ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2022
- #bible #christianity #apologetics
Rabbi Tovia Singer makes a number of claims about the authorship of the four Gospels being anonymous that don't stand up to scrutiny.
original video • How did these four Gos...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 3 // DRX vs GEN | PRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CWM1Q-2-o3M/mqdefault.jpg)
For anyone wondering why I omitted Papias it's because there is some controversy about his attribution. I'd like to maybe someday make a separate video defending Papias.
Link to the exact Tovia Singer video.
Would be interesting to see why you think there is a controversy in his statement.
From what I know, we're not really sure what he meant by "interpreted" (translated? interpreted? ...), "Logia" (sayings? gospel narrative? ...) and "Hebrew" (Aramaic or Hebrew?), but other than that it seems clear to me that he's referring to Mark and a gospel written by Matthew in Hebrew (Aramaic?).
@@charbelbejjani5541 Hebrew Matthew is the main issue. I discuss it in my video with Stephen Boyce
It can be mentioned that Papias gives a clue the John of the Fourth Gospel could be other than the son of Zebedee. As "apostle" was not just used of the twelve, but also the seventytwo, this is not a denial of direct apostolic authorship.
Jean Colson, a Catholic priest in France, wrote l'Énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait on this topic. He argues John the Gospeller would have been a Cohen.
Truth is a bitter pill to swallow, a well crafted lie is so easy to follow.
I can’t decide if, “yeah but Constantine,” or, “what about these gnostic writings,” arguments are my favorite among nonbelievers and atheists.
I find the later to be more amusing to me as it is still used by many academics.
@@carlknaack1019 Problem with people not accepting the Church's athority to define canon.
I'd argue Jesus mythicism is even better if you are trying to determine if the person cares about truth and skepticism at all. "The canon was invented in the 4th century" is better if you want to have a chance of actually convincing people.
Hmmm. I'm a nonbeliever but I haven't gone down that road lol
@@HodgePodgeVids1 you mean the same church that has to rewrite the bible to justify its own traditions?
jehovahs witnesses are better at defining canon than catholics are
This is probably the single greatest TH-cam channel for the reliability of the New Testament that’s out there. Your grasp on the subject is both deep, and far-reaching. Bravo brother in Christ! I look forward to more!
it's great because everyone wants to believe their religion is the right one.... even if something is pointed out that is wrong you need to be told another lie to keep it alive... if someone pointed out a verse or so and that verse was against christianity..... if there is no way to counter it a mechanism is triggered... this will cause the christian to say "well what about this(other) verse or chapter, or this other chapter, or this.... instead of finishing that issue that's pointed out they move around to something else sometimes knowingly sometimes unknowingly.....for example if someone said Isaiah 7 isn't about Jesus in many ways and give a detailed answer or another example if i tell a trinitarian christian that even tho they can use verses that IMPLY God is a man.... it's impossible because God himself EXPLICITLY states he is NOT and warns not to worship him as such... you can point these verses out directly and they will find a new argument or new subject.... sometimes they stay on topic.....kind of..... but use a different chapter to try to make God a man(again another verse that can be implied) it's looks like it's just denial of truth
@@kierinsusukaii4745 UNO reverse card. You desperately want to believe that the reasons Christians believe in Christianity are ad hoc even though Christians have rational and valid reasons to believe in Christianity. In your mind: "it's heads you win, and if tails Christians lose". You will never accept defeat.
@@kierinsusukaii4745denial of truth is when Muslims and Jehova's witnesses deny the gospels proclaiming Jesus's divine nature. I'll not convince you so I suggest reading John's gospel and praying that God might show you the truth. God bless.
@@MrSeedi76 1st of all I AM NOT MUSLIM any FORM of christianity ...and nooo don't start that "you can see it but i can't" because mormons can do the same to you... notice you did exactly what i speak of and didn't even realize it... instead of a direct answer from the bible where I can go to using the words of God HIMSELF.... you instead use the "it is hidden to those with the holy spirit" ... funny the holy spirit is given to loyal christians for you yet then if that is the case he(the third person of the trinity) is another mediator...and if you can only reach God through jesus and the holy spirit then guess what if you were never christian or never heard about it you cannot hope to speak to your creator.... well I should tell you I can speak to him just fine and from what he TOLD Israel is simple....
He said to not worship ANY REPRESENTATION of ANY LIKENESS OF A MAN or woman... and to also "remember" that THEY NEVER SAW ANY IMAGE but ONLY HEARD a voice.... Deuter 4:12-16
He said directly these things to Israel... including he is not a man or to not worship him as such... and there is no other God beside him... see Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Isaiah 43:10.... these are direct answers to the common question i expect "well you are limiting God because he can be anything" ... well if God is not a liar why??? because HE SAYS IT....can he become it? No because he is not.... his word is absolute... so if he says he is not a man it's because he says it... will he become it? No because he says he is not....there is no word from God in the ENTIRE Old Testament that tells ANYONE of God coming down and becoming a "MORTAL" or a Man... for what purpose does that serve? Don't half-pray for me if you are saying God "might" show me the truth.... when i pray for someone else i pray they "receive it" it is up to God after i pray what you are doing is wiltholding a true prayer not because my disbelief in God in who you know i believe in... but withholding it because be disbelief in Jesus and the entire christian bible... so I pray you ACTUALLY READ the original testament first... no bringing characters into it who they did not know of... just read it as if it is a new book... and when you read the whole thing and finally decide to read the christian bible you should see more differences other than just jesus
@@kierinsusukaii4745 Since you claim that you follow God's words then you are perfectly with Hebrews 1:8 without putting your own non existent interpretation right? RIGHT?
Quick suggestion from a fellow creator: I like that you've clearly upgraded you setup, but I think the lighting isn't very flattering. It looks like you're lit from straight-on, but I think a light source from slightly above you and to your side would look better. The room lighting behind you is good though.
In addition, I take lots of inspiration from your meme usage. Love it!
Thanks. I'm just trying to make due with what little equipment that I got and I realize it's not fantastic looking. It's part of why I'm not on camera for long in these recent videos. But I'll try experimenting with your advice and hopefully get things looking better.
"Those in power liked it" You can't really talk about those in power in Christianity before the 300s at the absolute earliest and even then it would be a long time before anything that could be called Orthodoxy was able to enforce any sort of power.
True, even scholars like Bart Ehrman give the impression the church changed the text of the gospels at will. People then think of the almighty Roman catholic church in a Dan Brown novel and nod their heads. Sure, makes sense. What wouldn't they do to gain power.
All the while ignoring that this authority didn't exist yet.
Yeah because Christians were so powerful in the first and second centuries or something. Really? Does he not know the earliest Christians were all Jews? They had two different empires fighting them up until the 4th century and still after by the Jewish community. The Jews who wrote the gospels were the only ones seen as inspired so any other texts were disregarded from the beginning and this is proven by Paul’s statements in the epistles.
There's something I wanna bring up, something few people know is that mormons when they were in Nauvoo wrote a constitution and some of them might have seen this as the more legitimate/true consistution to replace the USA one during an era of anxiety about the USA constitution. This was in the early 1840s and the USA consistution was written in 1787 giving it a range of 50 years. On the other hand the latest authentic gospel, John was written 70s-95s while the earliest and most "legit" seeming gnostic(+ other fakes) gospel was written in 130 - 180 giving us a range of 35 to 110 years between them.
If some mormons were able to do their own independence stuff and claim their consistution was the real one and 2000 years ago we discover the same extent of literary evidence for early USA as early Christianity and early mormonism as early gnostism, in this alt-timeline would it make sense now for people to be claiming in 4000 AD that this mormon consistution lost out to the USA consistution and the Americans won out just cuz of power?. I mean, they'll be technically right but the implications would be just so, so wrong.
Simply going "they won cuz power" is the laziest version of post modern argument. Why did they have this "power" when they couldn't use force to enforce(remember that the New Testament Canon was formulated before the time of Constantine) to enforce anything? Is that the general public and learned men saw them as more legitimate than the Gnostic and Other heretical sects circulating alt Gospels?. Well, clearly that's the most sensible answer.
Your content was very helpful for me several months ago when I was working on a response to this video from Rabbi Tovia Singer. Your content has also gotten me interested in the early Church writings, and I'm starting to keep tabs on every time they quote a Gospel with a given name.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Hey testify! Quick question. Do you know if Deflate is okay? We haven't heard from him in a while.
Good question. I might reach out to him. Perhaps he's taking a break. TH-cam burnout can be a real thing, I know for myself I've tried to slow down and pace myself more.
Bruh why is every popular skeptic dying on this hill with full blown certainty? It’s really odd. Like even they were anonymous, and the evidence for that is weak to say the least, it doesn’t show that we’re unreliable when we still have writings of the fathers quoting these scriptures with authority
Even before Justin Martyr, Quadratus and his colleagues were distributing "the written text of the Divine Gospels" (Eusebius, in Church History, 3:37:2). Eusebius' unqualified reference to "gospels" is most naturally taken to refer to all four. Not only were the gospels gathered in a collection even earlier than Justin, but the example of Quadratus and his colleagues illustrates what Erik referred to in the video regarding the need for the early Christians (like Quadratus) to distinguish one gospel from another. Even by the standards of modern liberal scholarship, there would have been a need to distinguish among the gospels as early as the first century. They think Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, for example, so there would have been a need to distinguish between Mark and Matthew and Mark and Luke. The practice from the second century onward of distinguishing among the gospels by means of author names makes that means of distinguishing among them the most likely one to have existed in the first century. Continuity is more likely than discontinuity. It's unlikely that there was some other means of distinguishing among the gospels in the first century, a means that was then universally lost and universally replaced by the later means without the earlier one leaving any trace in the historical record. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who want us to think the gospels were distinguished from one another in the first century by means of something other than author names.
I mean, who in their right mind would choose "Mark" as an author of a Gospel. He's mentioned, like, twice in the NT notwithstanding his Gospel........ o.O
He's usually thought to be the amanuensis of Peter, according to the traditions, and obviously Peter would be an excellent source.
@@collybever I think he's saying that as a rebuttal to Rabbi Singer, as his claim seems to allege that the traditional authorship was added later to make the Gospels seem authoritative. The point is that, even if we do take it as Peter's Gospel via Mark as tradition holds, why would the "authorities" not simply have claimed it was the Gospel of Peter if they were trying to make the "anonymous" Gospels more impressive?
@@AzariahWolf exactly!
Tovia Singer lies as he breathes. He uses his authority as a way to fool his followers. Forgot to mention that my transition to believe in Yeshua as Messiah is partly a result of such bad Jewish arguments. I was raised Jewish, became an atheist after my bar mitzvah; then a New Ager; then a lay Buddhist; then involved in Hindu practices; then got my MA in Comp Religion from UW. I became a Christian in 2011 through apologetics, many of which answered many of the arguments of Tovia Singers and the counter-missionaries. Dr. Michael Brown helped me overcome such specifically Jewish objections to Jesus and Christianity.
I have noticed that many of their arguments against the divinity of Yeshua not based in the TANAKH they are from the Talmud.
@@brock2443 you can say Jesus. That's how the Romans and Greeks called him. Don't forget Christianity conquered Rome.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard
And Yeshua is his original name he got in Hebrew, so it doesn't really matter, he can use whatever he'd like
Dude good on you, that journey must’ve been a long one lol.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard A lot of ethnic Jews use the Jewish name for Jesus in order to confirm him specifically as the Jewish Messiah. Particularly with the way Orthodox Jews look at Jesus, it's actually kind of a brave thing to do.
Anullimg the authorship and authenticty of the New Testament is like saying. Hey the Torrah isn't authenticly written because Moses didn't actually compile all the first5 books. The comparison holds that oral tradition credits Moses as the author and he did write those books. Likewise, the N.T authors wrote theirs as well!
This just goes to show that a nice hairdo does a lot for a bad message.
I like how well you present yourself; you present the facts and arguments, but you don't show it through hate or a sense of superiority. This is a small but important thing I love to see. We as Christians are to present ourselves in a loving Jesus like way and ridiculing our opponents isn't going to do any good.
Can you respond to the statement he made where he says an area in Matthew is a "filation of texts".
Can you do a video on the "Nothing Fails like the Bible History" series?
It's been a while since I've watched it. If it's NT stuff, I feel equipped to answer it. I'm still studying OT issues.
@@TestifyApologetics It have OT and NT stuff, I will be very happy if you make a video on it!!!
Trent Horn has already done some great rebuttals to some the videos of this series. Check out his channel "Council of Trent" and you should easaly find them.
Be blessed!
@@danielvinzent2520 Oh yeah I've seen those, but it will be good if testify make a video on it too!
Merry Christmas, Testify!
Tovia also likes to claim that blood atonement was not that big a deal in the OT. The Torah disagrees with him
I would imagine he’d have to as they cannot be performed today
@Methodius of Thessaloniki Two Powers in Heaven
BY
ALAN SEGAL. a former Professor of Rabbinics at Brandies University does explain that difference.
@@spazomazmodern day Judaism developed at the same time as Christianity and often in direct opposition against it. Some interpretations of OT texts were even changed, for example Isaiah 53. The modern rabbis evolved from the school of the pharisees since the temple was destroyed and sacrifices no longer possible. Not sure there is some "quick proof" for all that. You'd have to read a book about it.
I learned a long time ago, that when someone's eyes look to the side when he is talking, he is not being truthful. Hence the term "shifty eyed"
What Rabbi Tovia Singer says about, "Close Encounter's of the God Kind," the name's in English that Jesse saw written on those foundation stone's in heaven
Rabbi Singer write's on the jasper wall with a pencil, "this place is a f---ing joke!"
I've always found Tovias strong rejection of traditional authorship a tad strange in light of his Judaism. It would be one thing if he was a more liberal Jewish thinker but based off of what I've heard him say he seems to accept traditional authorship of the Old Testament books which have far, far less evidence and attestation than the New Testament gospels.
Maybe he has some explanation that I've missed, but if not this seems to be a major inconsistency.
Exactly what I've been thinking this whole time, he's totally inconsistent.
Funny how so many people will expect a Talmudic jew to be honest about the Bible, especially given the Talmudic teachings on what it's ok to do to Christians.
@@arspsychologia4401 Absolutely correct, but let's not limit it to just the talmud. The secular jew follows the anti-gentile beliefs just as much as the religious jew, it's part of their racial ethos.
Methodius of Thessoloniki Where in the Talmud does it say that Jewish people are allowed to lie to Gentiles? Could you provide a reference?
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but especially since the Ten Commandments prohibit bearing false witness, as well as because this is being presented in a TH-cam comment section where some others are using the words of one person to denounce an entire race / ethnicity of people, I’m going to need a little more evidence.
Or at least to read the supposed Talmudic reference in context myself and to research it thoroughly rather than trusting in a secondhand source on the internet.
Another crucial fact is that the Gospel's weren't simply found. As they were written, they were copied and distributed extensively. The sheer number of copies that we have from the early second century is an indicator. Also, as per Acts, the Apostles traveled and wrote extensively, so it is natural that the Gospels and Epistles would be widely distributed.
Singer, another darling of the muslim
No the guy is an Orthodox Jew, he just respects Islam because it is pure Monotheism.
Islam however falls apart whenever he defends the preservation of the Torah
@@andrewrogers3067 Much like Bart Ehrman. Muslims love him as long as he says what they like.
@@andrewrogers3067 its pure monotheism as long as you don't mind Allah being completely reliant on Jibreel to send his recitations, having Mohammed insert himself into the Shahada, being Akbar (greater) than the other 360 idols in the Kaaba, having 3 daughters Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, sending out prophets in the name of another God 'Yah', having the black stone as intercession for sins, having revelation from Satan according to multiple sources...other than that its pure paganism.....errrr.... I mean monotheism
@@John_Six_Twenty-Nine
In islam muhammad is a partner of allah
@@John_Six_Twenty-Nine In my opinion it's quite obvious he's using muslims to side agains Christianity with him.
Its not possible to listen to that guy for more than 30 seconds. He's done no research; he's just trying to remember what to say as he runs one trying desperately to not allow the listener enough space to think about what he's saying.
Singer is as terrified of Dr Michael Brown as Digital Hammur is of Dr Falk
@StPaul Projection is not an argument. And why do you bear the name of St Paul if you're a nonbeliever? Another trait of a bad faith actor
Yay! Purple Pill Philosophy is here.
@@ElliottWong2024 Bring out the champagne
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 Where's your evidence for that assertion?
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 Projection is not an argument. Try again
You can put the series into a playlist for easy access 🤠
6:38 Paul, Luke, Barnabas and ...? Who was the fourth?
I already knew Sts Paul and Luke ... ah, wait, Clement _of_ Rome! I heard Clematorome! (Sometimes subtitles serve a purpose).
Love your channel brother
Thank GOD for your channel, I love how you break things down, may GOD continue to bless you brother!
Wouldn't it be much more convincing if there was only the Gospel of John? It has pretty much everything in it - the incarnation Christology, Jesus' divine claims, Jesus as the Passover lamb, lots of appearances to the disciples, you name it. Now, it doesn't have a virgin birth story but that makes more sense if Jesus really was pre-existing and he just manifested himself in human form as an adult. Wait... but without human parents, he can't descend from David and qualify for massiaship...It's a mess of contradictions. A single, carefully written gospel would be far more convincing but the desire to have 4 pillars of scripture like the 4 corners of the world pretty much gave us a collection of 4 accounts that certainly are contradicting each other on several key points under scrutiny. Also, writing in 1st person would help a lot too. If Paul could do it, why not the authors of the Gospels if they really were eyewitnesses. When the salvation of the world depends on the convincing power of the good news, that's not the time for modesty and writing in 3rd person. Unless, of course, the accounts are all hearsay which they are. Even according to the Church tradition, only two of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses - Mathew and John. Mark is allegedly a companion of Peter, so his word is hearsay - Mark himself did not see the risen Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, is said to be a companion of Paul and neither of them was a disciples of Jesus. Paul never knew Jesus personally and his experience ok the road to Damascus happened years after Jesus was said to have ascended, so Paul clearly had a vision did not see a bodily risen Jesus. So, we only have Mathew and John but then the two of them have very different views of Jesus, his teachings and his divinity. These accounts are irreconcilable to such a degree that they cannot be written by people who were both Jesus' disciples. Lastly, it is highly unlikely that the disciples could read and write in Koine Greek. In reality, in the entire New Testament there is only one 1st hand eyewitnesses account - that of Paul - and it is not an account of a bodily risen Jesus. Paul's experience was visionary.
"Singer is a joke" should be every title in response to him. Dr Michael Brown is one who's completed destroyed all of Singer's claims.
What always puzzled me about the new testament what did Jesus write and according to the new testament jesus says he came for the lost sheep of the house off Israel but it was written in Greek if according to Jesus people he has always been their form the beginning where is the Greek language in the beginning of the holy Torah can you please help me understand 👍👍
Gospel of Cue, Gospel of mary, gospel of thomas.
None of the authors lived during the live time of jesus. It was Roman who decided which books were be call a bible.
Maybe there is still hope for Tovia Singer, seems like he still blush when he lie...
I like your video but some Scholars agree that Justin martyred lied about Christianity in some way.
Rabbi Singer is a well informed and logical man. I am yet to see you actually refute his claims on doctrine with hermanutically sound reasoning from Tanakh.
Your nit picking at meaningless fluff to denounce the Rabbi as a whole as opposed to challenging his teachings of G-d. His claims of the fpur gospels acceptance is as you put it, open to debate. But your earlier references to Justin Martyr dpnt prove what your claiming. It suggests in one area a form was practiced, and what apostles writings being adressed are not referenced to. As well, different communities had varying access, so the point the Rabbi made was technically true as he is addressing the accepted cannonization of the four gospel accounts without the others.
As for names of Gospels. You said the naming of the gospels mid second century. Thus you proved the Rabbi's point. The authors are unknown.
1st and foremost when arguing and debating about the Bible and it's authenticity while ignoring the fact that English as a languange wasn't event in existence for at least another 1000 years plus from the time of Jesus is the most mind bogling thing ever to me.. Even Jesus Christ as a name did not exist untill untill the Tyndale's Bible wich preceed the King James Bibble that Tyndle and scribes working for him translating them from then Latin Translation.. They deliberately translated it in an old form of English that outdate the current spoken English at the time to have the feeling of revealation credibility.. They also had translated even the name of biblical characters into English sounding names for example the Aramaic name Yeshua into Jesus and the Greek word for messiah; kristos into Christ.. How can you claimed that it is authentic when you don't event get the so called authors name correctly.. It would be more sensible if these names were Greek sounding or Latin sounding because it was the lingua franca at the time of Jesus although a Jewish sounding name would be more realistic.. As a name in general Mathew, Mark, Luke, Peter, John or Marry was not arround untill at least 1000 years later.. Even Justin Martyr original name was not Justin.. It was Loustinous.. Why do you keep translating peoples name and then claim it is authentic.. Do you even know what the word authentic even mean?
The problem with the people who pushed "the gospels are totally anonymous" and "we don't know who are the writers are". It used as pushed all sort of conspiratorial messages about the gospels. When they are far more benign reasons for their anonymity.
Papias already proves the Authorship of Mark and Matthew.
In examples like your first one where you say Singer said the Gospel of Peter almost made it into the NT, it would work better if you played him saying that.
In fairness he may have meant to say The Apocalypse of Peter.
An article by Jimmy Akin in Catholic Answers, Books That Almost Made It into the Bible, he lists The Apoc of Peter as one of them.
Who thought it was Scripture: Around 200, Clement of Alexandria referred to the “Apocalypse of Peter ”as Scripture (Eclogae Propheticae 41) and attributes it to Peter (48-49).
The Muratorian Fragment, an early work dated between the late 2nd and the 4th c., accepts the Apocs of John (i.e., the book of Rev) and Peter as Scripture,
Why they thought it was Scripture: It is an early work claiming to preserve the words of St. Peter.
Just wanted to add, in the first video in the series, he does play him saying that Peter almost make it into the canon :)
Great video!!
Tovia singer wrong about the gospels and it seems everything else too
Hey Testify!
I heard that hebrews copied the Leviathan from Jormungandr from norse teology and Typhon from the greek mythology, what do you think about it.
Excuse me but wwwwwwwwhaaat? Have these people read Hebrews? It's probably the most Jewish book in the NT. That's just ridiculous.
That would be a polemic against these other religions and not an endorsement of them.
Leviathan by other similar names is a figure deeply rooted in Akkadian and Sumerian texts. Both the Bible and those texts describe it as a fantastic beast having the form of a serpent with many heads that breathes fire.
This is very different from anything in Norse mythology.
Also, the oldest copies of Norse mythology are way way way younger than our oldest copies of the Bible which is younger than the Sumerian texts. So... No. It would be somewhat more plausible that the Norse got their idea of jormungandr from their interactions with Arabs in the early middle ages who still told stories of their mythological serpents. But that's far from certain.
@@TestifyApologetics Sorry, for Hebrews, I didnt meant the book, but the jews people and their concept of Leviathan 😅
@@vedinthorn sounds plausible
As explained at the end, similar arguments to those of Rabbi Tovia Singer are advanced by many critics. But, as they say, if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it. And so it goes with gospel authorship. The same old arguments are regurgitated again and again.
thanks bro!
Dear Testify, I'm asking you (humbly), to please consider that Torah is God's 1st and only Word, which the prophets agreed with, and to listen long and hard to it... and to listen humbly, even if you disagree on some points with Rabbi Singer. He has always said to check things out and has admitted he can make mistakes... So, he may be wrong on some points, OR, you may differ because of all the doctrine in your head shouts otherwise, but the most important issues about Messiah, he is right about. Hear me out, please! If NT & church theology doesn't agree with Torah, then NT & church theology is a fraud. Only when we take Torah as truly authoritative and meditate on it day & night (Josh.1:8; Ps.1), and NT as commentary on it, can we begin to get church doctrines out of our head and God's Hebrew-mindset into our head; when we're prepared to question the correctness of the commentary, only then can we begin to see that Paul has totally twisted it in so many places, e.g., Deut.32:21, 27-43 by only quoting two (nice) lines of it in Rom.10-12. THIS is the GAME-CHANGER: it would be best to meditate deep & long on ALL these verses, not just Paul's two lines that he quotes. And then meditate on esp Deut.32:31. This is serious stuff, and should not be ignored!!! Paul has also misquoted Isa.65:1-2 which Isaiah spoke BOTH verses for Israel (Paul has quoted the rebuke for Israel, and the blessing for the M'shychyym). And Deut.30:11-20, there, and also in 2 Cor.3. He has lied about why Moses covered his face! Christianity is the capsized & sinking version of Judaism. Once you've seen particularly Deut.32:31, you should have some serious questions that need answering, like, is Paul correct or incorrect. Either way, Paul has twisted sacred texts, so he's a fraud! However, either way: is there any other "no-nation" enemy of Israel that has done incredible harm to Israel, beside the M'shychyym? No! The church and all her children are a "no-nation"!!! Babylon was a nation, also Syria! Jer.41-44 lets us in on this, when Jeremiah tells those Jews who refuse to stop worshipping the Mother-and-child Queen-of-Heaven religion, and refuse to not go to Egypt, that they will cease to be the nation (of Israel), i.e., they will be "no-nation", and very few would return. Research who continued to worship Queen-of-heaven, which apparitions as many others, e.g., Fatima, etc. NOTE: this prophecy doesn't apply to every Jews that went at other times to Egypt, who remained faithful to YHVH, but only to those Jeremiah was addressing which later joined (many groups of Greek-thinkers) and formed "the church". Also, you may ask: how is it that Paul, and I, have had incredible experiences with Jesus? The many religions that have been started and sustained on "experiences", plus 1 Kings 22 & Job 1, and even Num.22-25, should all give you the answers you need. Once you start house-cleaning, you'll begin seeing that Jesus has also subtly twisted Scripture, e.g., in the way he maligns the older son (Judah) while just rushing the prodigal home without any testing (NOTE: even Yosef tested his brothers for repentance, to make sure they'd converted their hearts, before revealing himself to them!).; rather, the entire Tanakh speaks highly of the older son Suffering Servant, Yehudah, after whom Jews are called. Also, Jesus says he came to bring a sword into families, while this is totally not what will happen when the end times, human, yes human (see Ezek.45:22; 46:16, 18 without spiritualizing it, i.e., read it with exegesis, plain reading, not eisegesis) Messiah (anointed king of Israel) comes (see last verses of Malachi). There are many more, but are you ready for them? Messiah can NEVER be God. Even the "virgin birth" proves Jesus is not Messiah! Jesus has taken the attention off himself being false Messiah, by telling us to beware false Messiahs? We think, "Oh how kind! He must be true Messiah. & God.. just because he says he is!" Christianity is THE MOST deceptive religion! I thank God every day that I have finally come out of it after 40 years of seeking because I could see things don't match up! If that's all too much for you, you may need to start by seeing how Paul treats the pillars of the church after being graciously accepted in because of Barnabas' kindness, in Gal.1-2 knit together with Acts 9-11... he immediately maligns them and pushes his anti-circumcision rant, while gossiping to the Galatians in order to boost his own ministry of "freedom". Huh? Ps.119:45 says obedience to Torah brings freedom. Even James 1:25 & 2:12 agrees! However, poor James was totally overpowered by Paul and later changed his stance!!! And further in Acts 15 (all of it), and how he/they argue with Pharisee-M'shychyym, and defend their position to the courts by saying (in vs.21) that their converts will learn Torah fully at synagogue on Shabbatot, because they know this is a legal Torah requirement. Only the ordained Elders can declare what is Canon, and who is converted (see Deut.17:8-13). Paul then goes on to fight with Barnabas about a trivial matter. Then he circumcises Timothy (Acts 16:3) "because of the Jews", this after condemning Peter just for getting up and going over to talk &/or explain to James' men (the circumcision group)?! Then they all begin teaching outside of synagogue (18:7; 19:9), so they lied in 15:21. All this while telling women co-workers to get along (Phil.4:2) (he had mostly women and young men for co-workers... you can wonder why). Further, he lays off his religious learning in Phil.3 publically, but suddenly he needs it back again to get out of a court case in Acts 23:8. Sorry, but Paul is a hypocrite. When you see this, perhaps you'll be willing to see the rest of Deut.32 that he purposefully doesn't tell you about... it applies to M'shychyym, so they best read it, carefully. Shalom, I hope you find Truth.
Tovia is just parroting bart ehrman 😂😂
The website at 2:52, what is it?
Good question. It's www.ntcanon.org/
Well what can I say. The fact that there are millions of Jews who worship JESUS CHRIST keeps the Rabbi awake at night and I feel so sorry for him. He is missing out on the goodness he can enjoy being joint heirs with Jesus Christ. Every time Tovia denies JESUS CHRIST, he just puts a nail in his own coffin. ✝️♥️🙏👍🤗✝️
Tivia remind me of the Pheresis
So they canonized the books which had been around since the 1st generation and already well accepted by the church. And they didn't throw in late arriving books many of which did not fit with Christian belief. Sounds more like common sense than a "power show". If these guys were so powerful and dishonest they would've written their own gospels to promote themselves instead. Messiah was expected during Jesus time and nobody else filled those shoes, but He came that time as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, and next time (soon) to rule all nations. All attempts to discredit the canon won't change the fact that Jesus is Lord.
You need a million subs!
2:10 was Irenaeus an Orthodox heresy hunter in the sense that he was a Orthodox christian, or a non-Orthodox christian hunting down heretics (i.e. Orthodox believers)?
He was Orthodox
Why is Jeremiah far longer in the Masoretic text as opposed to the Septuagint? By what standard are we to accept that version over more ancient readings that agree with the Septuagint? This argument of his applies just as much to him. Tovia will use scholarly arguments to argue against the New Testament but refuses to use that same standard on his own position.
This will not be the first time for him, I'm sure.
Tovia Singer = Revelation 2:9
I don't care if Dan Marino wrote the gospels. I just want to stay out of burning in hell for eternity. That's all that matters.
You can very easily ! It's called repenting and who is Dan Marino 🏈
Tovia Singer is wrong about a lot of stuff😂
😂😂😂😂
The four gospels "obviously" existed in the first century? On what are you basing this assertion?
I don't have access to Hengel's book, and I'm not dropping $75 on one to refute a TH-camr. But from the reviews I can find online, he seems to be asserting that because the "gospel according to xxx" appeared later, it must have also appeared earlier. If he makes a better case than this, I'd love to hear the argument. I know you know, Testify, but your readers might be unaware that we have Papyrus 52 from the 2nd century, dated 125-175 CE, and that's it for gospel fragments before the 3rd century. And papyrus 52 is a credit-card sized fragment of the gospel of John. So whatever Hengel's case is, it's an extrapolation of later manuscripts into assumptions about earlier manuscripts.
There were some early 3rd century writers who were disputing Hebrews having been written by Paul, but Papyrus 46 is early 3rd century, is a codex of Pauline works, and it includes Hebrews. So this dispute does not appear to have extended to the titles of the works, and was instead confined to scholarly debate.
Your listed witnesses include Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, The Muratorian fragment, and Tatian. We all agree that Irenaeus lists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 180 CE.
* Tertullian's writings are difficult to date, but we can nail down the pertinent one, his work against Marcion. It's dated 208 CE, and it's his third work.
* Clement's surviving works are dated to 195-203 CE. He wasn't even born until 150 CE.
* The Muratorian fragment has been dated from anywhere from 170 CE to 4th century CE. Even if one granted that Greek was still the dominant language of the church at the time it was written (it's in Latin but appears it could be a translation), it's still fair to date it as late as 200 CE.
* Tatian's Diatessaron combines the four gospels, but does not mention Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by name. This was about 160-175 CE.
So no, you don't have a mid-second century consensus on authorship. You have a moderately late 2nd century assertion by Irenaeus, with nobody preceding him and everybody following him using the canonical names.
- Ignatius, who died anywhere from 108-140 CE depending on the source, quoted Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (It has been claimed that he quoted John, but the passage in Philadelphians 7 being a "quote" of John 3:8 requires a LOT of squinting and hand-waving.) In any case, he never mentions the authors by name.
- Justin Martyr, who wrote in the 150s, quoted but didn't mention by name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, instead referring to the works as "memoirs of the apostles." Tatian was supposed to be his follower, who also didn't mention Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by name.
- Papias was supposed to have identified Matthew and Mark, but he identified Matthew as a sayings gospel written in Hebrew, when our Matthew is a narrative gospel written in Greek. Plus, we only have this attribution at all because of quotes from Eusebius in the 4th century. Irenaeus quotes Papias, but not this assertion. His description of Mark could arguably fit our current Mark, but not definitely. His description of Judas completely contradicts Matthew's and Acts's narratives.
- Polycarp writes in the first half of the second century, and quotes but never names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
It's not possible to demonstrate that the gospels even existed until the second century, and not possible to demonstrate they were named until 180 CE.
I don't have a problem at all with Mark in fact having been written by Mark or Luke by Luke; I just don't believe those are in any way necessarily or even likely true. The content and style of John are not incompatible with an apostle John, but the date is too late for this to be feasible. Matthew clearly did not write Matthew, no matter when it was written. He copies 56% of his gospel verbatim from a non-eyewitness, including the story of how Jesus met Matthew, where about the only thing he changed was the name "Levi" to "Matthew." We don't even have any indication that the tax collector Matthew in that story was the apostle Matthew, as most of the apostles were just names on a list, and more than one person is allowed to have the name "Matthew." There are also multiple Johns, Philips, Jameses, and Simons.
Also, I'm not saying that Singer was right about any alternate gospel being a likely candidate, and especially not the gospel of Peter. Other books were, such as Clements or the *apocalypse* of Peter.
Thanks for this!
Tovia is well known Liar
That’s because he doesn’t know Christianity doesn’t start from the Bible. It starts with the church.
Seriously, the Trinity comes from the Two Powers in Heaven Jewish theology that Jesus ; the Apostles including Paul taught from their Hebrew context.
Christianity is from this Theology that Rabbinic Judaism rejected in the 2nd century AD.
Nice refutation of what is honestly a tired, weak argument by this point.
Wouldn't these kinds of bad arguments be even easier to make against the Tanak than the New Testament? 🤔
My favourite thing about this argument Singer uses is that it is conjecture masquerading as history.
I think the reason Singer is so popular with skeptics is the authority he exhibits.
While the arguments he presents aren't really any more nuanced or researched in some cases than your average internet atheist, as a rabbi, he can be presented as an authority on Jewish belief and how it "doesn't fit" with Christianity. His bold (and often baseless) assertions about the formation and beliefs of early Christianity can be taken at face value by skeptics and even lay people because, "he's a Jewish rabbi, if he thinks Jewaism precludes Christianity, clearly he knows what he's talking about."
I blocked Singer's channel a long time ago, i don't entertain nonsense 🙄
Wonder of Tovia thinks Moses actually wrote the Torah. Seems weird he'd embrace liberalism when it comes to Christianity but not for Judaism. What it is the law said about using equal weights and measures?
Rabbi tovia singer has never heard the voice of Jesus Christ to follow him and even belong to him .....
We don't really know that the gospels originated in it's current form in the first century. Gospels were edited and we don't know to what extend things were added and omitted before they were authorised to be part of the New Testament. Only because we have tiny fragments of some gospels from the first and second century does not mean that they would have included everything that were part of the authorised copies commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. That passages were modified throughout history is a known fact. There was never a strict method to ensure the correctness in translation like that of the Masoretic method that preserved the Old Testament scriptures. The idea that the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and therefore did not use his powerful status to influence the development of the New Testament is a very naive and silly one. A Roman Emperor would never have allowed anything that would be damaging to the Roman reputation. It's therefore not surprising for example that Pilate was portrayed as being very reluctant to crucify Jesus and that the blame was passed on to the Jews, even to the point that Jesus is reported as saying that Pilate would have no power in this matter. Pilate was even made a saint in some churches, can it get even more ridiculous? The church needs to reconsider it's ideas of the infallibility of the New Testament. Rabbi Tovia Singer rightfully points out the many contradictions and problems with the New Testament. Christians don't like it because they have made an Idol of the New Testament, elevating it over the Torah and God Himself.
Love this series!
Jesus Is King.!!! Jesus Loves You❤.!!! John 14:6
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me..!!! Follow Jesus Take The Narrow Path.!!!!!!!!😊
I can’t imagine Tovia Singer really believes some of the things he claims, and I’m glad to see more channels like yours dissecting and tearing down his arguments. He has far too long preyed on the ignorance of his followers and unprepared Christians.
While I do have respect for Rabbi Singer, and think he has good arguments against Christianity (his two best are that Paul wouldn’t have had the authority or reason to prosecute Christian never mind in places that weren’t Jewish and the argument that Jesus couldn’t be from the line of David if he was born from a virgin. He is however very fundamentalist and holds to such a fundamentalist mindset to the point of being a new earth creationist. Not that it weakens any of his arguments, once you see how he aliens with Answers in Genesis, with his views on scripture do raise a red flag
The issue with Paul may have had something to do with his Roman Citizenship. He may have had the authority to track down those that elevated a messiah and threatened the empire. For Saul, it was for religious reason, but sold to the Romans as tamping down an uprising.
The purpose of Paul does seem to have been to the synagogues in Damascus. Now does not Tovia know that sometimes religious groups are allowed to "deal with their own" in some governmental arrangements, e.g the Ottomans allowed christians and Jews to be self-governing religiously ? The ancient Persians also let the Jews who had returned a lot of this limited self-rule. This can work well for a local ruler, such that they don't have annoying issues to sort out, as far as real power is not challenged. Also zeal can drive people into things that won't quite work and are pushing good will, yet they will follow that zeal, and start out to do those things. There may be have been some political bargaining as well, as in the local ruler put in place by the Romans as a figurehead with limited power, may have gained by assisting the religious establishment in Jerusalem, it could be useful, that kind of thing often happens.
@@collybever And Paul earned the right to be a Roman citizen somehow. Could this have been how?
@@chrisazure1624 Paul was Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:28), though I don't know anything about the details of how that worked in the Roman Empire at that time.
the first mention of the book of john was in the 2nd century and we know of possibly four authors which were proposed: cerinthus, then Irenaeus claimed John wrote it (not specifing which one but possibly the apostle), Polycrates of Ephesus claimed it was a John who was a temple priest and died in Ephesus, which means he is not John the apostle, and the Anti Marcionite prologues to the gospels (Possibly from the 2nd century) claims it was dictated by a John who was alive in year 140 so again, not the apostle John. Thats just one book to keep it brief but your claim the titles were completely unanimously given is warped to a fit an apologist narrative, once u try to peddle an agenda youre probably going to end up twisting some facts
The anti-Marcionite prologue doesn't claim that John was alive in 140, it claims that John was alive during the time of Marcion. Big difference, becaus the author may just have been confused about Marcion's date rather than John. Looks like it's you who's peddling the agenda here.
@@JM-jj3eg I said possibly four authors bc I’m open to correction. I can’t speak to whether the author confused marcion’s time period but granting that I don’t see how you can characterize me as peddling an agenda when three out of my four points were correct
@D since Marcion was born in 85 AD and John’s gospel was published from 90-100 AD, technically it would indeed have been published in the time of Marcion. 😉
@@OrthodoxInquiry yeah and marcion would be 15 and I believe he would not be a theologian then haha
Rabbi of the strawman, consistently
He wasn’t wrong
Who cares if he's "wrong" about name origins?
His verified quotes and teachings from the real Bible/Old Testament/Tanakh, eviscerate Christianity
Simultaneous belief in Christianity (Judaism 2.0) and the Old Testament/Tenakh, is impressive mental gymnastics.
As Christian leaders believe 100% of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is clear, when Christ/Messiah comes,
1- He will not be divine
2 - The entire world will worship God, and know he is the only true God.
One God, not split into three parts, or gods.
3 - No other entity/being/person, can take the sins away of another without true repentance, and good acts.
Scapegoating has no validity with God.
God forgives, directly, no belief of, or in, a savior required.
True remorse, and then acts of repentance are required.
Mere belief in God, a hybrid god/man, or "Savior", doesn't cut it.
Nor is the motherload of vileness supported in Tenakh, human sacrifice.
Yet Christianity teaches:
"Sacrificed for you...a fully human/fully divine being, just believe in him, and all your sins are forgiven"
There is absolutely nothing like the above supported in the Hebrew text.
This classic scapegoating of Paganism, and also modalism, both rejected by the Old Testament:
Modalism example:
I'm a brother, son, and father, just like the Trinity, 3 people in one person.
37th chapter of the Book of Ezekiel.
This prophet, again in which Christians claim 100% validity,
clearly teaches that we can recognize the coming of the Messiah when ALL of the following take place:
Resurrection of the dead
Building of the final Temple that will stand forever in Jerusalem
Universal knowledge of God, and obedience to God are attained
Return of the lost tribes (the Northern Kingdom of Israel whom Assyria carried off)
None of the above happened 2000 years ago/ Jesus fulfilled no prophecies
Result?
Church leaders after the year 100 invented
..."Jesus, The Return" aka The Second Coming.
And a few hundred years after that,
they invented the Trinity at the Council of Nicea in the year 325.
Bottom line:
Mainstream Christianity is Paganism/idol worship.
No problem, have at it.
Thor, Zeus, Indian gods, the three Christian gods (ah, and praying to dead men and women too aka Saints, as Catholics do)
,..whatever floats one's boat....and leads one to respect oneself and others.
Christian leaders reversed engineered their teachings to fit Old Testament
...via a mix of deliberate deceptions,
such as changing clearly past tense phrases in Hebrew to future tense in translations into Greek, English, etc,
mistaken translations, and deliberate misinterpretations.
"Who cares if he's wrong about some things. He's definitely, definitely right about the other things."
Why is it that believers are always defending their god on behalf of their god?
1. Their god never DEFENDS him/herself.
Believeers are always speaking on behalf of their god.
2. Their god never SPEAKS out
Believers hear and listen to what "antis" are saying about them, their religion and their god.
3. Their god never HEARS nor LISTENS.
Believers would do anything to keep their religion on course, they would write evangelions by the "inspiration" of their god
4. Their god never DOES nor WRITES anything with his/her own hand.
Believers can smell their god in the books of another religion.
5. Their god never SMELLS odour nor fragrance.
Believers would SHOW UP at forums, speeches, debates, all nights, churches, mosques and temples.
6. Their god never SHOWS UP.
Their god DIES, ressurects and conviniently only some fishy individuals would see that ghost. That god could not haunt nor scare a single roman soldier for nailing him.
7. A DEAD god.
That god has the power to cause world flood, has the ability to cause fire to burn sodom and gomorrah to the ground, but needs the complete help of his/her "chosen" people to punish jericho..........
IS IT BECAUSE THAT GOD IS JUST ANOTHER PAGAN IDOL?
The definition of a pagan idol can be found here>>>>>Psalm 115 :5-8. Check and compare. Peace and love.
Tovia literally looks like a movie villain 👀
@@martyfromnebraska1045 lets not be racist
Great video!