@@Indigochild71 Because they'd find numerous errors and contradictions! Was Jesus born before Herod died (4 BC -Matt) or during the census (6 AD - Luke)? Who went to the tomb and what did they see? We ignore Bible teachings that storms, earthquakes, disease, deformity and famine are divine acts because we know their cause. Why does Paul, who knew the disciples, never mention a virgin birth, baptism, miracle or teaching of Jesus? We skip over passages like the dead rising from the graves (also avoided by Mark, Luke, John and every commentator of the time). We rationalize why Jehovah would direct genocide or engage in "battles" with other gods.
This is a central issue, upon which the message of the Gospel / scripture hinges. An earlier dating of the Gospels makes it virtually impossible to explain them as anything other than what they are - actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus and all of the events recorded in them. This is why critics so fiercely attack an earlier dating because to accept them as early presents the critics with a moral dilemma they don't want to deal with.
The detractors from the veracity of the New Testament also put their fairh that God cannot preserve His message. Mortal men attempting to be autonomous while forgetting they are mortals (Jeremiah 17:9)
Very interesting point, I've just watched a clip from a Jewish historian and all he can pin a late dating beyond 70ad for the synoptic Gospels is the destruction of the 2nd temple being written in the Gospels. All the other internal and external gets discarded like it doesn't matter
True. But even if the current, later-dating consensus were accurate, there is no basis for distrusting the veracity of the gospels, except maybe in some details. But the consensus must be questioned and will be found to be standing on legs of clay.
while "facts" may not bring about faith, but following the facts can move from Bible stories to mature growth as a child of God and describe Jesus' love and His walk on earth with us.
I dont believe in God but if i see facts that i want i will so yes facts bring faith and i am asking you a question ARE YOU REALLY REALLY IN DEEP DOWN BELIEVE IN GOD ? You will reply yes but think about it
Yes, and as documents confirming Jesus in the first century as one who had followers, was crucified, and so on, why wouldn't his disciples have written about him? They say his disciples worshipped him. So why wouldn't they write about one who is that important to them? They did. Now, today, we have much more with all the biblical archeology being discovered and, importantly, never disproving the scripture, but often lining up perfectly. Praise God! Reasons to Believe!
Man, at 4:00 you talk about a church service where you present historical information on the early church and no one would attend. Basically I don't go to any churches near me because they don't discuss this stuff. Instead I sit around watching TH-cam all day about Christianity, videos like this sadly make up my church service.
The book, "The Jesus Papyrus" makes the case that the gospel of Matthew was the first one written. A fragment of the gospel of Matthew dates to 70 A. D. Stands to reason that if the Gospel of Matthew was floating around in 70 A. D. that there were copies around before that. Plus, Matthew was chosen by Jesus particularly because he was a tax collector, and as such, a documentarian!
If I remember correctly, one of the early "church fathers" said that they were written basically in the same order we have today: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You might appreciate this: www.academia.edu/9269890/Early_Church_Fathers_on_the_Authorship_of_the_NT_Gospels
@@P.H.888 The answer to your protest is given in the video, around 16:16... Perhaps you missed it? The Apostles were convinced that Jesus would return within the very near future. Once the final 7 years of the 70 'weeks' (490 years... 70 'weeks' of years... a 'week' being 7 years) had elapsed, they knew that some very different Dispensation had been initiated upon Mankind: the Times of The Gentiles, aka, the Age of Grace... the Dispensation of the Church. The Apostles became conscious of this about a decade or so after Jesus ascended, and thereafter began the process of writing Jesus' teachings for the benefit of the generations yet to come.
Paul the Apostle wrote *1 Timothy* in 64/65 AD before his Death ...In *1 Timothy 5:18* he says " *FOR THE SCRIPTURES SAYS* " Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain and *THE WORKERS DESERVE HIS WAGES* " Right Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain can be found in *Deuteronomy 25:4* and the Worker deserves his Wages is found in *Matthew 10:10 & Luke 10:7* So Matthew and Luke Must of been Written way before 64/65 AD for Paul to be Quoting from it 🙏
There’s nothing more interesting to me than this topic. Can’t believe people aren’t interested in this. It’s literally our history! Can’t believe this is 7 years old and I’ve never seen it.
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2 Peter 1:16 KJV
12:07 I had that same question in regards to Paul mentioning "scriptures" in what some people refer to as the "creed". I think in Galatians 15? I can't remember. 🤔
This is an interesting video and gave me some things to think about. However, I think its primary shortcoming is that the case laid out for "early" gospels is at odds with the scholarly consensus. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. But presumably other scholars have their reasons for differing with him. He doesn't claim to have access to different facts than other scholars. He just has a different interpretation and reaches different conclusions. The case that he makes here would be much more compelling if he engaged with that consensus and explained why he arrived at different conclusions. To use his legal metaphor, it's rather like hearing from the defense attorney without having a chance to hear from the prosecution.
Jim just states the fact that you can make the case and this, I assume, includes the Idea that the opposite view exists and can be reasonably defended in a sort of a historical court room. History is not one of the sciences; all we have are a variety of sources to be assessed as you see fit - from a reasonable point of view. Kind regards Kim
It’s much better to look at raw evidence from first principles. There’s no reason that “scholarly consensus” is reliable, since academia flows in trends, and today is very influenced by presuppositions, group-think and especially funding issues. In many fields of study the consensus has often been proved utterly wrong. E.g. in many fields of science and medicine today, most research is driven by funding. Most universities have become first and foremost businesses. In theology, a huge push to undermine the reliability and authority of Scripture began in the 1800s. This was linked with changes in society in the West, rather than true scholarship. It’s based on putting forth new theories and arguments, not accurate research based on new evidence.
I’ve got a book called “case for Christ” they date it based on the technology used to create the scroll, as in, the type of papyrus, can they tell what tree it is from, how the scroll itself has been fabricated in a particular style that gives away around time frame, ie early technology verses a more refined effort, writing style, actual font / script, make up of the ink used etc. it’s fascinating stuff. God Bless x
Examine internal evidence.. examine the text, the possible sources, the style of writing etc.. many methods other than carbon dating. Of course we can't get an exact date, but even carbon dating would be +-10 years off.
Check out the channel “Inspiring Philosophy” they have a playlist series on the new testament reliability, which includes how we know when they were written th-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY.html Video 4 goes over dating specifically
@@ComeOutOfHerMyPeople Small nitpick. Papyrus is not from a tree. If you mean parchment that is animal skin. The biggest argument is that acts ends before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
@@markhorton3994 Papyrus (/pəˈpaɪrəs/ pə-PYE-rəs) is a material similar to thick paper that was used in ancient times as a writing surface. It was made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus, a wetland sedge.
Luke compiled information from eyewitness info to documents: his Gospel and the Book of Acts, documents to be used in Paul’s defense when he appealed to Cesar as a Roman citizen
Luke the Doctor & Historian Started off as a Critic & Saul who became Paul the Apostle was one of his Patients ...he cared about Paul and His Sanity so went out to prove the Death & Resurrection was all in his head ....his Historian background and Medical expertise found evidence that the Resurrection did occur hence the Reason for him writing his Gospel (Luke) and Helping Paul write ACTS of the Apostles 🙏 Shalom
A very powerful historical fact was instrumental in breaking down my mistrust of the New Testament, especially the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection. The forces aligned against the early disciples of Jesus were powerful and had enormous resources. Both the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy would benefit immensely if they could prove the resurrection was false. Yet despite their virtually unlimited resources and influence they could not produce a single whistleblower. All it would have taken was a single disciple of Jesus to come forward and say, "We made the whole thing up". Not only would he have cleared his conscience for perpetrating and supporting a lie, he would have been wealthy beyond his dreams and would have risen to a position of popularity with the Jewish community, which had singled him out for persecution. None of the early followers of Jesus as Messiah became wealthy or very popular for their testimony. If the resurrection had been a fabrication, anyone involved in fabricating the story, as a Jew seeking the righteousness of G-d, would have been under immense personal conviction to confess their falsehood, and expose the lie they had colluded with others to invent. By coming forward they would have restored themselves to the good graces of the Jewish leaders and community, and the story they had to tell exposing the lie, would be one of the most popular documents on the face of the earth today. Today we do not even have a hint of such a whistleblower. To the contrary, we have the story of the life of Paul of Tarsus, a man designated to produce a whistleblower, and who used force and the threat of pain of death (which he carried out Acts 8:1), in order to find anyone with testimony contrary to the narrative of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
Amazing post! I've been thinking of a much simpler part of this lately, the fact that it'd only take one person to admit it was a lie for everything to fall apart. And yes, there were strong incentives for them to do so. Also, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, they'd have no reason to believe he was the messiah anymore seeing as how he was tortured and killed. Their actions after Jesus died make no sense unless they believed with all their heart that Jesus was resurrected.
One more point: the way that Mark (and based on him, Matthew) word the Olivet Discourse in contrast to Luke suggests that Mark wrote around 42/42 AD. Why? Mark/Matthew mention the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place as a sign for believers to leave the city, while Luke talks about Jerusalem being besieged. The latter is often used as an argument to Luke having written after 70 because the famous siege of Jerusalem happened in that year. However, Luke's description is so general that it doesn't betray knowledge of this particular siege. Now, the Abomination of Desolation is usually considered to be a pagan idol being placed into the Temple, just as Antiochus IV did 200 years earlier. Well, no such idol was placed into the Temple until it had been destroyed. However, there was an instance when this almost happened, which would have pretty certainly have resulted in rebellion and war: Emperor Caligula (37-41) ordered his image to be placed in the Temple. This was prevented only by the governor of Syria stalling implementation and Caligula being murdered early in 41. If Mark wrote during that time or shortly after, the prominence of the Abomination would be easily explained. Furthermore, this fits with another piece of information Church fathers mention that Mark wrote his gospel based on Peter's preaching in Rome. Several ancient sources hint at Peter first going to Rome in 42, after being freed from prison in Jerusalem. Acts mentions he was brought "to another place".
In respect to what I feel you are trying to convey, I respect your efforts, yet my research points much further back, however I’m not a professional legal investigator as yourself, so I respect your platform. I was always taught that forty men over a period of 1,600 years wrote the version of the Bible that was translated into what was known as the King James original version, however doing my own research I learned that is not the case,. In the year 1,600 James Stewart commissioned apx. 47 of his scholars to write the 1,600t to 1,612 version going back from 1,568 The Queen Elizabeth- Bishops Bible. It was in Latin Catholic, and the general public wasn’t allowed to read it, or even have one. At the council of Nicaea in 325 A, D. Roman Catholic Bishops decided what would be the cannons of scripture. They took the image of Serapis away and declared Jesus as God in the flesh. They were fed up with the common wealth going back and forth, so they settled it so to speak. It is most enlightening that the stories, and many Biblical concept teachings are in the tombs, pyramids in northeast Africa. They would have had to have been written at least a thousand years, or millennia before any ecumenical council was ever thought off. I also found these ancient African's were very wise, advanced in every aspect I’ve studied. They knew these stories were not all true in the literal sense, yet might teach a good moral. I also learned years back they were mono ( one God ) knowing, and in their thinking, not (poly ) like many have been indoctrinated to believe. True they used the term rain god, thunder god etc.yet when they said the God they knew of one loving awesome Creator “ God Almighty. “ What I found is the European's came into the mother land of Africa, Once there they couldn’t read these stories at first. Once it was explained to them, they stole them, made their meaning literal rather than allegory and myth, then represented them as scared writings. This is why we have so many today saying “God said” multiple denominations, confusion, and indoctrination of not being able to question, or think for yourself. Many are told not to question or think. I do encourage your work, though we might not parallel exactly in areas.
Simple question since eye witness testimony is important for determining cannonistity and God The author himself references the book of Jasher to be referred by the readers of the authenticity of the events as described, is it not written in the book of Jasher, why do practically every biblical scholar and historian continue to speak against God on the subject Last I heard God is not stuck inside of our conceptions of time and our insistence of discounting writings according to someone else's opinions.
If Acts was written AD 60, that is 27 years after Jesus was crucified right, cause Jesus crucified 33 AD. I never really thought of that before. SO many people think 60 or 70 AD is 70 years after Jesus died, when it is not
Jesus said The Holy Spirit would bring back to remembrance all things, so Godly men were inspired to write down The New Covenant. Israel was The people of The Book Matthew ~ Levi was a trained tax collector. Their culture was record keeping with genealogies. So of course They were Led to write down immediately. Paul’s letters are obviously in real time and so all the letters. Everything was written before 70 ad Non believer scholars need to date it all after this date the destruction of The Temple because they don’t understand prophecy so it has to be historical.
People emphasize Mark's accuracy and not orderliness because of the timing of the sabbath and when the women buy spices after the crucifixion. Mark says the women went shopping after the sabbath. Luke says they went shopping before. And in order to maintain the tradition of a Friday Crucifixion, it has become convenient to throw Mark under the bus. But once we realize that in any Passover/Unleavened Bread festival that there are Sabbaths that are not Saturday Sabbaths, then the answer is as follows: *14th Wednesday - Preparation, Passover & Crucifixion* 15th Thursday - Day 1 Unleavened: *Holiday* (Mark’s Sabbath, John’s High Sabbath) *16th Friday - Day 2 Unleavened: Shopping Day/Spice purchase and blending* 17th Saturday - Day 3 Unleavened: *Sabbath* (Luke’s Sabbath) 18th Sunday - Day 4 Unleavened: Resurrection (Festival of First-fruits) 19th Monday - Day 5 Unleavened 20th Tuesday - Day 6 Unleavened 21st Wednesday - Day 7 Unleavened: *Holiday* Edit: Don't throw Mark under the bus. 😀
Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus Florinus I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.-Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1. Irenaeus who was a Greek Bing searches
Much so-called scholarship is about putting forth a new theory. Writers such as Wenham have explained in detail why the early church thought the gospels were written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Early manuscript scribal colophons tell us when they were written: 8, 10, 15 and 32 years after the ascension of Christ, respectively. I find it the height of arrogance that some academics in a university in the 20th or 21st century think they know more than Christians centuries ago. The apostle Matthew, being a tax collector, was highly trained in accurate recording, writing and languages. Luke was an extremely skilful researcher and writer. Paul had a remarkable academic pedigree, trained personally by Gamaliel. Most modern scholars aren’t a patch on these guys, whom Jesus chose to entrust with the task of recording and transmitting His message.
Paul actually received the Lord supper by divine revelation from Yeshua himself *1 Corinthians 11:23-24* 🙏 Still that doesn't disqualify all your other investigations 🙏 *Come Yeshua Ha-MaShiach* 🙏
No one scruntize any other scriptures of any other religion like they do Bibile. Why? Becouse they think there are many reasons to beleive Bibile is right.
The Old Testament was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC. The New Testament was written yin Greek since it was the lingua franca of the Land of Israel, Hebrew was used for liturgical purpose just as the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin today
@@sliglusamelius8578 I have never heard this claim before. Where did you get this information? It strikes me as extremely WRONG. The vast majority of people living in Galilee and Judea spoke Aramaic or Greek. The vast majority of people in the eastern Roman empire spoke Koine Greek. To write a Gospel in Hebrew would have limited it to an extremely limited audience of educated readers... mostly scribes and pharisees. I doubt your claim is correct.
paul does not have the authority of an eye witness.. he just heard mental messages from jesus. he says.. very good job showing how the gospels could be dated..
Listen to d Near death experience by people who have nothing to do with Religion ...only thing they have in Common once they Called out to JESUS he came to rescue them 🙏 PRAISE THE NAME OF JESUS 🙏
At around 2 minutes he’s discussing how he’d evaluate witnesses in a court case and asking the question where they really there, because if they’re not then they’re disqualified as witnesses. So the question is........ who was there to witness the 6 days that it took to make the world? I guess that disqualifies the bible right away.
Scripturally 2 or 3 witnesses are needed, YHVH is 3 Persons! Genesis 1 & 2 is written by YHVH originally. Then Adam then other persons down to Moses who brought it together.
You say that they wanted to get the information down after they realized Jesus might not be returning. If Jesus (God) gave the impression that he was coming back 'in their lifetime', then either he was misguiding them or he was a liar!
Jesus didn't say in their life time ,,,,,,"this generation shall not pass away" if we stop there there's not a time limit. I'm sure many people died just between His dying on the cross and raised from the grave
Acts had to be completed prior to Paul's death as it ends with him still alive and under house arrest....also no mention peters death...both were in 64 and 65 AD Hence....acts written b4 64AD Lukes gospel earlier
You need to question why some come to these dates. Premillenialnists date the book of Revelation post AD70 because if it was written pre AD70 then their entire doctrine goes out the window. They even date it post AD70 despite the fact that the book mentions the temple being measured (which would indicate that it still existed).
Did Paul actually see Jesus? People seem to believe Paul's teaching who only had a vision of Jesus and didn't know him when he was in the flesh. Is anything Paul says credible? There were only supposed to be 12 apostles not 13.
@@sliglusamelius8578 You don't know your Bible very well. “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them” (Romans 11:13-14)
Paul was recognised as a reliable teacher of Jesus' gospel... even though Peter (writing in one of his epistles) admits that he finds some things that Paul says difficult to understand. Peter writes of Paul, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2Peter 3:15,16
I respect his truthful investigation, and somewhat buy the dating of accounts if you take evidence of an account under question as valid for another, but when then... and then, when it came to the meat and potatoes of the whole thing you are asking me to take it as truth because early christians didnt question it? Well well well... now ive been compelled to be a skeptic of such a proposal...how is the inactivity of an early population of christians against contradictions a case for validity of such contradictions? Its like saying, because no german soldiers in the concentration camps decided to go against Hitlers orders of genocide, it must mean that his orders were right and true? That all these people should and deserved to die? No... what this means is that a population of humans can be deceived to the point of no questioning of a wrong doing or false statement. Therefore the benchmark for validity of any historical act cannot lie then on “early humans (christians) and their judgment” for a case of validity, as humans can and have been found in many cases falible throughout historical genocides, political bamboozling and more. You cant say the accounts of the canonical gospels are true because early christians didnt question their aparent contradictions. We just cant relly on humans and their falability for credibility of a historical incident. Now we must stick with the evidence at hand to draw conclusions, and many conclusions can be had. Just because the earliest manuscripts are dated after the alleged deaths of certain “eye witnesses” (saints), it doesn’t mean that the most likely conclusion was the question of Jesus’s return... It could also mean that the story was getting too diluted and fantasizes among years of oral passing from human to human, until a “literate” one decided to put into writing at a time where most likely it had been so changed it became a “canonical gospel” and on which other “literate” person wrote another and hence the aparent contradictions. Then since hence forth in this ancient world “people who knew how to read and write” (literate) where so respected, no one questioned their writings.
So, I think the 'fantasized' writings of a 'litereate' person are exactly what the later, non-canonised gospels exemplify. Perhaps these are valuable because the provide a comparison/contrast to the true writings of the apostles, Mat, Mark, Luke and John? The comparisons actually affirm the 'trueness' of the accepted gospels. Contrast is the mother of clarity (Oz Guiness).
You presume that there is no Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture……..forgetting in the process you are a mere mortal…..subject to future eternal judgment from a God that demands absolute perfection from you. Yu have no escape
Good analysis. Even if what you are saying is true though. We still have eyewitness accounts. Written early. And these eyewitness were willing to die for what they were saying. Moreover, the oral traditions were very well kept - they were not passed along like the telephone game. Here is a video by William Lane Craig on the matter. th-cam.com/video/VKudgsPT6N0/w-d-xo.html
Can't believe people are not curious about the history and validity of scripture
They are interested. Their called Theologians. However, the majority of Christians aren't interested in studying the bible.
@@Indigochild71
Then, most are not truly Christians.
Love the Lord thy God.
Because in their heart they fear the truth of it, therefore they try to erase it from their mind. This is a work of the sinful nature of man.
@@Indigochild71 Because they'd find numerous errors and contradictions! Was Jesus born before Herod died (4 BC -Matt) or during the census (6 AD - Luke)? Who went to the tomb and what did they see?
We ignore Bible teachings that storms, earthquakes, disease, deformity and famine are divine acts because we know their cause. Why does Paul, who knew the disciples, never mention a virgin birth, baptism, miracle or teaching of Jesus? We skip over passages like the dead rising from the graves (also avoided by Mark, Luke, John and every commentator of the time). We rationalize why Jehovah would direct genocide or engage in "battles" with other gods.
@@smb123211 Paul talks about all of those topics throughout all of his epistles. Try reading before asserting.
This is a central issue, upon which the message of the Gospel / scripture hinges. An earlier dating of the Gospels makes it virtually impossible to explain them as anything other than what they are - actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus and all of the events recorded in them. This is why critics so fiercely attack an earlier dating because to accept them as early presents the critics with a moral dilemma they don't want to deal with.
The detractors from the veracity of the New Testament also put their fairh that God cannot preserve His message. Mortal men attempting to be autonomous while forgetting they are mortals (Jeremiah 17:9)
Very interesting point, I've just watched a clip from a Jewish historian and all he can pin a late dating beyond 70ad for the synoptic Gospels is the destruction of the 2nd temple being written in the Gospels. All the other internal and external gets discarded like it doesn't matter
True. But even if the current, later-dating consensus were accurate, there is no basis for distrusting the veracity of the gospels, except maybe in some details.
But the consensus must be questioned and will be found to be standing on legs of clay.
Definately going to pick up your book on audible. Glad to see people letting their light shine instead of keeping it hidden.
while "facts" may not bring about faith, but following the facts can move from Bible stories to mature growth as a child of God and describe Jesus' love and His walk on earth with us.
Faith is a gift of God
I dont believe in God but if i see facts that i want i will so yes facts bring faith and i am asking you a question ARE YOU REALLY REALLY IN DEEP DOWN BELIEVE IN GOD ? You will reply yes but think about it
@@muhammad_likes_dancing What?
Yes, and as documents confirming Jesus in the first century as one who had followers, was crucified, and so on, why wouldn't his disciples have written about him? They say his disciples worshipped him. So why wouldn't they write about one who is that important to them? They did. Now, today, we have much more with all the biblical archeology being discovered and, importantly, never disproving the scripture, but often lining up perfectly. Praise God! Reasons to Believe!
Greatly appreciate your perspective... and glad God chose you to witness
Thank you, Jim.
Look at books by Eta Linneman. She is a textual critic professor turned new born Christian.
All true Christians are born (anothen in the Greek, born from above) again
Man, at 4:00 you talk about a church service where you present historical information on the early church and no one would attend. Basically I don't go to any churches near me because they don't discuss this stuff. Instead I sit around watching TH-cam all day about Christianity, videos like this sadly make up my church service.
Perhaps you need to mention it to your pastor……if you have one
Same
Most Christians don't know squat about the background of the bible & only attend church for entertainment purposes.
I’ve been looking at why late dates are given and it really looks like these scholars are overlooking a lot just to get to that opinion.
Hey God bless. What did you find on what the secular scholars are over looking?
The book, "The Jesus Papyrus" makes the case that the gospel of Matthew was the first one written. A fragment of the gospel of Matthew dates to 70 A. D. Stands to reason that if the Gospel of Matthew was floating around in 70 A. D. that there were copies around before that. Plus, Matthew was chosen by Jesus particularly because he was a tax collector, and as such, a documentarian!
If I remember correctly, one of the early "church fathers" said that they were written basically in the same order we have today: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You might appreciate this:
www.academia.edu/9269890/Early_Church_Fathers_on_the_Authorship_of_the_NT_Gospels
Way too late! Why would The Apostles wait? They wouldn’t, it would be written down immediately.
@@P.H.888 The answer to your protest is given in the video, around 16:16... Perhaps you missed it? The Apostles were convinced that Jesus would return within the very near future. Once the final 7 years of the 70 'weeks' (490 years... 70 'weeks' of years... a 'week' being 7 years) had elapsed, they knew that some very different Dispensation had been initiated upon Mankind: the Times of The Gentiles, aka, the Age of Grace... the Dispensation of the Church. The Apostles became conscious of this about a decade or so after Jesus ascended, and thereafter began the process of writing Jesus' teachings for the benefit of the generations yet to come.
Paul the Apostle wrote *1 Timothy* in 64/65 AD before his Death ...In *1 Timothy 5:18* he says
" *FOR THE SCRIPTURES SAYS* " Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain and *THE WORKERS DESERVE HIS WAGES* "
Right Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain can be found in *Deuteronomy 25:4* and the Worker deserves his Wages is found in *Matthew 10:10 & Luke 10:7*
So Matthew and Luke Must of been Written way before 64/65 AD for Paul to be Quoting from it 🙏
There’s nothing more interesting to me than this topic. Can’t believe people aren’t interested in this. It’s literally our history! Can’t believe this is 7 years old and I’ve never seen it.
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
2 Peter 1:16 KJV
Very interesting! Thank you!
Can you please look into Preterism?
Thank you for your work.
My pleasure!
12:07 I had that same question in regards to Paul mentioning "scriptures" in what some people refer to as the "creed". I think in Galatians 15? I can't remember. 🤔
Very well presented. Thank you.
Great explanation!
Your presentation just knock down the credibility of the Koran.
16:00 in, Jay, take a look into Preterist Eschatology. Contact Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church, or Doug Wilson.
This is an interesting video and gave me some things to think about. However, I think its primary shortcoming is that the case laid out for "early" gospels is at odds with the scholarly consensus. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. But presumably other scholars have their reasons for differing with him. He doesn't claim to have access to different facts than other scholars. He just has a different interpretation and reaches different conclusions. The case that he makes here would be much more compelling if he engaged with that consensus and explained why he arrived at different conclusions. To use his legal metaphor, it's rather like hearing from the defense attorney without having a chance to hear from the prosecution.
Jim just states the fact that you can make the case and this, I assume, includes the Idea that the opposite view exists and can be reasonably defended in a sort of a historical court room.
History is not one of the sciences; all we have are a variety of sources to be assessed as you see fit - from a reasonable point of view.
Kind regards Kim
As Christians, we are SURROUNDED by the opposition view (s) in our modern society. It is well known.
It’s much better to look at raw evidence from first principles. There’s no reason that “scholarly consensus” is reliable, since academia flows in trends, and today is very influenced by presuppositions, group-think and especially funding issues. In many fields of study the consensus has often been proved utterly wrong. E.g. in many fields of science and medicine today, most research is driven by funding. Most universities have become first and foremost businesses. In theology, a huge push to undermine the reliability and authority of Scripture began in the 1800s. This was linked with changes in society in the West, rather than true scholarship. It’s based on putting forth new theories and arguments, not accurate research based on new evidence.
Gotta love the Coptic icon for Mark ☦
How did they date the gospel if we don’t have the originals?
I’ve got a book called “case for Christ” they date it based on the technology used to create the scroll, as in, the type of papyrus, can they tell what tree it is from, how the scroll itself has been fabricated in a particular style that gives away around time frame, ie early technology verses a more refined effort, writing style, actual font / script, make up of the ink used etc. it’s fascinating stuff. God Bless x
Examine internal evidence.. examine the text, the possible sources, the style of writing etc.. many methods other than carbon dating. Of course we can't get an exact date, but even carbon dating would be +-10 years off.
Check out the channel “Inspiring Philosophy” they have a playlist series on the new testament reliability, which includes how we know when they were written
th-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY.html
Video 4 goes over dating specifically
@@ComeOutOfHerMyPeople Small nitpick. Papyrus is not from a tree. If you mean parchment that is animal skin.
The biggest argument is that acts ends before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
@@markhorton3994 Papyrus (/pəˈpaɪrəs/ pə-PYE-rəs) is a material similar to thick paper that was used in ancient times as a writing surface. It was made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus, a wetland sedge.
Luke was not an eyewitness. He functioned as an investigative reporter. He talked to many eyewitnesses.
Luke compiled information from eyewitness info to documents: his Gospel and the Book of Acts, documents to be used in Paul’s defense when he appealed to Cesar as a Roman citizen
Luke wrote the book ACCORDING to LUKE?!!! REALLY?!!!
Exactly what was presented.
Go back and review the full video he used a clip from.
Luke the Doctor & Historian Started off as a Critic & Saul who became Paul the Apostle was one of his Patients ...he cared about Paul and His Sanity so went out to prove the Death & Resurrection was all in his head ....his Historian background and Medical expertise found evidence that the Resurrection did occur hence the Reason for him writing his Gospel (Luke) and Helping Paul write ACTS of the Apostles 🙏 Shalom
@@JRTIGER07May I ask where you got that information from? I’m genuinely curious. I haven’t come across it in my studies
This guy is gifted with the Holy Spirit
He’s done his homework, God gave him the gift of teaching
A very powerful historical fact was instrumental in breaking down my mistrust of the New Testament, especially the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection. The forces aligned against the early disciples of Jesus were powerful and had enormous resources. Both the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy would benefit immensely if they could prove the resurrection was false. Yet despite their virtually unlimited resources and influence they could not produce a single whistleblower. All it would have taken was a single disciple of Jesus to come forward and say, "We made the whole thing up". Not only would he have cleared his conscience for perpetrating and supporting a lie, he would have been wealthy beyond his dreams and would have risen to a position of popularity with the Jewish community, which had singled him out for persecution. None of the early followers of Jesus as Messiah became wealthy or very popular for their testimony. If the resurrection had been a fabrication, anyone involved in fabricating the story, as a Jew seeking the righteousness of G-d, would have been under immense personal conviction to confess their falsehood, and expose the lie they had colluded with others to invent. By coming forward they would have restored themselves to the good graces of the Jewish leaders and community, and the story they had to tell exposing the lie, would be one of the most popular documents on the face of the earth today. Today we do not even have a hint of such a whistleblower. To the contrary, we have the story of the life of Paul of Tarsus, a man designated to produce a whistleblower, and who used force and the threat of pain of death (which he carried out Acts 8:1), in order to find anyone with testimony contrary to the narrative of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
Amazing post! I've been thinking of a much simpler part of this lately, the fact that it'd only take one person to admit it was a lie for everything to fall apart. And yes, there were strong incentives for them to do so. Also, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, they'd have no reason to believe he was the messiah anymore seeing as how he was tortured and killed. Their actions after Jesus died make no sense unless they believed with all their heart that Jesus was resurrected.
Not “believed”, but actually knew it to be a fact
One more point: the way that Mark (and based on him, Matthew) word the Olivet Discourse in contrast to Luke suggests that Mark wrote around 42/42 AD. Why?
Mark/Matthew mention the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place as a sign for believers to leave the city, while Luke talks about Jerusalem being besieged.
The latter is often used as an argument to Luke having written after 70 because the famous siege of Jerusalem happened in that year. However, Luke's description is so general that it doesn't betray knowledge of this particular siege.
Now, the Abomination of Desolation is usually considered to be a pagan idol being placed into the Temple, just as Antiochus IV did 200 years earlier. Well, no such idol was placed into the Temple until it had been destroyed. However, there was an instance when this almost happened, which would have pretty certainly have resulted in rebellion and war: Emperor Caligula (37-41) ordered his image to be placed in the Temple. This was prevented only by the governor of Syria stalling implementation and Caligula being murdered early in 41. If Mark wrote during that time or shortly after, the prominence of the Abomination would be easily explained.
Furthermore, this fits with another piece of information Church fathers mention that Mark wrote his gospel based on Peter's preaching in Rome. Several ancient sources hint at Peter first going to Rome in 42, after being freed from prison in Jerusalem. Acts mentions he was brought "to another place".
The Gospels are true!
Thank you J warner
Very good , 👍👍👍♥️👍👍👍
In respect to what I feel you are trying to convey, I respect your efforts, yet my research points much further back, however I’m not a professional legal investigator as yourself, so I respect your platform.
I was always taught that forty men over a period of 1,600 years wrote the version of the Bible that was translated into what was known as the King James original version, however doing my own research I learned that is not the case,. In the year 1,600 James Stewart commissioned apx. 47 of his scholars to write the 1,600t to 1,612 version going back from 1,568 The Queen Elizabeth- Bishops Bible. It was in Latin Catholic, and the general public wasn’t allowed to read it, or even have one. At the council of Nicaea in 325 A, D. Roman Catholic Bishops decided what would be the cannons of scripture. They took the image of Serapis away and declared Jesus as God in the flesh. They were fed up with the common wealth going back and forth, so they settled it so to speak.
It is most enlightening that the stories, and many Biblical concept teachings are in the tombs, pyramids in northeast Africa. They would have had to have been written at least a thousand years, or millennia before any ecumenical council was ever thought off.
I also found these ancient African's were very wise, advanced in every aspect I’ve studied. They knew these stories were not all true in the literal sense, yet might teach a good moral. I also learned years back they were mono ( one God ) knowing, and in their thinking, not (poly ) like many have been indoctrinated to believe.
True they used the term rain god, thunder god etc.yet when they said the God they knew of one loving awesome Creator “ God Almighty. “
What I found is the European's came into the mother land of Africa, Once there they couldn’t read these stories at first. Once it was explained to them, they stole them, made their meaning literal rather than allegory and myth, then represented them as scared writings.
This is why we have so many today saying “God said” multiple denominations, confusion, and indoctrination of not being able to question, or think for yourself. Many are told not to question or think. I do encourage your work, though we might not parallel exactly in areas.
Simple question since eye witness testimony is important for determining cannonistity and God The author himself references the book of Jasher to be referred by the readers of the authenticity of the events as described, is it not written in the book of Jasher, why do practically every biblical scholar and historian continue to speak against God on the subject
Last I heard God is not stuck inside of our conceptions of time and our insistence of discounting writings according to someone else's opinions.
If Acts was written AD 60, that is 27 years after Jesus was crucified right, cause Jesus crucified 33 AD. I never really thought of that before. SO many people think 60 or 70 AD is 70 years after Jesus died, when it is not
Jesus said
The Holy Spirit would bring back to remembrance all things, so Godly men were inspired to write down The New Covenant. Israel was The people of The Book Matthew ~ Levi was a trained tax collector. Their culture was record keeping with genealogies. So of course They were Led to write down immediately. Paul’s letters are obviously in real time and so all the letters.
Everything was written before 70 ad
Non believer scholars need to date it all after this date the destruction of The Temple because they don’t understand prophecy so it has to be historical.
People emphasize Mark's accuracy and not orderliness because of the timing of the sabbath and when the women buy spices after the crucifixion. Mark says the women went shopping after the sabbath. Luke says they went shopping before. And in order to maintain the tradition of a Friday Crucifixion, it has become convenient to throw Mark under the bus. But once we realize that in any Passover/Unleavened Bread festival that there are Sabbaths that are not Saturday Sabbaths, then the answer is as follows:
*14th Wednesday - Preparation, Passover & Crucifixion*
15th Thursday - Day 1 Unleavened: *Holiday* (Mark’s Sabbath, John’s High Sabbath)
*16th Friday - Day 2 Unleavened: Shopping Day/Spice purchase and blending*
17th Saturday - Day 3 Unleavened: *Sabbath* (Luke’s Sabbath)
18th Sunday - Day 4 Unleavened: Resurrection (Festival of First-fruits)
19th Monday - Day 5 Unleavened
20th Tuesday - Day 6 Unleavened
21st Wednesday - Day 7 Unleavened: *Holiday*
Edit: Don't throw Mark under the bus. 😀
Amen ✝️❤️🙏
Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.
Irenaeus Florinus I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.-Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1. Irenaeus who was a Greek Bing searches
Much so-called scholarship is about putting forth a new theory. Writers such as Wenham have explained in detail why the early church thought the gospels were written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Early manuscript scribal colophons tell us when they were written: 8, 10, 15 and 32 years after the ascension of Christ, respectively. I find it the height of arrogance that some academics in a university in the 20th or 21st century think they know more than Christians centuries ago. The apostle Matthew, being a tax collector, was highly trained in accurate recording, writing and languages. Luke was an extremely skilful researcher and writer. Paul had a remarkable academic pedigree, trained personally by Gamaliel. Most modern scholars aren’t a patch on these guys, whom Jesus chose to entrust with the task of recording and transmitting His message.
Paul actually received the Lord supper by divine revelation from Yeshua himself *1 Corinthians 11:23-24* 🙏 Still that doesn't disqualify all your other investigations 🙏 *Come Yeshua Ha-MaShiach* 🙏
No one scruntize any other scriptures of any other religion like they do Bibile. Why? Becouse they think there are many reasons to beleive Bibile is right.
Lord almighty, can Jim make a reasonable defense!
Well - we can't do much more, can we.
Thanks
Kind regards Kim
If the gospels were written earlier, then they were also likely written in Hebrew.
The Old Testament was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC. The New Testament was written yin Greek since it was the lingua franca of the Land of Israel, Hebrew was used for liturgical purpose just as the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin today
The gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew according to early church writings.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I have never heard this claim before. Where did you get this information? It strikes me as extremely WRONG. The vast majority of people living in Galilee and Judea spoke Aramaic or Greek. The vast majority of people in the eastern Roman empire spoke Koine Greek. To write a Gospel in Hebrew would have limited it to an extremely limited audience of educated readers... mostly scribes and pharisees. I doubt your claim is correct.
paul does not have the authority of an eye witness.. he just heard mental messages from jesus. he says.. very good job showing how the gospels could be dated..
I want you to prove that hell and or lake of fire is forever
You’ll have to go there to get your answer
Listen to d
Near death experience by people who have nothing to do with Religion ...only thing they have in Common once they Called out to JESUS he came to rescue them 🙏 PRAISE THE NAME OF JESUS 🙏
✊✊
At around 2 minutes he’s discussing how he’d evaluate witnesses in a court case and asking the question where they really there, because if they’re not then they’re disqualified as witnesses.
So the question is........ who was there to witness the 6 days that it took to make the world? I guess that disqualifies the bible right away.
Scripturally 2 or 3 witnesses are needed, YHVH is 3 Persons!
Genesis 1 & 2 is written by YHVH originally. Then Adam then other persons down to Moses who brought it together.
Yeshua was There in the Beginning *Genesis 1:1-3 / John 1:1-3 / Hebrews 1:1-3 / Colossians 1:15-18*
You say that they wanted to get the information down after they realized Jesus might not be returning. If Jesus (God) gave the impression that he was coming back 'in their lifetime', then either he was misguiding them or he was a liar!
Jesus did not say “... in their lifetime”.
Jesus didn't say in their life time ,,,,,,"this generation shall not pass away" if we stop there there's not a time limit. I'm sure many people died just between His dying on the cross and raised from the grave
Matthew 16.."their are some here who shall not taste of death until they see the son of man coming in the clouds with the Holy wngels@@Ch215t1anxyz
J Warner Wallace makes the case for early dating. However, even some conservative Evangelical scholars like Craig Keener place Luke-Acts in the 80s.
Acts had to be completed prior to Paul's death as it ends with him still alive and under house arrest....also no mention peters death...both were in 64 and 65 AD
Hence....acts written b4 64AD
Lukes gospel earlier
@@thehelpdesk4051 the temple in Jerusalem was still active and mentioned in Acts and Luke while Paul was alive, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD
Yeah given the story of Paul in Acts and the indication that the temple was still active, a date around AD 62 seems most likely.
You need to question why some come to these dates.
Premillenialnists date the book of Revelation post AD70 because if it was written pre AD70 then their entire doctrine goes out the window.
They even date it post AD70 despite the fact that the book mentions the temple being measured (which would indicate that it still existed).
Did Paul actually see Jesus? People seem to believe Paul's teaching who only had a vision of Jesus and didn't know him when he was in the flesh. Is anything Paul says credible? There were only supposed to be 12 apostles not 13.
Peter and the other apostles attest to the authenticity of Paul
Paul tells of his experience of Jesus, he was not an apostle, nobody said that he was.
@@sliglusamelius8578 You don't know your Bible very well. “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them” (Romans 11:13-14)
Paul was recognised as a reliable teacher of Jesus' gospel... even though Peter (writing in one of his epistles) admits that he finds some things that Paul says difficult to understand. Peter writes of Paul, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2Peter 3:15,16
Yeshua's ministry lasted about 14-15 months, not 3 years...
How do you figure that?
3 1/2 years
I guess you didn’t read the gospels at all lol.
He Celebrated 3 PASSOVER meals 🤦🏿♂️ they only happen once a year on 14th Nissan 🙏 Shalom
What have you been smoking, my friend? Someone slip hard drugs into your weed?
I respect his truthful investigation, and somewhat buy the dating of accounts if you take evidence of an account under question as valid for another, but when then... and then, when it came to the meat and potatoes of the whole thing you are asking me to take it as truth because early christians didnt question it?
Well well well... now ive been compelled to be a skeptic of such a proposal...how is the inactivity of an early population of christians against contradictions a case for validity of such contradictions?
Its like saying, because no german soldiers in the concentration camps decided to go against Hitlers orders of genocide, it must mean that his orders were right and true? That all these people should and deserved to die?
No... what this means is that a population of humans can be deceived to the point of no questioning of a wrong doing or false statement. Therefore the benchmark for validity of any historical act cannot lie then on “early humans (christians) and their judgment” for a case of validity, as humans can and have been found in many cases falible throughout historical genocides, political bamboozling and more.
You cant say the accounts of the canonical gospels are true because early christians didnt question their aparent contradictions. We just cant relly on humans and their falability for credibility of a historical incident.
Now we must stick with the evidence at hand to draw conclusions, and many conclusions can be had. Just because the earliest manuscripts are dated after the alleged deaths of certain “eye witnesses” (saints), it doesn’t mean that the most likely conclusion was the question of Jesus’s return... It could also mean that the story was getting too diluted and fantasizes among years of oral passing from human to human, until a “literate” one decided to put into writing at a time where most likely it had been so changed it became a “canonical gospel” and on which other “literate” person wrote another and hence the aparent contradictions. Then since hence forth in this ancient world “people who knew how to read and write” (literate) where so respected, no one questioned their writings.
So, I think the 'fantasized' writings of a 'litereate' person are exactly what the later, non-canonised gospels exemplify. Perhaps these are valuable because the provide a comparison/contrast to the true writings of the apostles, Mat, Mark, Luke and John? The comparisons actually affirm the 'trueness' of the accepted gospels.
Contrast is the mother of clarity (Oz Guiness).
You presume that there is no Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture……..forgetting in the process you are a mere mortal…..subject to future eternal judgment from a God that demands absolute perfection from you. Yu have no escape
Good analysis. Even if what you are saying is true though. We still have eyewitness accounts. Written early. And these eyewitness were willing to die for what they were saying.
Moreover, the oral traditions were very well kept - they were not passed along like the telephone game. Here is a video by William Lane Craig on the matter.
th-cam.com/video/VKudgsPT6N0/w-d-xo.html
@@nictomlin9152 Interesting, why would that affirm the 'trueness' of the accepted gospels though?