This series has been very insightful for me. I have been a Christian for many years and no church has ever gone to such extents as to explaining WHY we should believe what the Bible tells us. But here we have a guy who has really done his homework. He's researched and gathered a firm understanding of the ancient world and historical context of the New Testament. Then he very clearly articulates his findings in an honest and logical way, even going as far as to hearing out and combating opposing views. Thank you for this series IP.
@Niko Bellic I should clarify: I meant that the churches I have attended do not make this knowledge well-known in their public services. You don't get what IP has provided here by going to church.
Koine Greek was not advanced Greek lol. Plus, Luke was a physician and historian, Mark was an interpreter and scribe, Matthew was a tax collector for the romans, and John had like 60 years to learn.@@tomasrocha6139
Excellent video! LOL I love how you put Ehrman against himself when it comes to his objection regarding Gospel authorship. Just goes to show how "skeptics" are inconsistent in their methodology :-)
This is an excellent presentation, offering principles of investigation that even those who have no formal training can use to discover truth. Thank you, from a mostly self educated Christian/minister....well, the Spirit helps.☺
They dismiss the entire book because its whole culmination is the miracle of the resurrection. That's why it's more offensive to them compared to ancient works. It's more audacious because it asks questions and interrogates each person as an individual.
God bless you man. These videos are so well done its honestly such a blessing that you have been able to put this stuff together. You have definitely cleared up a lot of intellectual issues for me to such a ridiculously high level of satisfaction
1 Corinthians 1:27 'God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.' Just had a conversation with a friend, I consider him an intelligent agnostic fellow. We had a conversation about this very topic. He came to me claiming he needed evidence, he was quite flabbergasted by the evidence God had made available to us and I asked him a really tough question for a skeptic, how is it that Roman contemporary sources state the origin of this belief comes out of Jerusalem and Judea the very site of Christ's death and resurrection? He pondered that question and provided a pretty weak possibility, I responded, okay but I am going to need some evidence. Even my friend cracked a smile at that moment. I believe apologist James Warner Wallace put it best, 'anything is possible but is it reasonable.' There is no feeling like the moment you truly believe in the resurrection and know that it is true! Praise God! Thanks for this series Inspiring Philosophy!!!
+InspiringPhilosphy I understood this because the news outlets/media won't cover every story possible. Sometimes the right will cover certain stories, sometimes the left will cover certain stories. That doesn't mean that the events being broadcasted by the news didn't happen. It just means that the right/left media doesn't care too much about the story in question. Likewise, this would be the Gospel, the good news.
Pretty hard to benefit from tithing when you are dead! Most of the disciples died horrible deaths for their beliefs. I have to believe there were safer ways to make a living! In addition the new testament does not specifically command believers to pay a tithe.
The MOTIVE of inventing the gospel would be to make them pro-Roman sort of like theorized by Joe Atwill and others. I'm not convinced that the Roman aristocracy was as clever as the theory requires.
hello IP. i like your channel's name. i think your efforts are commendable, though i think you can also make each discussion even more balanced ( in longer videos) for those people like me, ha ha. anyway, thanks for the continued efforts.
Did the Apostles Write Their Letters? 1. They could’ve used secretaries or scribes. Everyone who wrote letters in the ancient world dictated them to scribes or secretaries. The Apostles did from time to time use scribes to write their letters. 2. They had the gift of speaking in tongues. The Apostles had the supernatural gift of speaking in several languages, which explains why they were able to write in Greek without the need of education or scribes. Also, Paul had the ability to speak in tongues and the Book of Acts records the Apostles speaking in different languages with the gift of tongues. 3. They could’ve had a wider range of vocabulary. This is something that Ehrman addressed in his book Forged I think it was. Sometimes, people let on more in terms of vocabulary in different letters depending on their target audience. Paul could’ve written differently to the people closest to him like Timothy and Titus. 4. They could’ve gotten education. The Apostles could’ve gotten education in theology, philosophy and so on. They could’ve learnt how to read and write too. Or, Jesus could’ve revealed these things to the Apostles in revelations like he taught Paul the Gospel through a revelation, and He could’ve given them the ability to read, write, learn philosophy and theology and speak different languages. - Of course, historians can’t really refer to the supernatural when investigating the Bible’s reliability. Many of them try to argue that miracles can’t be proven historically and they attempt to use more naturalistic explanations to explain away these things.
2- Suppose thet are illeterate. So what? In the new testamen, God gave the apostles the gift of tongues so now they could speak mamy languages and as for the writings the channel's response.
about this contradiction 1.J warner wallace, a former detective, has a brilliant explanation on this. 2.mike licona also explains this in his book 'Gospel differences explain"
Well, if I understand Ehrman's argument correctly, it's not only about literacy - he says that NT writers were educated in rhetoric and skilled in Greek composition. I don't think that idea that Christians hired scribes is contradictory to this argument. The one who dictated the text is the one who composed, the scribe only wrote it down. Or am I missing something?
+Karol Świrniak Scholars note scribes played bigger roles than just copying what they heard. They would structure it and help articulate what the author was saying. This is seen in the works of Cicero. Plus, we also noted most of the NT authors were educated.
+InspiringPhilosophy Yes, I agree, you said in the video that most of the authors were educated, indeed. Concerning the role of scribes, I do not know much on the topic, probably you're right. But does this affect our understaning the doctrine of Inspiration? I mean, let's say, what we have as the Fourth Gospel migth be effect of cooperation of John with the scribe (of course if we asumme that the scribe was needed) and we recognize their cooperation as inspired.
+Karol Świrniak But I would say most of the New Testament was written in cooperation. Look at the opening verses of Paul's letters. He almost always mentions others who helped write. The Muratorian Fragment says John was with Andrew and other brothers when he wrote, implying his Gospel had cooperation and input from others. I think that is a good thing, as it shows the early church gave us the New Testament, not just a few good men, but the entire body was at work.
Paul was educated in Greek so he could dictate to a scribe who would have written in Greek (which is obviously what the epistles we have are written in). There doesn’t seem to be any evidence though of someone dictated in Aramaic to a scribe and having the scribe write it down in Greek (or have it translated later from Aramaic to Greek). I think this is the main reason scholars (I.e., Ehrman) gives to support the claim that Peter & James (etc) didn’t write the epistles ascribed to them. Taking this into account, I don’t think Ehrman quite contradicts himself. Thoughts?
Why couldn't they speak Greek without knowing how to write it? In Africa where literacy is low, some people are still able to speak two or three languages.
InspiringPhilosophy That’s a great question. According to one major study concerning this subject, it looks like most Palestinian Jews at the time -especially those living outside major cities - only knew enough Greek to lead a very simple conversation (mostly for business transactions, etc.). In other words, nothing like the content we find in the pastoral epistles. I’m getting this info from Catherine Hezser’s monograph “Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine” published 2001 (pg. 243ff). Also, Mark Chancey’s work on Greek literacy in Galilee is very extensive and points to the same conclusion. Also, Harry Gamble’s excellent study “Books and Readers”...To follow up with a question: Is there any evidence of a lower-class illiterate Palestinian Jew dictating a letter in Greek from this period? That is the evidence we would need to see... At any rate, I love these videos. Thanks for engaging in the debate with great thought & research.
InspiringPhilosophy Where does he give an example of the phenomenon we’re looking for? I’m just looking for at least one instance of an illiterate Palestinian Jew dictating a letter in Greek in the first century...I understand the major points and arguments he makes drawing on the use of the LXX, our early Greek manuscripts, Greek inscriptions, as well as the major Hellenistic influence in some Jewish circles in the first century but I’m not sure if the case he makes is enough evidence to show that someone in the same social stratum as Peter, for example, could dictate an epistle in Greek. Mark Chancey, in dealing with the Greek influenced on the lower class in Roman Palestine, examined architecture, inscriptions, coins, and art from Alexander the Great's conquest until the early fourth century CE, concluding that only the urban elite in Galilee could speak and write Greek - atleast beyond the very rudimentary level I’ve indicated earlier. See “Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus”, p.122-165. I’m not sure what specific arguments your source makes to indicate otherwise...
I don't see any reason to suggest Peter did not speak Greek. Early evidence shows he was martyred in Rome (Clement of Rome), he could not have gone to Rome and preached there if he did not understand Greek. Plus, even if this is all wrong, early church fathers claimed Mark was the interpreter of Peter. So people were helping translate.
hello IP and congrats for the series, I've met an objection that you didn't address from skeptic side regarding reliability , veridicity and the trustworthy of ancient people/ prophets that wrote the Old testament, for example the Genesis ,such as questioning how shall we modern times era readers know they didn't make up this story , for example Genesis along with other ones. It is an epistemic questioning at its hurt along with any method of inquiry about people with personal revelations versus discerning blatant lies and follow reasoning to decide . Or is it just a matter of faith/believe without questioning about since there is no way to falsify/compare different religious stories or verify by any means... Thanks!
Well I would argue such questions hinge on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That would show He is God and His claims would be more likely true.
Isaac is the seed of the woman; Tanakh, Gen 17:15 And God said unto Abraham: 'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.' Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: 'Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?'
Is there a forum or community online service centered around this sort of discussion that anyone knows of? Listening to lectures is fun and all, but it would be cool to make some contacts and even socialize as well.
I think that bias actually is rather important here, even though I agree it ridiculous to use this as an argument that the New Testament can't be trusted. If Jesus was the Messiah, then selective memory would distort his priorities. An example is did he really want us to uphold Jewish tradition to the extent emphasized by Mathew?
@InspiringPhilosophy Are you planning on going over some objections by Jews about Jesus? For example, some may argue that some of the things Jesus did were edited into the Old Testament (I replied to one person bringing this up in a debate, and told them about the controlled Oral Tradition of the OT with early Jews, but he responded claiming that early Jews knew the Christians were editing the prophecies in), and Jesus failed to do as many other prophecies foretold while he was alive, so he cannot be the messiah.
InspiringPhilosophy Ok, thanks. That's one objection down. So do you think you'll ever make a video on some other Jewish objections, like how they claim Jesus didn't fulfill some messianic prophecies, so Jesus can't be the messiah?
You've intentionally misrepresented Bart. He did not say "The New Testament writers were all poor aramaic speaking fishermen from Galilee." You and I both know that Bart is way to smart to say something like that. He knows that Paul is not a poor aramaic speaking fisherman and he knows that Paul wrote much of the New Testament. He knows that Luke, as a doctor, would be well educated (though of course he has doubts that Luke wrote Luke). Bart is talking about specific new testament authors like Peter and John. Matthew, as a tax collector, may have spoken Greek, but no one says the gospel we have is by Matthew until Irenaeus (Papias being a possible exception) and as far as I'm aware no progressive Christian or non-Christian scholar takes Irenaeus' assertion to be true. If the gospel was circulating with Matthew's name, it's almost unthinkable that no one would have mentioned it until Irenaeus. As for the issue of scribes, this is not just an issue of translation. But let's assume for a moment that it is. If the entire gospel of John is a translation made by his scribe, why doesn't it show signs of being composed in Aramaic? Or if the scribe altered the style of the entire book to make it sound like natural Greek, then isn't it at that point no longer entirely the gospel of John? The ideas may be John's but the work also belongs heavily to the scribe. And do we have any record of people asking their scribes to simultaneous take dictation while also translating? I don't know that we have any record of this. Scribes took dictation in the language being dictated, as far as I know. Why not dictate in Aramaic first, then translate it? That's more logical but we don't have any aramaic originals and no one ever mentions them existing. But it's also an issue of rhetoric. The New Testament works ascribed to Peter and John make extensive use of Greek rhetorical structures (I don't actually know this is true myself but I've never heard anyone dispute it so at the moment I'm assuming it's acknowledged by all). Which is more likely- that Peter and John told their scribes something along the lines of "here's the ideas I want but you should arrange them in a Greek rhetorical structure" or that the ideas were conceived in that structure in the first place. And if you think it's the former, then once again, the scribe is now in some sense the author of the text. But I think the former is unlikely. As for the possibility that Peter and John learned Greek and greek rhetoric I think we can all agree that while this is conceivably possible it is highly, highly unlikely. Have you seen modern middle-class people try to learn a new language with modern resources? Now imagine lower class uneducated people with the resources of 2,000 years ago. Back then, as now, if you spoke a second language fluently, you probably learned it as a kid.
Peter and John sat at the feet of the greatest, most brilliant man to walk the earth. By all accounts John was pretty young when he started following Jesus. So you should have no problem believing that at least he should have been able to write his works in his old age, after having a top position in an international movement over the next few decades.
@@JM-jj3eg I think you are assuming things that aren't written. There's no suggestion anywhere that Jesus taught his disciples Greek. There's no suggestion that he even spoke Greek I think. If John was young when started following Jesus that doesn't change much. He was still an uneducated fisherman. Imagine trying to teach ancient Greek nowadays to a 20-year old who has never been to school and has no idea how to read the language he already speaks. Now imagine that this person learns Greek and writes a book like John. It would be one thing if it were Revelation; the author of that book wrote in very poor Greek. But the writer of the gospel of John was clearly a literary expert, there's virtually no chance it could be someone who didn't start learning anything until he was past the age when people take well to languages
@@danielgrotz6599 You're certainly right that it's unusual for some to learn literary excellence after childhood. But we independently know things about these two men that already make them exceptional. These uneducated fishermen from Galilee - by the end of their lives - were leading an international movement that had spread all the way from Jerusalem to Rome, with adherents up to "members of Caesars household", and attracted the attention of the Emperor himself. We know this to be a fact, however you explain it. So from there, is it too much more of a stretch to think that they could have written some books?
@@JM-jj3eg yes, it is a stretch. The two skills are very different. Proselytism is completely accessible to adults; mastery of a foreign language is not. It doesn't take a genius to start and run churches. Again, in the case of John, we are not just talking fluency. We are talking mastery. Whoever wrote the gospel of John had read Philo and probably Plato. Why bother devoting so much of your adult life to pagan philosophy if you are running the Christian church? But if you think it's not a stretch name one great work of literature written by someone who couldn't read or write until age 20. It's difficult to think of anything that fits that bill, let alone one in a foreign language. This stuff simply does not happen.
ChiliMcFly1 profesies are ciclical the are prophesies about the first temple destruction that then are aplied to the second temple destruction and will aplied to the third
@@InspiringPhilosophy what is evidence that Peter wrote 1 Peter and that John wrote 1 John? Because since they claim to be eyewitness of the events, that would prove Jesus existed. Got any links on these writings? (Authorship and Dating) Thanks so much, IP!
@@MewTwoHP The epistles contain several non-theological verses, like when Saint Poul ask Timothy if he can send him some stuff. Also the stile of writing in I Jhon is the same as the gospel of Saint John, adding to that, they wrote their letters like if what they said was an order rather than a suggestion. Maybe there is more evidence but I just writing what I remember.
This confuses the argument that the gospels contain false statements (as proven by contradictions) with the argument that everything in them is false. That's a straw man fallacy. And it ignores the important point that the gospel authors were either making up claims all the time or passing along stories they had no logical reason to believe were factual. It ignores the massive, overwhelming evidence that the gospels were carefully constructed literary creations of brilliant minds. These weren't just eyewitnesses giving their own unique view on incidents - these are texts that were created with the specific purpose to evangelize and promote specific theological viewpoints. It should not bother the honest atheist or skeptic who has no axe to grind that there may be information in the gospels that is based on some historical accuracy. Historical fiction does that. It _should_ bother the "believer" when someone points out that their holy text is basically very clever evangelizing material, analogous to propaganda, not faithful to portraying with utmost accuracy factual accounts. People who are committed to harmonizing the gospels are not doing clever "policework investigation". What you do with that approach is try to ask "What really happened based on all the evidence and knowledge we have?" That is a _very_ different question from asking "How can we read these texts to understand how everything in them is somehow true?" It's totally different.
Brother I think you are somewhere going wrong. These writings are 2000 yrs old. Just becoming educated in reading and writing is not enough. What about being superstitious, today a person educated in technology, engineering, computer believes in gods that you will never believe. In india people are very religious, though educated believe in God that never existed. These men 2000 yrs ago were superstitious, and what ever they wrote are nothing but Just imagination. Just think since 2000 yrs or many yrs before that no supernatural things has happened till date, just think how many having blind faith have died, because their prayers were not heard. ..example. . A man is lost in an ocean and he is right in the middle of the ocean, he has faith that god will send someone or someone would come to help him but no one comes, there is no help from God. At the end he dies. So it is with everyone. That's why when man invents a machine, first thing he does is its safety, he doesn't think that god will take care of the rest. Brother in reality there is one thing that humanbeings should know and that is humanity, only humanity can save the world. No religion is a good religion. Many have died because of religion, if there is god then why is he sitting quite, no reaction, no planning to stop the evil things going on, who is controlling this, obviously humanbeings not god. God is nothing but imagination.
Ehrman didn't say the writers were poor Aramaic fisherman. He said the followers of jesus were. Scholars do not accept the authorship[ you are asserting here and you didn't prove that in your video where you cite the church fathers hearsay testimony is valid because they are authorities. Are you claiming that illiterate fisherman can dictate stories that are in Greek and sound as if they were written by well educated people? Your miracle objection is one of the few valid points I have heard on your channel. With the Nero example are those three sources claiming to have been with Nero at the time? Also are those three accounts that rome burned the only evidence that rome even existed? And if they are not eyewitness reports (which scholars don't accept them to be) his statement falls apart.
I know, because I directly quoted Ehrman who says the disciples were poor Aramaic fisherman, so they could not have written. The problem is, as I identified in the video. Again, no one, including the church fathers, did not claim the majority of the new testament was written by fishermen. Why are the church fathers just hearsay? And second, lets compare this to a secular document. How do you know Tacitus wrote the Annals? Yes, those are the only reports we have that Rome burned, not that Rome existed, but that it burned at one point.
You keep saying that the followers were the authors mainstream scholars do not agree with that position. Do you have information to support that claim that was not in the video on that subject? because it wasn't convincing. Are those accounts claimed to be eyewitness reports? The bible is the source for all information about jesus. Not just the resurrection but everything about him. If you have information about jesus that does not originate from the gospels? Hearsay -information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate Does that sound like the oral tradition you say the church fathers had?
Yeah, we have multiple attestation they were from multiple geographical errors: th-cam.com/video/_l0Say2wMw0/w-d-xo.html Plus the attribution meets the criteria of embarrassment. Why should we doubt the overwhelming attestation? Your mere doubt in what the unanimous attestation is not convincing either, so you need to give a good reason to doubt them. Again, why is their testimony doubted as a default position? Do you do this with other works? How do you know Tacitus wrote the Annals?
What is your obsession with tacitus? You constantly try to shift the focus to him. Sources are to be trusted when they are shown to be trustworthy before that point you are simply being gullible. If you present a source you should present evidence as to why it should be trusted.
Because I am wondering if you apply the same criteria you do to the Gospels as you do to other ancient works, or if you are just skeptical of the Bible, which has the best attestation, but not someone like Tacitus which has far less attestation.
The fact that Bart Erhman was Christian at the time of him finding the errors of the bible disprove your bias argument cause obviously he wasnt bias against the bible but bias for it yet was not able to dismiss the critical errors geniuses. Shm
Bart from his own story says he was a raised firmly christian, and was "prepared for the accusations that they would launch at the bible in college" by his parents, and church. Its possible I'm wrong, but this sounds like a textbook case of someone doing a 180 due to longstanding pressure from their family, and peers growing up to act, or think a certain way. Many if not most people I grew up with, that were in similar situations choose to buck the traditional values placed on them the moment they had been given an inkling of freedom, or reason to do so. It happens because they grow to associate the ideas their family held them to and limiting restrictive, and oppressive. Its honestly the same function as the "rebellious teenager" phase, but it doesnt necessarily happen during puberty. And it's not necessarily a phase that has to end. Especially of they find any higher level of comfort, or other reinforcement from their new belief position. And bart is at this point one of the go to bible critics. A renounce such as that can be pretty rewarding.
@@aapp953 I didn’t say they did, you said that Bart Erhman was a Christian when he started out, so therefore he is free of bias, I’m only saying that everyone has a bias no matter what side they started on
@@joshuadunford3171 Yeah and his bias is aimed at not being to aggressive against the Christian community because there is many things he defends about the bible and Christians to the displeasure of non Christian.
"many different eye witness testimonies and written accounts that report the same event almost always contradict." That's black and white thinking. Accounts don't simply contradict. They contradict each other a little or a lot or anywhere in between. The gospels are not credible because they sometimes go off in completely different directions when presenting a crucial development like the resurrection. Read Chapter 28 of Matthew. As far as he's concerned, Jesus appeared twice after his death - once to the women who had visited his tomb and once to his disciples on a mountain in Galilee. He never even hints at other appearances. In Chapter 20 and 21 of John, the risen Jesus appears 4 different times and none of those appearances matches at all well with either appearance in Matthew. That amount of disagreement isn't some kind of hallmark of authenticity. It's the hallmark of fiction.
Argument #1: What scholars used that argument? Until you come up with an answer, it's a strawman argument. Michael Grant, whom you cite, has written dozens of books and lost much credibility among scholars for his sloppy scholarship. Well, he actually became a writer of books for "armchair historians". Nothing wrong with that a priori, but you should use scholarly works instead. It so happens that we can fault Caesar on many "facts", or at least that we cannot take his "facts" for granted without further evidence. Here, what you're doing is to hunt for supporting evidence and avoid taking a truly balanced approach. That is bias. Argument #2: Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen, he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament. Virtually all Biblical scholars agree on that. It is important to stress, too, that Ehrman did not discover this; it has been known for a very long time among Biblical scholars. What? You believe Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of "Matthew"?? I'm sorry but you need to study text transmission, codicology, etc., before trying to refute Ehrman so incompetently. ► Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please. ► "Mark *was said to be* the Greek scribe and interpreter for Peter" ─ does that mean he actually was?? Where is it written in the ancient sources? And when was it written? Does the rest of what we know about him support or refute this view? ► "Luke *was said to be* a physician" ─ does that mean he was?? What is the evidence? Who wrote that he was a physician"? Is it reliable evidence? This is a useless claim without SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Note what you say: "Luke *was said to be* a physician, *so he was* also educated" ─ how can you jump from "was said to be" to "so he was"? You should really study how to do basic research in the fields of textual analysis and history. ► Paul is, of course, not a problem, but he reports none of the miracles in the NT ─ not even the virgin birth! ► Peter, Jude, James, and John may have learned to write later? Now this is what I call bias. Do you know how hard it is to learn to read and write later in life? You just make stuff up to fit your presuppositions. In the process, any educated person who watches this video will see it as confirmation that the upholding of Christianity based on its historicity is a bankrupt and intellectually dishonest undertaking. ► And then the dictation to scribes: We are talking about the dictation in Greek! This is extremely biased and, sorry to say, intellectually dishonest on your part. "They could simply hire scribes to write for them". Wow, just wow. This is just making stuff up. You should really read some background work on the methods of history and textual analysis. ► Likewise making stuff up: "could have received help ... from new converts", etc. Argument #3: at 6:40 "So why would we apply different special standards to the New Testament?" That's what YOU have done throughout this video so far! And at this point the black & white argument: Unlike what you imply, historians of the ancient world do criticize vehemently ancient historians. Herodotus has been called "the father of lies"; even Thucydides has been called "Mythhistoricus" and likewise Tacitus. Modern historians know very well we cannot trust much of what Suetonius writes. Etc. Argument #4: This is getting really, really embarrassing for your side of the argument. "we could also use it to conclude that Rome was never burned". You should really, really study the basics of historical research before doing videos on it. And then, if you don't agree with the majority of scholars (on good evidence) that Paul is the earliest source we have in the NT, and that he makes no mention of those extraordinary events, then you forget to include the most basic point about story telling, that "facts" and "events" can be elaborated (i.e. fabricated) to "corroborate" a belief. From 11:10 ─ So, you believe the names associated with the Gospels are truly those of the apostles, when in fact it is clear they don't write as eyewitnesses? You reject what seems obvious to most scholars that "Mark" predates "Matthew" and that the latter used "Mark" but modified him to fit his own theological views? I'm sorry but it is clear that your research in this field is deeply biased. Have you studied the concept of confirmation bias? About Wallace's testimony: You first have to establish that any of the writers were eye-witnesses, which most scholars, on solid evidence, believe they're not. Ehrman is just one of the many of them. It doesn't mean you have to reject the gospels as documents without some historical value, it means that you have first to establish their historical value, and some of the important steps are: establishing their date; determining if possible who the authors were; their objectives; etc. etc. So, I'm sorry to say that this is monumentally failing as a defense of the historical value of the Gospels and the New Testament. What bothers me most in all this is that it misinforms people about historical evidence, methodology, and analysis.
“What scholars used that argument? Until you come up with an answer, it's a strawman argument.”- I never said scholars claim bias refutes the NT. I see this used on the internet, and on my channel which is why it was addressed. “Michael Grant, whom you cite, has written dozens of books and lost much credibility among scholars for his sloppy scholarship.”- This is an ad hominem and a red herring. I am only referring to him talking about the bias of ancient authors. This is not even debated that ancient authors were bias. I’ve heard Herodotus referred to as the world’s first blogger, rather than historian. “ It so happens that we can fault Caesar on many "facts”-You just attacked me for doing this, and here you go doing the exact same thing, claiming something without support… “Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen”- I literally cited Ehrman claiming this, what are you talking about. I have his audio in the video… “, he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament. “- No this is false. Watch the full debate with Licona. “Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please.”- Did you even listen? I said the early church claimed this, meaning no one said the author of Matthew was a fisherman as Ehrman claimed. Also, I gave evidence in part 4. Remember this is one video for a 7 part series. In part 4 we went over the evidence. “"Mark was said to be the Greek scribe and interpreter for Peter" ─ does that mean he actually was?? Where is it written in the ancient sources? And when was it written? Does the rest of what we know about him support or refute this view?”- See part 4. “"Luke was said to be a physician" ─ does that mean he was?? What is the evidence?”- See part 4. “Paul is, of course, not a problem, but he reports none of the miracles in the NT ─ not even the virgin birth!”- This is false, see 1 Corinthians 15, where he cites the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances. “Peter, Jude, James, and John may have learned to write later? Now this is what I call bias. Do you know how hard it is to learn to read and write later in life?”- You do realize this was not my primary argument, since i literally argue for scribal use right after this? Did you watch the whole video before writing this? “And then the dictation to scribes: We are talking about the dictation in Greek! This is extremely biased and, sorry to say, intellectually dishonest on your part. “- And this was not unknown, since Roman authors, who spoke latin, but wrote in Greek at times. “They could simply hire scribes to write for them". Wow, just wow. This is just making stuff up.”- Why? This is was a common practice… It is not out of the ordinary. The fact that you do not like the explanation doesn’t make it false or unlikely… You are just appealing to emotion. “Unlike what you imply, historians of the ancient world do criticize vehemently ancient historians. Herodotus has been called "the father of lies"; even Thucydides has been called "Mythhistoricus" and likewise Tacitus. Modern historians know very well we cannot trust much of what Suetonius writes. Etc.”- And, as i said, I am not contesting that, what i am contesting is we do not dismiss everything Tacitus or Herodotus says just because they lied or said somethings that were miraculous. Do you through out all of Herodotus because he exaggerated? “And then, if you don't agree with the majority of scholars (on good evidence) that Paul is the earliest source we have in the NT”- Actually, this is wrong. Most scholar argue Mark’s Passion narrative is earlier, written the 40s. Earlier than that, scholars say 1 Corinthians 15: 1-7 is even earlier than that. “and that he makes no mention of those extraordinary events”- Yes Paul does… Read 1 Corinthians 15. Paul also mentions other miracles that happened to him. ‘From 11:10 ─ So, you believe the names associated with the Gospels are truly those of the apostles, when in fact it is clear they don't write as eyewitnesses? “- See part 4. ‘You reject what seems obvious to most scholars that "Mark" predates "Matthew" and that the latter used "Mark" but modified him to fit his own theological views?”- There is no theological differences, both preach the same Gospel of Christianity. The differ on how they tell the story. ‘About Wallace's testimony: You first have to establish that any of the writers were eye-witnesses, which most scholars, on solid evidence, believe they're not”- See part 4, remember, this is part 7.
I'm replying to this one point for now: ► I wrote: “Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen.” ► You replied: "I literally cited Ehrman claiming this, what are you talking about. I have his audio in the video…" Well, then, tell me where in the clip he says that. He is talking about his *followers* (at 2:27 ─ i.e. at the start of the clip), not the *writers*. At 2:55 Ehrman says that "these books were written in Greek by highly educated, rhetorically trained writers who are skilled in Greek composition" ─ this just before you say: "So Ehrman claims the New Testaments writers were all poor Aramaic speaking fishermen"! If you meant to say "those who were traditionally claimed to be the writers", that's a very different thing. Since Ehrman doesn't believe the followers of Jesus during his lifetime were the writers of the Gospels, you are misrepresenting him. Acts 4: 13 (cited by Ehrman): "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."
Another point: ► I wrote: "he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament.“ ► You replied: "No this is false. Watch the full debate with Licona." I did watch this whole debate in which Ehrman humiliated Licona, and no: Ehrman never claims that any of the followers in Jesus' lifetime wrote any of the NT books, let alone the Gospels. It actually doesn't make any sense. Ehrman believes the earliest source in the NT is Paul. Paul had his epiphany *after* the death of Jesus. Do you understand what that means? It means that you hear what you want to hear, not what Ehrman says. And a last point for tonight: ► I wrote: “Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please.” ►You replied: "Did you even listen? I said the early church claimed this, meaning no one said the author of Matthew was a fisherman as Ehrman claimed. Also, I gave evidence in part 4. Remember this is one video for a 7 part series. In part 4 we went over the evidence." No, you didn't go over the evidence in part 4, which I watched. In this part, you say: "the Fathers of the Church". Do you realize how many 1000s of pages that represents? You should learn the basics of citing sources. I had to find the answer for myself, and it is actually Matthew 9: 9. Oh! And I may have discovered why you were reluctant to cite Matthew 9: 9, and that is simply because this is in contradiction with Mk 2: 14 and Luke 5: 27 where it is said that the tax collector was Levi, not Matthew.
Camerinus My point was, as I said, "the early church did not claim the new testament was written by only illiterate fisherman and neither do Christian scholars today." Ehrman is attacking the claim of authorship in the church because fishermen could not have written the NT. I point out no one has ever claims the the entire NT was written by illiterate fishermen, since not all his disciples were fishermen. So he is just wrong to claim it could not have been written by disciples, especially since he admits people used scribes. Like it or not, Ehrman claim the NT could not have been written by disciples because they were illiterate fishermen. This is false, and easily shown. "No, you didn't go over the evidence in part 4, which I watched. In this part, you say: "the Fathers of the Church". Do you realize how many 1000s of pages that represents? You should learn the basics of citing sources. I had to find the answer for myself, and it is actually Matthew 9: 9." - What are you even talking about? 1000s of pages doesn't remove their attestation.. "Matthew 9: 9" - Has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone wrote in 3rd person back then. Josephus, Xenophon, etc.
► Whatever your point was, and however hard you try to deny it, you misrepresented Ehrman. The EVIDENCE is in your video. Ehrman is right: Illiterate peasants and fishermen cannot possibly have written or dictated the Gospels or any other book of the NT. Before criticizing a scholar who understands ancient rhetoric and composition, you should study ancient rhetoric and composition. (I have, but I'm far from being at the level of Ehrman, but unlike you I am aware of my shortcomings and I would never dare criticize a specialist without much further investigations of my own.) ► You wrote about the reference to the Fathers: "What are you even talking about? 1000s of pages doesn't remove their attestation". Are you so dishonest with yourself as to insinuate I had such a dumb idea? One provides citation to allow others TO VERIFY HIS EVIDENCE. This is the most basic academic principle. Your faith blinds you so much that you cannot even read a simple comment. I'm starting to think there is much insecurity in this. ► You wrote: "[Mt 9: 9] has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone wrote in 3rd person back then. Josephus, Xenophon, etc." What are you talking about?? Did I say anything about 3rd-person narratives?? I'm giving you the most direct evidence that he was claimed to be a tax collector and you deny it?? Mt 9: 9 "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named *Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth*. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him." Are you denying the evidence of the Gospels?? Of course, this is problematic given that Mark and Luke disagree: Mk 2: 14 "As he walked along, he saw *Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth*. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him." Lk 5: 27 "After this, Jesus went out and *saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth*. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him" Can you see the contradictions? Or let me rephrase: Can you be honest with yourself enough to see the contradictions?
Your answers presume upon Biblical accuracy and other points that are basic Apologetics. This handles one argument maybe, but there are 9000 other problems. You've got a long way to go. Everything we can assume about the old world is at best, a guess. Go through every biblical problem and reason around them. You've gotten knowhere if you won't look at that book as it is. A nonsensical myth. It's just not that hard to prove on one point, where is Jesus? When we all pray, where the hell is he when we need him? Fishing maybe?
I love the Ehrman vs. Ehrman part.
+derezzed83 HOLY CRAP!!!! I love your videos..... it thought something happened to you LOL!!
9TheMiddleMan9 No, I have videos in production right now.
William Lane Craig calls that the Good Bart and the Bad Bart...LOL
@@nashvillain171 🤣🤣 i love this
kinda reminds me of this th-cam.com/video/y7wC7Y4ZUW0/w-d-xo.html
InspiringPhilosophy please don't stop publishing these incredibly well-researched videos.
THANK YOU!
Bart D. Erhman: "Intense research has a way of changing your mind."
Yep, my thoughts exactly.
This series has been very insightful for me. I have been a Christian for many years and no church has ever gone to such extents as to explaining WHY we should believe what the Bible tells us. But here we have a guy who has really done his homework. He's researched and gathered a firm understanding of the ancient world and historical context of the New Testament. Then he very clearly articulates his findings in an honest and logical way, even going as far as to hearing out and combating opposing views. Thank you for this series IP.
@Niko Bellic but does that make his sources invalid
@Niko Bellic I should clarify: I meant that the churches I have attended do not make this knowledge well-known in their public services. You don't get what IP has provided here by going to church.
LMAO! The scoffers are too funny, they even have started refuting themselves (Ehrman being a hilarious example).
+MHM EEKK Right?!?!?! He seems to change his opinions, so he can look good to scholars and sell his books XD.
+Justin Mathews where's the curse word?
I love how Dr. Ehrman refuted himself
My jaw literally dropped
Koine Greek was not advanced Greek lol. Plus, Luke was a physician and historian, Mark was an interpreter and scribe, Matthew was a tax collector for the romans, and John had like 60 years to learn.@@tomasrocha6139
Your channel is a blessing.
Who else gets happy when IP uploads? :D
I like browsing the sources :)
Same
Pizza, Computers, Chairs, stereos, airplanes, pigeons and unicorns
You're welcome. Saying random words and expressions with no particular connection to eachother is a hobby I like to indulge in, too.
40 year old men living in their mother's basements also enjoy throwing insults at people in the youtube comment sections.
Thank you, ive used your points to argue with skeptics online and it does me great justice. God bless you so much brother.
IP you make me cry. God bless you. Much.
Without scribes, how would we have 5600+ copies?
Love these videos IP. Keep them coming and don't stop what you do.
Excellent video! LOL I love how you put Ehrman against himself when it comes to his objection regarding Gospel authorship. Just goes to show how "skeptics" are inconsistent in their methodology :-)
Amen
This is an excellent presentation, offering principles of investigation that even those who have no formal training can use to discover truth. Thank you, from a mostly self educated Christian/minister....well, the Spirit helps.☺
I'm really loving your videos. Thank you! Keep'em coming
They dismiss the entire book because its whole culmination is the miracle of the resurrection. That's why it's more offensive to them compared to ancient works. It's more audacious because it asks questions and interrogates each person as an individual.
4:55 just as we have christian scientists, historians, archaeologist, philosophers (like you 😎), to help with us with our faith (a.k.a. trust). ❤
God bless you man. These videos are so well done its honestly such a blessing that you have been able to put this stuff together. You have definitely cleared up a lot of intellectual issues for me to such a ridiculously high level of satisfaction
1 Corinthians 1:27 'God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.' Just had a conversation with a friend, I consider him an intelligent agnostic fellow. We had a conversation about this very topic. He came to me claiming he needed evidence, he was quite flabbergasted by the evidence God had made available to us and I asked him a really tough question for a skeptic, how is it that Roman contemporary sources state the origin of this belief comes out of Jerusalem and Judea the very site of Christ's death and resurrection? He pondered that question and provided a pretty weak possibility, I responded, okay but I am going to need some evidence. Even my friend cracked a smile at that moment. I believe apologist James Warner Wallace put it best, 'anything is possible but is it reasonable.' There is no feeling like the moment you truly believe in the resurrection and know that it is true! Praise God! Thanks for this series Inspiring Philosophy!!!
Good video but the music is very distracting. I would suggest omitting it or have an alternate version without it.
Thank you IP for another great video. God bless you and your ministry, may he use it to further the kingdom of God. :)
+InspiringPhilosphy
I understood this because the news outlets/media won't cover every story possible. Sometimes the right will cover certain stories, sometimes the left will cover certain stories. That doesn't mean that the events being broadcasted by the news didn't happen. It just means that the right/left media doesn't care too much about the story in question. Likewise, this would be the Gospel, the good news.
You are doing a very good job, Sir!
What would be the motive of inventing/fabricating the gospel?
tithing
Pretty hard to benefit from tithing when you are dead! Most of the disciples died horrible deaths for their beliefs. I have to believe there were safer ways to make a living! In addition the new testament does not specifically command believers to pay a tithe.
Pretty hard to tithe when your number one priority is charity
@@mc_pyro5269 there is NONE. they preached the gospel for a very simple reason. Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
The MOTIVE of inventing the gospel would be to make them pro-Roman sort of like theorized by Joe Atwill and others. I'm not convinced that the Roman aristocracy was as clever as the theory requires.
Thank you so much for making these videos :)
Thank you IP!! You the man
Great video, just like all the others you've posted IP! :) God bless you and stay humble.
hello IP. i like your channel's name. i think your efforts are commendable, though i think you can also make each discussion even more balanced ( in longer videos) for those people like me, ha ha. anyway, thanks for the continued efforts.
I love you :].
That was fast lol
Dude you are insane. This is SO good. I needed that. Thank you. You must be incredibly far in your ego development.
What's the name of the background music?
(The message is awesome!!!🙏)
Wow simply brilliant!
When you come with the intention of intellectual biblical learning, but end up ready to bust a move
great video !
Did the Apostles Write Their Letters?
1. They could’ve used secretaries or scribes.
Everyone who wrote letters in the ancient world dictated them to scribes or secretaries. The Apostles did from time to time use scribes to write their letters.
2. They had the gift of speaking in tongues.
The Apostles had the supernatural gift of speaking in several languages, which explains why they were able to write in Greek without the need of education or scribes. Also, Paul had the ability to speak in tongues and the Book of Acts records the Apostles speaking in different languages with the gift of tongues.
3. They could’ve had a wider range of vocabulary.
This is something that Ehrman addressed in his book Forged I think it was. Sometimes, people let on more in terms of vocabulary in different letters depending on their target audience. Paul could’ve written differently to the people closest to him like Timothy and Titus.
4. They could’ve gotten education.
The Apostles could’ve gotten education in theology, philosophy and so on. They could’ve learnt how to read and write too. Or, Jesus could’ve revealed these things to the Apostles in revelations like he taught Paul the Gospel through a revelation, and He could’ve given them the ability to read, write, learn philosophy and theology and speak different languages.
- Of course, historians can’t really refer to the supernatural when investigating the Bible’s reliability. Many of them try to argue that miracles can’t be proven historically and they attempt to use more naturalistic explanations to explain away these things.
2- Suppose thet are illeterate. So what? In the new testamen, God gave the apostles the gift of tongues so now they could speak mamy languages and as for the writings the channel's response.
The holy scriptures were written by the hand of God, through the diciples inspired by the Holyspirit.
Keep up the good work.
Good job. Keep up the good work.
about this contradiction
1.J warner wallace, a former detective, has a brilliant explanation on this.
2.mike licona also explains this in his book 'Gospel differences explain"
How do these videos not have more views???
Great channel, great videos.
Well, if I understand Ehrman's argument correctly, it's not only about literacy - he says that NT writers were educated in rhetoric and skilled in Greek composition. I don't think that idea that Christians hired scribes is contradictory to this argument. The one who dictated the text is the one who composed, the scribe only wrote it down. Or am I missing something?
+Karol Świrniak Scholars note scribes played bigger roles than just copying what they heard. They would structure it and help articulate what the author was saying. This is seen in the works of Cicero. Plus, we also noted most of the NT authors were educated.
+InspiringPhilosophy Yes, I agree, you said in the video that most of the authors were educated, indeed.
Concerning the role of scribes, I do not know much on the topic, probably you're right.
But does this affect our understaning the doctrine of Inspiration? I mean, let's say, what we have as the Fourth Gospel migth be effect of cooperation of John with the scribe (of course if we asumme that the scribe was needed) and we recognize their cooperation as inspired.
+Karol Świrniak But I would say most of the New Testament was written in cooperation. Look at the opening verses of Paul's letters. He almost always mentions others who helped write. The Muratorian Fragment says John was with Andrew and other brothers when he wrote, implying his Gospel had cooperation and input from others. I think that is a good thing, as it shows the early church gave us the New Testament, not just a few good men, but the entire body was at work.
+InspiringPhilosophy Thanks for answering my questions and clarifying the issue :).
Paul was educated in Greek so he could dictate to a scribe who would have written in Greek (which is obviously what the epistles we have are written in). There doesn’t seem to be any evidence though of someone dictated in Aramaic to a scribe and having the scribe write it down in Greek (or have it translated later from Aramaic to Greek). I think this is the main reason scholars (I.e., Ehrman) gives to support the claim that Peter & James (etc) didn’t write the epistles ascribed to them. Taking this into account, I don’t think Ehrman quite contradicts himself. Thoughts?
Why couldn't they speak Greek without knowing how to write it? In Africa where literacy is low, some people are still able to speak two or three languages.
InspiringPhilosophy That’s a great question. According to one major study concerning this subject, it looks like most Palestinian Jews at the time -especially those living outside major cities - only knew enough Greek to lead a very simple conversation (mostly for business transactions, etc.). In other words, nothing like the content we find in the pastoral epistles. I’m getting this info from Catherine Hezser’s monograph “Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine” published 2001 (pg. 243ff). Also, Mark Chancey’s work on Greek literacy in Galilee is very extensive and points to the same conclusion. Also, Harry Gamble’s excellent study “Books and Readers”...To follow up with a question: Is there any evidence of a lower-class illiterate Palestinian Jew dictating a letter in Greek from this period? That is the evidence we would need to see...
At any rate, I love these videos. Thanks for engaging in the debate with great thought & research.
I would recommend the book "Did Jesus Speak Greek" by G. Scott Gleaves.
InspiringPhilosophy Where does he give an example of the phenomenon we’re looking for? I’m just looking for at least one instance of an illiterate Palestinian Jew dictating a letter in Greek in the first century...I understand the major points and arguments he makes drawing on the use of the LXX, our early Greek manuscripts, Greek inscriptions, as well as the major Hellenistic influence in some Jewish circles in the first century but I’m not sure if the case he makes is enough evidence to show that someone in the same social stratum as Peter, for example, could dictate an epistle in Greek. Mark Chancey, in dealing with the Greek influenced on the lower class in Roman Palestine, examined architecture, inscriptions, coins, and art from Alexander the Great's conquest until the early fourth century CE, concluding that only the urban elite in Galilee could speak and write Greek - atleast beyond the very rudimentary level I’ve indicated earlier. See “Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus”, p.122-165. I’m not sure what specific arguments your source makes to indicate otherwise...
I don't see any reason to suggest Peter did not speak Greek. Early evidence shows he was martyred in Rome (Clement of Rome), he could not have gone to Rome and preached there if he did not understand Greek. Plus, even if this is all wrong, early church fathers claimed Mark was the interpreter of Peter. So people were helping translate.
So was Paul and illiterate fisherman or an educated man? It depends on which Bart Ehrman you read 😀
amazing series :)
Love it
hello IP and congrats for the series,
I've met an objection that you didn't address from skeptic side regarding reliability , veridicity and the trustworthy of ancient people/ prophets that wrote the Old testament, for example the Genesis ,such as questioning how shall we modern times era readers know they didn't make up this story , for example Genesis along with other ones. It is an epistemic questioning at its hurt along with any method of inquiry about people with personal revelations versus discerning blatant lies and follow reasoning to decide . Or is it just a matter of faith/believe without questioning about since there is no way to falsify/compare different religious stories or verify by any means...
Thanks!
Well I would argue such questions hinge on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That would show He is God and His claims would be more likely true.
But i hesrd non lf thkse apostles were the ones who worte the bible or their own pieces’ So was it thise 12 apostle who wrote the bible?
Isaac is the seed of the woman; Tanakh, Gen 17:15 And God said unto Abraham: 'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.'
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: 'Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?'
Is there a forum or community online service centered around this sort of discussion that anyone knows of? Listening to lectures is fun and all, but it would be cool to make some contacts and even socialize as well.
+Cyclops You can talk with people in the comment section if that helps, or on my facebook page: facebook.com/inspiringphilosophy
Awesome, I shall investigate. Thank you.
I think that bias actually is rather important here, even though I agree it ridiculous to use this as an argument that the New Testament can't be trusted. If Jesus was the Messiah, then selective memory would distort his priorities. An example is did he really want us to uphold Jewish tradition to the extent emphasized by Mathew?
So funny how Ehrman refutes his own arguments when in a different setting 🤦🏼♀️
It is hilarious that Bart Ehrman contradicts himself. But then, they all do eventually on some level.
9:43
@InspiringPhilosophy Are you planning on going over some objections by Jews about Jesus? For example, some may argue that some of the things Jesus did were edited into the Old Testament (I replied to one person bringing this up in a debate, and told them about the controlled Oral Tradition of the OT with early Jews, but he responded claiming that early Jews knew the Christians were editing the prophecies in), and Jesus failed to do as many other prophecies foretold while he was alive, so he cannot be the messiah.
What? We use the same old testament as the Jews. If we edited some in, they would have a different reading of the old testament.
InspiringPhilosophy Ok, thanks. That's one objection down.
So do you think you'll ever make a video on some other Jewish objections, like how they claim Jesus didn't fulfill some messianic prophecies, so Jesus can't be the messiah?
yes
Ok, great!
You've intentionally misrepresented Bart. He did not say "The New Testament writers were all poor aramaic speaking fishermen from Galilee." You and I both know that Bart is way to smart to say something like that. He knows that Paul is not a poor aramaic speaking fisherman and he knows that Paul wrote much of the New Testament. He knows that Luke, as a doctor, would be well educated (though of course he has doubts that Luke wrote Luke). Bart is talking about specific new testament authors like Peter and John. Matthew, as a tax collector, may have spoken Greek, but no one says the gospel we have is by Matthew until Irenaeus (Papias being a possible exception) and as far as I'm aware no progressive Christian or non-Christian scholar takes Irenaeus' assertion to be true. If the gospel was circulating with Matthew's name, it's almost unthinkable that no one would have mentioned it until Irenaeus.
As for the issue of scribes, this is not just an issue of translation. But let's assume for a moment that it is. If the entire gospel of John is a translation made by his scribe, why doesn't it show signs of being composed in Aramaic? Or if the scribe altered the style of the entire book to make it sound like natural Greek, then isn't it at that point no longer entirely the gospel of John? The ideas may be John's but the work also belongs heavily to the scribe. And do we have any record of people asking their scribes to simultaneous take dictation while also translating? I don't know that we have any record of this. Scribes took dictation in the language being dictated, as far as I know. Why not dictate in Aramaic first, then translate it? That's more logical but we don't have any aramaic originals and no one ever mentions them existing.
But it's also an issue of rhetoric. The New Testament works ascribed to Peter and John make extensive use of Greek rhetorical structures (I don't actually know this is true myself but I've never heard anyone dispute it so at the moment I'm assuming it's acknowledged by all). Which is more likely- that Peter and John told their scribes something along the lines of "here's the ideas I want but you should arrange them in a Greek rhetorical structure" or that the ideas were conceived in that structure in the first place. And if you think it's the former, then once again, the scribe is now in some sense the author of the text. But I think the former is unlikely.
As for the possibility that Peter and John learned Greek and greek rhetoric I think we can all agree that while this is conceivably possible it is highly, highly unlikely. Have you seen modern middle-class people try to learn a new language with modern resources? Now imagine lower class uneducated people with the resources of 2,000 years ago. Back then, as now, if you spoke a second language fluently, you probably learned it as a kid.
Peter and John sat at the feet of the greatest, most brilliant man to walk the earth. By all accounts John was pretty young when he started following Jesus. So you should have no problem believing that at least he should have been able to write his works in his old age, after having a top position in an international movement over the next few decades.
@@JM-jj3eg I think you are assuming things that aren't written. There's no suggestion anywhere that Jesus taught his disciples Greek. There's no suggestion that he even spoke Greek I think. If John was young when started following Jesus that doesn't change much. He was still an uneducated fisherman. Imagine trying to teach ancient Greek nowadays to a 20-year old who has never been to school and has no idea how to read the language he already speaks. Now imagine that this person learns Greek and writes a book like John. It would be one thing if it were Revelation; the author of that book wrote in very poor Greek. But the writer of the gospel of John was clearly a literary expert, there's virtually no chance it could be someone who didn't start learning anything until he was past the age when people take well to languages
@@danielgrotz6599 You're certainly right that it's unusual for some to learn literary excellence after childhood. But we independently know things about these two men that already make them exceptional. These uneducated fishermen from Galilee - by the end of their lives - were leading an international movement that had spread all the way from Jerusalem to Rome, with adherents up to "members of Caesars household", and attracted the attention of the Emperor himself. We know this to be a fact, however you explain it.
So from there, is it too much more of a stretch to think that they could have written some books?
@@JM-jj3eg yes, it is a stretch. The two skills are very different. Proselytism is completely accessible to adults; mastery of a foreign language is not. It doesn't take a genius to start and run churches. Again, in the case of John, we are not just talking fluency. We are talking mastery. Whoever wrote the gospel of John had read Philo and probably Plato. Why bother devoting so much of your adult life to pagan philosophy if you are running the Christian church? But if you think it's not a stretch name one great work of literature written by someone who couldn't read or write until age 20. It's difficult to think of anything that fits that bill, let alone one in a foreign language. This stuff simply does not happen.
the Music is so .... Fuuuunky! !! yeah ... cannot sit still
Isaiah 7:14 says young woman not virgin, also its about Hezekiah not Jesus.
+ChiliMcFly1 it is implying it because all women married like at 13
That's just not the correct translation. It's still not about Jesus. read the whole chapter.
+ChiliMcFly1 Paul Copan repsonds: enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201302/201302_026_misquote_OT.cfm
ChiliMcFly1 profesies are ciclical the are prophesies about the first temple destruction that then are aplied to the second temple destruction and will aplied to the third
Most all documents and parchments are from the 9th century. that's almost 1000 yrs after the crucifixtion. This is the NT.
Theres one more objection you didn’t cover: what if pauls letters were later changed and he is not actually talking about jesus?
That is highly unlikely.
@@InspiringPhilosophy what is evidence that Peter wrote 1 Peter and that John wrote 1 John? Because since they claim to be eyewitness of the events, that would prove Jesus existed. Got any links on these writings? (Authorship and Dating) Thanks so much, IP!
@@MewTwoHP The epistles contain several non-theological verses, like when Saint Poul ask Timothy if he can send him some stuff.
Also the stile of writing in
I Jhon is the same as the gospel of Saint John, adding to that, they wrote their letters like if what they said was an order rather than a suggestion.
Maybe there is more evidence but I just writing what I remember.
This confuses the argument that the gospels contain false statements (as proven by contradictions) with the argument that everything in them is false. That's a straw man fallacy. And it ignores the important point that the gospel authors were either making up claims all the time or passing along stories they had no logical reason to believe were factual. It ignores the massive, overwhelming evidence that the gospels were carefully constructed literary creations of brilliant minds. These weren't just eyewitnesses giving their own unique view on incidents - these are texts that were created with the specific purpose to evangelize and promote specific theological viewpoints. It should not bother the honest atheist or skeptic who has no axe to grind that there may be information in the gospels that is based on some historical accuracy. Historical fiction does that. It _should_ bother the "believer" when someone points out that their holy text is basically very clever evangelizing material, analogous to propaganda, not faithful to portraying with utmost accuracy factual accounts. People who are committed to harmonizing the gospels are not doing clever "policework investigation". What you do with that approach is try to ask "What really happened based on all the evidence and knowledge we have?" That is a _very_ different question from asking "How can we read these texts to understand how everything in them is somehow true?" It's totally different.
Did the writing of Alexander the Great contain ANY miracles?
Some say he was the son of Zeus and the waves obeyed him.
lol
@@InspiringPhilosophy that is such a dishonest answer
@@Antank8 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great_in_legend
Brother I think you are somewhere going wrong. These writings are 2000 yrs old. Just becoming educated in reading and writing is not enough. What about being superstitious, today a person educated in technology, engineering, computer believes in gods that you will never believe. In india people are very religious, though educated believe in God that never existed. These men 2000 yrs ago were superstitious, and what ever they wrote are nothing but Just imagination. Just think since 2000 yrs or many yrs before that no supernatural things has happened till date, just think how many having blind faith have died, because their prayers were not heard. ..example. . A man is lost in an ocean and he is right in the middle of the ocean, he has faith that god will send someone or someone would come to help him but no one comes, there is no help from God. At the end he dies. So it is with everyone. That's why when man invents a machine, first thing he does is its safety, he doesn't think that god will take care of the rest. Brother in reality there is one thing that humanbeings should know and that is humanity, only humanity can save the world. No religion is a good religion. Many have died because of religion, if there is god then why is he sitting quite, no reaction, no planning to stop the evil things going on, who is controlling this, obviously humanbeings not god. God is nothing but imagination.
Then actually address the evidence I present and stop appealing to emotion.
th-cam.com/video/A0iDNLxmWVM/w-d-xo.html
Are you Malayali antham achayan yukthivadi ????
Ehrman didn't say the writers were poor Aramaic fisherman. He said the followers of jesus were. Scholars do not accept the authorship[ you are asserting here and you didn't prove that in your video where you cite the church fathers hearsay testimony is valid because they are authorities. Are you claiming that illiterate fisherman can dictate stories that are in Greek and sound as if they were written by well educated people? Your miracle objection is one of the few valid points I have heard on your channel. With the Nero example are those three sources claiming to have been with Nero at the time? Also are those three accounts that rome burned the only evidence that rome even existed? And if they are not eyewitness reports (which scholars don't accept them to be) his statement falls apart.
I know, because I directly quoted Ehrman who says the disciples were poor Aramaic fisherman, so they could not have written. The problem is, as I identified in the video. Again, no one, including the church fathers, did not claim the majority of the new testament was written by fishermen. Why are the church fathers just hearsay? And second, lets compare this to a secular document. How do you know Tacitus wrote the Annals?
Yes, those are the only reports we have that Rome burned, not that Rome existed, but that it burned at one point.
You keep saying that the followers were the authors mainstream scholars do not agree with that position. Do you have information to support that claim that was not in the video on that subject? because it wasn't convincing.
Are those accounts claimed to be eyewitness reports?
The bible is the source for all information about jesus. Not just the resurrection but everything about him. If you have information about jesus that does not originate from the gospels?
Hearsay -information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate
Does that sound like the oral tradition you say the church fathers had?
Yeah, we have multiple attestation they were from multiple geographical errors: th-cam.com/video/_l0Say2wMw0/w-d-xo.html
Plus the attribution meets the criteria of embarrassment.
Why should we doubt the overwhelming attestation? Your mere doubt in what the unanimous attestation is not convincing either, so you need to give a good reason to doubt them.
Again, why is their testimony doubted as a default position? Do you do this with other works? How do you know Tacitus wrote the Annals?
What is your obsession with tacitus? You constantly try to shift the focus to him. Sources are to be trusted when they are shown to be trustworthy before that point you are simply being gullible. If you present a source you should present evidence as to why it should be trusted.
Because I am wondering if you apply the same criteria you do to the Gospels as you do to other ancient works, or if you are just skeptical of the Bible, which has the best attestation, but not someone like Tacitus which has far less attestation.
The fact that Bart Erhman was Christian at the time of him finding the errors of the bible disprove your bias argument cause obviously he wasnt bias against the bible but bias for it yet was not able to dismiss the critical errors geniuses. Shm
Bart from his own story says he was a raised firmly christian, and was "prepared for the accusations that they would launch at the bible in college" by his parents, and church. Its possible I'm wrong, but this sounds like a textbook case of someone doing a 180 due to longstanding pressure from their family, and peers growing up to act, or think a certain way.
Many if not most people I grew up with, that were in similar situations choose to buck the traditional values placed on them the moment they had been given an inkling of freedom, or reason to do so. It happens because they grow to associate the ideas their family held them to and limiting restrictive, and oppressive. Its honestly the same function as the "rebellious teenager" phase, but it doesnt necessarily happen during puberty. And it's not necessarily a phase that has to end. Especially of they find any higher level of comfort, or other reinforcement from their new belief position. And bart is at this point one of the go to bible critics. A renounce such as that can be pretty rewarding.
Then by that logic, Lee Strobel and CS Lewis can’t be accused of bias because they where Atheist and became Christians
@@joshuadunford3171 yeah but none have proof to give credibility to their beliefs
@@aapp953 I didn’t say they did, you said that Bart Erhman was a Christian when he started out, so therefore he is free of bias, I’m only saying that everyone has a bias no matter what side they started on
@@joshuadunford3171
Yeah and his bias is aimed at not being to aggressive against the Christian community because there is many things he defends about the bible and Christians to the displeasure of non Christian.
"many different eye witness testimonies and written accounts that report the same event almost always contradict." That's black and white thinking. Accounts don't simply contradict. They contradict each other a little or a lot or anywhere in between.
The gospels are not credible because they sometimes go off in completely different directions when presenting a crucial development like the resurrection. Read Chapter 28 of Matthew. As far as he's concerned, Jesus appeared twice after his death - once to the women who had visited his tomb and once to his disciples on a mountain in Galilee. He never even hints at other appearances. In Chapter 20 and 21 of John, the risen Jesus appears 4 different times and none of those appearances matches at all well with either appearance in Matthew. That amount of disagreement isn't some kind of hallmark of authenticity. It's the hallmark of fiction.
Argument #1: What scholars used that argument? Until you come up with an answer, it's a strawman argument.
Michael Grant, whom you cite, has written dozens of books and lost much credibility among scholars for his sloppy scholarship. Well, he actually became a writer of books for "armchair historians". Nothing wrong with that a priori, but you should use scholarly works instead. It so happens that we can fault Caesar on many "facts", or at least that we cannot take his "facts" for granted without further evidence. Here, what you're doing is to hunt for supporting evidence and avoid taking a truly balanced approach. That is bias.
Argument #2: Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen, he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament. Virtually all Biblical scholars agree on that. It is important to stress, too, that Ehrman did not discover this; it has been known for a very long time among Biblical scholars.
What? You believe Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of "Matthew"?? I'm sorry but you need to study text transmission, codicology, etc., before trying to refute Ehrman so incompetently.
► Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please.
► "Mark *was said to be* the Greek scribe and interpreter for Peter" ─ does that mean he actually was?? Where is it written in the ancient sources? And when was it written? Does the rest of what we know about him support or refute this view?
► "Luke *was said to be* a physician" ─ does that mean he was?? What is the evidence? Who wrote that he was a physician"? Is it reliable evidence? This is a useless claim without SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Note what you say: "Luke *was said to be* a physician, *so he was* also educated" ─ how can you jump from "was said to be" to "so he was"? You should really study how to do basic research in the fields of textual analysis and history.
► Paul is, of course, not a problem, but he reports none of the miracles in the NT ─ not even the virgin birth!
► Peter, Jude, James, and John may have learned to write later? Now this is what I call bias. Do you know how hard it is to learn to read and write later in life? You just make stuff up to fit your presuppositions. In the process, any educated person who watches this video will see it as confirmation that the upholding of Christianity based on its historicity is a bankrupt and intellectually dishonest undertaking.
► And then the dictation to scribes: We are talking about the dictation in Greek! This is extremely biased and, sorry to say, intellectually dishonest on your part. "They could simply hire scribes to write for them". Wow, just wow. This is just making stuff up. You should really read some background work on the methods of history and textual analysis.
► Likewise making stuff up: "could have received help ... from new converts", etc.
Argument #3: at 6:40 "So why would we apply different special standards to the New Testament?" That's what YOU have done throughout this video so far!
And at this point the black & white argument: Unlike what you imply, historians of the ancient world do criticize vehemently ancient historians. Herodotus has been called "the father of lies"; even Thucydides has been called "Mythhistoricus" and likewise Tacitus. Modern historians know very well we cannot trust much of what Suetonius writes. Etc.
Argument #4: This is getting really, really embarrassing for your side of the argument. "we could also use it to conclude that Rome was never burned". You should really, really study the basics of historical research before doing videos on it.
And then, if you don't agree with the majority of scholars (on good evidence) that Paul is the earliest source we have in the NT, and that he makes no mention of those extraordinary events, then you forget to include the most basic point about story telling, that "facts" and "events" can be elaborated (i.e. fabricated) to "corroborate" a belief.
From 11:10 ─ So, you believe the names associated with the Gospels are truly those of the apostles, when in fact it is clear they don't write as eyewitnesses? You reject what seems obvious to most scholars that "Mark" predates "Matthew" and that the latter used "Mark" but modified him to fit his own theological views? I'm sorry but it is clear that your research in this field is deeply biased. Have you studied the concept of confirmation bias?
About Wallace's testimony: You first have to establish that any of the writers were eye-witnesses, which most scholars, on solid evidence, believe they're not. Ehrman is just one of the many of them. It doesn't mean you have to reject the gospels as documents without some historical value, it means that you have first to establish their historical value, and some of the important steps are: establishing their date; determining if possible who the authors were; their objectives; etc. etc.
So, I'm sorry to say that this is monumentally failing as a defense of the historical value of the Gospels and the New Testament. What bothers me most in all this is that it misinforms people about historical evidence, methodology, and analysis.
“What scholars used that argument? Until you come up with an answer, it's a strawman argument.”- I never said scholars claim bias refutes the NT. I see this used on the internet, and on my channel which is why it was addressed.
“Michael Grant, whom you cite, has written dozens of books and lost much credibility among scholars for his sloppy scholarship.”- This is an ad hominem and a red herring. I am only referring to him talking about the bias of ancient authors. This is not even debated that ancient authors were bias. I’ve heard Herodotus referred to as the world’s first blogger, rather than historian.
“ It so happens that we can fault Caesar on many "facts”-You just attacked me for doing this, and here you go doing the exact same thing, claiming something without support…
“Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen”- I literally cited Ehrman claiming this, what are you talking about. I have his audio in the video…
“, he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament. “- No this is false. Watch the full debate with Licona.
“Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please.”- Did you even listen? I said the early church claimed this, meaning no one said the author of Matthew was a fisherman as Ehrman claimed. Also, I gave evidence in part 4. Remember this is one video for a 7 part series. In part 4 we went over the evidence.
“"Mark was said to be the Greek scribe and interpreter for Peter" ─ does that mean he actually was?? Where is it written in the ancient sources? And when was it written? Does the rest of what we know about him support or refute this view?”- See part 4.
“"Luke was said to be a physician" ─ does that mean he was?? What is the evidence?”- See part 4.
“Paul is, of course, not a problem, but he reports none of the miracles in the NT ─ not even the virgin birth!”- This is false, see 1 Corinthians 15, where he cites the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances.
“Peter, Jude, James, and John may have learned to write later? Now this is what I call bias. Do you know how hard it is to learn to read and write later in life?”- You do realize this was not my primary argument, since i literally argue for scribal use right after this? Did you watch the whole video before writing this?
“And then the dictation to scribes: We are talking about the dictation in Greek! This is extremely biased and, sorry to say, intellectually dishonest on your part. “- And this was not unknown, since Roman authors, who spoke latin, but wrote in Greek at times.
“They could simply hire scribes to write for them". Wow, just wow. This is just making stuff up.”- Why? This is was a common practice… It is not out of the ordinary. The fact that you do not like the explanation doesn’t make it false or unlikely… You are just appealing to emotion.
“Unlike what you imply, historians of the ancient world do criticize vehemently ancient historians. Herodotus has been called "the father of lies"; even Thucydides has been called "Mythhistoricus" and likewise Tacitus. Modern historians know very well we cannot trust much of what Suetonius writes. Etc.”- And, as i said, I am not contesting that, what i am contesting is we do not dismiss everything Tacitus or Herodotus says just because they lied or said somethings that were miraculous. Do you through out all of Herodotus because he exaggerated?
“And then, if you don't agree with the majority of scholars (on good evidence) that Paul is the earliest source we have in the NT”- Actually, this is wrong. Most scholar argue Mark’s Passion narrative is earlier, written the 40s. Earlier than that, scholars say 1 Corinthians 15: 1-7 is even earlier than that.
“and that he makes no mention of those extraordinary events”- Yes Paul does… Read 1 Corinthians 15. Paul also mentions other miracles that happened to him.
‘From 11:10 ─ So, you believe the names associated with the Gospels are truly those of the apostles, when in fact it is clear they don't write as eyewitnesses? “- See part 4.
‘You reject what seems obvious to most scholars that "Mark" predates "Matthew" and that the latter used "Mark" but modified him to fit his own theological views?”- There is no theological differences, both preach the same Gospel of Christianity. The differ on how they tell the story.
‘About Wallace's testimony: You first have to establish that any of the writers were eye-witnesses, which most scholars, on solid evidence, believe they're not”- See part 4, remember, this is part 7.
I'm replying to this one point for now:
► I wrote: “Ehrman doesn't claim the NT writers were poor Aramaic speaking fishermen.”
► You replied: "I literally cited Ehrman claiming this, what are you talking about. I have his audio in the video…"
Well, then, tell me where in the clip he says that. He is talking about his *followers* (at 2:27 ─ i.e. at the start of the clip), not the *writers*. At 2:55 Ehrman says that "these books were written in Greek by highly educated, rhetorically trained writers who are skilled in Greek composition" ─ this just before you say: "So Ehrman claims the New Testaments writers were all poor Aramaic speaking fishermen"! If you meant to say "those who were traditionally claimed to be the writers", that's a very different thing. Since Ehrman doesn't believe the followers of Jesus during his lifetime were the writers of the Gospels, you are misrepresenting him.
Acts 4: 13 (cited by Ehrman): "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."
Another point:
► I wrote: "he claims that the followers of Jesus in his lifetime DID NOT WRITE the Gospels nor any of the books of the New Testament.“
► You replied: "No this is false. Watch the full debate with Licona."
I did watch this whole debate in which Ehrman humiliated Licona, and no: Ehrman never claims that any of the followers in Jesus' lifetime wrote any of the NT books, let alone the Gospels. It actually doesn't make any sense. Ehrman believes the earliest source in the NT is Paul. Paul had his epiphany *after* the death of Jesus. Do you understand what that means? It means that you hear what you want to hear, not what Ehrman says.
And a last point for tonight:
► I wrote: “Matthew was an educated tax collector: evidence, please.”
►You replied: "Did you even listen? I said the early church claimed this, meaning no one said the author of Matthew was a fisherman as Ehrman claimed. Also, I gave evidence in part 4. Remember this is one video for a 7 part series. In part 4 we went over the evidence."
No, you didn't go over the evidence in part 4, which I watched. In this part, you say: "the Fathers of the Church". Do you realize how many 1000s of pages that represents? You should learn the basics of citing sources. I had to find the answer for myself, and it is actually Matthew 9: 9.
Oh! And I may have discovered why you were reluctant to cite Matthew 9: 9, and that is simply because this is in contradiction with Mk 2: 14 and Luke 5: 27 where it is said that the tax collector was Levi, not Matthew.
Camerinus My point was, as I said, "the early church did not claim the new testament was written by only illiterate fisherman and neither do Christian scholars today." Ehrman is attacking the claim of authorship in the church because fishermen could not have written the NT. I point out no one has ever claims the the entire NT was written by illiterate fishermen, since not all his disciples were fishermen. So he is just wrong to claim it could not have been written by disciples, especially since he admits people used scribes.
Like it or not, Ehrman claim the NT could not have been written by disciples because they were illiterate fishermen. This is false, and easily shown.
"No, you didn't go over the evidence in part 4, which I watched. In this part, you say: "the Fathers of the Church". Do you realize how many 1000s of pages that represents? You should learn the basics of citing sources. I had to find the answer for myself, and it is actually Matthew 9: 9."
- What are you even talking about? 1000s of pages doesn't remove their attestation..
"Matthew 9: 9"
- Has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone wrote in 3rd person back then. Josephus, Xenophon, etc.
► Whatever your point was, and however hard you try to deny it, you misrepresented Ehrman. The EVIDENCE is in your video.
Ehrman is right: Illiterate peasants and fishermen cannot possibly have written or dictated the Gospels or any other book of the NT. Before criticizing a scholar who understands ancient rhetoric and composition, you should study ancient rhetoric and composition. (I have, but I'm far from being at the level of Ehrman, but unlike you I am aware of my shortcomings and I would never dare criticize a specialist without much further investigations of my own.)
► You wrote about the reference to the Fathers: "What are you even talking about? 1000s of pages doesn't remove their attestation".
Are you so dishonest with yourself as to insinuate I had such a dumb idea? One provides citation to allow others TO VERIFY HIS EVIDENCE. This is the most basic academic principle. Your faith blinds you so much that you cannot even read a simple comment. I'm starting to think there is much insecurity in this.
► You wrote: "[Mt 9: 9] has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone wrote in 3rd person back then. Josephus, Xenophon, etc."
What are you talking about?? Did I say anything about 3rd-person narratives?? I'm giving you the most direct evidence that he was claimed to be a tax collector and you deny it??
Mt 9: 9 "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named *Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth*. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."
Are you denying the evidence of the Gospels??
Of course, this is problematic given that Mark and Luke disagree:
Mk 2: 14 "As he walked along, he saw *Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth*. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him."
Lk 5: 27 "After this, Jesus went out and *saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth*. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him"
Can you see the contradictions? Or let me rephrase: Can you be honest with yourself enough to see the contradictions?
Your answers presume upon Biblical accuracy and other points that are basic Apologetics. This handles one argument maybe, but there are 9000 other problems. You've got a long way to go. Everything we can assume about the old world is at best, a guess. Go through every biblical problem and reason around them. You've gotten knowhere if you won't look at that book as it is. A nonsensical myth. It's just not that hard to prove on one point, where is Jesus? When we all pray, where the hell is he when we need him? Fishing maybe?
The fact that MAGIC is NOT a thing renders this whole nonsense impotent. Sorry.
6:34