If you focus on Jesus’s teachings you realize that his covenant isn’t based on writings on physical objects like the Mosaic law. God said He will write his commandments in our heart and minds and we get this help through Jesus. This was required because people weren’t interpreting/applying the law correctly back in Moses’ time. But, now we receive Holy Spirit through our faith in Christ and it helps us develop a better character. So, I wouldn’t focus so much on who wrote it because we aren’t saved by reading the scriptures but through faith. Jesus said that those who believe it draws them to Him.
He makes a very good argument here. If the Gospels of Mark and Luke are some bogus works of fiction, why not name them after Peter and Paul, or Philip and Nathaniel, or Andrew and Simon? Why name them after the mission-quitter Mark and the unknown Luke?
The real problem is that its if the Bible is a Holy Scripture but the scholars do really know who wrote it, but they curated the content to fit there narrative. I give the example of tithe. They use the Bible to guilt trip us to give them money yet they don't tell us the truth about how they don't know who wrote it ànd it could all be made up
Taking into account the fact that Papias frequently reported stories that were just stupid and naive and the fact that we have no idea who he got his information from, I do not think we can think of him as a credible witness. Irenaeus was partly dependent on Papias and we have no way to track his sources of information either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "What apocryphal books... Bible?" There are dozens of online lists available. Gospelwise? Nicodemus, Barnabas, Gamaliel.
Niko Bellic Sorry, I just saw this. We do NOT have the works of Papias but we don’t have quite a few quotations from him. Surely you’re familiar with Papias’ story about Judas and of the apocalypse. These people are equivalent to second generation cult leaders.
Edmund Spenser Exactly. I consider myself a Christian, but I’ll tell you, looking at this historically, critically, you have to be conscientious that early Christianity is comparable to a cult and it’s leaders cult leaders.
Edmund Spenser right. The only thing I think I have reason to lay claim to on Christianity is an inner witness of the Holy Spirit. It just feels “right” to believe these things, in my heart. Maybe I’m brainwashed. I can’t judge. I can’t judge myself or others, in this department.
Irenaeus would have gotten his information from Polycarp, since he was his disciple, and Polycarp was the disciple of the apostle John. That does make his reports extremely credible.
@@davidpallmann8046 The Author of Matthew is a liar he is the only one with the 3 days 3 nights prophecy which is a false prophecy it’s easy math Sabbath starts Friday sun set so 1 night Sabbath day so the Friday evening to Saturday sun set 1 day so so far 1 day 1 night Saturday evening to Sunday evening another day so it’s 2 days and 2 nights not 3 days 3 nights
@ilisoir 18 Funny that most of the 12 deciples are rarely mentioned in the gospels or the epistles. I wonder why? It seems Peter and John and James were the only ones who ever actually were ever around. And they slept at the most important times. The garden of Gasemene and the transfiguration. I always found that odd. Both on the mount of Olives. And what exactly was the point of the transfiguration vision? An important event thats rarely if ever discussed and what it actually meant.
@ilisoir 18 Let me help you. If everything in the NT were true, then we would only be tequired to establish his word by just ONE WITNESS and not 2 or 3, line upon line line precept upon upon precept. What is truth rightly divided from? Lies. Thats why Jer. 8.8 was given. The NT was corrupted by the mystery religion of Babylon thru Rome soon after John died thru the Falvian dynasty. Thats why there are so many contradictions in the NT. Thats also why Jesus said the kingdom is like a treasure HIDDEN in a field. We gotta dig for the truth as a workman not to be ashamed. After you discover the truth, IT ALLMAKES LOGICAL SENSE. No hokey pokey. Romans 1:3-4 started me on 3 year journey to truth. Maybe it will help you too. Read it CAREFULLY. And I John 3:9-10.
@ilisoir 18 Christianity is a cult of the catholic/protestant church. Jesus was not a christian nor were his deciples. Virgin births, bodily reincarnation or resurrection, speaking in tongues. Walking on water miracles, demons, are all pagan greek babylonian myths inserted to deceive you. A strong delusion. The antichrist (trinity) of Rome works miracles to deceive you. What do you think Jesus was telling us about a false christ coming thru the catholic church claiming to be God in the flesh working miracles is? If Jesus claimed to be God then how are you going to distinguish him from the antichrist if they BOTH claim the anc DO the exact same things? The strong delusion came soon after John died thru the carholic church at the council of Nicea then the 3rd council of Constantinople. If you dont know church history, you will never find the hidden treasure in a field. You gotta dig for it.
@ilisoir 18 Also, everything in the old testament was a type for the EXACT same thing the church would do. Pagan idoltary. And if you think the catholic church isnt full of the same disgusting acts, then you need to do more research.
Those four forgot to write their last name and also started their gospels by 'According to' and also those four gentlemen were not the disciples of Jesus (PBUH).
1. They didn't have last names in the ancient world. 2. We have other ancient books that had "According to" as the title of authorship. "The histories according to Herodetus". 3. Matthew and John were disciples. Mark recorded accounts from Peter, who was a disciple. And Luke examined various sources and interviewed people who saw all of it.
Bock cites Papias as confirming that the Gospel of Luke is associated with Luke and the Gospel of John is associated with John, but I believe that is weakly supported supposition. The only authors Papias explicitly identified were Mark and Mathew. Bock also mentions Papias reference to Matthew's Hebrew gospel but we have no physical examples of a Hebrew version of Matthew. The Greek based version of Matthew that became part of the Canon may not be the same work as the one Papias was referring to. The Gospels are written by distant authors with little personal perspective. Mark, Matthew, and John would presumably have had a great deal of personal perspectives to add if for no other reason that to give their stories credibility. John's "the disciple whom Jesus loved" appears to be a literary device which adds little to the Gospel's credibility The lack of personal recollections by the authors erodes the veracity of the Gospels. Most of Boch's arguments are directed at Mark and Luke. Since Luke was most likely a gentile that was never in Palestine, Luke's reports would be hearsay reports which would be enough of a discount to justify many skeptics incredulity. Mark. Matthew, and John are more of an issue since they would have been eye witnesses. Boch didn't offer a defense for Matthew and John other than to mention that the naming tradition went back to the latter part of the first century. Boch was wise to not dwell on the evidence for the by lines of those gospels because the evidence that they depend on, from Papias and Irenaeus, is very limited and confused. Papias received his information about Mark's gospel from a church elder named John whose qualification as a witness are not elaborated on, simply hearsay from an elder. Irenaous thought Matthew's gospel was written before Mark which we now know is incorrect. It is important to keep in mind that a large majority of scholars believe that Mark was the earliest Gospel and that large parts of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark. If Matthew was actually involved in writing the Gospel that bears his name you would expect, since he was an apostle, that he would tell the story using words of his own choosing and avoid producing a work that appears to largely be a plagiarized version of Mark. Since Luke was apparently a gentile who would have been unlikely to be in Palestine, the plagiary is more understandable. The earliest version of Mark didn't have a resurrection story which could account for the work being ascribed to an inferior author. Also, early Biblical scholars recognized that the Gospel of Mark was shorter and coarser than the other gospels which could have lead to an attempt to elevate Matthew's gospel by assigning an inferior author to the gospel called Mark (see Edwards 2002). Boch describes Mark's CV as being to weak to be a luminary that would be chosen for pseudepigrapha. What is Paul's CV like? It includes persecuting the early Christians, not a good start, much worse than Mark's CV that Boch's argument depends on. Several of the works written in Paul's name are likely pseudepigrapha, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Apparently having a checkered past is not much of a hinderance to Christian authors. Boch's argument about Mark's CV being weak doesn't hold up well if the standard applied to Paul is applied to Mark. I think Bock is badly understating the importance of Mark to the early Christians. Christian tradition has Mark as a witness to several important events in Jesus's life including the Last Supper. It was Mark's house the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. In 1 Peter 5:13. Mark is identified as Peter’s “son”. Mark is credited with establishing the Christian Church in Egypt, an esteemed part of the Greek dominion. Boch may have a dim view of Mark's resume, but in 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul has a change in heart about Mark and supposedly calls for Mark to take up his ministry while Paul is in prison. Boch's arguments are circumstantial, inconsistent, and depend on a naive understanding of early Christianity. One gets the impression that Boch's arguments are intended for an audience that knows very little about the Bible and early Christianity.
I think you make some fair points, but you didn't really get around his main one. Mark may have been an important figure, but there were other, more important figures that they could have chosen from. If they were going to make up a name, Mark wouldn't be the first option. Also, your point about Paul also seems very weak. Paul wrote letters, and evangelized. He was respected in those areas, and with doctrine. He was basically the Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig of his time. In the same way that you would rather see some like Daniel Wallace explain the Gospels than Strobel, you would still want Strobel on your side because, despite their former history, they have shown themselves to be wonderful and changed people who can serve your cause well. Taking into account only the fact that Paul murdered Christians then you might have a point, but that would be cherry picking.
***** One of my main points was that Boch unjustifiably shatters Mark's image in order to make his weak point. Boch is like an insensitive bulldozer, he has absolutely nothing good to say about Mark, which is unfair to Mark and the uninformed person trying to evaluate the strength of his argument. Simply because you can make an argument doesn't make it a strong argument.
Jimmy Watt You may be right about his character, but that doesn't impact his argument. "Simply because you can make an argument doesn't make it a strong argument." I'm not sure what you're referring to here. In any case, the argument is strong. We simply would not see Mark's name on a Gospel if the name was arbitrarily invented.
***** Mark may have been down the list a bit, but still important enough to impersonate. Regional noterity is a significant issue that Boch skipped over.. Mark wouldn't have had to be the greatest luminary in order to make his luminescents useful. He was a large figure in Alexandria and nobody knows for sure where the original Gospel of Mark was written. The fact that Mark was supposedly an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus makes him star enough to imitate. Boch's argument has two related parts. According to Boch, Mark is (1) not a luminary and (2) he was actually harmful to their mission. Exactly how much of a luminary Mark was is not clear, but he is venerated in the Coptic Church and Paul, the self proclaimed Super Apostle, said Mark was worthy to take over his ministry. Obviously Paul's later analysis of Mark doesn't match Boch's image of Mark. Paul obviously thought Mark had redeemed himself and it seems very possible Paul thought that in the intervening years Mark had elevated himself to rising star status. Boch's argument depends on a diminished visage of Mark that Boch unfairly creates by presenting only the evidence of the youthful Mark. Even if Boch's point has some merit, he didn't win it because he didn't address the evidence about Mark later in life.
On the contrary, Mark's alleged travels with Paul in Acts 15 and other NT authors which name Mark as a Christian, or Peter's "son", mean Mark wasn't as obscure as apologists wish, Mark was indeed a likely choice for a forger, forgers didn't limit themselves to the most popularly known apostles. The NT pseudepigrapha are mostly forgeries, and were created by Christians, yet many of their titles ascribe those works to persons either less popular, or who themselves play a very small role in the canonical NT, such as History of Joseph the Carpenter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Bartholomew, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Andrew and Matthias etc. It is rather superficial and uninformed to try to argue for the reliability of Mark's ascription by pretending he was some obscure nobody, whom a forger would be unlikely to name as author.
Even if we assume the authenticity of the four Gospels, this does not change anything There is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus is God, and no Christian has been able to bring a single text from the oldest manuscripts that proves the alleged divinity of Christ.
This argument falls down, at least for me, because why didn't Peter write a gospel? Why didn't Paul write a gospel? Why do we have 2 gospels that were written by people who didn't witness the life and workings of Jesus first hand? Oh, I hear you say, the oral tradition came before the writings. Why not straight to writings? In fact, as far as I can see, there should be at least 12 gospels written by 11 apostles (dismissing Judas Iscariot) and Paul, not 4 gospels written by 2 apostles and 2 persons who did not witness Jesus' life and works first hand. Further, we all know that each gospel was an embellishment of the one before in order to refine and clarify various doctrinal and ecumenical positions. The fact that these gospels are strewn with contradictions should be enough to not even bother with the argument of who actually wrote each gospel.
Mathiew 9:9 "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him". That's the proof that Mathiew didn't wrote the book according to Mathiew. HalleluJah
Yahya EL ALAMI Typically, it is "The Gospel ACCORDING TO X"..which means that the alleged authors of the Gospels didnt have to necessarily "write" the books, but the content of the book comes from them, so therefore the book is attributed to them.
Yahya EL ALAMI no none of the the gospels are from the four so allied authors period because the disciples were illiterate period and Jesus being he's supposed to be God couldn't write his own autobiography can you see the contradiction in all oh that's right Christians are just believers not ones to research just sad
@@dayknight9045Your verdict on the word "Uneducated" as written in Acts 4:13 is way off the true intended meaning based on the context. Every Jewish child at the time was required to have memorised the Torah, and a couple of other books verbatim. They were also taught to READ and WRITE. The kind of education the Sanhedrin were refering to was tertiary in nature which was only for those who were interested in becoming Scribes and teachers of the law which required the to go through further schooling. This there is no possible way a Jewish man at that time could not be able to write. I hope this helps.
we know that none of the gospels are written by any of the people there assigned to because they all say "according to"which means to attribute a statement to someone, for example: its like me saying according to mark its going to rain, but the bible takes it a step further:according to mark Jesus said its going to rain secondly if these guy were disciples or around Jesus they should have firsthand knowledge of what Jesus said and done so where is the gospel according to jesus
People have a right of their own opinion. Don't disturb their faith, with human reasoning. Let us not debate, when it is giving peace of mind. Debate is for departures.
Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, since the tradition might also have known that the "big names" didn't write anything. If Jesus himself wrote no gospel, and this was known, perhaps people also knew that Peter wrote no gospel. Same with the others mentioned, they may have been seen as "bigger guns" back then, but that might as well be a reason not to falsely attribute a work to them, since people would be more likely to question the veracity of the claimed authorship.
except in his timeframe, Peter etc would have been dead already so it is a possibility that people would accept the verility of a gospel from Peter. Of course this is all hypothesising but I think his argument isn't inherently flawed but actually quite logical and historically sound (I myself having studied classics for some years now)
The last sentence in your comment actually substantiates the claims that these men did in fact write the gospels. If they were alive and certain writings were said to be by them yet they knew they had not penned them, arguments and written clarifications would have ensued.
jojokerus Thats funny, because those same people could/would have "known" that Matthew and John didnt write Gospels either, yet Matthew and John are traditionally ascribed to the Gospels that bears their name..hmmm.
"Obviously, as the work is anonymous and thus can't be a forgey" Exactly! And there is insufficient evidence to assume that attribution made at least half a century later are correct. Further, without any "could be's" or wishful thinking, the evidence is quite simply in favor of the statement they were NOT written by the people they were attributed to. Again, if we want to add our own wishful thinking to the "evidence", you open yourself up to some major problems.
Always think how they're called "The Gospel ACCORDING to X" and not "WRITTEN by X" The way I understand it is that it means "this is the tradition according to what X believed/preached", or something....
Q, M, maybe a source we only know by reference. The fact that Irenaeus quotes a few lines is not proof he is talking about the same gospel. However, if I accept this is the same, Irenaeus wrote 100 years after the gospel. That only says that by the end of the 2nd century names were finally attributed, it obviously says nothing about these attributions being correct.
its believed mark was the first book written it has jesus quiet as he goes to his death then crying out my GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me. then he dies ,,,,,the oldest versions of mark never had the resurection story it ended with the women fleeing the empty tomb and saying nothing.,,and you say peter past this story to mark bah humbug ..... matthew and luke both copied from mark and added other things by the time we get to john jesus has become GOD .john 1;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . jesus has come along way from being the defeated man on the cross in mark to being the creator of the universe in john ...........
What are you talking about ? Not credible books or sources full stop .so don’t quote from the books they are full of errors Also mark was 9 years old boy when Jesus was preaching,so what on earth was a 9 years old boy doing with 30 something years old man 2000 years ago
They couldn't take the names of Thomas or Barnabas or others because these names were attached to gospels already. And they are so contradictory to the narrative they didn't make the cut at the council of Nicea..
The church fathers could have easily given their reasons for attributing names to the gospel writers but never did as far as i know. Many gospels the church rejected we know more about because they wrote about them in detail. It seems to me that if i had a book written andor inspired by God and i knew the history of the books i would write it down and send co pies to everyone i know.
So one piece of the argument is that Mark got his information directly from the disciple Peter. I hasten to point out that according Luke and John the disciple Peter was an eye witness to the empty tomb. Yet while Mark mentions women visiting the empty tomb he omits Peter's visit. Is it plausible that Mark would fail to mention that Peter, his source, also visited the empty tomb? Or do we abandon common sense entirely and assume that Peter considered it too unimportant to mention it to Mark? In Christian dogma the empty tomb is of paramount importance. Sorry, Dr. Bock, just when you think you've neatly disposed of one gospel authorship conundrum another arises.
I confirm that, see Luke 24:12 and John 20:4. The traditional explanations about who wrote the Gospels and where they got their information is unreliable.
Joseph Pieper Indeed Mark's version does come to an abrupt end but the way it ends is telling: Mark declares that the women were too fearful to tell anyone. Ergo if Mark is to be believed then the women didn't tell Peter! Which just goes to show that at crucial waypoints in its narrative the N.T. is just about as unreliable as can be imagined.
MadCityObserver Well that could also mean they were to afraid to tell each other. My oppinion is that the other first hand witnesses who were still alive were like "dang mark missed a lot of important details we need to write another one. So they did. And that's why we have 3 different accounts. They were all trying to give the most perfect account they possibly could. Sounds very reliable to me.
Joseph Pieper Christian tradition says that Mark's source was none other than Peter himself. Given the prominence the gospels assign to Peter and given the supposed frequency the disciples huddled together after Easter Sunday, name one witness who was in a better position to piece together the Easter morning events than Peter. I for one can't think who that would be. Also, if indeed Peter was Mark's source then is it reasonable that Peter tells Mark that the women told no one when as you remarked earlier other gospel writers record that they fetched Peter? There seems to be no way around it, these disparate versions just don't add up. How you arrive at your reliability conclusion baffles.
Yes, the tradition probably guessed the authorship of the Gospels. The deeper question behind the authorship is the reliability of these Gospels in the recording of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ. Let's assume that Mark was a companion of Peter. If as an Apostle, the gospel message is centered around the Resurrection, why does Mark leave that out? We have older manuscripts that don't have the Resurrection account. Let's say Luke was a companion of Paul. Paul never walked or talked with Jesus. What input does he have on writing a Gospel about Jesus? Luke begins with the Gospel by saying there were other written/oral tradition on which he bases his Gospel. Yes, the tradition bases the names on well thought out guesses but it doesn't solve the underlying problem of the reliability of the Gospels.
Hey! I'm not sure if you're still interested in this, but there's a few holes in your argument. 1. No, they didn't just guess about who could've been the authors. If they were guessing, there would have been disagreement. There wasn't any disagreement among the church fathers who the gospels belong to. This also helps considering they would have known the apostles. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
I am not a christian but I like to seek knowledge.... can any christian preacher or knowledgeable person tell me who was these 4 men ??? I mean their history according to the date and their full names....
+curiousAbida Matthew, also known as Matthew Levi, was originally a tax collector who ultimately left his profession to follow Jesus and became one of his 12 apostles. He lived during the first Century AD. The majority of scholars and early Church fathers agree that Matthew’s Gospel was written in the late 50s/early 60s, yet some believe that it was written between A.D. 65 and 70. Mark, full name John Mark, is often linked with Peter (one of Jesus’ 12 apostles). He was from Jerusalem, Israel. Mark went on several missionary trips with Barnabas (his cousin). The Gospel of Mark was most likely written in the 50s or early 60s (first century AD of course) and used Peter as a major source. Luke (also the author of the book of Acts) was a physician by profession. Luke was a close friend of Paul, the author of 13 of the New Testament books. The majority of scholars and early Church Fathers agree that the Gospel of Luke was written between A.D. 59 and 63 (some suggest the 70s). Luke was most likely a Gentile and well educated in Greek culture. John son of Zebedee was also one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. In addition to his Gospel, John also wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and the book of Revelation. John was a fisherman. John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, most likely in A.D. 85 or a bit later still. Please let me know if you have questions or need more detail in a certain area. I would be more than happy to help.
It's also interesting to see why and how the gospels were written, in the author's own words (e.g. Luke: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." That's from Luke chapter 1, which you can read here: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1 ) The gospels are actually a relatively quick read if you're interested in giving it a go! Very interesting stuff and easily the most influential piece of literature in the history of the world!
You can have a look here: www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html (at number 3) This is also a good article: www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-gospels-reliability Hope those are helpful. If you have more questions please ask :)
Gandalf The Grey the first website is teaching method how to response to objection no clear reference who the gospels writers are....plus according to the website two of the gospels writers are not disciples of Jesus but namely mark and luke...according to luke testimony he wasn't inspired by god but rather his letter base on what the eyewitness said...
well actually it makes perfect sense to attribute the book to him, even if he wasn't revered in early christianity, simply because he's supposed to have been close to Peter, who was dead at the time Mark was written. It makes perfect sense to do so so then christians could then have a gospel which has apostolic creds but about which they could say "it must really be by THE Mark because why else would we attribute the gospel to him if it wasn't really by him". That argument doesn't work for me.
"Mark" is even more doubtful when you consider that the source, Eusebius, lied/invented evidence of Mark & Egypt. He cites Philo of Alexandria's "writings" but Philo, who was contemporaneous with Jesus and related to Herod Agrippa never wrote a word about Mark, Jesus or the movement. Apparently Herod forgot to tell him about Peter being freed from his jail by an angel. LOL
@@tomasrocha6139 That's why scribes existed? And you're telling me Peter couldn't have had 30 years to learn, given their evangelism. John had 60 years, and we know he wrote Revelations. So this is a moot point. God bless, man.
Yeah that would make sense if the Gospel of Peter was written first, which it wasn’t . All the 4 gospels known as the canonical gospels were written way before the gnostic gospel of Peter, which was written around mid second century, Nice try tho.
cont. Over longer periods of time this type of thing can lead to creoles, but most certainly do NOT imply that a document was a translation of a complete text. At best it implies that the the sources the anonymous gospel writers used were in that language (Aramaic). However, the fact the true signs of translation of the gospels as complete texts are missing. Thus the evidence indicates they were composed by Greek speakers.
They were probably wrote by the disciples of the disciples because Mathew, Luke, Mark and John were too busy on the road but its probably an accurate account of what they passed on to be written.
@@geennaam4576 actually yes, as they seem to recount very accurately history The crucifixion is a historically recorded event, check the account of Josephus and many other mentions of Jesus who was considered the Christ Seems to me you didn’t even watch this video, you’re just looking for an excuse to reject the Gospel. Okay mate 👌 lol
@@StephanASmith looks to me like someone isnt aware of how history works. So first of all, jesus' death isnt a fact. It a speculation based on a few hundered witnesses. So if it was made to look like jesus was dead by hanging someone else up there, history would still say jesus was crucigied. History is based on probability. History as we knoe it is changing every day based on new findings Secondly, the account of John luke and mark have not been written by them. Jesus and his people spoke aramiac, the earliest manuscripts we have are 400 years after jesus's "death", in GREEK. So not only is it 400 years later, but also in a completely different language. For all we kmow, the person who translated it ( which we dont know bc there is no author), may have changed mark, matthew, luke and jhn's words for their oen benefits. And thats exactly what happened. So go on, believe in fairy tails, doesnt change anything for me. I will follow facts, you can follow fiction
@@geennaam4576 “Probability” if it was probably the Son of God died for your sake you make it seem like it’s same to reject it even remotely 😂 some people think they’re smarter than they areally are And no most scripture is dated to where it’s supposed to be dated idk wym 400 years later like we have John’s Gospel which was dated no later than 70 AD and others even earlier. “We don’t know who wrote them” because it wasn’t explicitly said? So??? Even if they didn’t write them explicitly it’s likely they were written by other followers because Jesus had many disciples but only 12 apostles so who cares if they’re writing for them if they were around to hear the teachings of the 12 as they’d have to travel a lot You’re trying to spin away the context of it all and make it seem like you just came to a conclusive answer, stop trying to lie to yourself and find other excuses to disbelief
Not all men at these times were capable of reading and writing. Writing is much harder then reading. The job may have been given to the most willing and able to dictate it...maybe.
cont. Thus assigning Mark to one Gospel shows that it is apostolic not only in the sense that Mark was an associate of Peter, but also because the doctrine was allegedly directly from Peter. This neither implies lying on their part not does imply a contradiction to my claim they wanted to give it a name with some authority. They assumed it was apostolic and gave it a fitting name, nothing dishonest.
A really damning piece of evidence against Anonymous Gospel authors is the fact that well. In ancient Greco-Roman culture anonymous writing were actually esteemed higher, so it makes no sense to make up authorship to seem more legitimate.
The attributions to each gospel were added well after these texts were written. These anonymous authors wrote in greek not aramaic(the language that Jesus spoke). They were literate and could not have been galliean peasants. Also, per my reading literacy was a tightly controlled skill in 1st century Palestine, reserved only for the priestly class and the wealthy. The people depicted in the gospels were villagers, tradesmen and fishermen. It is highly unlikely that any of them were at the level of literacy required to produce the gospels and epistles.
Greek was the universal language at the time. Also, it was extremely easy to get a scribe to write for you, even Paul admits this. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
John had his own disciples. Two of them were Ignatius and Polycarp. I believe it was Ignatius who had a copy of the Gospel which he claims to have been written by John and given to him. It may not be in the form we have now, which has obvious additions to it, but that is why we know the fourth Gospel to be the Gospel of John.
Why are these responses to Ehrman made in short videos instead of scholarly papers? Because: 1- videos are much more popular and reach faster ignorant believers who are too lazy to read books; 2- because if these theories were proposed in scholarly papers, these papers would never be accepted in credible publications due to lack of solid argumentation.
It's called the criterion of contextual credibility and is commonly used by historians to determine the probability of statements in historical documents. In this case, it is virtually impossible that the disciples were able to speak Greek. Here, I refer you to Catherine Hezser's "Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" and William Harris' "Ancient Literacy".
Just read Matthew 9:9 and you will get your answer. If you are Matthew writing a gospel as an eye witness would you speak of 'Matthew' as 'i' or as a Matthew?
cont. Fourth, you ignore the fact that John was certainly not a translation no anyone cleaning it up. The confusion of Nicodemus because the word-play in John 3 is a definite evidence that it was not a translation. If we go down the path that the scribes added things, you are forced to answer the question "what else did they change?"
The better question is whether apostle Matthew's authorship of the gospel now bearing his name, is a case plagued with evidentiary shortcomings/ambiguities sufficiently severe as to rationally warrant skepticism of his alleged authorship. They are. If Irenaeus is correct in attributing to Papias that bizarre teaching from Jesus about fecundity, sourced nowhere else...then apparently Papias did not believe gospel truth was limited to what is in the 4 canonical gospels...and that makes him open to accepting gospel truth from non-gospel sources...an attribute that would get him kicked out of any conservative church today. Today's fundamentalists put no stock whatsoever in Papias' bizarre Jesus-teaching about grapes talking to people...which means the fundamentalists are taking the position that Papias was willing to credit to Jesus certain teachings that Jesus didn't teach. At what point in the impeachment it becomes rationally warranted to view the witnesses as sufficiently discredited as to justify dismissing them from the witness stand, is a mostly subjective judgment call, but it's quite certain that any fundamentalist or apologist, sued in a court of law on the basis of the testimony of a person whose credibility problems mirror those of Papias, would scream to high heaven that the testimony is so unreliable as to require dismissal. I have thoroughly reviewed conservative Christianity's most recent and comprehensive defense of Papias' credibility ("Papias and the New Testament" by Christian scholar Monte Shanks, Ph.d). He does an admirable job, but his conclusions are ultimately wrong. Contact me at turchisrong.blogspot.com/
Where did these men learn to write? School? If they were the actual authors, they may have dictated their stories to scribes and they could have written something other than what they were told? Is that not possible? Was there someone following Jesus around all the time writing down everything he said? I don't think so...
"So what are you accusing me of making up?" That Paul used a scribe does not imply the others did. As you pointed out Paul's letter explicitly references the scribe this is NOT the case with the gospels. You are simply starting with the assumption the attribution of names to the gospels is correct and then making up things that are pure speculation. Paul travelled a lot in asia minor, do we now assume the others did the same simply because Paul did it?
First off, Mark would not have needed a translator. Second, the "Aramaisms" were likely taken from the original sources. (See Koester's "Introduction to the New Testament") Third, using a scribe would have still required a translation. As *already* pointed out, there are none of the telltale signs of a translation. If you are desperate enough to claim the scribes "cleaned up" the gospels, you then have to deal with the problem that what he have is not what the gospel writers actually said.
A moot point. What is important is to realise that each gospel is about convincing the reader of the ideas put forward around who Jesus had become to each gospel writer. They are not reliable in terms of telling us what Jesus actually said. Rather they at best relay interpretations of Jesus original teachings which clearly had evolved overtime as more Greek influence enters the later writings.
This is a moot argument. First off, the abundance in manuscripts that we've found come 35 years after the originals, meaning the "Greek translation" you're referring to simply isn't true. And, Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
@@gthompsonbjj "First off, the abundance in manuscripts that we've found come 35 years after the originals, meaning the "Greek translation" you're referring to simply isn't true. And, Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels" No they only start getting names around 200 AD.
@@tomasrocha6139 Again, that is a completely illogical conclusion. At this point, the gospels had already began distribution across all regions. If they had genuinely circulated anonymously, which is illogical in itself, there would be debate and variations on who wrote them. An example of this is the book of Hebrews. There were different authors attributed to it, and we still don't know the author of it. The gospels don't have that, there was always unanimous agreement. So no, there's not any evidence even remotely suggesting this conclusion.
@@gthompsonbjj Except there wasn't unanimous agreement, for example we know the Alogi said Cerinthus wrote John's Gospel, we don't have the vast majority of ancient writings so we have no idea whether they were attributed to all sorts of people. There's nothing illogical in and of itself about anonymous circulation since as you've just said Hebrews circulated anonymously.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't think you're understanding me. If they truly had distributed it anonymously, then that means every single region would have an anonymous copy of it. Because they couldn't connect with anyone with their phones (They didn't have them), they would have to rely on guessing who the author was. If they were genuinely guessing, there would be variations in who the gospels are attributed to. Hebrews is an example of an anonymous writer. The gospels have their names attributed to every existing manuscript. Surely, if it were anonymous, there would be an existing variation. I'd argue that guessing the names of the 4 authors from across the world is a miracle in of itself. But, as I said, no evidence suggests that we shouldn't trust the original authors. It's a theory that came about because of it being "internally anonymous," which was an extremely common practice in that time period.
"What I said that we don't see is authorship being forged" I am not talking about forgery. Christians did quote a lot of it (e.g. pastoral epistles, 2 Peter), but that it not what I am talking about here. The Gospels are anonymous. The available evidence indicates that they were not written by the people whose names they carry (particularly Matt. and John), and all you have been doing is supplying "could be's" and wishful thinking.
Either way for me there are huge problems. Where did Papias get his info? Who told him? Based on his reputation and other mistakes can he be trusted? Even if these are the authors their credibility makes the gospels questionable at best. Why is Matthew (an alleged apostle and first hand account) copying Mark? And the list of problems is almost infinite. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. Gospels fail in this regard. God bless and guide us all.
What you seem to be ignoring (or are ignorant of) is that there were already dozens of gospels in circulation, some which had the names of other disciples as well as other companions. We know for a fact that a gospel attributed to Peter existed, but its use was later prohibited. You could certainly not call two books "The Gospel of Peter", particularly if one was considered heretical. Again, it makes perfect sense to call on the authority of Peter by attributing it to Mark.
fair enough. I found out the other day that St. Mark was ascribed as having started a church in Egypt.. So he wasn't just the nobody looser that Bock likes to portray him as in Early Christianity.
Another key problem with Bock is that he uses classic fundie smoke and mirrors. For example, while Iraeneus did mention a "Gospel of Matthew", we have no evidence that this was the same gospel. It takes a supposition, converts it to a probability and then presents it as fact.
It makes no difference who wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. The authors did not claim to be eye witnesses, nor did they name their sources. We know the gospels were written in Greek by authors who were schooled in Greek rhetoric and who were very familiar with the Septuagint and with Greek myths. The miracles attributed to Jesus were simply reprises of miracles performed by Elijah, Elisha, and Dionsysus. We know that both nativity stories, while different from each other, are both fiction. There was no census that forced Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke) and there was no slaughter of all male children below the age of two (Matthew). We also know that the resurrected Jesus could have appeared to the Roman authorities, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and to the Greeks in Athens, yet he appeared (apparently) only to true believers. We also know that Paul, based on his epistles, was totally unfamiliar with the terrestrial Jesus. He knows nothing of his family, his earthly ministry, the details of his crucifixion, and he never quotes Jesus in any of his epistles. In sum, we do not yet know who wrote the four gospels or where or when they were written. But we do know they are fiction.
Anyone that knows anything about the history of these books and the things that historians wrote about them knows that this guy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes in the first minute and a half. The names of Mark, Mathew and Luke do not appear on any of the earliest known txt, and doesn't appear for until centuries later. Eusibius wrote about these txt even after that. I'm calling total BS. (Eusibius was born in 260 AD)
@@youngknowledgeseeker Mmmm, theological????? man do you have anything on the identity of Luke in the first place. how can depend on a theology made by someone who is not known in history, all what we know about him is from the bible
cont. Here is an example: In the original German of "Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen" by the philosopher of history Jacob Burckhardt, he includes words and phrases in Greek, Latin and French. However, the book was not a translation from any of the languages. Once again, reality disproves your claims.
You're awesome man, you're a non-stop TH-cam debater. Me too, I like it. U a student? First off, skepticism is not spelled scepticism. Second off, I understand the word irrational and how it's used. Third, I agree, people are likely to embellish or exaggerate their claims but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. But how and where do you draw the line on trusting them? I think you're being naive in your criteria for how much you can trust what people write and say, esp people 2000 years ago
Point well made. Then add the fact that learning a *foreign* language is not the same as growing up with it and leaves significant signs it is not your mother tongue. Neither these nor the teltale marks of translation are evidence in any of the gospels. The conclusion is they were written by native speakers.
"it is not exactly a leap in the dark to say it is the same one. " Classic fundie rhetoric with no substance. I said Bock takes a supposition (that it was Matthews, and yes it *could* be the same) and turns it into a fact. That Irenaeus quotes a couple of lines prove nothing. How much of Luke and Matthew are exact quotes of the same source? It is a well established fact that the early Christian writers copied from each other, as well as other sources.
Since the subject of "It is a strawman argument" is "it", logically that refers to the subject of the previous sentence, "It is not an excellent point". That it turns refers back to your post. What did you claim was an "excellent point"? What Bock said. Therefore, logically, the strawman is not what you said, but what Bock said. Please do try and pay attention.
He's not making a good point. The information that Dr Darrell Bock is giving is inaccurate (the reason why I don't comment): For example, about Mark, the apostle Paul later talks about how he became valuable to the ministry. 2Ti 4:11 ASV "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering."
Proper sense? By whose definition? A fundie is anyone who assumes that bible is correct and then goes looking for evidence to support that assumption. Both you and Bock fit that description. If you look at the "proper sense" of fundamentalism as it was started in the late 19th century, Bock certainly fits and you seem to. Your claim you aren't one does not alter the fact you arguments are still "Classic fundie rhetoric" as this is a description of the type of rhetoric, not the speaker.
Why not just put Peter in there as the name? Because there already was a gospel according to Peter. Sad that this man does not know this, or that he is intentionally omitting it.
We know who wrote the Gospels because the early Fathers tell us who wrote them. Papias, a disciple of John, tells us. Ignatius, a disciple of Peter, tells us and many others.
The problem he doesn't address is the there were lots and lots of gospels around, all the really good names were quickly taken for other writings. What is left in the name department happened to be placed on a popular gospel and here we are.
Mancat57 He didnt mention those other Gospels because they were all written much later into the 2nd century, which would make them less credible than the four Gospels of the Bible. Why do you think those other gospels didnt make it into the canon?
"I don't think Mark historically had anything to do with the Church in Egypt. " Then I would suggest you read Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History". According to him Mark founded a church and later became bishop of Alexandria. (which is in Egypt)
Eusebius was not a historian and in fact the Westar Institute had webcon on Eusebius (for historians - not clergy) and how he fabricated some of what he wrote, particularly the parts about Egypt. About Mark, Eusebius had no source - writings, letters, sermons, edicts, anecdotes or stories of Mark or contemporaries. He based this on a lie, claiming Philo described this group. Philo left close to a million words, lived in 1st century Palestine, was related to Herod but never mentions jesus, a follower or movement.
@@smb123211Facepalm...Do do tell what defined an "historian" in the 4th century? It was anyone who wrote about things in the past. It wasn't until about the 18-19th century that it became a recognized profession. Prior to that, you wrote about historical events and people, you were an historian. Whether you were previously a doctor, philosopher or general, writing about history made you an historian. I've read Carrier's take on the Westar webcon, "How To Fabricate History", but found it to be typical Carrier. HIS side of an argument always does things right and the other wlas does it wrong. What you also seem ignorant of is the fact that historiography is not like science. It is almost entirely opinion when dealing with antiquity. So just because one single group has a specific opinion, it does not make it fact, despite Carrier's frequent use of the genetic fallacy. Don't get me wrong, I respect Carrier, in general. In fact, his book OHJ convinced me that the existance of an historical Jesus was not as much an matter of "fact" than I perviously believed. However, he is pretty arrogant in his arguments. Admittedly, I did get a chuckle as Carrier's response to one comment "How could you be on the internet and not know all mainstream experts agree none of the Gospels were written by any eyewitness?" "Eusebius had no source..." that applies to most "historians" in antiquity. Providing references or mentioning source material was very uncommon in antiquity. So your point is what exactly? Your refenced to Philo and the "lie" is a clear case of an argument to silence. We do NOT expect to have every single document written by every writer ion antiquity. The onus is on YOU to prove that we expect Philo would have writen about Jesus AND that it survived to the present. Philo lived at the time of Jesus' ministry,w hen Jesus was still a nobody, (even as late as his death in 50CE) Its as bad as claiming that since Jesus was not mentioned anywhere in military dispatches, he must not have existed. Here are a few of the books I have that will help if you want to educate yourself on historiography: _From Reliable Sources, An Introduction to Historical Methods_, Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier _Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography_, Avezier Tucker _A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography_, Avezier Tucker (editor) _Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought_, David Fischer _Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation_, Michael Grant _Proving History_, Richard Carrier _Histories and Fallacies_, Carl Trueman _History: A Very Short Introduction_, John H. Arnold _The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide_, Michael J. Salevouris and Conal Furay _Historiography: Contesting the Past; Claiming the Future_, Jeremy Black _The Truth of History_, C.B. McCullagh _The Logic of History_, C.B. McCullagh _Justifying Historical Descriptions_, C.B. McCullagh _The Historian's Craft: Reflections on the Nature and Uses of History and the Techniques and Methods of Those Who Write It_, Marc Bloch _Historiography: An Introductory Guide_, Eileen Ka-May Cheng _The Philosophy of Historiography_, John Lange
Classic fundie argument. You make the unsupported jump from "wasn't revered in awe the way other apostles" to "doesn't make sense". Traditionally, Mark was Peter's secretrary/translator and the claim is that Mark's gospel comes directly from Peter. Peter was one of the inner circle, how much more authority do you want? It makes perfect sense to call it "The Gospel of someone who got the message directly from Peter".
1st, I will rarely respond beyond the length of a single comment. This'll be brief. I would be more convinced Mark wrote it if there was a reliable string of witnesses to back up this attribution. My position is easily falsifiable. Yours is naive. There were many apocryphal books written in the ancient world attributed to people who are barely mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, Mark may have been more revered in the 1st century. Eusebius claims in 325 that Mark founded the Alexandria church.
الإنجيل جاء من مجاهيل لا نعرف من كتب الإنجيل !!! . القس حبيب سعيد يقول في كتابه : "المدخل الى الكتاب المقدس" صـ٢٢١ : (من هم مؤلفو بشائر الإنجيل ؟ إن البشائر الثلاث الأولى غفلت عن اسم المؤلف ولم يذكر الكاتب شيئا عن نفسه ،أما الألقاب الحالية فقد وضعت بعد زمن ظهورها اعتماداً على وجهة نظر الكنيسة الأولى ، والرأي الذى كان شائعاً من واضعي هذه البشائر ويصح القول أن العناوين الحالية للبشائر الثلاث (أي : متى ومرقس ولوقا) إنما هي عناوين تقليدية وقد تكون هذه التقاليد صحيحة أو خاطئة) الأب اسطفان شربتييه يقول عن إنجيل متى : " أما كاتب الإنجيل الحالي فهو غير معروف لا نعلم من هو كاتب الإنجيل الحالي " ( دليل الى قراءة الكتاب المقدس) قال القس فهيم عزيز : "لكن من هو كاتب إنجيل يوحنا ؟ هذا السؤال صعب و الجواب عليه يتطلب دراسة واسعة غالباً ما تنتهي بالعبارة : لا يعلم إلا الله وحده من الذي كتب هذا الإنجيل " . (مدخل الي العهد الجديد) جاء في كتاب(العهد الجديد . نظرة أرثوذكسية للأب ثيودور ستيليانوبولس - تعريب الأب انطوان ملكي / ص٢٢ ) : "الكتب اليهودية والمسيحية المقدسة : في الأغلب ألفها كُتاب مجهولون عاشوا في ظروف تاريخية معينة". يقول وهيب جورجي كامل في كتابه " مقدمات العهد القديم " ص٢٢٢ : ( ٤٠ مزمور أطلق عليها التلمود اليهودي اسم " المزامير اليتيمة " لعدم معرفة كاتبيها . ) سفر نشيد الإنشاد منسوب لسليمان عليه السلام بلا دليل ، والمحققون يشككون في نسبته إليه وأنه قد يكون منسوباً للشاعر الإغريقي ثيوقريطس ، لأن أسلوب السفر يشابه كثيراً أسلوب هذا الشاعر ، فالتعابير والقواعد اللغوية تشير بوضوح إلى تاريخ متأخر، بعد قرون من حياة الملك سليمان الذي نسب السفر تقليديا له . يقول القس حبيب سعيد عن إنجيل متى : "ولم يذكر لنا التاريخ اسم الكاتب الحقيقي و لكننا ندعوه متى و هو الاسم الذي عرف به هذا الإنجيل " (المدخل إلى الكتاب المقدس) يقول الأب بيار نجم في كتابه "مدخل الى العهد الجديد" ص٨ : ( لم يرد اسم الكاتب في أي من الأناجيل الأربعة إنما نعتمد في تسميتنا للأناجيل على تقليد وصلنا في نهاية القرن الثاني ينسب فيه الأناجيل بيوحنا ومرقس . . . ) على تقليد و ليس على تأكيد !!! يعني كتبة الأناجيل مجاهيل و غير معلوم من كتبها !!
The big problem with Christianity is there are lots of traditions and no evidence. We have the gospel claims. There is no evidence that the first gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is not a complete fiction based on the epistles of Paul. Mark was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Mark established a storyline that imagined a character named Jesus of Nazareth. Now, a fictional character is fleshed out and becomes historized, the way Achilles was historized in Illiad. The Pauline Epistles never make it clear that Christ was corporal. The Christ that Paul speaks of is a heavenly being. Paul has no inkling of an actual person. In the Gospel of Mark is the character, Jesus created.
In Galatians and Romans Paul says Jesus was born of a woman and was a descendant of David. Paul also talks about how he preached Jesus was crucified. There’s probably way more examples than this, but this is just off the top of my head. He definitely thought of Jesus as “corporal”. Even in his resurrection Paul assumed some corporeality but to be honest I can not think of anything to back that up at the moment.
The majority of scholars claim Mark is the earliest work (because it's shortest and therefore Matthew and Luke copied mark. 80 to 90 percent of Matthew and Luke match Mark word for word from Mark.) There were 2 or 3 different authors and multiple different endings. Are you getting the picture yet? This stuff can't be true and have different endings. The gospel "accounts" are just a story copied and embellished. The book of John has a ton of totally different conflicting stories. The majority of scholars only agree that Jesus was born, baptized by john the baptist, and was crucified by pontius. That's it. No miracles. No resurrection. In the early books Jesus himself did not claim to be son of God that was added later. Most of christianity is stolen from Zoroastrianism. The miracles of water to wine and the virgin birth are stolen from other god myths. Christianity is the result of a evolution of religions over time. The supernatural does not exist. Humans are naturally superstitious. Its the old tiger in the bushes problem. Those who dismiss it as the wind get eaten. Those who mistake the wind for a tiger are still around to build the next generation. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. There is no evidence for the supernatural.
you can "trace back" a lot of phrases to the original language even when the text is not a translation and often then do make more sense in the original language. You're grasping at straws. Or do you have examples that unequivocally support your claims?
Oh, so about 200 years later (2 century's later) we have a guy (Arenaus) who names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... so that proves it because it's "close"? You didn't mention that the gospels are 98 percent copies of Mark (which wasn't written by Mark). They've are NOT independent accounts and NOT a first person account. It was a story written by one person copied 3 more times. The Bible is the claim, it is not evidence. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. This is all just honestly a legend loosely based on a Jesus (actually Yeshua) character who was based on many other legends before him, from Egytian and Middle Eastern Religions (see Zoro Astrianism , Aron Ra, ect.) Just like the real Robin Hood (if there was one), wouldn't recognize the stories about himself if he read them today, Jesus (yeshua) wouldn't recognize himself either. Same goes for the old testament, those stories were borrowed from other religions and adapted. Once you break your indoctrination all these things become so very obvious. There is no reason or evidence to believe in the supernatural. It is simply superstition, indoctrination, fear, and bad credulity.
👉Jesus: The only true God is The Father! 💣 Church: No! You're also a true god! 👉 Jesus: By myself I can do nothing! 💣 Church: No! You can do everything! 👉 Jesus: The Lord our God is ONE! 💣 Church: No! The lord our god is three in one! 👉 Jesus: If you want eternal life then keep The Commandments! 💣 Church: No! If you want eternal life then believe that Jesus died for your sins! 👉 Jesus: I cried and prayed to God PBTH to save me from the crucifixion and God heard my prayers! 💣 Church: No! God didn't save him so we can be saved by his blood! 👉 Jesus: My Father is greater than I, my Father is greater than all! 💣 Church: No! The Father is not greater than you, you're both co-equal! 👉 Jesus: I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, not the gentiles! 💣 Church: No! You were sent to the entire world! 👉 Jesus : Circumcise male children as God Commanded! 💣 Church: No! Circumcision is unnecessary and will profit us nothing. This is what Paul said, the one you came to in a dream! 👉 Jesus: I didn't come to abolish the Laws! 💣 Church: No, you came to abolish it all! The law brings wrath, and where there is no law, there is no transgression! This is what Paul said! 👉 Jesus: If you love me keep my commandments! 💣 Church: No, don't listen to him Christians! If you love him then keep the Church Commandments built by Paul, the early Christian persecutor! 👉 Jesus: I never met Paul! 💣 Church: No! You came to him in a dream, can't you recall? 👉 Jesus: I never ate ham and so you should as God Commanded! 💣 Church: No! Ham is good! 👉 Jesus: I've finished all the work that God gave me before my departure! 💣 Church: No! You waited till you ascend to heaven and came in a dream to an early Christian persecutor to negate everything you've preached for 33 years! 👉 Jesus: 👉 John 8:42-47 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 WHY IS MY LANGUAGE NOT CLEAR TO YOU? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 YOU BELONG TO YOUR FATHER, THE DEVIL, AND YOU WANT TO CARRY OUT YOUR FATHER’S DESIRES. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, NOT HOLDING TO THE TRUTH, FOR THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE LIES, HE SPEAKS HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE, FOR HE IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIES. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 WHOEVER BELONGS TO GOD HEARS WHAT GOD SAYS! THE REASON YOU DON'T HEAR IS THAT YOU DON'T BELONG TO GOD!” 💥 Dear Christians, now you know what Jesus (pbuh) is gonna call you when he returns, according to your book. Do you keep the Laws as a Christian or do you break it? That's right my friend, you do follow Paul not Jesus (pbuh) :) 👉 Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.
"Of course it does!" Bullshit! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The sample space is far to small to make that kind of determination. '"Read a book" is not a rebuttal' True enough, but do you honestly expect me to copy contents of half dozens books on historiography 500 characters at a time. How would you react if I made the claim the new testament was written in hebrew? Your errors are that basic!
It always puzzled me why four gospels and not one and why not an autobiography but a biography by unknown writers. Funny how Christians don't know but will quote bible out of context every time and the history of the NT is just not reliable
cont. Second, your claim of forgery implies their goal was to deceive. Again, entirely your opinion and not supported by facts. Third, the people that later attributed them could have simply got it wrong, without lying.
If you focus on Jesus’s teachings you realize that his covenant isn’t based on writings on physical objects like the Mosaic law. God said He will write his commandments in our heart and minds and we get this help through Jesus. This was required because people weren’t interpreting/applying the law correctly back in Moses’ time. But, now we receive Holy Spirit through our faith in Christ and it helps us develop a better character. So, I wouldn’t focus so much on who wrote it because we aren’t saved by reading the scriptures but through faith. Jesus said that those who believe it draws them to Him.
He makes a very good argument here. If the Gospels of Mark and Luke are some bogus works of fiction, why not name them after Peter and Paul, or Philip and Nathaniel, or Andrew and Simon? Why name them after the mission-quitter Mark and the unknown Luke?
Stupid comment.
Why not jesus him self wrote the gospel?..this is more subtantial question
George Penton because a work of fiction can be named after anyone.
@@MrPip9999 yes!
The real problem is that its if the Bible is a Holy Scripture but the scholars do really know who wrote it, but they curated the content to fit there narrative. I give the example of tithe. They use the Bible to guilt trip us to give them money yet they don't tell us the truth about how they don't know who wrote it ànd it could all be made up
Taking into account the fact that Papias frequently reported stories that were just stupid and naive and the fact that we have no idea who he got his information from, I do not think we can think of him as a credible witness. Irenaeus was partly dependent on Papias and we have no way to track his sources of information either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"What apocryphal books... Bible?" There are dozens of online lists available. Gospelwise? Nicodemus, Barnabas, Gamaliel.
Niko Bellic Sorry, I just saw this. We do NOT have the works of Papias but we don’t have quite a few quotations from him. Surely you’re familiar with Papias’ story about Judas and of the apocalypse. These people are equivalent to second generation cult leaders.
Edmund Spenser Exactly. I consider myself a Christian, but I’ll tell you, looking at this historically, critically, you have to be conscientious that early Christianity is comparable to a cult and it’s leaders cult leaders.
Edmund Spenser right. The only thing I think I have reason to lay claim to on Christianity is an inner witness of the Holy Spirit. It just feels “right” to believe these things, in my heart. Maybe I’m brainwashed. I can’t judge. I can’t judge myself or others,
in this department.
Irenaeus would have gotten his information from Polycarp, since he was his disciple, and Polycarp was the disciple of the apostle John. That does make his reports extremely credible.
but Eusebius, was a known liar and admits if I could further the kingdom of heaven with a lie, I would do so.
But the whole point is that Mark and Luke are not eyewitnesses and therefore attaching there names would not further the kingdom.
Haha beautiful
Hi, David
@@davidpallmann8046 The Author of Matthew is a liar he is the only one with the 3 days 3 nights prophecy which is a false prophecy it’s easy math Sabbath starts Friday sun set so 1 night
Sabbath day so the Friday evening to Saturday sun set 1 day so so far
1 day 1 night
Saturday evening to Sunday evening another day so it’s 2 days and 2 nights not 3 days 3 nights
All people are liars at some point.
We still dont know for sure. We can make assumptions all day, this always leads to deception.
@ilisoir 18 Funny that most of the 12 deciples are rarely mentioned in the gospels or the epistles. I wonder why? It seems Peter and John and James were the only ones who ever actually were ever around. And they slept at the most important times. The garden of Gasemene and the transfiguration. I always found that odd. Both on the mount of Olives. And what exactly was the point of the transfiguration vision? An important event thats rarely if ever discussed and what it actually meant.
@ilisoir 18 Let me help you. If everything in the NT were true, then we would only be tequired to establish his word by just ONE WITNESS and not 2 or 3, line upon line line precept upon upon precept. What is truth rightly divided from? Lies. Thats why Jer. 8.8 was given. The NT was corrupted by the mystery religion of Babylon thru Rome soon after John died thru the Falvian dynasty. Thats why there are so many contradictions in the NT. Thats also why Jesus said the kingdom is like a treasure HIDDEN in a field. We gotta dig for the truth as a workman not to be ashamed. After you discover the truth, IT ALLMAKES LOGICAL SENSE. No hokey pokey. Romans 1:3-4 started me on 3 year journey to truth. Maybe it will help you too. Read it CAREFULLY. And I John 3:9-10.
@ilisoir 18 Christianity is a cult of the catholic/protestant church. Jesus was not a christian nor were his deciples. Virgin births, bodily reincarnation or resurrection, speaking in tongues. Walking on water miracles, demons, are all pagan greek babylonian myths inserted to deceive you. A strong delusion. The antichrist (trinity) of Rome works miracles to deceive you. What do you think Jesus was telling us about a false christ coming thru the catholic church claiming to be God in the flesh working miracles is? If Jesus claimed to be God then how are you going to distinguish him from the antichrist if they BOTH claim the anc DO the exact same things? The strong delusion came soon after John died thru the carholic church at the council of Nicea then the 3rd council of Constantinople. If you dont know church history, you will never find the hidden treasure in a field. You gotta dig for it.
@ilisoir 18 Also, everything in the old testament was a type for the EXACT same thing the church would do. Pagan idoltary. And if you think the catholic church isnt full of the same disgusting acts, then you need to do more research.
@ilisoir 18 Yeah, worshipping a man or human being as the Elohiem is idoltary of the HIGHEST ORDER.
Great explanation
Those four forgot to write their last name and also started their gospels by 'According to' and also those four gentlemen were not the disciples of Jesus (PBUH).
John and Matthew were disciples of Christ
Mark and luke were not
1. They didn't have last names in the ancient world.
2. We have other ancient books that had "According to" as the title of authorship. "The histories according to Herodetus".
3. Matthew and John were disciples. Mark recorded accounts from Peter, who was a disciple. And Luke examined various sources and interviewed people who saw all of it.
Bock cites Papias as confirming that the Gospel of Luke is associated with Luke and the Gospel of John is associated with John, but I believe that is weakly supported supposition. The only authors Papias explicitly identified were Mark and Mathew. Bock also mentions Papias reference to Matthew's Hebrew gospel but we have no physical examples of a Hebrew version of Matthew. The Greek based version of Matthew that became part of the Canon may not be the same work as the one Papias was referring to.
The Gospels are written by distant authors with little personal perspective. Mark, Matthew, and John would presumably have had a great deal of personal perspectives to add if for no other reason that to give their stories credibility. John's "the disciple whom Jesus loved" appears to be a literary device which adds little to the Gospel's credibility The lack of personal recollections by the authors erodes the veracity of the Gospels.
Most of Boch's arguments are directed at Mark and Luke. Since Luke was most likely a gentile that was never in Palestine, Luke's reports would be hearsay reports which would be enough of a discount to justify many skeptics incredulity.
Mark. Matthew, and John are more of an issue since they would have been eye witnesses. Boch didn't offer a defense for Matthew and John other than to mention that the naming tradition went back to the latter part of the first century. Boch was wise to not dwell on the evidence for the by lines of those gospels because the evidence that they depend on, from Papias and Irenaeus, is very limited and confused. Papias received his information about Mark's gospel from a church elder named John whose qualification as a witness are not elaborated on, simply hearsay from an elder. Irenaous thought Matthew's gospel was written before Mark which we now know is incorrect.
It is important to keep in mind that a large majority of scholars believe that Mark was the earliest Gospel and that large parts of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark. If Matthew was actually involved in writing the Gospel that bears his name you would expect, since he was an apostle, that he would tell the story using words of his own choosing and avoid producing a work that appears to largely be a plagiarized version of Mark. Since Luke was apparently a gentile who would have been unlikely to be in Palestine, the plagiary is more understandable.
The earliest version of Mark didn't have a resurrection story which could account for the work being ascribed to an inferior author. Also, early Biblical scholars recognized that the Gospel of Mark was shorter and coarser than the other gospels which could have lead to an attempt to elevate Matthew's gospel by assigning an inferior author to the gospel called Mark (see Edwards 2002).
Boch describes Mark's CV as being to weak to be a luminary that would be chosen for pseudepigrapha. What is Paul's CV like? It includes persecuting the early Christians, not a good start, much worse than Mark's CV that Boch's argument depends on. Several of the works written in Paul's name are likely pseudepigrapha, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Apparently having a checkered past is not much of a hinderance to Christian authors. Boch's argument about Mark's CV being weak doesn't hold up well if the standard applied to Paul is applied to Mark.
I think Bock is badly understating the importance of Mark to the early Christians. Christian tradition has Mark as a witness to several important events in Jesus's life including the Last Supper. It was Mark's house the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. In 1 Peter 5:13. Mark is identified as Peter’s “son”. Mark is credited with establishing the Christian Church in Egypt, an esteemed part of the Greek dominion. Boch may have a dim view of Mark's resume, but in 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul has a change in heart about Mark and supposedly calls for Mark to take up his ministry while Paul is in prison.
Boch's arguments are circumstantial, inconsistent, and depend on a naive understanding of early Christianity. One gets the impression that Boch's arguments are intended for an audience that knows very little about the Bible and early Christianity.
I think you make some fair points, but you didn't really get around his main one. Mark may have been an important figure, but there were other, more important figures that they could have chosen from. If they were going to make up a name, Mark wouldn't be the first option.
Also, your point about Paul also seems very weak. Paul wrote letters, and evangelized. He was respected in those areas, and with doctrine. He was basically the Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig of his time. In the same way that you would rather see some like Daniel Wallace explain the Gospels than Strobel, you would still want Strobel on your side because, despite their former history, they have shown themselves to be wonderful and changed people who can serve your cause well. Taking into account only the fact that Paul murdered Christians then you might have a point, but that would be cherry picking.
***** One of my main points was that Boch unjustifiably shatters Mark's image in order to make his weak point. Boch is like an insensitive bulldozer, he has absolutely nothing good to say about Mark, which is unfair to Mark and the uninformed person trying to evaluate the strength of his argument.
Simply because you can make an argument doesn't make it a strong argument.
Jimmy Watt
You may be right about his character, but that doesn't impact his argument.
"Simply because you can make an argument doesn't make it a strong argument."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. In any case, the argument is strong. We simply would not see Mark's name on a Gospel if the name was arbitrarily invented.
***** Mark may have been down the list a bit, but still important enough to impersonate. Regional noterity is a significant issue that Boch skipped over.. Mark wouldn't have had to be the greatest luminary in order to make his luminescents useful. He was a large figure in Alexandria and nobody knows for sure where the original Gospel of Mark was written. The fact that Mark was supposedly an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus makes him star enough to imitate.
Boch's argument has two related parts. According to Boch, Mark is (1) not a luminary and (2) he was actually harmful to their mission. Exactly how much of a luminary Mark was is not clear, but he is venerated in the Coptic Church and Paul, the self proclaimed Super Apostle, said Mark was worthy to take over his ministry. Obviously Paul's later analysis of Mark doesn't match Boch's image of Mark. Paul obviously thought Mark had redeemed himself and it seems very possible Paul thought that in the intervening years Mark had elevated himself to rising star status.
Boch's argument depends on a diminished visage of Mark that Boch unfairly creates by presenting only the evidence of the youthful Mark. Even if Boch's point has some merit, he didn't win it because he didn't address the evidence about Mark later in life.
On the contrary, Mark's alleged travels with Paul in Acts 15 and other NT authors which name Mark as a Christian, or Peter's "son", mean Mark wasn't as obscure as apologists wish, Mark was indeed a likely choice for a forger, forgers didn't limit themselves to the most popularly known apostles. The NT pseudepigrapha are mostly forgeries, and were created by Christians, yet many of their titles ascribe those works to persons either less popular, or who themselves play a very small role in the canonical NT, such as History of Joseph the Carpenter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Bartholomew, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Andrew and Matthias etc. It is rather superficial and uninformed to try to argue for the reliability of Mark's ascription by pretending he was some obscure nobody, whom a forger would be unlikely to name as author.
I don't quote understand what he was saying.Can anyone help me?
Even if we assume the authenticity of the four Gospels, this does not change anything
There is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus is God, and no Christian has been able to bring a single text from the oldest manuscripts that proves the alleged divinity of Christ.
This argument falls down, at least for me, because why didn't Peter write a gospel? Why didn't Paul write a gospel? Why do we have 2 gospels that were written by people who didn't witness the life and workings of Jesus first hand? Oh, I hear you say, the oral tradition came before the writings. Why not straight to writings? In fact, as far as I can see, there should be at least 12 gospels written by 11 apostles (dismissing Judas Iscariot) and Paul, not 4 gospels written by 2 apostles and 2 persons who did not witness Jesus' life and works first hand. Further, we all know that each gospel was an embellishment of the one before in order to refine and clarify various doctrinal and ecumenical positions. The fact that these gospels are strewn with contradictions should be enough to not even bother with the argument of who actually wrote each gospel.
if they were with Jesus .why did they lie about Jesus.who were they .where did they came from. Jesus never mentioned about these people.
Legend1One he is talking about what is usually accepted that mark who is john mark and he lead to paul and barnabas being separated which is true
Mathiew 9:9
"And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him".
That's the proof that Mathiew didn't wrote the book according to Mathiew.
HalleluJah
Yahya EL ALAMI Typically, it is "The Gospel ACCORDING TO X"..which means that the alleged authors of the Gospels didnt have to necessarily "write" the books, but the content of the book comes from them, so therefore the book is attributed to them.
Yahya EL ALAMI no none of the the gospels are from the four so allied authors period because the disciples were illiterate period and Jesus being he's supposed to be God couldn't write his own autobiography can you see the contradiction in all oh that's right Christians are just believers not ones to research just sad
Dude spell Matthew correctly
Yes you are absolutely right. 100%
@@dayknight9045Your verdict on the word "Uneducated" as written in Acts 4:13 is way off the true intended meaning based on the context. Every Jewish child at the time was required to have memorised the Torah, and a couple of other books verbatim. They were also taught to READ and WRITE. The kind of education the Sanhedrin were refering to was tertiary in nature which was only for those who were interested in becoming Scribes and teachers of the law which required the to go through further schooling. This there is no possible way a Jewish man at that time could not be able to write. I hope this helps.
The Arguments are good
I Know it is called the "Fullness of Time" Gal 4:4
Papias of Hierapolis was a Bishop and a student of the apostle John.
we know that none of the gospels are written by any of the people there assigned to because they all say "according to"which means to attribute a statement to someone, for example: its like me saying according to mark its going to rain, but the bible takes it a step further:according to mark Jesus said its going to rain secondly if these guy were disciples or around Jesus they should have firsthand knowledge of what Jesus said and done so where is the gospel according to jesus
That's exactely what the muslim scholar Ahmad deedat is trying to tell
Good point.
I wonder if it was in the library of Alexandria
or.. well
good point!
I wonder why we have nothing from Jesus
Chad S th-cam.com/video/E_fSgPQYxkk/w-d-xo.html
People have a right of their own opinion. Don't disturb their faith, with human reasoning. Let us not debate, when it is giving peace of mind. Debate is for departures.
But doesn't Matthew quote Mark verbatim in some areas? That doesn't make much sense if Matthew was simply recounting what he had witnessed or heard.
Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, since the tradition might also have known that the "big names" didn't write anything. If Jesus himself wrote no gospel, and this was known, perhaps people also knew that Peter wrote no gospel. Same with the others mentioned, they may have been seen as "bigger guns" back then, but that might as well be a reason not to falsely attribute a work to them, since people would be more likely to question the veracity of the claimed authorship.
except in his timeframe, Peter etc would have been dead already so it is a possibility that people would accept the verility of a gospel from Peter. Of course this is all hypothesising but I think his argument isn't inherently flawed but actually quite logical and historically sound (I myself having studied classics for some years now)
The last sentence in your comment actually substantiates the claims that these men did in fact write the gospels. If they were alive and certain writings were said to be by them yet they knew they had not penned them, arguments and written clarifications would have ensued.
jojokerus Thats funny, because those same people could/would have "known" that Matthew and John didnt write Gospels either, yet Matthew and John are traditionally ascribed to the Gospels that bears their name..hmmm.
"Obviously, as the work is anonymous and thus can't be a forgey"
Exactly! And there is insufficient evidence to assume that attribution made at least half a century later are correct. Further, without any "could be's" or wishful thinking, the evidence is quite simply in favor of the statement they were NOT written by the people they were attributed to. Again, if we want to add our own wishful thinking to the "evidence", you open yourself up to some major problems.
Always think how they're called "The Gospel ACCORDING to X" and not "WRITTEN by X"
The way I understand it is that it means "this is the tradition according to what X believed/preached", or something....
Do you think "The Histories According to Herodetus" were written by Herodetus?
Moses didn't wrote the Torah Exodus 4:1 Deuteronomy 34:5,6 KJV
Q, M, maybe a source we only know by reference. The fact that Irenaeus quotes a few lines is not proof he is talking about the same gospel. However, if I accept this is the same, Irenaeus wrote 100 years after the gospel. That only says that by the end of the 2nd century names were finally attributed, it obviously says nothing about these attributions being correct.
its believed mark was the first book written it has jesus quiet as he goes to his death then crying out my GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me. then he dies ,,,,,the oldest versions of mark never had the resurection story it ended with the women fleeing the empty tomb and saying nothing.,,and you say peter past this story to mark bah humbug ..... matthew and luke both copied from mark and added other things by the time we get to john jesus has become GOD .john 1;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . jesus has come along way from being the defeated man on the cross in mark to being the creator of the universe in john ...........
Can you show me where you got this so I could do some research for myself?
What are you talking about ?
Not credible books or sources full stop .so don’t quote from the books they are full of errors
Also mark was 9 years old boy when Jesus was preaching,so what on earth was a 9 years old boy doing with 30 something years old man 2000 years ago
Evidence for *ANY OF THE CLAIMS?*
Bahahah biggest load of shit I've read in a while. You're plain wrong on mark not attributing Jesus as God.
Those accounts were written much later.
They couldn't take the names of Thomas or Barnabas or others because these names were attached to gospels already. And they are so contradictory to the narrative they didn't make the cut at the council of Nicea..
The gospel of Barnabas didn't exist before the council of Niceae (or centuries afterward)
The church fathers could have easily given their reasons for attributing names to the gospel writers but never did as far as i know. Many gospels the church rejected we know more about because they wrote about them in detail. It seems to me that if i had a book written andor inspired by God and i knew the history of the books i would write it down and send co pies to everyone i know.
what do you mean by ¨the tradition¨who is the tradition?
@Jesrael1986M He gets it from the book of Acts! read chapter 4:13
He is probably referencing a Bart Ehrman debate
@Jesrael1986M sorry my mistake, they all graduated from Oxford University after studying Classical Greek
So one piece of the argument is that Mark got his information directly from the disciple Peter. I hasten to point out that according Luke and John the disciple Peter was an eye witness to the empty tomb. Yet while Mark mentions women visiting the empty tomb he omits Peter's visit. Is it plausible that Mark would fail to mention that Peter, his source, also visited the empty tomb? Or do we abandon common sense entirely and assume that Peter considered it too unimportant to mention it to Mark? In Christian dogma the empty tomb is of paramount importance. Sorry, Dr. Bock, just when you think you've neatly disposed of one gospel authorship conundrum another arises.
I confirm that, see Luke 24:12 and John 20:4. The traditional explanations about who wrote the Gospels and where they got their information is unreliable.
MadCityObserver No because the women went back and got Peter. In Mark it just ends.
Joseph Pieper Indeed Mark's version does come to an abrupt end but the way it ends is telling: Mark declares that the women were too fearful to tell anyone. Ergo if Mark is to be believed then the women didn't tell Peter! Which just goes to show that at crucial waypoints in its narrative the N.T. is just about as unreliable as can be imagined.
MadCityObserver Well that could also mean they were to afraid to tell each other. My oppinion is that the other first hand witnesses who were still alive were like "dang mark missed a lot of important details we need to write another one. So they did. And that's why we have 3 different accounts. They were all trying to give the most perfect account they possibly could. Sounds very reliable to me.
Joseph Pieper Christian tradition says that Mark's source was none other than Peter himself. Given the prominence the gospels assign to Peter and given the supposed frequency the disciples huddled together after Easter Sunday, name one witness who was in a better position to piece together the Easter morning events than Peter. I for one can't think who that would be. Also, if indeed Peter was Mark's source then is it reasonable that Peter tells Mark that the women told no one when as you remarked earlier other gospel writers record that they fetched Peter? There seems to be no way around it, these disparate versions just don't add up. How you arrive at your reliability conclusion baffles.
In addition, if "Attachment" is being done, why wasn't it done with Hebrews?
Yes, the tradition probably guessed the authorship of the Gospels. The deeper question behind the authorship is the reliability of these Gospels in the recording of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Let's assume that Mark was a companion of Peter. If as an Apostle, the gospel message is centered around the Resurrection, why does Mark leave that out? We have older manuscripts that don't have the Resurrection account.
Let's say Luke was a companion of Paul. Paul never walked or talked with Jesus. What input does he have on writing a Gospel about Jesus? Luke begins with the Gospel by saying there were other written/oral tradition on which he bases his Gospel.
Yes, the tradition bases the names on well thought out guesses but it doesn't solve the underlying problem of the reliability of the Gospels.
Fraser Daniel, skeptic?
Hey! I'm not sure if you're still interested in this, but there's a few holes in your argument.
1. No, they didn't just guess about who could've been the authors. If they were guessing, there would have been disagreement. There wasn't any disagreement among the church fathers who the gospels belong to. This also helps considering they would have known the apostles. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
I am not a christian but I like to seek knowledge.... can any christian preacher or knowledgeable person tell me who was these 4 men ??? I mean their history according to the date and their full names....
+curiousAbida
Matthew, also known as Matthew Levi, was originally a tax collector who ultimately left his profession to follow Jesus and became one of his 12 apostles. He lived during the first Century AD. The majority of scholars and early Church fathers agree that Matthew’s Gospel was written in the late 50s/early 60s, yet some believe that it was written between A.D. 65 and 70.
Mark, full name John Mark, is often linked with Peter (one of Jesus’ 12 apostles). He was from Jerusalem, Israel. Mark went on several missionary trips with Barnabas (his cousin). The Gospel of Mark was most likely written in the 50s or early 60s (first century AD of course) and used Peter as a major source.
Luke (also the author of the book of Acts) was a physician by profession. Luke was a close friend of Paul, the author of 13 of the New Testament books. The majority of scholars and early Church Fathers agree that the Gospel of Luke was written between A.D. 59 and 63 (some suggest the 70s). Luke was most likely a Gentile and well educated in Greek culture.
John son of Zebedee was also one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. In addition to his Gospel, John also wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and the book of Revelation. John was a fisherman. John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, most likely in A.D. 85 or a bit later still.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more detail in a certain area. I would be more than happy to help.
It's also interesting to see why and how the gospels were written, in the author's own words (e.g. Luke: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." That's from Luke chapter 1, which you can read here: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1 )
The gospels are actually a relatively quick read if you're interested in giving it a go! Very interesting stuff and easily the most influential piece of literature in the history of the world!
+Alex Moore could you please sent me reference about the historicity of those people who wrote the gospels ?
You can have a look here: www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html (at number 3)
This is also a good article: www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-gospels-reliability
Hope those are helpful. If you have more questions please ask :)
Gandalf The Grey the first website is teaching method how to response to objection no clear reference who the gospels writers are....plus according to the website two of the gospels writers are not disciples of Jesus but namely mark and luke...according to luke testimony he wasn't inspired by god but rather his letter base on what the eyewitness said...
well actually it makes perfect sense to attribute the book to him, even if he wasn't revered in early christianity, simply because he's supposed to have been close to Peter, who was dead at the time Mark was written. It makes perfect sense to do so so then christians could then have a gospel which has apostolic creds but about which they could say "it must really be by THE Mark because why else would we attribute the gospel to him if it wasn't really by him". That argument doesn't work for me.
"Mark" is even more doubtful when you consider that the source, Eusebius, lied/invented evidence of Mark & Egypt. He cites Philo of Alexandria's "writings" but Philo, who was contemporaneous with Jesus and related to Herod Agrippa never wrote a word about Mark, Jesus or the movement. Apparently Herod forgot to tell him about Peter being freed from his jail by an angel. LOL
what are you talking about? Mark was the earliest of them written. Plus, Peter wrote the epistles between 62-67 AD when he died, so that's just false.
@@gthompsonbjj Peter wrote nothing he was illiterate (Acts 4:13 and The First Apology Chapter 39)
@@tomasrocha6139 That's why scribes existed? And you're telling me Peter couldn't have had 30 years to learn, given their evangelism. John had 60 years, and we know he wrote Revelations. So this is a moot point. God bless, man.
@@tomasrocha6139 plus, if we're taking things out of the Bible now, it says in that same verse, "They were with Jesus." That's an eyewitness claim.
We already have a gospel of peter so you can’t just choose any name you want because they’ve already been taken.
Yeah that would make sense if the Gospel of Peter was written first, which it wasn’t . All the 4 gospels known as the canonical gospels were written way before the gnostic gospel of Peter, which was written around mid second century, Nice try tho.
@@carlosquinones2242 either way, the gospels are unauthored.
@@theguidancecounsellor2948 yeah I disagree with that I think there’s plenty of evidence to show that’s not the case
@@carlosquinones2242 it's not something to disagree with. Its a fact.
@@theguidancecounsellor2948 except it’s not a fact but nice try tho
cont.
Over longer periods of time this type of thing can lead to creoles, but most certainly do NOT imply that a document was a translation of a complete text. At best it implies that the the sources the anonymous gospel writers used were in that language (Aramaic). However, the fact the true signs of translation of the gospels as complete texts are missing. Thus the evidence indicates they were composed by Greek speakers.
Great Bock.
They were probably wrote by the disciples of the disciples because Mathew, Luke, Mark and John were too busy on the road but its probably an accurate account of what they passed on to be written.
Or not.
So you are putting your salvations in the hands of " probably"?
@@geennaam4576 actually yes, as they seem to recount very accurately history
The crucifixion is a historically recorded event, check the account of Josephus and many other mentions of Jesus who was considered the Christ
Seems to me you didn’t even watch this video, you’re just looking for an excuse to reject the Gospel. Okay mate 👌 lol
@@StephanASmith looks to me like someone isnt aware of how history works.
So first of all, jesus' death isnt a fact. It a speculation based on a few hundered witnesses. So if it was made to look like jesus was dead by hanging someone else up there, history would still say jesus was crucigied. History is based on probability. History as we knoe it is changing every day based on new findings
Secondly, the account of John luke and mark have not been written by them. Jesus and his people spoke aramiac, the earliest manuscripts we have are 400 years after jesus's "death", in GREEK. So not only is it 400 years later, but also in a completely different language. For all we kmow, the person who translated it ( which we dont know bc there is no author), may have changed mark, matthew, luke and jhn's words for their oen benefits. And thats exactly what happened. So go on, believe in fairy tails, doesnt change anything for me. I will follow facts, you can follow fiction
@@geennaam4576
“Probability” if it was probably the Son of God died for your sake you make it seem like it’s same to reject it even remotely 😂 some people think they’re smarter than they areally are
And no most scripture is dated to where it’s supposed to be dated idk wym 400 years later like we have John’s Gospel which was dated no later than 70 AD and others even earlier.
“We don’t know who wrote them” because it wasn’t explicitly said? So??? Even if they didn’t write them explicitly it’s likely they were written by other followers because Jesus had many disciples but only 12 apostles so who cares if they’re writing for them if they were around to hear the teachings of the 12 as they’d have to travel a lot
You’re trying to spin away the context of it all and make it seem like you just came to a conclusive answer, stop trying to lie to yourself and find other excuses to disbelief
Not all men at these times were capable of reading and writing. Writing is much harder then reading. The job may have been given to the most willing and able to dictate it...maybe.
cont.
Thus assigning Mark to one Gospel shows that it is apostolic not only in the sense that Mark was an associate of Peter, but also because the doctrine was allegedly directly from Peter. This neither implies lying on their part not does imply a contradiction to my claim they wanted to give it a name with some authority. They assumed it was apostolic and gave it a fitting name, nothing dishonest.
A really damning piece of evidence against Anonymous Gospel authors is the fact that well. In ancient Greco-Roman culture anonymous writing were actually esteemed higher, so it makes no sense to make up authorship to seem more legitimate.
The attributions to each gospel were added well after these texts were written. These anonymous authors wrote in greek not aramaic(the language that Jesus spoke). They were literate and could not have been galliean peasants. Also, per my reading literacy was a tightly controlled skill in 1st century Palestine, reserved only for the priestly class and the wealthy. The people depicted in the gospels were villagers, tradesmen and fishermen. It is highly unlikely that any of them were at the level of literacy required to produce the gospels and epistles.
I got two videos discussing the ancient biography argument and how in various instances it doesn't hold up btw
Greek was the universal language at the time. Also, it was extremely easy to get a scribe to write for you, even Paul admits this.
Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
John had his own disciples. Two of them were Ignatius and Polycarp. I believe it was Ignatius who had a copy of the Gospel which he claims to have been written by John and given to him. It may not be in the form we have now, which has obvious additions to it, but that is why we know the fourth Gospel to be the Gospel of John.
Is the addition the woman caught in adultery or is there anything else in the gospel of John that was added?
@@viktorlampinen1785 the end of chapter 20 is the end
Why are these responses to Ehrman made in short videos instead of scholarly papers? Because:
1- videos are much more popular and reach faster ignorant believers who are too lazy to read books;
2- because if these theories were proposed in scholarly papers, these papers would never be accepted in credible publications due to lack of solid argumentation.
He pretends to go back and fourth between both sides of the argument but maintains his Humanistic perspective just the same. He just can't help it
It's called the criterion of contextual credibility and is commonly used by historians to determine the probability of statements in historical documents. In this case, it is virtually impossible that the disciples were able to speak Greek. Here, I refer you to Catherine Hezser's "Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" and William Harris' "Ancient Literacy".
Just read Matthew 9:9 and you will get your answer. If you are Matthew writing a gospel as an eye witness would you speak of 'Matthew' as 'i' or as a Matthew?
Right, because no author ever referred to himself in the third person. I guess Julius Ceaser didn't write about the Gallic Wars either.
The focus wasn't on Matthew, it was conveying the overall message. This is a very common thing found withing ancient texts
cont.
Fourth, you ignore the fact that John was certainly not a translation no anyone cleaning it up. The confusion of Nicodemus because the word-play in John 3 is a definite evidence that it was not a translation. If we go down the path that the scribes added things, you are forced to answer the question "what else did they change?"
The better question is whether apostle Matthew's authorship of the gospel now bearing his name, is a case plagued with evidentiary shortcomings/ambiguities sufficiently severe as to rationally warrant skepticism of his alleged authorship. They are. If Irenaeus is correct in attributing to Papias that bizarre teaching from Jesus about fecundity, sourced nowhere else...then apparently Papias did not believe gospel truth was limited to what is in the 4 canonical gospels...and that makes him open to accepting gospel truth from non-gospel sources...an attribute that would get him kicked out of any conservative church today. Today's fundamentalists put no stock whatsoever in Papias' bizarre Jesus-teaching about grapes talking to people...which means the fundamentalists are taking the position that Papias was willing to credit to Jesus certain teachings that Jesus didn't teach. At what point in the impeachment it becomes rationally warranted to view the witnesses as sufficiently discredited as to justify dismissing them from the witness stand, is a mostly subjective judgment call, but it's quite certain that any fundamentalist or apologist, sued in a court of law on the basis of the testimony of a person whose credibility problems mirror those of Papias, would scream to high heaven that the testimony is so unreliable as to require dismissal.
I have thoroughly reviewed conservative Christianity's most recent and comprehensive defense of Papias' credibility ("Papias and the New Testament" by Christian scholar Monte Shanks, Ph.d). He does an admirable job, but his conclusions are ultimately wrong. Contact me at turchisrong.blogspot.com/
Where did these men learn to write? School? If they were the actual authors, they may have dictated their stories to scribes and they could have written something other than what they were told? Is that not possible? Was there someone following Jesus around all the time writing down everything he said? I don't think so...
okay,,so even if the Bible was written after the fact....by WHOM? was it written and for what purpose?.
They speak some incredible things
"So what are you accusing me of making up?"
That Paul used a scribe does not imply the others did. As you pointed out Paul's letter explicitly references the scribe this is NOT the case with the gospels. You are simply starting with the assumption the attribution of names to the gospels is correct and then making up things that are pure speculation. Paul travelled a lot in asia minor, do we now assume the others did the same simply because Paul did it?
As always, completely ignoring the vast amount of literary study that addresses these issues to reinstate details of omission.
First off, Mark would not have needed a translator. Second, the "Aramaisms" were likely taken from the original sources. (See Koester's "Introduction to the New Testament") Third, using a scribe would have still required a translation. As *already* pointed out, there are none of the telltale signs of a translation. If you are desperate enough to claim the scribes "cleaned up" the gospels, you then have to deal with the problem that what he have is not what the gospel writers actually said.
A moot point. What is important is to realise that each gospel is about convincing the reader of the ideas put forward around who Jesus had become to each gospel writer. They are not reliable in terms of telling us what Jesus actually said. Rather they at best relay interpretations of Jesus original teachings which clearly had evolved overtime as more Greek influence enters the later writings.
This is a moot argument. First off, the abundance in manuscripts that we've found come 35 years after the originals, meaning the "Greek translation" you're referring to simply isn't true. And, Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
@@gthompsonbjj "First off, the abundance in manuscripts that we've found come 35 years after the originals, meaning the "Greek translation" you're referring to simply isn't true. And, Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels" No they only start getting names around 200 AD.
@@tomasrocha6139 Again, that is a completely illogical conclusion. At this point, the gospels had already began distribution across all regions. If they had genuinely circulated anonymously, which is illogical in itself, there would be debate and variations on who wrote them. An example of this is the book of Hebrews. There were different authors attributed to it, and we still don't know the author of it. The gospels don't have that, there was always unanimous agreement. So no, there's not any evidence even remotely suggesting this conclusion.
@@gthompsonbjj Except there wasn't unanimous agreement, for example we know the Alogi said Cerinthus wrote John's Gospel, we don't have the vast majority of ancient writings so we have no idea whether they were attributed to all sorts of people. There's nothing illogical in and of itself about anonymous circulation since as you've just said Hebrews circulated anonymously.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't think you're understanding me. If they truly had distributed it anonymously, then that means every single region would have an anonymous copy of it. Because they couldn't connect with anyone with their phones (They didn't have them), they would have to rely on guessing who the author was. If they were genuinely guessing, there would be variations in who the gospels are attributed to. Hebrews is an example of an anonymous writer. The gospels have their names attributed to every existing manuscript. Surely, if it were anonymous, there would be an existing variation. I'd argue that guessing the names of the 4 authors from across the world is a miracle in of itself. But, as I said, no evidence suggests that we shouldn't trust the original authors. It's a theory that came about because of it being "internally anonymous," which was an extremely common practice in that time period.
"What I said that we don't see is authorship being forged"
I am not talking about forgery. Christians did quote a lot of it (e.g. pastoral epistles, 2 Peter), but that it not what I am talking about here. The Gospels are anonymous. The available evidence indicates that they were not written by the people whose names they carry (particularly Matt. and John), and all you have been doing is supplying "could be's" and wishful thinking.
Either way for me there are huge problems. Where did Papias get his info? Who told him? Based on his reputation and other mistakes can he be trusted? Even if these are the authors their credibility makes the gospels questionable at best. Why is Matthew (an alleged apostle and first hand account) copying Mark?
And the list of problems is almost infinite. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. Gospels fail in this regard. God bless and guide us all.
What you seem to be ignoring (or are ignorant of) is that there were already dozens of gospels in circulation, some which had the names of other disciples as well as other companions. We know for a fact that a gospel attributed to Peter existed, but its use was later prohibited. You could certainly not call two books "The Gospel of Peter", particularly if one was considered heretical. Again, it makes perfect sense to call on the authority of Peter by attributing it to Mark.
fair enough. I found out the other day that St. Mark was ascribed as having started a church in Egypt.. So he wasn't just the nobody looser that Bock likes to portray him as in Early Christianity.
Another key problem with Bock is that he uses classic fundie smoke and mirrors. For example, while Iraeneus did mention a "Gospel of Matthew", we have no evidence that this was the same gospel. It takes a supposition, converts it to a probability and then presents it as fact.
It makes no difference who wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. The authors did not claim to be eye witnesses, nor did they name their sources. We know the gospels were written in Greek by authors who were schooled in Greek rhetoric and who were very familiar with the Septuagint and with Greek myths. The miracles attributed to Jesus were simply reprises of miracles performed by Elijah, Elisha, and Dionsysus. We know that both nativity stories, while different from each other, are both fiction. There was no census that forced Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke) and there was no slaughter of all male children below the age of two (Matthew). We also know that the resurrected Jesus could have appeared to the Roman authorities, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and to the Greeks in Athens, yet he appeared (apparently) only to true believers. We also know that Paul, based on his epistles, was totally unfamiliar with the terrestrial Jesus. He knows nothing of his family, his earthly ministry, the details of his crucifixion, and he never quotes Jesus in any of his epistles. In sum, we do not yet know who wrote the four gospels or where or when they were written. But we do know they are fiction.
Nice copy and paste
Anyone that knows anything about the history of these books and the things that historians wrote about them knows that this guy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes in the first minute and a half. The names of Mark, Mathew and Luke do not appear on any of the earliest known txt, and doesn't appear for until centuries later. Eusibius wrote about these txt even after that. I'm calling total BS. (Eusibius was born in 260 AD)
how do we know that Luke is not one of the false prophets mentioned by
Jesus
On a purely theological level, is there any thing Luke wrote that would make you think that?
@@youngknowledgeseeker Mmmm, theological????? man do you have anything on the identity of Luke in the first place. how can depend on a theology made by someone who is not known in history, all what we know about him is from the bible
@@aboraya8630 So nothing he wrote strikes you as false-prophet worthy? Just a question.
The NT gospels are not remembered history. The Jesus story is a myth placed back into an historical setting.
cont.
Here is an example: In the original German of "Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen" by the philosopher of history Jacob Burckhardt, he includes words and phrases in Greek, Latin and French. However, the book was not a translation from any of the languages. Once again, reality disproves your claims.
You're awesome man, you're a non-stop TH-cam debater. Me too, I like it. U a student?
First off, skepticism is not spelled scepticism. Second off, I understand the word irrational and how it's used.
Third, I agree, people are likely to embellish or exaggerate their claims but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. But how and where do you draw the line on trusting them? I think you're being naive in your criteria for how much you can trust what people write and say, esp people 2000 years ago
Point well made. Then add the fact that learning a *foreign* language is not the same as growing up with it and leaves significant signs it is not your mother tongue. Neither these nor the teltale marks of translation are evidence in any of the gospels. The conclusion is they were written by native speakers.
"it is not exactly a leap in the dark to say it is the same one. "
Classic fundie rhetoric with no substance. I said Bock takes a supposition (that it was Matthews, and yes it *could* be the same) and turns it into a fact. That Irenaeus quotes a couple of lines prove nothing. How much of Luke and Matthew are exact quotes of the same source? It is a well established fact that the early Christian writers copied from each other, as well as other sources.
16 times Lazarus name is written and 29 times as disciple. Drop tradition and keep on reading
Whats the point?..
Since the subject of "It is a strawman argument" is "it", logically that refers to the subject of the previous sentence, "It is not an excellent point". That it turns refers back to your post. What did you claim was an "excellent point"? What Bock said. Therefore, logically, the strawman is not what you said, but what Bock said. Please do try and pay attention.
A holybook means
It is written by a pure entity
A human cmis not pure
Only God is
Its all conjecture since we have no author who proclaims his himself in the text
www.academia.edu/9269890/Early_Church_Fathers_on_the_Authorship_of_the_NT_Gospels
Like every Greco-Roman biography...
@@bola5061 exactly so we don't know
He's not making a good point. The information that Dr Darrell Bock is giving is inaccurate (the reason why I don't comment): For example, about Mark, the apostle Paul later talks about how he became valuable to the ministry. 2Ti 4:11 ASV "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering."
Proper sense? By whose definition? A fundie is anyone who assumes that bible is correct and then goes looking for evidence to support that assumption. Both you and Bock fit that description. If you look at the "proper sense" of fundamentalism as it was started in the late 19th century, Bock certainly fits and you seem to. Your claim you aren't one does not alter the fact you arguments are still "Classic fundie rhetoric" as this is a description of the type of rhetoric, not the speaker.
Why not just put Peter in there as the name?
Because there already was a gospel according to Peter.
Sad that this man does not know this, or that he is intentionally omitting it.
sqlblindman then why was his gospel made non canon?
@@287_shaikhmustafa7
Because the Christian committees decided not to. Its exclusion was as arbitrary as the inclusion of the canonical books.
Speculation in.....Speculation out.
We know who wrote the Gospels because the early Fathers tell us who wrote them. Papias, a disciple of John, tells us. Ignatius, a disciple of Peter, tells us and many others.
I'd rather hear from the actual author.
The problem he doesn't address is the there were lots and lots of gospels around, all the really good names were quickly taken for other writings. What is left in the name department happened to be placed on a popular gospel and here we are.
Mancat57 He didnt mention those other Gospels because they were all written much later into the 2nd century, which would make them less credible than the four Gospels of the Bible.
Why do you think those other gospels didnt make it into the canon?
"I don't think Mark historically had anything to do with the Church in Egypt. "
Then I would suggest you read Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History". According to him Mark founded a church and later became bishop of Alexandria. (which is in Egypt)
Eusebius was not a historian and in fact the Westar Institute had webcon on Eusebius (for historians - not clergy) and how he fabricated some of what he wrote, particularly the parts about Egypt.
About Mark, Eusebius had no source - writings, letters, sermons, edicts, anecdotes or stories of Mark or contemporaries. He based this on a lie, claiming Philo described this group. Philo left close to a million words, lived in 1st century Palestine, was related to Herod but never mentions jesus, a follower or movement.
@@smb123211Facepalm...Do do tell what defined an "historian" in the 4th century? It was anyone who wrote about things in the past. It wasn't until about the 18-19th century that it became a recognized profession. Prior to that, you wrote about historical events and people, you were an historian. Whether you were previously a doctor, philosopher or general, writing about history made you an historian.
I've read Carrier's take on the Westar webcon, "How To Fabricate History", but found it to be typical Carrier. HIS side of an argument always does things right and the other wlas does it wrong. What you also seem ignorant of is the fact that historiography is not like science. It is almost entirely opinion when dealing with antiquity. So just because one single group has a specific opinion, it does not make it fact, despite Carrier's frequent use of the genetic fallacy. Don't get me wrong, I respect Carrier, in general. In fact, his book OHJ convinced me that the existance of an historical Jesus was not as much an matter of "fact" than I perviously believed. However, he is pretty arrogant in his arguments. Admittedly, I did get a chuckle as Carrier's response to one comment "How could you be on the internet and not know all mainstream experts agree none of the Gospels were written by any eyewitness?"
"Eusebius had no source..." that applies to most "historians" in antiquity. Providing references or mentioning source material was very uncommon in antiquity. So your point is what exactly?
Your refenced to Philo and the "lie" is a clear case of an argument to silence. We do NOT expect to have every single document written by every writer ion antiquity. The onus is on YOU to prove that we expect Philo would have writen about Jesus AND that it survived to the present. Philo lived at the time of Jesus' ministry,w hen Jesus was still a nobody, (even as late as his death in 50CE) Its as bad as claiming that since Jesus was not mentioned anywhere in military dispatches, he must not have existed.
Here are a few of the books I have that will help if you want to educate yourself on historiography:
_From Reliable Sources, An Introduction to Historical Methods_, Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier
_Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography_, Avezier Tucker
_A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography_, Avezier Tucker (editor)
_Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought_, David Fischer
_Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation_, Michael Grant
_Proving History_, Richard Carrier
_Histories and Fallacies_, Carl Trueman
_History: A Very Short Introduction_, John H. Arnold
_The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide_, Michael J. Salevouris and Conal Furay
_Historiography: Contesting the Past; Claiming the Future_, Jeremy Black
_The Truth of History_, C.B. McCullagh
_The Logic of History_, C.B. McCullagh
_Justifying Historical Descriptions_, C.B. McCullagh
_The Historian's Craft: Reflections on the Nature and Uses of History and the Techniques and Methods of Those Who Write It_, Marc Bloch
_Historiography: An Introductory Guide_, Eileen Ka-May Cheng
_The Philosophy of Historiography_, John Lange
Well, No!
there were over 30 Gospels 200 years after jesus maybe there was already a Gospel named peter and thats why Mark was not named Peter, who knows!??!?
Classic fundie argument. You make the unsupported jump from "wasn't revered in awe the way other apostles" to "doesn't make sense". Traditionally, Mark was Peter's secretrary/translator and the claim is that Mark's gospel comes directly from Peter. Peter was one of the inner circle, how much more authority do you want? It makes perfect sense to call it "The Gospel of someone who got the message directly from Peter".
The more i look into it i find that very little actually came from Yeshua
🤡
1st, I will rarely respond beyond the length of a single comment. This'll be brief. I would be more convinced Mark wrote it if there was a reliable string of witnesses to back up this attribution. My position is easily falsifiable. Yours is naive. There were many apocryphal books written in the ancient world attributed to people who are barely mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, Mark may have been more revered in the 1st century. Eusebius claims in 325 that Mark founded the Alexandria church.
Very true and logical!
الإنجيل جاء من مجاهيل لا نعرف من كتب الإنجيل !!! .
القس حبيب سعيد يقول في كتابه : "المدخل الى الكتاب المقدس" صـ٢٢١ :
(من هم مؤلفو بشائر الإنجيل ؟ إن البشائر الثلاث الأولى غفلت عن اسم المؤلف ولم يذكر الكاتب شيئا عن نفسه ،أما الألقاب الحالية فقد وضعت بعد زمن ظهورها اعتماداً على وجهة نظر الكنيسة الأولى ، والرأي الذى كان شائعاً من واضعي هذه البشائر ويصح القول أن العناوين الحالية للبشائر الثلاث (أي : متى ومرقس ولوقا) إنما هي عناوين تقليدية وقد تكون هذه التقاليد صحيحة أو خاطئة)
الأب اسطفان شربتييه يقول عن إنجيل متى : " أما كاتب الإنجيل الحالي فهو غير معروف لا نعلم من هو كاتب الإنجيل الحالي " ( دليل الى قراءة الكتاب المقدس)
قال القس فهيم عزيز : "لكن من هو كاتب إنجيل يوحنا ؟ هذا السؤال صعب و الجواب عليه يتطلب دراسة واسعة غالباً ما تنتهي بالعبارة : لا يعلم إلا الله وحده من الذي كتب هذا الإنجيل " . (مدخل الي العهد الجديد)
جاء في كتاب(العهد الجديد . نظرة أرثوذكسية للأب ثيودور ستيليانوبولس - تعريب الأب انطوان ملكي / ص٢٢ ) : "الكتب اليهودية والمسيحية المقدسة : في الأغلب ألفها كُتاب مجهولون عاشوا في ظروف تاريخية معينة".
يقول وهيب جورجي كامل في كتابه " مقدمات العهد القديم " ص٢٢٢ : ( ٤٠ مزمور أطلق عليها التلمود اليهودي اسم " المزامير اليتيمة " لعدم معرفة كاتبيها . )
سفر نشيد الإنشاد منسوب لسليمان عليه السلام بلا دليل ، والمحققون يشككون في نسبته إليه وأنه قد يكون منسوباً للشاعر الإغريقي ثيوقريطس ، لأن أسلوب السفر يشابه كثيراً أسلوب هذا الشاعر ، فالتعابير والقواعد اللغوية تشير بوضوح إلى تاريخ متأخر، بعد قرون من حياة الملك سليمان الذي نسب السفر تقليديا له .
يقول القس حبيب سعيد عن إنجيل متى : "ولم يذكر لنا التاريخ اسم الكاتب الحقيقي و لكننا ندعوه متى و هو الاسم الذي عرف به هذا الإنجيل " (المدخل إلى الكتاب المقدس)
يقول الأب بيار نجم في كتابه "مدخل الى العهد الجديد" ص٨ : ( لم يرد اسم الكاتب في أي من الأناجيل الأربعة إنما نعتمد في تسميتنا للأناجيل على تقليد وصلنا في نهاية القرن الثاني ينسب فيه الأناجيل بيوحنا ومرقس . . . )
على تقليد و ليس على تأكيد !!! يعني كتبة الأناجيل مجاهيل و غير معلوم من كتبها !!
The big problem with Christianity is there are lots of traditions and no evidence. We have the gospel claims. There is no evidence that the first gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is not a complete fiction based on the epistles of Paul. Mark was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Mark established a storyline that imagined a character named Jesus of Nazareth. Now, a fictional character is fleshed out and becomes historized, the way Achilles was historized in Illiad. The Pauline Epistles never make it clear that Christ was corporal. The Christ that Paul speaks of is a heavenly being. Paul has no inkling of an actual person. In the Gospel of Mark is the character, Jesus created.
In Galatians and Romans Paul says Jesus was born of a woman and was a descendant of David. Paul also talks about how he preached Jesus was crucified. There’s probably way more examples than this, but this is just off the top of my head. He definitely thought of Jesus as “corporal”. Even in his resurrection Paul assumed some corporeality but to be honest I can not think of anything to back that up at the moment.
Also, why would you choose Matthew, the treasonous tax collector, to "lift up" his Gospel?
The majority of scholars claim Mark is the earliest work (because it's shortest and therefore Matthew and Luke copied mark. 80 to 90 percent of Matthew and Luke match Mark word for word from Mark.) There were 2 or 3 different authors and multiple different endings. Are you getting the picture yet? This stuff can't be true and have different endings. The gospel "accounts" are just a story copied and embellished. The book of John has a ton of totally different conflicting stories. The majority of scholars only agree that Jesus was born, baptized by john the baptist, and was crucified by pontius. That's it. No miracles. No resurrection. In the early books Jesus himself did not claim to be son of God that was added later. Most of christianity is stolen from Zoroastrianism. The miracles of water to wine and the virgin birth are stolen from other god myths. Christianity is the result of a evolution of religions over time. The supernatural does not exist. Humans are naturally superstitious. Its the old tiger in the bushes problem. Those who dismiss it as the wind get eaten. Those who mistake the wind for a tiger are still around to build the next generation. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. There is no evidence for the supernatural.
you can "trace back" a lot of phrases to the original language even when the text is not a translation and often then do make more sense in the original language. You're grasping at straws. Or do you have examples that unequivocally support your claims?
Oh, so about 200 years later (2 century's later) we have a guy (Arenaus) who names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... so that proves it because it's "close"? You didn't mention that the gospels are 98 percent copies of Mark (which wasn't written by Mark). They've are NOT independent accounts and NOT a first person account. It was a story written by one person copied 3 more times. The Bible is the claim, it is not evidence. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. This is all just honestly a legend loosely based on a Jesus (actually Yeshua) character who was based on many other legends before him, from Egytian and Middle Eastern Religions (see Zoro Astrianism , Aron Ra, ect.) Just like the real Robin Hood (if there was one), wouldn't recognize the stories about himself if he read them today, Jesus (yeshua) wouldn't recognize himself either. Same goes for the old testament, those stories were borrowed from other religions and adapted. Once you break your indoctrination all these things become so very obvious. There is no reason or evidence to believe in the supernatural. It is simply superstition, indoctrination, fear, and bad credulity.
All wishful assumptions......
So its an argument from ignorance.
👉Jesus: The only true God is The Father!
💣 Church: No! You're also a true god!
👉 Jesus: By myself I can do nothing!
💣 Church: No! You can do everything!
👉 Jesus: The Lord our God is ONE!
💣 Church: No! The lord our god is three in one!
👉 Jesus: If you want eternal life then keep The Commandments!
💣 Church: No! If you want eternal life then believe that Jesus died for your sins!
👉 Jesus: I cried and prayed to God PBTH to save me from the crucifixion and God heard my prayers!
💣 Church: No! God didn't save him so we can be saved by his blood!
👉 Jesus: My Father is greater than I, my Father is greater than all!
💣 Church: No! The Father is not greater than you, you're both co-equal!
👉 Jesus: I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, not the gentiles!
💣 Church: No! You were sent to the entire world!
👉 Jesus : Circumcise male children as God Commanded!
💣 Church: No! Circumcision is unnecessary and will profit us nothing. This is what Paul said, the one you came to in a dream!
👉 Jesus: I didn't come to abolish the Laws!
💣 Church: No, you came to abolish it all! The law brings wrath, and where there is no law, there is no transgression! This is what Paul said!
👉 Jesus: If you love me keep my commandments!
💣 Church: No, don't listen to him Christians! If you love him then keep the Church Commandments built by Paul, the early Christian persecutor!
👉 Jesus: I never met Paul!
💣 Church: No! You came to him in a dream, can't you recall?
👉 Jesus: I never ate ham and so you should as God Commanded!
💣 Church: No! Ham is good!
👉 Jesus: I've finished all the work that God gave me before my departure!
💣 Church: No! You waited till you ascend to heaven and came in a dream to an early Christian persecutor to negate everything you've preached for 33 years!
👉 Jesus: 👉 John 8:42-47
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 WHY IS MY LANGUAGE NOT CLEAR TO YOU? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 YOU BELONG TO YOUR FATHER, THE DEVIL, AND YOU WANT TO CARRY OUT YOUR FATHER’S DESIRES. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, NOT HOLDING TO THE TRUTH, FOR THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE LIES, HE SPEAKS HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE, FOR HE IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIES. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 WHOEVER BELONGS TO GOD HEARS WHAT GOD SAYS! THE REASON YOU DON'T HEAR IS THAT YOU DON'T BELONG TO GOD!”
💥 Dear Christians, now you know what Jesus (pbuh) is gonna call you when he returns, according to your book. Do you keep the Laws as a Christian or do you break it? That's right my friend, you do follow Paul not Jesus (pbuh) :)
👉 Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.
"Of course it does!" Bullshit! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The sample space is far to small to make that kind of determination.
'"Read a book" is not a rebuttal'
True enough, but do you honestly expect me to copy contents of half dozens books on historiography 500 characters at a time. How would you react if I made the claim the new testament was written in hebrew? Your errors are that basic!
It always puzzled me why four gospels and not one and why not an autobiography but a biography by unknown writers. Funny how Christians don't know but will quote bible out of context every time and the history of the NT is just not reliable
This guy is just making up stuff so the authors are who he wants them to be. Nonsense.
cont.
Second, your claim of forgery implies their goal was to deceive. Again, entirely your opinion and not supported by facts. Third, the people that later attributed them could have simply got it wrong, without lying.