogue. Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day, Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. 1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law. 9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some. 20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL. Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY. The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis. PAUL'S GOSPEL CANNIBALISM FOR IMMORTALITY John 6:53 Jesus said.. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. CHILD SACRIFICE FOR IMMORTALITY John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness. JESUS S(L)AVES I Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh I Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...

@robinharwood5044

12 күн бұрын

@@kathy1154 “but not in order “. Whereas the current Gospel of Mark is an orderly narrative.

What are the arguments for calling the Gospel of Peter heretical?

Well, a couple of verses from the gospel of John reads: 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.' John 1:14,15. Eyewitness account.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

The "John" being referred to in that verse is John the Baptist (who, of course, was not a "disciple" of Jesus and certainly didn't live long enough to produce a written account of anything). It is NOT the "John" to whom authorship of the gospel was attributed (without basis) in the late 2nd century. So... no, not an eyewitness account. (It would be nice if those who claim to be "believers" actually knew one single, simple, factual thing about that which they claim... oh, so fervently... to believe in.)

@pd33

Ай бұрын

@@RD-jc2eu Well you have some harsh words there and your tone reminds me of the old hymn wherein the onlookers were described as 'scoffing rude'. No matter- It is the 'us' and the 'we' in this portion of God's word from the author of this gospel (John) that is worth meditating upon among other things. Well sure John the baptist could have been numbered among the 'us' and the 'we', but who were some of the others with testimony all in accord with one another? Matthew, Mark, and Luke come to mind. The account about Zacchaeus in Luke 19 is a pretty cool example. Eyewitness accounts. You may have erred by insisting that John the baptist was not a disciple of the son of God. Go back and read up on John the baptist's witness and discern for yourself by his own words his level of dedication. And yes you figured out correctly that there are indeed two Johns here.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

@@pd33 The gospel presents John the Baptist as acknowledging Jesus as prior, yes. But John continues in his own mission; he doesn't throw it over to follow Jesus, so he is not a "disciple" in the sense that word has been used for centuries to describe the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. "The account about Zacchaeus in Luke 19 is a pretty cool example. Eyewitness accounts." I'm starting to think you don't understand what an "eyewitness account" actually means. Luke was not there; he comes into the picture long after the party is over, as an associate of Paul (who also is a latecomer). Luke was reporting what someone else said, which makes that "hearsay," not -- I repeat, NOT -- an "eyewitness account." It can only be treated as an eyewitness account if the writer was HIMSELF a witness to the event (or events) that he is describing in his written account. Luke never claims to have been an eyewitness to that event and could not have been an eyewitness. NONE of the writers of the ANY of the gospels makes direct claim to have been an eyewitness to the events they are recounting. That's the whole point of this video, and you present no concrete reason to continue to claim otherwise. So, it's all just blather. (Your attempt to sound wise in your invocation of the "us" and the "we" is meaningless. The use of those words in that verse is part of a rhetorical expression of faith, which is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the question of eyewitness accounts of the events of the gospel stories.)

I so enjoy the analysis in McClellan's videos. And I find this one particularly interesting. I'm curious though what others think about Mark 15. It references Simon of Cyrene, the 'father of Alexander and Rufus'. It seems that the author is clearly distinguishing this man as the father of two men that his intended audience would know, meaning that at least this one event may be based on eyewitness testimony. What other reason would the author have to do this? Thank you for any feedback.

@caodesignworks2407

3 ай бұрын

It explains the character and it's connection to other characters. We do this kind of thing on the daily when explaining people we known to other people who may not know. Or like in any other book where a person or place or thing is discussed just assuming the reader knows. We don't know the intent, to my knowledge. There's nothing to say that people of the time didn't get the reference or would have understood who those people were

@DebKC-bj9jo

3 ай бұрын

@@caodesignworks2407 Thank you, that's my point. It seems that the author is explaining why this particular eyewitness (who is probably deceased at the time of the writing) is relevant to his audience, by referencing his sons who are widely known in his community. Possibly current members did not remember Simon, but WERE familiar with his sons. If accurate, it doesn't take much of a leap to imagine that 'Mark' was able to interview Simon personally.

@JopJio

3 ай бұрын

@@DebKC-bj9jo not necessarily. Just like Acts mentions Gamaliel. But at the time Acts was written no one could investigate the claim anymore because Gamaliel was long gone and his audience had nothing to do with Pharisees. Paul also never mentions him and the Talmud never mentions Paul. And many say that Paul wasn't even a Pharisee. So at the end of the day is a neutral mentioning, which can't help us. The sons or Simon could also just have been persons of the past and Mark heard about them. Maybe the Simon was famous and that's why his sons were mentioned. But it doesn't mean that this Simon knew Mark and vice versa. Just like with Gamaliel, it could just be the author made it up and just wanted to drop a name

@DebKC-bj9jo

3 ай бұрын

@@JopJio I really appreciate your response. With respect, when Mark was circulated, I can only imagine that there were several individuals still alive able to refute this information, if it were false. Although I understand there is no way to know if that actually occurred (a challenge to the narrative). I just consider this little nugget a very odd addition, if it's not true. The author is giving his audience a point of reference that he apparently considered would be widely understood. I also find it very telling that the author of the Gospel of John, actually found it necessary to correct Mark. His reference seems almost petty in nature. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.

@JopJio

3 ай бұрын

@@DebKC-bj9jo I am still not sure about the gospel authors name dropping. Just like the beloved disciple. To me he never existed. If He existed, it would contradict the synoptics, since no apostle talked to Jesus at the cross in the synoptics. The same goes for Simon of Cyrene, he would contradict GJohn. And he could have been added for the metaphor of someone taking the cross and follows Jesus. Alexander And Rufus also have a special meaning And could have been Just a metaphor, but I don't remember the meaning anymore. Maybe it really happened that a Simon carried Jesus cross, who was famous in Jerusalem. Just like Gamaliel was famous. And to distinguish this simon from others it was important to mention his children. So it wouldn't be necessary for the gospel authors to know them personally, for them to drop a name of a famous person who wasnt already around anymore. 40 years from Jesus to Mark is enough time. Some even say Mark was written in the 80s or later, especially even if Mark was written in 70Ad, the gospel would haven spread 10 to 20 years later. So even if Simon really existed and carried his cross. It doesn't mean the author knew him personally or talked to him. i think the author of John didn't know about the tradtion of Simon or they were already people claiming that it was Simon who died instead of Jesus and therefore he ignored it.

Thank you.

This is one of the most thought-provoking videos (to me) that you have really made. It helps answer many questions that I wondered about. I can't believe no one else has recorded on this.

@stevemccorkel5004

16 күн бұрын

Please don’t just listen to one person to make very important decisions. These arguments - and that’s what they are - have been addressed for a long time already (even I - not a ‘Bible scholar’ - can punch holes in this. Keep searching.

Believers don't believe in God. They believe what some human or humans told them to believe about God.

@Bojan12

3 ай бұрын

No that is not true for all of us. I believe what I have seen

@Ex_christian

3 ай бұрын

@@Bojan12and what have you seen? When I was in the Christian cult, I saw judgmental, hateful people who could only lie for their make believe! There is NO HATE like Christian love!

@poleviatia5372

3 ай бұрын

That's called spreading the gospel. Everything you know comes from someone else. No one is forcing anyone to believe.

@aarongnanam

2 ай бұрын

​@@Ex_christian Just bcoz christians hated you doesn't mean that God hates you. If my wife loves me then I will love my wife even if the rest of her family hates me. You need to know which is the important love.

@Ex_christian

2 ай бұрын

@@aarongnanam which god? The Malevolent war god of Abraham who committed Genocide, allows Murder, Rape, Incest, etc. all in his name? Seems like an evil god to me that the Christian Cult follows.

So Matthew gets a promotion because James died?

@Adamborries

3 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra , where? This idea seems the least plausible of the points in this video.

@rami3283

3 ай бұрын

@@AdamborriesI thought so also, though I am on the side the the gospels were indeed eyewitness accounts I have to say Dan’s logic on why certain apostles received authorship made sense except for the last Dan seems to just shrug that one off without giving reasons as to why like he did on the other 3

If you find this scholar interesting check out Bart Erhrman and James Tabor. I found it enlightening to learn that if it weren't for Paul after Jesus, there would not have been Christianity because Paul opened his reinterpretation and innovation to gentiles thus spreading Christianity to everyone. Jesus basically had the vision to keep it within the Jewish tradition as the messiah later Gospels make it seem like he had the intention when alive, but he didn't.. It's all quite fascinating when you start to learn about Christianity from a historic perspective rather than theological perspective. Doesn't hurt anyone to have faith in something but good to know the history from not just the Bible as a source, but the entire of sources or lack of sources of the landscape at the time.

Did those western names exist already back 2000 years ago in the middle east? Silly question, I know but it's always seemed strange there would be a Luke and a Paul and so on at that location, so far back in time. So, if not, what would have been their real names? Is there any indication of that?

@TheFranchiseCA

3 ай бұрын

These specific English names are adaptations of Lucas and Paulus, which were commonly used names of Romans 2000 years ago.

@bass1bone

3 ай бұрын

Additionally, "John" is an English adaptation of "Jochanan."

Dan, I'm a new subscriber. Re: the topic of this video, have you read Brant Pitre's "The Case for Jesus," chapters 2 and 3? Chapter 2's title: "Were the Gospels Anonymous?" And Chapter 3's title: "The Titles of the Gospels." I'm not going to run through Brant's argument here. Just letting you know he makes a case for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the genuine authors of their respective gospels.

@Bgtrfvcde

2 ай бұрын

That is only an assumption. God should be a little more definitive.

@murphcallahan5892

2 ай бұрын

@@Bgtrfvcde You should read Pitre's relevant chapters before you say his findings are an assumption.

Historian John Crossan makes the argument that a miracle worker among the Jews wouldn't have excited Roman authorities. The only surprising thing is that he was found among the lower or middle class. Not to mention Jerusalem was some 2,500 miles away. They had more important things to worry about than a peasant miracle worker. Even though they Gospels aren't eyewitnesses doesn't necessarily preclude reliability or accuracy. Their purpose isn't historical biography as we think of it today. Are there errors or inconsistencies? Of course there are. It's fine. Don't worry about it. Appreciate the Gospels for what they are and accept that fallible human beings wrote them.

@Lucas-gm3bv

3 ай бұрын

But what are they, then, if not random fiction? Would you imagine the Harry Potter books to be true if they were written 1700 years ago and had centuries of historical academics writing their tangential notes about them, and entire schools of thought based on the prophetess Rowling?? What makes Harry any more or less real than Jesus?

@thomasdalton1508

3 ай бұрын

There is no suggestion in the gospels or traditional Christian teachings that Rome cared in the slightest about Jesus. The claim is that he was executed by the Roman governor, who was very close to goings on in his province. That's why the Romans appointed governors.

@Spiritof_76

3 ай бұрын

And accept that there is no evidence for supernatural events or deities, but readers can cherry pick the positive messages of the "good book" and try to be decent people.

Even if there were, the more sensible thing for a judge to do would be to dismiss them as unreliable if the stories they tell go blatantly against the laws of physics / nature or are otherwise extremely implausible, no matter if the narrative is religious or secular in character.

The parables on in Matthew were supposedly based on a prophecy that Asaph told on through Psalms 78:2 supposedly

All known manuscripts of Matthew have "According to Matthew" at the top of the manuscript. Saying they are anonymous is reading a bias into the data. John says nine times in the first three verses of 1 John that they physically touched Jesus, heard Him, handled Him. Peter says that they did not invent "cleverly devised fables" but "were eyewitnesses of His majesty." Try again.

@faithlessfather

3 ай бұрын

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

@curious968

3 ай бұрын

"According to Matthew" was a late addition. Raymond Brown, a pretty conservative source and quoted by just about every scholar, says we don't know.

@reasoningthroughthebible

3 ай бұрын

"The superscription is found on all known manuscriptions of this [Matthew] gospel. The title must date at least from the time when the gospels were brought together as one collection. . . . Ropes, Guthrie, and others accept that these titles may reasonably be dated as early as AD 125. But it is obvious that they were not then affixed to the gospels at random. They express the views of the church held before AD 125. Stonehouse observes 'Since half of these names are not of apostles, there is confirmation of the view that the Church for a considerable time prior to AD 125, and perhaps as early as the time of the individual publication, these very persons were associated with the Gospels as their authors.'" Hiebert, D. Edmund, Introduction to the New Testament, (Gabriel Publishing, Waynesboro, GA, 2003, reprint of Moody edition, 1981), 1.47-48 Thus the early attestation of the church fathers, and again, all existing manuscripts bearing the title, and no church father disagreeing with the naming, that the traditional naming of the gospels is as solid as can be attested today.

@reasoningthroughthebible

3 ай бұрын

"The gospel's identifying superscription, "The Gospel According to Matthew", is the oldest known witness concerning its authorship. . . . The title is not a part of the original document but was early added by a scribe for purposes of identification. The superscription is found on all known manuscripts of this gospel and agrees with the testimony of the Church Fathers. the title must date at least from the time when the gospels were brought together as one collection. . . . Ropes, Guthrie, and others accept that these titles may reasonably be dated as early as AD 125. But it is obvious that they were not then affixed to the gospels at random. They expressed the views of the church held before AD 125. Stonehouse observes 'Since half of these names are not of apostles, there is confirmation of the view that the church for a considerable time prior to AD 125, and perhaps as early as the fime of the individual publication, these very persons were associated with the Gospels as their authors' " Hiebert, D. Edmund, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Gabriel Publishing, Waynesboro, GA, 2003, reprint of Moody edition, 1981) 1.47-48 Thus all known copies of Matthew contain the traditional title, no early church father disagreed, and the traditional authorships are as firm an attestation as any.

@StudentDad-mc3pu

3 ай бұрын

This was added far later. We know where the text of the actual Gospel starts because of the way greek authors of such books laid them out. The Peter you are quoting also is NOT Peter the apostle as this book is pseudographic. You are literally using the Bible to justify the Bible. Try again.

But 500 people saw him! Whaddya mean, name one?

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

name any of the 500

@tussk.

2 ай бұрын

Eric.@@Michael-le5ph

Supposedly the writer of the book of Matthew writes that the ("parables,") which Jesus spoke were from a prophet but Asaph wasn't considered a prophet but a musician

So they arbitrarily assigned two Gospels to a Mark and Luke, as well as a 3rd tier disciple Matthew, everywhere all at the same time across the Roman empire, all the way down to Egypt... 120 - 150 years after the Gospels began circulating? So you have to believe that believers in Jerusalem, Rome and as far as Egypt and everywhere all decided independently to ascribe these works with the same names. And they accuse Bible believing Christians of blind faith. Fact: none of these Gospels are ever ascribed to anyone other than the traditional authors. Ever. All of the copies of the Gospels that we do have have the traditional names in them. Quoting from an article: "The oldest extant Gospel manuscripts that include the very beginning of each Gospel are from around AD 200. Without exception they all include titles written before the beginning of each text in the form ‘The Gospel According to...’ Notre Dame New Testament scholar Brant “Pitre points out the obvious (but for Ehrman, very problematic) fact that ‘there is a striking absence of any anonymous Gospel manuscripts. That is because they don’t exist. Not even one.’”6 On the contrary, all of our earliest gospel manuscripts contain the titles that attribute these books to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." So it's total conjecture that the Gospels were anonymous and the evidence, if weighed up objectively, indicates the Gospels were attached to the names they are attached to from the very beginning.

Not sure who Don McClellan is but he is not a "scholar of the Bible and religion", that is for sure. Neither is what he says "state of the field"-it is closer to the Teachings of Bart Ehrman, who turned his back on his faith and became an Anti-Christian Apologist. The Gospels were written down as record of The Apostolic Preaching during the Second Half of the First Century as the Apostles died off. This whole area is one that any first term Theological Student could explain that. If the Gospels do not reflect eye-witness accounts, where did the writers get them from?

@garytorresani8846

2 ай бұрын

If you have not taken a course in Jewish Christian and Greco Roman thought of the centuries before and up to the nicean period, please do so. I have under a number of Christian historian scholars, not theologians. But be warned that history is a cruel teacher and that some of your core beliefs would go by the wayside. There were lots of writers using the names of the apostles to gain recognition for their writings. The anti women Timothy letters are 2nd cent and were not written by Paul. The Greek is 2nd cent. The same issue with 2nd Peter. There are others in the canon that are suspect. Yes, it’s hard to change perspectives when you’ve believe doctrine and dogma all your life. Just so you know, I love Jesus and God in the deepest parts of my heart, but left religion long ago because of conservative politics and doctrine which I found not to be what he actually taught in context of the culture and time.

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

you know he IS a bible scholar. we know all about his credentials. sounds like you are just pushing your own beliefs on us. the scholarship is all against you on this.

@garytorresani8846

2 ай бұрын

@@Michael-le5ph not my opinion, but that of historical scholars I’ve studied under. They were Bible historians, I am not.

@Paul020253

2 ай бұрын

@@garytorresani8846 thank you for your suggestion. Sadly it is a,little too late, I have done the research you suggest. FWIW I am currently looking in my private study at Second Temple Judaism. Everything I have studied so far has lead me to where I am and nothing so far has tempted me away from my theologically conservative views, quite the reverse. Perhaps you should send me a copy of your CV and I could, perhaps, review it for you and suggest some areas you might like to consider, but as you say, beware , you may change your long held views!!

@Paul020253

2 ай бұрын

@@Michael-le5ph a,little harsh don't you think? I know his credentials, I know mine, you know his, you don't know mine. I listen to his conclusions and challenge him. That my friend is the joy of academia. Just out of curiosity what are your academic qualifications? You do have some I take it?

the disciples were certainly eyewitness to Jesus ministry

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

Says who? And where? 😀

@Michael-le5ph

2 ай бұрын

and they were illiterate. at least peter, james and john were. If you believe Acts 4

@downshift4503

2 ай бұрын

In the gospel stories they are eye witnesses, butit could be a false assumption that the stories took place as described.

@RD-jc2eu

Ай бұрын

...and none of those disciples produced any written accounts, so the fact that "someone" might have been an eyewitness, doesn't mean we have access to any eyewitness accounts (since any written accounts were not produced by those eyewitnesses).

@wdsmkc

Ай бұрын

And Harry Potter was certainly an eyewitness Cedric Diggory's murder. What's your point?

Matthew (=Levi, the tax collector), John (son of Zebedee), Simon Peter and James (brother of Jesus) were all eye-witnesses of Jesus' life. Matthew wrote his gospel account, John wrote his gospel account, three epistles and Revelation, Simon Peter wrote two epistles, and James wrote his epistle. Paul (formerly Saul) encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

No. 😀

@alanhowe7659

3 ай бұрын

@@Seticzech I forgot Jesus' brother Judas/Jude who wrote the NT epistle that bears his name.

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

@@alanhowe7659 Again, no. 😀Look into your holy book for authors of gospels. There are no eye withesses, we don't even know what was in the originals. 😀Whole Christianity is based on fairy tales written by unknown authors decades after Jesus' alleged existence.

@mihailgae-draghici4864

19 күн бұрын

@@alanhowe7659 niet

Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

... There are also no eyewitnesses in just about ALL of ancient history... Yet they put it in history books anyway based on a Greek writer who didn't live 50 years later but HUNDREDS of years later.

@braddersfam1754

3 ай бұрын

Very true, Plato, Alexander the Great, Pythagoras, Homer, Confucius to name a few

@howlrichard1028

3 ай бұрын

The difference is that nobody claims moral authority over others based on the existence of those figures.

@Agryphos

3 ай бұрын

​@@howlrichard1028also no one claims they're infallible, or needs them to be eyewitnesses to give rhetorical weight to miracle claims

@digitaljanus

3 ай бұрын

@@braddersfam1754 I mean, it helps that they just found Alexander's father's tomb.

@StevenWaling

3 ай бұрын

The bible makes no claim to infallibility. That came 100's of years after it was wrtten. ​@@Agryphos

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand

@samael5782

3 ай бұрын

Funny, that this is exactly what the first Christians thought. ;)

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

It's been at hand for 2000 years. I think we're good

@BDB2004

3 ай бұрын

@@samael5782so you like to disrespect Christians?

@samael5782

3 ай бұрын

@@BDB2004 What makes you think that?

@BDB2004

3 ай бұрын

@@samael5782 because of what you said

Did you forget the letter by John that states “we saw with our own eyes?”

Then the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome predates the gospel manuscript?

And that's ok. That's where Faith comes in

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

That's a position I respect. I never understood lying about evidence when faith was such a key point to begin with.

@davidlewis3072

3 ай бұрын

and the definition of faith that I read is "faith is believing in something in the face of no direct evidence"

@starfishsystems

3 ай бұрын

And it's where faith goes back out again, as a failed epistemology.

@-gearsgarage-

3 ай бұрын

Faith, a way to ignore the facts

@JopJio

3 ай бұрын

So you have faith in church fathers like Ireneues who misread Papias, who didn't even mention Acts, GLuke or GJohn and who refutes GMat and Acts by saying Judas died in a different way and who didn't even say he knew any of the apostles. He mentioned two John's, one is John the elder and one is John the apostle. He never said he knew any of them personally. And he describes GMat and GMark in a way which doesnt fit to our todays gospels. On top of that Clement of Alexandria says the same Mark wrote a secret gospel in Alexandria which is lost. If the apostles wrote gospels or any accounts there are lost and were only followed by Jewish Christian sects like the Nazarenes or Ebionites.

It's like the gospels are fiction and weren't intended as biographies at all...

@rosepetal-ov7vl

3 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Rafalse.

@shaunigothictv1003

3 ай бұрын

​@@MrMortal_RaThere were many other similar spiritual belief systems which involved celestial deities taking on human form. And all of them PRE DATE Christianity. I am simply requesting the specific data that proves that the Christian version of these beliefs is the only true rendition. The specific data i am requesting would need to be completely independent of the data for a historical Jesus which is an entirely separate argument altogether.

@MsFitz134

3 ай бұрын

Technically, yes, they weren't intended as biographies, they were intended as gospels. It's a different literary genre. Doesn't mean they're entirely fictional, but it also means they aren't entirely non-fiction either. They were meant to teach about the type of person that Jesus was or the type of things that he taught, rather than to be a historical record of his life events.

@shaunigothictv1003

3 ай бұрын

@@MsFitz134 Ok that's cool. But like I said to moralra, the specific data people are asking for is missing so I think that's the reason alot of people question the wacky claims made in the Bible. But I agree with you, it's part truth part fiction.

@fordprefect5304

3 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Matthew 17 17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus. *Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth* Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE* Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua. Those are real historical facts supported by evidence.

I have a request. Can you please do a video about the gospel of Judas?

Thanks!

Wow, I am so glad I'm not you.

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

Sure, it's better to be brainwashed tool in cult, right? 🙂

*It's totally mind blowing how people who claim to be ''bible scholars'' can't see any of the **_thousands_** of obvious and blasphemous scripture changes that the AC has made in all bibles with blackmagic in fulfillment of prophecy!* *I'm 71 now and have read only the exact same copy of the King James Bible my church gave me in 1961. (This does not mean I was a King James onlyist but now I'm glad I never read any others or I might not have noticed the changes as quickly.) I had memorized many scriptures from it through the years. Then in 2014 I started seeing changes in it that I couldn't explain. I have an exceptional memory, for instance I can draw a detailed picture of my baby stroller. I had never owned a computer or heard of the "Mandela Effect" back then. But after being given my first computer in 2016, I finally found out why I had been noticing all of the oddities that I couldn't explain. I then started diligently studying what should actually be called the ''Daniel 7:25 Effect''. That's where God said He would give the antichrist the power to "change times and laws'' which we now know meant (history and scripture plus laws of physics). We're seeing many end times prophecies being fulfilled SUPERNATURALLY! This is some of the "lying signs and wonders" that God told us He would give the AC power to perform which would even deceive His very elect, if it were possible in 2nd Thessalonians chapter two!* *God said in the end of days, (NOW!) that He would send us a famine for hearing His word in Amos **8:11** and that He would give the antichrist the ability to do this in Daniel 7:25. In Daniel 12:4 & 12:9 He told him to seal his book until the end days. He told John **_not_** to seal his book because the end time is at hand in Revelation 22:10. One of the Greek definitions of seal in Strongs concordance is “to protect from Satan”. He also told us to write His words in our hearts, which meant memorize, if not word for word at least the essence of what was written, because He knew this was going to happen.* *God commanded us to "prove all things", and people **_better_** obey Him, especially on this subject. I urge you to research this. There are many Brothers and Sisters making videos about the changes with more proof of what was originally written and I have lots more about this in my playlist 👉 which can be found by typing in ( proof of bible change residue junkie )* 👈 kzread.info/head/PLOTw4zBND_NPf66nKUONLoe2MNFLb5LQr *I've continued to study scripture and have grown MUCH closer to Jesus by learning what Satan has been changing. Soon Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled too, and the only way it can happen is by not being able to see these videos that document what used to be written in our bibles.* *_May God bless all who read this with eyes to see this incredible faith strengthener, and how close we are to our Saviour's return!!!!_* ❤✝️💪 *P.S. After people have taken all of the required 💉's, they will apply a quantum dot invisible tattoo to their head or hand, but anyone who has had just one has a bluetooth mac # that can be read by any smart phone and when you walk through the deal at an airport they know if you have it. The no buying or selling is happening incrementally and will be complete when cash is abolished and worship can be defined as "to fear, obey and trust in someone or something" which is what they are doing with the Beast System and the Image of the Beast, (NWO and TV!). They also now have triple helix DNA, are no longer human and if they have children they won't be human either! Yes, this absolutely is it, and👉 if you write me at the address on my about page👈 I'll send you 15 **_shocking_** films that will PROVE it to anyone who has the courage to watch them.*

@ro.kn.2665

3 ай бұрын

You should take your schizophrennia medications

@alexmcd378

3 ай бұрын

Wow... You cut and paste that don't you? Or are you a bot? Anyway, human memory sucks. It's far more likely that you are just misremembering than a book on your shelf is getting changed by black magic.

@mcdonaldsorwhatevers

3 ай бұрын

medication now

@deprogrammershepherd1234

3 ай бұрын

Praise YHWH!

@residuejunkie4321

3 ай бұрын

*Jesus will make sure all you cow words understand this at the Gate before sending you on your way.* 🐷👋🔥 *_BOO!!!_*

Anytime I want to find flaws in the bible, I'll come to this channel. what is the mission of this channel again?

@Cocoon68

3 ай бұрын

Data over dogma

@ldr540

3 ай бұрын

@@Cocoon68 😂 Good one

I’m curios as to when Paul’s letters were written.

Mind blown. What's the implication therefore of this?

@heatherwoodley8244

3 ай бұрын

I guess... that we cannot trust the Gospels.

@elynn7684

3 ай бұрын

This is really hard to swallow. I don't deny the evidence. This realization though really has the potential to upend my world view. What is myth and what is truth?

@heatherwoodley8244

3 ай бұрын

@@elynn7684 😔 You're Christian? I would be too, if it weren't for all these things I keep discovering. I have a deeply Christian friend who tries to preach to me sometimes, and somewhere deep down I would like to be Christian, I still pray to the Christian God after all, but its most likely a cultural and upbringing thing. But I keep looking into Christianity,.and I'm almost convinced sometimes, but in the interests or proper research I look at the other side, videos such as these and many by ex-Christians who know Scripture really well, and they detail why it unravelled for them. And then I'm only convinced of none of it being true. This is one reason I don't show my friend these things. It's his whole life, and as much as I'd like to see him freed from his self-imposed difficulties, I've heard countless stories of how ex-Christians' worlds fell apart when they lost their faith and how they struggled for a few years,.and I wouldn't want to asist in accidentally bringing that about for my friend. 😔

@christsavesreadromans1096

2 ай бұрын

@@elynn7684Don’t let these faithless reprobates shake your faith, it’s obvious where they’ll end up.

Great video!

Yes but the uncle of a friend of the camel herder saw him so this is undeniable truth!

Why would Peter need an interpreter, didn't he receive the gift of "speaking in tongues"?

The early different books of the Bible were written by different persons, different time, different locations and different languages and yet all of them are linked with harmony and congruence between them That says something..... God's intervention?

Here is my last take on this video. If you through your life and enough resources on most things from history, you can undo anything you want. It's rather easy to compromise a text and find derractors of the time and add it all up to discredit Christianity. I read pastors claiming that in the bible if you add up all the places where marriage is concerned, it would appear that jesus teaching about divorce for instance probably doesn't mean it's necessary a bad thing. There is just too much time and too many people where and are today against the gospels because they say things that make people uncorfortable. Enough people feeling that way, enough time and money and nothing can be trusted anymore

Weird...landscape. I do not do well with change. The content was very concise and covered all bases.

3:26 What if it follows from the logic of St. Irenaeus, as best as he could, simply transmitted a correct tradition? Fr. Jean Colson has argued, he mixed up the Beloved with the Son of Zebedee, since he left Asia Minor at 16. We have no indication he mixed anything else up.

So what about the accounts in Luke. The opening part of his letter infers that he was writing an account based on previous writings based on eyewitness accounts. Also Acts of Apostles which claimed to be a follow up to the Gospel of Luke gives us internal evidence on when the book was finished possibly while Paul was awaiting trial to be executed. Given that issue of martyrdom was not a problem for the author, omitting the death of Paul would seem odd. Also on the issue of an orderly account. Luke starts off by saying this an orderly account implying one of the Gospels is not in order that's probably Mark.

@thomasdalton1508

3 ай бұрын

Exactly, it claims to be based on an eyewitness account. It doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account. That's the whole point.

@leedza

3 ай бұрын

@@thomasdalton1508 however, if you look at the source text, its mainly Mark and Matthew. Thus, the first 2 gospels are the eyewitness accounts.

@thomasdalton1508

3 ай бұрын

@@leedza Neither Mark nor Matthew makes any claim to be an eyewitness account. Perhaps Q did, we have no way to know (I understand the consensus is that Matthew and Luke are both based on a non-surviving text rather than one being based on the other). The claim in Luke 1:2 is very general. It doesn't claim that his writing is based directly on eyewitness testimony. It seems to be describing something handed down from person to person, the first of whom were eyewitnesses. It doesn't say anything about relying on written sources (although it is clear that he did).

@leedza

3 ай бұрын

@@thomasdalton1508 another way to look at it is that the texts that made Q, Mark, Matthew (or whatever was in existence) were in circulation. However, possibly Luke corroborated the stories with people who witnessed the events. If Acts was written in the life of the apostles then the eye witnesseses would still be alive at the time Luke was written.

@thomasdalton1508

3 ай бұрын

@@leedza Luke talks about an investigation, which could certainly have included speaking to eyewitnesses. Or corresponding with them by letter. Or speaking to other people that had spoken to eyewitnesses. Or reading existing texts (which he obviously did, whether that is what he was referring to as an investigation or not). There is really no way to know.

1:05 "We" is obviously the Church where St. John the Gospeller currently was. Probably Ephesus. Minimally, the "we" passages extend over John 19:35 and John 21:24. Maximally the latter extends John 21:21--25. Or 21:23--24. In other words, we are very far away from a collective writing with only a spare nod on two occasions to the witness they relied on.

2:06 The Gospel of Matthew _is_ very clearly sayings with context. In an edition where God's own words are marked as red, 56 % or so of Matthew would be in red. I checked. You don't expect it, there is so much action you expect the sayings to be a quarter, but they are in fact more than half.

Faith, Hope and Love, but the Greatest of these is Love...

@StudentDad-mc3pu

2 ай бұрын

Absolutely.

There are no eye witnesses to the events described in Moby Dick. It is still a great work of literature full of meaning and value.

@gemorp8506

2 ай бұрын

Yea and start war in the name of christianity (old time) to achive 3G gold, glory, gospel. If they know that the bible is fake then there's no need to do war, just accept the good meaning and value and nit radical about it.

❤❤❤

@alanx4121

3 ай бұрын

Whats in a name lol

A more complex understanding but important to realize what the evidence shows (and doesn't show).

So: The letters from Peter and John don't exist. Accounts from Josephus, who specifically mentions James, the brother of Jesus "who was called Christ," didn't exist. Tacitus (who mentions Nero’s persecution of Christians) didn't exist. Pliny the Younger: who, while not mentioning the apostles directly, provided context for the environment in which early Christians and the apostles operated, didn't exist. The Gnostic Texts, which are often attributed to apostolic figures (and while many are thought to be not authentic, some likely are) didn't exist. Got it, thanks.

“A state of the field.” 😂