Is the New Testament Really Historically Accurate? W Trent Horn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- In this clip, Trent examines internal indications, and archaeological background that shows the New Testament is probably a historically credible document.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodwo... (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mat...
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #18...
⭐ Trent's Podcast Website: / counseloftrent
Trent's TH-cam Channel: / trhorn100
Trent's Bibliography: www.amazon.com...
Catholic Answers Site: www.catholic.com/
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
Justin Martyrs conversion is a good source and how he describes the early Christians for proclaiming Christ as lord is inspiring.
It cannot get any more accurate. Amen
Dr. Michael Kruger has an excellent book, “Canon Revisited,” which does a great job explaining why we can trust the 27 book NT is complete. It is not an easy read, but it is objective and does not use circular argumentation.
Everything I believe in regards to faith is based on one thing: Holy Mother Church says so. The Bible was compiled/canonized by the Church. It is the one Christian entity that has been around since 33 AD. Why do I believe in the Church? Miracles. Perhaps it's a flawed view, but it is mine.
One might choose more obscure people to attribute because it’s easier to pass off as authentic.
If you attribute something to a well known figure, the quick question comes up “why haven’t we heard of it before?”
Just playing devils advocate.
The real question is why do non Jews believe the Old Testament. The new seems very believable compared to the old imo
Great video and discussion. I agree with you. I do believe that Jesus did exist and he did perform miracles and he did rise from the dead. But I do understand that it is truly unknown. But I think believers can be skeptical of things too. I think you should look more into Josephus, he got many perspectives from different people about Jesus.
There's an ad for me about discovering Buddhism? I think you should be careful who can put an ad on your video (if you can do that).
Unfortunately they don't have any control over what ads play over their video. It's TH-cam's algorithm that controls it.
Ah the algorithm, the blind judge of economy on TH-cam.
I get “Law of Attraction” and yoga ads usually. The youtube ad algorithm must be seeing all the Steven Bancarz I watch and taking it the wrong way lol
hey I don't see you drinking a lot !
Further...why do we believe the Old Testaments were reliable? Were they viewed as inerrant by the Jews/Apostles? How did they know?
The dead Sea Scrolls prove that the transmission of Old Testament Scripture over the ages has been remarkably accurate
@@FlamSalad Right. Good.
Okay, so are you saying that the Jews and Apostles believed OT Scripture was inspired and inerrant? If so, how did they know, or was it just blind faith?
They didn't have a Teaching Magesterium or a promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth, so how did they know the OT wasn't just a bunch of conveniently made up stories to privilege them/excuse their killing and land grabs (like Islam--people can be deceived sincerely)?
Workin4 ALivin' I don’t claim to know the answer to this question but i wouldn’t be so quick to assume that just because there’s no writing of the Holy Spirit saying “I will guide you into all truths” that it wasn’t guiding them. Jesus himself didn’t come to say that the Torah was wrong but transform and fulfill it. One interesting concept I’ve heard is that the NT reveals the OT and the OT reveals the NT. But of course faith is definitely required and before there was the Torah I’m sure a lot of what is written is known through oral tradition. Unfortunately, we will never know somethings for sure for sure.
It’s up to you. You can believe that the Bible is inspired or not. There’s no way to scientifically or historically or physically prove it.
@@amyj4283 Well said. I agree with you, but it's not a very satisfying answer, apolegetically speaking.
Workin4 ALivin' yeah I understand. Wished I were able to answer it though!
Yes, they are historically accurate.
Could have been Nero did all three. Remember the concept of three people eye witnessing an auto accident & conflicting recollections.
He could have started the fire and been at the tower, but he culd not have been away from the City...
@@skwills1629 Depending on what the time frame of events were. He could have started the fire, went to the tower then left the city while the fire still raged.
Thanx... I love it
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What silly contrivance.
Acts 5:35-37 is proof of inaccuracy. So many others to add but only one is needed.
1. Acts 5:35-37 is in accordance with josephus. If it is considered to be a false thing, lets think: there are 2 accounts were from that time testify to be so, and all of sudden we who live thousands of years later are more credible? There is no settled matter in learning ancient history.
2. I dont get the notion of "1 accuracy is enough". Enough for what? To prove the whole is wrong? Lmao. Sounds not so academic at all lol.
If the new testament is reliable and Jesus was resurected by God, I connot see how we should not conclude the same about Elvis. He was seen by several people after his death!
good for him
Was Elvis the Messiah?
@@spanellaful IDK, but at least we kow Elvis existed🤣
@@NoAcehere Is Julius Caesar existed?
@@spanellaful I am not sure. I am not a historian and have not looked at the sources.
The main point in the history classes I have taken is to be critical of the sources you use to make a claim.
He is totally misrepresented the evidence for Apollonius. What a shock. Trent, you are straying into some pretty blasphemous territory here. Are you sure you want to call Eusebius and 'On Sacrifices' a liar? It really is amazing how apologists play fast and lose with history.
Time point 10: 28
"... JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER....STEPBROTHER..." ?
No way!
I will never trust this chanel again!
Al Hilford you can call a friend your brother if they're close enough to you. I would imagine this kind of thinking during Jesus' day, especially without very strict meanings on words like they are today. This is why there is so much figurative language in the Bible.
Instead of being outraged brother, why do you not simply and charitably bring the matter to him explaining the problem? We are all stained by sin and ignorance. We are called to love one another. It is very unChrist-like to abandon our brother like this. Salvation of souls is the highest good. God bless you, brother.
You can't move for all the Jameses in the bible, it'd be weird if one of em wasn't related to jesus somehow. He was related to the fella wrestled the angel whichever lineage you follow
Ok
Unless I am greatly mistaken, the speaker definitely said "...the Lord's brother...", and then brethren, and ventured his personal opinion of stepbrother!
This is a very Protestant doctrine.
The word in scripture is "...brethren...", and there are many instances where the brethren of Jesus are mentioned.
Quite acceptable.
It can mean a male relative or close associate, and we still use the word today in that context.
But the speaker was inferring that James was a biological brother, which is impossible, and even heretical as it denies the perpetual virginity of Our Lady!
He then appeared to proffer his personal opinion that James was a stepbrother, suggesting that he was a son of St. Joseph: another Protestant speculation!
In short, even though this chanel appears to be Catholic, the participants are not sticking to Catholic doctrine.
A Roman historian writing about the fire of Rome would have no reason to say anything untrue. He had no motive to lie/embellish/fabricate, there were many witnesses to get information from, the events happened in living memory, and other people could check what he said. None of that is true of the Gospel authors.
"A Roman historian writing about the fire of Rome would have no reason to say anything untrue."
Not only can I immediately think of a multitude of reasons why a Roman historian would have reason to (knowingly or unknowingly) say something untrue, the reality is, they DID clearly state things that were untrue, since the three sources contradict themselves in a way in which not all of them can be true.
Your other categories ("there were many witnesses to get information from, the events happened in living memory, and other people could check what he said") all also apply to the New Testament. That doesn't make either the Fire of Rome or the Resurrection of Christ true, but both claim many witnesses, both events happened in living memory of their recording, and neither had any more or less of an ability to check the truth of their claims other than by the word of the witnesses of the time. The only difference is the New Testament has a significant magnitude of greater sources than the fire of Rome. Again, doesn't make it true or false, but let's be consistent.
@@Mic1904 Suppose we find something in the account of the fire that we suspect isn't true. Maybe it conflicts with another account, or maybe it strains credulity. Then we would doubt it. Christians don't do this at all with the NT.
What reason would someone have to lie about the fire of Rome or about something about it? What did they make up about it? Certainly no one disputes that it happened, nor when (64 CE). The fire of Rome has no eternal theological significance, it has no bearing on salvation, nor were there competing schools on the question of the fire (compare Pauline vs. Matthean vs. Gnostic, etc. Christianity). The only authority one can have about the fire is either being there or talking to (or reading) someone who had. In contrast, NT authors claim to have revelation or inspiration which is special to them. How could we check anything they said? The events being described were very small and isolated compared to the fire of Rome.
@@11kravitzn "Maybe it conflicts with another account, or maybe it strains credulity. Then we would doubt it." On what basis? What is the objective standard by which you would judge it?
"What reason would someone have to lie about the fire of Rome or about something about it?" The same reason anyone has to lie about anything about who was to blame for something? Politics? Human fallibility and emotion? Why would people have a reason to lie about who was to blame for 96 soccer fans being crushed to death in England in 1989? It has no eternal bearing on salvation. They still lied though. Are you really asking me, 'Why would people lie?', as if people don't lie all the time for a multitude of reasons?
@@Mic1904 Couldn't the same be said of the gospels?
These guys ever heard of Bart Ehrman? xD
Have you heard of Testify apologetics ?
I don't believe a man was killed and his rotting body came back to life again based on my understanding of the real world.
I don't believe in any supernatural God based on my understanding of the real world.
I don't believe in anything supernatural based on my understanding of the real world.
I don't believe in any old religious book of obvious myths based on my understanding of the real world.
I will continue to be an atheist in part for these reasons.
You see, what's funny here is that you talk about the "real world" as if it's the only plane of existence.
Oh and let me add something to your list:
I don't believe that the real world spontaneously came into existence from nothing, according to my understanding of the real world.
@@ToxicPea
_'what's funny here is that you talk about the "real world" as if it's the only plane of existence'_
Its the only world we have evidence for.
_'I don't believe that the real world spontaneously came into existence from nothing'_
Nor do I or any other atheist.
One of the big unanswered questions in science is how matter came into existence. We simply do not know and that includes you.
But unlike us atheists you theists make claims without evidence like, my God did it.
@Qwerty
So what is your rational my friend?
I am an atheist but I am open to being converted to theism if any real evidence for God ever presents itself.
@Qwerty
The third way of St Thomas Aquinas.
1) Things are contingent.
(2) If everything is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed.
(3) Therefore nothing can come from nothing.
(4) Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
This does not prove God.
Premise 1.
Why must all things be contingent?
Premise 2. We do not know how matter came into existence. We don't even know what a literal nothing is. Also this does not prove any God. We simply do not know and may never know how matter came into existence.
Premise 3. See premise 2.
Premise 4. That is just a claim without evidence. Not knowing is just that, we don't know. Making up a God to explain it is no more than the special pleading fallacy.
Few philosophers still use the third way of St Thomas Aquinas [or the kalam cosmological argument for God] today.
_'I've seen atheists mention this line about being open to believing in God if evidence presents itself'_
Yes, and I am one of them.
_'since God is already rationally proven'_
Really? then your Nobil Prize awaits you. congratulations.
@Qwerty
You don't seem to understand the argument here?
So this seems pointless.
Thank you for the chat and all the best to you my friend.
The people in the new testament actually disagree with everything he said. They don't agree about Jesus resurrection end of story. Anyone can read it and see for themselves
And by "anyone can read it and see for themselves", what we of course mean is, "I read this idea in 30 seconds on My-First-Atheist-Blog-101".
Lies from beginning to end. Why did Mary go to Bethlahem to a census that never occured?
Tf
Joseph went to Bethlehem, Mary'd not have gone if she wasn't with him. She wasn't from there.
If it's accurate, where did the church get the authority to change the Sabbath to sunday? It didn't.
Because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, the "day of the Lord".
( see Apocalypse)
This is the New Covenant.
@@alhilford2345 Instead if assuming, Jesus rose on a Sunday, or that the Sabbath command is no longer, show us the scriptural command for Sunday. There is none.
Show us the scripture that says the "Lord's day" is Sunday. There is none. Long before you and I were born, it was changed by men, not scripture.
Man this is a Catholic channel. Authority is not in the scriptures alone; it’s in the tradition. Tradition said Sunday. Ciao :)
@@spanellaful Tradition of men, is not traditions of scripture. Scripture, and Christ, are the final authority.
@@eltonron1558 I profoundly disagree. Scriptures need to be interpreted by men. Scriptures alone is an abstraction. We need a tradition that tells us how to interpret scriptures. But I guess you come from some Anglosaxon country obsessed with words. It’s not your fault :)
The first 'thumbs down' is mine!
Al Hilford no one cares
@@supremeleadersmeagol6345 :
But some people want the truth!
@@alhilford2345 not you
OK, why?