As a full time Private Investigator for the past 10 years... I have to hand it to you. You conducted a great investigation into this. Keep up the great work!
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid that's not up to me that's up to God. The information is there for whoever wants to seek it. I seek more so I can assist them if they wish to ask me questions.
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid Police will tell you that when they collect testimony from an innocent person and ask "why should I believe your testimony?" The most common response an innocent person will give is something like "you don't have to believe me." In other words, a person who has truth is not "upset" or "worried" if others do not believe them. On the other hand, in cases where someone is later proven guilty, when police pose the question "why should I believe your testimony?" A guilty person will respond with demands to be believed, counter accusations, and emotional laden language about why they must be right. In other words the person without truth is worried about those who do not believe. Provide a demonstration of truth, be willing to engage with those who ask questions, but whatever happens to people who don't believe truth is not really our concern. If you are concerned, it could show you are insecure in your own belief system.
As someone who previously studied Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and others who study the so-called "Historical Jesus", your arguments are very sound. Their logic is often circular and deep down, they know it and sometimes come close to admitting it in their writings. The Gospels actually make a lot of sense chronologically once you come to know that they are speaking the truth. Thank you Jesus Christ for gifting me grace and truth!
@@bengoldberg6198 I absolutely agree with you. It's even more obvious with Daniel's dating - you either admit that prophecy exists... or you use circular logic to twist it incredibly so that it matches your presuppositions. Ehrman is definitely smart enough to see it, but his heart is hardened. I pray that someday he sees God's love glory.
May our gracious Lord and Savior have mercy on Sam and the suffering that overtook him. May He redeem Sam at the final judgment and may Sam's family find peace that surpasses understanding in Christ.
@@TheWorldTeacher It's hard to prove Atheism, because one would need to look at vast amounts of the data of life, and only then could one be partly confident .. not enough years for that. Someone like Richard Dawkins is masterly in his academic niche, and writes well, but to prove Atheism he'd need to be impartial, and say investigate for instance christians doing reportedly supernatural things ... but he doesn't, as in it's often comfortable to build up a familiar nest , and not fly off to investigate.
@@utopiabuster, I am your lord, your god, and your MASTER. Therefore, whenever you send me a message or respond to a comment of mine, it is IMPERATIVE that you address me accordingly. E.g. “How are you, Master?” Is that understood, SLAVE?
I have been waiting for a good response to the objection that states “Luke copied from Josephus” and finally here it is, You’re a blessing! God bless you IP! Keep going
I always thought it was quite strange that they dated Mark via the destruction of the temple. Its begging the question to the highest degree. "We know that prophecy is B.S, therefore this has to have been written after."
does making a claim that turns out to be right proves it was a true prophecy? the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem was a yes-or-no kind of guess: either it would happen, or it wouldn't. likewise, roulette players who bet on any valid number and win, just got lucky by picking one possible result from a pool of all possible events. in general, coincidences by chance are the best and most frequent explanation for people correctly "predicting" an event. the second best explanation is cheating by manipulating the system and knowing beforehand the result.
@@ALEX-KYLE-g9, your healthy skepticism is fine. That said, NO ONE in the early 1st Century would have believed that the Temple could be destroyed. Rome was strong, and Rome protected the Temple. Herod Agrippa had been raised in the imperial household of Caesar Agustus, and was close friends with the future emperor, Claudius. In fact, all of the Herods seem to have been on very chummy terms with the imperial family, another reason that no Jew would believe that the Temple could be destroyed while Rome reigned.
@@mysotiras21 precisely because of the perceived low likelyhood of the destruction of the Temple, the impact on believers was significant because "who could have predicted it?" there are always people who see things differently, who obtain huge gains with little investment. Jesus bet on a low-likelyhood event, which costed Him nothing beyond making the claim, and the potential credibility gain was huuuuge in exchange for peanuts.
Jesus died and rose agian if you believe that he died and rose and were saved by grace through faith alone you will be saved. Once Saved Always saved no need to repent from your sins for salvation.
It's clear the gospels are earlier than 70AD but if atheist scholars admit that then they'd be admitted that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple
This is similar to the book of Daniel which is also often dated to the 2nd century BC, because if they accepted the original date of the 6th century BC they would be forced to deal with the numerous prophecies in it.
Which, if you think about it, isn't even that impressive of a prediction. We're talking about something that had happened once before, and about a society trending toward open rebellion against a powerful and ruthless government.
@@briandiehl9257Yes. If I can recall correctly Josephus reports that a Jewish leader before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, went running around at the top of his lungs screaming that Jerusalem as well as the temple will be destroyed soon because the people of Israel are sinful. Why can’t the same standers apply to Jesus?
Attempts to date the Gospels after 70AD are circular reasoning. If people didn’t make assumptions about the possibility (or lack thereof) of prophecy before even beginning their investigations, they would reach far more accurate conclusions.
@@davethebrahman9870 Yes thats what I mean. While I dont believe it myself, is there any evidence that makes it unprobable. You mention that other NT writers dont quote them. This seems like an argument from silence to me. Much of what Paul deals with would not have been answered in the gospels regardless. So we should expect quotation to be neccessary. And he does seem to be familiar with the gospels when talking about the Lords supper. But its a fair point against that he never quotes it verbatim. While disputed by many, 1. Timothy does quote Luke. I havent looked into the arguments against Pauls authorship, but I hope they dont say "since Luke is late. 1.timothy must be later - therefore not by Paul."
@@davethebrahman9870 Post-120 though, they'd have guessy knowledge of what happened in the 1C, so would not include material on what Jerusalem, and Galilee were like then, they'd get it wrong. You'd get something more like the late sources used for e.g the Quran's version of Jesus, like infancy gospel of Thomas, which however aren't knowledgeable about 1C Jewish culture, rituals and infrastructure, and so deemed outright inauthentic.
This might be the greatest video I've ever seen. Twenty minutes in, I've got nearly 2.5 pages of notes, notes which will help build my holy armor in the fight for Christ and God. Thank you so much for compiling these facts and creating this video. You have truly done the work of God.
It’s crazy this video came up right after I saw two guys promote their book “Christ Before Jesus” on TikTok. Stating the gospels were written in the 2nd Century. Thanks for the work you do @Inspiring Philosophy.
Thank you Michael, I think the gospel dating is one of the most important issues with gospel apologetics. A presupposition of late dating often comes from begging the question that there can't be prophecyin the gospels. This them lead to begging the question that there couldn't be plenty of eye witnesses during the composition and early circulation of the gospels. Late dating casts more doubts that the gospels were written by Mark Matthew and Luke. Then this casts doubts on anything the early church fathers said about the gospels. So this simple claim casts unreasonable doubts on the entirety of new testament apologetics and has long needed to be refuted by more apologist in the TH-cam Christian community.
can you find an example of anyone using this type of reasoning with invalid presuppositions, in their own words, to date the prophecy and therefore the gospels? i've only heard the TH-cam Christian apologists say that this is what other people say
@@tomasrocha6139 this in context is applied to the "abomination of desolation" and another section that is clearly prophecy and written as prophecy by all 3 authors of the synoptic gospels. Nothing in those words imply the events have already passed just that the reader should pay attention.
I really appreciate the effort and research that you've put into this video. Thank you! I'm new to the channel but after watching this video, I will definitely be checking out your other work.
Excellent video and summary! I've heard most of these points before, but this is the most comprehensive compilation and clearest presentation on this subject that I've heard to date. Kudos, and thanks!
I think you've got it exactly right. There's no believable way that the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD would not be mentioned by the Synoptic writers. That alone dates them prior to that even.
It would not have been mentioned by the gospel writers for the same reason that a history of U.S. presidents written in 1890 would not have mentioned Harry Truman. You can't write about events that haven't happened yet.
We like many of your videos and wish we had em on DVD for when it's all banned but This particular subject is not even an issue. Keep up the good work. Thank you
If Acts can reasonably be dated by even non-Christian scholars to c. AD 62, then Luke must be earlier than that; and if Luke is c. 60, then, Matthew and/or Mark must be earlier still, because I don't know many who hold to Lucan priority. This has always seemed to me a more straightforward framework than all the post-70 ad hoc rationalizations dubbed "consensus."
The only reason it's dated to 90 is because the so-called scholars insist without evidence that Luke was written then. But Luke was a companion of Paul and wrote in the 60s and 70s, soon after Paul's death.
@@tomasrocha6139 The pool at Bethesda was discovered by archaeologists long after skeptics claimed that such a pool never existed. Skeptics never apologized. John's gospel was this confirmed for knowing facts about Jerusalem that skeptics claimed were not true. In addition, John mentions the pool in the present tense, but it was destroyed in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Therefore, John was written before 70 AD. Skeptics are pathetic creatures, they have no truth in them.
@@tomasrocha6139It is odd though that it does not complete to the end ... as in you could not say Luke did not like to report on mistreatment of christians, as Acts has a lot of that, including martyrdom and persecution. So most explicable in terms of the text we have being in most final state at that time, which was before Paul's passing. Luke is keen to show his speeches before the rulers in authority (something Jesus said would happen), so would be keen to show the trial and his defence.[One could speculate on why he stopped, but good reasons could be conceived]
@@tomasrocha6139You clearly haven’t studied the issue much. There are many reasons why Acts should be dated early 60’s or at the most, late 60’s. The in-depth understanding of the temple arrangements, the positive attitude towards the Roman state, etc.
@@davethebrahman9870 Nobody takes Pervo’s argument seriously dude. You found this off wikipedia, because they have a deeply anti-Christian bias, but most scholars put it between 70-95; and an early date in 60’s is not unheard of.
Excellent work here , one small note tho at 27:29 . The average age of death was 50 only because infant mortality was so high . If you exclude people who died before reaching the age of 5, most people lived into their late 70’s at the time. Meaning even if the gospels were written late (which they weren’t, they’re definitely written before 62 AD) , that still wouldn’t be grounds for dismissing disciple authorship.
@@davethebrahman9870 Arguments and evidence are not mutually exclusive. Well developed arguments often contain pieces of evidence to give credibility to the claims posited ..
@@davethebrahman9870 And I’ve been saying that my evidence is the same evidence that has been presented in the video by Inspiring Philosophy’s arguments. If you don’t find them convincing then so be it I guess.
@@davethebrahman9870 And as I’ve said multiple times , his arguments contain evidence that I also hold to be accurate. If you disagree you’re entitled to, if you wish to discuss them , why not pick an argument you found exceptionally unconvincing and break down its flaws.
@@Pierregentry Bruce Gore has an amazing series on Revelation that explains postmillennial partial-preterism. I think it's called the apocalypse in space & time
@InspiringPhilosophy you are amazing and I truly appreciate your work. I would like to meet you someday and ask some questions. Thank you for strengthening my faith and for defending it. God bless ☦️✝️🙏❤️
@@mjt532 looked it up and am familiar with the arguments. Has a few problems. 1. Roman coins were not unusual to find in Jerusalem at the time. Many coins among many other Roman paraphernalia are found in the area of Jerusalem. 2. "Ceasar" had by then become a title for the Emperor, no longer just a family name. Octavian and Tiberius had used the name "Caesar" during Jesus's lifetime. 3. this type of deduction still proves my point that if we have silence about something like when a coin was mented that does not "therefore" mean that it didn't happen sooner and they were lying or it was something written later. NORMALLY historians would look at this evidence of what the bible tells us and say "ok I guess the distribution of coins with the name Ceasar happened alot sooner AND there must have been a period of time where taxation was happening for reasons beyond trade." But of course when it comes to the bible we make historical exceptions.
@@voiceofthefathertv guessing the destruction of the most sacred place for Judaism at the time and getting it right was a yes-or-no guess: either it would be destroyed, or it wouldn't. but there was a precedent to be taken into account: the Solomon's Temple having been destroyed some 6 centuries before by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, when Jerusalem was conquered. in Jesus' time, Jerusalem was under control of the Roman Empire, and the Second Temple was almost finished. see the similarities here? foreign domination, destruction.
@@tomasrocha6139 No the literal translation is "let the reader take heed" or be warned. as he immediately after tells those who believe what is written should flee to the hills once they see the armies surrounding. which is recorded that the christian Jews in Jerusalem did exactly that. there is archeological evidence namely the famed "upper room" where christians returned to the ruined city and built synagogues with christian symbols facing the place of crucifixion which is now The church of the Holy Sepulcher. all other synagogues face the temple
@@tomasrocha6139 Here we go: Strong's Number G3539 Original Word νοιέω Strong's Definition From G3563; to exercise the mind (observe) that is (figuratively) to comprehend and then take HEED: - consider perceive think understand... So lets go with the common translation of "understand". the context still points to it being instruction for the reader, not just "hey look at what I'm saying it just happened."
I didn't know that there is a consensus of modern scholars deciding such nonsense. There is assuredly an older (and what must be considered a conservative approach) tradition that uses the earlier dates for Mark, Luke-Acts, and Matthew. The post-70 dates are logically and traditionally implausible, not to mention sacrilegious.
Excellent. As an atheist I assumed that the Gospels being much later was irrefutable. I was shocked when I tried looking up the evidence supporting my belief and found it was a castle built of sand. I was particularly struck by the fact that Jesus didn't refer to the destruction of "the temple" as I had assumed, but that he was talking about the destruction of the *second temple*
I do sometimes think we spend too much time debating Christianity to those that have no interest in listening. I think this kind of work does help Christians stay the course. Especially those who can be persuaded by people that I would describe as atheist elites who enjoy stiring up nonsense.
@@davethebrahman9870 I would suggest that Mark making his version based on the oral teaching of Peter reading Matthew (which is what tradition suggests) would also explain the data. It then becomes a question as to which argument is better, and i think people can disagree on that. Indeed, if one side was really definitive there wouldn't be scholarly debate, but I'm sure you know there is plenty ongoing to this day.
The main problem with dating them past 70 appears to be the need to rely on the presupposition that prophecy can't happen. It just becomes an ad hoc argument based on reasoning that looks slightly round in shape.
@@polystrate1 not really, because there is actual evidence for it being earlier, you know, like what is in the video. You don't have to oresuppose prophecy to get an earlier date, you do have to presuppose no prophecy to get a late one.
@@euanthompson we don't have original writings so we cannot know if the originals that were said to be before 70 contained the passages in question. Having men write a book so save the lives of mankind was a terrible plan
@@polystrate1 well since we don't have the originals we can't know they didn't contain the passages. That is a genuinely terrible argument, it is just a modified argument from silence. Also how did you expect it to be written down and transmitted and translated? Magic?
@@euanthompson we know that manuscripts were edited over time in various ways so it is the defenders' problem. Almost like god should have done a better job. He has only himself to blame
On the abrupt ending to Paul's imprisonment in Acts, I really like N.T. Wright's spin on the hypothesis (imho, obvious and most likely assumption) that Luke ends it with Paul in Rome because his history caught up with the present day. N.T. Wright articulates in his 2018 work, _Paul: A biography,_ that Luke may have originally written Acts in as his testimony before Caesar of who Paul was and why he was innocent. Part of what is so elegant about Wright's version of the hypothesis is that it makes sense anyway you slice it. Its only assumptions are: 1) Lucian authorship; 2) It ends at present day. The dedication to "Theophilus" is a problem anyway you slice it. It looks like "Theophilus" is who paid for the letter to be written (which is very likely). But this is problematic because "Theophilus" isn't a name, it is a title. This means he could have written it for a friend and just been calling him, "the one God loves." It also could be that _I_ am "Theophilus", and _you,_ and the crazy guy down the street, and anyone else who reads his gospel and Acts. N.T. Wright's simple hypothesis treats this secondary issue as an afterthought and allows it to be explained independently of the text. If Theophilus really was a real man, then perhaps Luke sought from him to help pay for the materials so he could write his defence for Paul in court. If Theophilus were a real man, then perhaps Luke wrote his testimonial for Paul, then reworked it later and sent it to Theophilus. If Theophilus is not real, then perhaps Luke lightly modified his testimonial and published it as a book.
I was helped by JAT Robinson’s “Redating The NT” as well as E. Earle Ellis “Making the NT Documents” I am also convinced by Ken Gentry’s “Before Jerusalem Fell”
Thanks. There are many solid reasons to believe that the Gospels were written early, probably before 70 AD. I think honest scholars and historians are gradually coming around to this point of view, albeit grudgingly. Accepting early dates for the Gospels means accepting that Jesus DID predict the destruction of the 2nd Temple.
Wow! Very thorough and informative. Always amazed how some put forth theories that every other culture or religion could possess literacy skills to record their histories, traditions and beliefs, but it’s never extended to ancient Jews and early Christians. I think it’s plausible that people were writing home about the events in Jerusalem about a guy who healed the sick, was executed, snd rose from the grave pretty soon after the event occurred. Thank you for your presentation and God bless your work.
@@tomasrocha6139 Spamming same thing with the presumption of your interpretation, does not suddenly make it true. You're going to have to elaborate further than that.
The idea that Paul's journeying in Acts was not written until 20 or 30 years after the events is unreasonable. Acts mentions the death of Stephen but not the death of Paul. Acts mentions a great famine in the Levant but does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts mentions Gallio as the proconsul in Achaia, which archaeology has confirmed was in 51ad. There is no reason then to assume Acts was written any later than about 63 ad. The author of Acts wrote Luke first, which puts Luke at about 60 ad. And Luke was based in part on Mark, which puts Mark at about 57 ad. All this is reasonable dating.
Now the issue with this, is that some assert that Luke and the other gospels are the ones quoting the epistles, I think the mire likely alternative than one referencing the other is that they are simply drawing from the same well of knowledge.
@@minifox3603 That doesn't really make sense if you read the citation Paul makes. 1 Timothy 5 :17-18 - "for the Scripture says, "you shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" and "the laborer deserves to be paid"." Paul is quoting two separate "Scriptures". The first one about the ox is Deuteronomy 25 :4. The second one about the laborer is found NOWHERE but in the Gospel of Luke. If he's not quoting that, please provide another "Scripture" source for it.
@@tomasrocha6139 "Paul would not call a recent biography scripture." - You're presupposing divine inspiration is false. Same error as presupposing prophecy is not possible in order to date the Gospels later.
Very interesting and informative IP. I've always seen the late dating as a bit odd because Paul references things in those gospels and critics have little issue with the dates of many of Paul's letters.
Except that Air-man (a funny closed caption rendering of Ehrman) et al now claim that only 6 of Paul's epistles are genuinely Paulian, and the rest are all denounced as forgeries (an entirely unfair accusation). Oh, of course i believe Ehrman, notwithstanding his affable veneer in the "Misquoting Jesus" video series, is utterly full of gaseous air when he makes those nonsensical claims about the Pauline letters, but strict accuracy compels me to note the shenanigans in which he is engaging.
Well made! Funny how some scholars date the texts to 70-99, I've had multiple people try to tell me that the gospels weren't written until 200 years after the subject matter!
@@downenout8705 Skeptics are the one saying that the texts were written somewhere between 70 to 80AD . And they only come up with assumptions not with the facts in what is written. People who say they were written like 200 years after Christ, those are mythicist.
@@carloswater7 You clearly haven't read anything by Richard Carrier. It is not the dating of the stories that make a mythicist, it's, amongst other things, the lack of any contemporary written evidence and the way the stories reflect the style of known mythological stories from the time. I personally have no problem with an apocalyptic preacher wandering around the Levant named Jesus but that doesn't defacto make all the magical stuff true.
@@downenout8705 I'm going to destroy you with this sentence. Richard carrier is more of a mythicist than a historian. All atheist Scholars don't take him seriously. Even Bart Eherman.
You mention that the average lifespan was 50. However, it seems to be about 30-35. Where did you find the 50 as the average? Great video, and I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
Skeptics - " Jesus could not predict the destruction of the temple " Also skeptics - " Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic religous preacher " For those who dont understand the relevance . An apocalyptic jewish preacher was someone who predicted the destruction of EVERYTHING 🤨 Skeptics - Jesus and his earliest followers believed everything would be destroyed and renewed by God and his prophecies failed Also skeptics - " but no Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the temple that is the exception " 🤦
No offence but these skeptical scholars are not reasoning . They pick an choose when their theory applies and make arguments that contradict their own theories !!!
1 Concern I have with this reasoning: If the fact that the destroyed temple is not mentioned, shows that the synoptics were writting prior to 70ad, than that would be true for John as well. But john (from what I hear) is never classified that way. So if it isnt an Argumemt for John how can it be for the synaptics??? Good job as always IP!
@@tomasrocha6139 I've heard that argument as well. However I've also heard the counter argument that Jesus is not talking about the temple itself being the temple destroyed. He's talking about his human body as a temple. We see this concept also in the Pauline letters that the Christian or disciple of Christ is the Temple of the Lord. So it is possible that the author of The Gospel according to mark is telling the reader that Jesus as a temple was destroyed and then three days later rebuilt, in other words, he came back to life. If Jesus is referring to himself as the temple being destroyed and his listeners misunderstood him referring to the temple as a building, Mark could have been written at any time after 33 ad.
Church tradition dates John and revelation which is also believed to be written by John to the 90s. The church has everything to gain by putting the gospels including John as close to the date of Jesus's death as possible to show them as more reliable historical accounts, so if the church position is that John is later and it's in their interest to put him earlier then it's very believable.
@@johnmccrossan9376 a lot of folks also go off of Iraneus’ very unspecific words about John and the revelation. Also if the revelation was written in the 90’s… there are still references for it to happen soon and quickly.
@@CupOJoeOuttaIdaho yes and those are true but remember st Peter's comments about the nature of time how a thousand years is like a day and vice versa in God's eyes. Soon out of Jesus's mouth does not nessicerially mean soon by human standards
To continue along the lines of this video, please consider making a series pointing out the MANY question-begging naturalistic assumptions that underpin arguments against God, Christianity, religion in general, and the supernatural. Apologetic arguments often fall flat because naturalistic presuppositions are not interrogated and challenged at the outset
"But BaRt EhRmAn says something else" yeah but lil bro contradicts himself depending on who he talks to while cashing in for every interview 😂😂😂 Convenient
The crazy thing is I don't think he's necessarily being disingenuous, he's got some major cognitive dissonance going on. I think he compartmentalizes each topic and argument, and can't see the forest for the trees. A good example is the recent video IP reacted to where Matthew could or couldn't have known Greek in responses to two different claims within minutes of each other. (Edit: I think it was Hebrew, gotta double check the video. Caffeine hasn't kicked in yet lol.)
@@tomasrocha6139 Not really, the man claims and still claims that in Mark; Jesus makes no divine claims. Yet Brant Pitre got him to admit that Jesus is making some divine claim which is why he was on trial for blasphemy. Something that Bart wants to forget.
@@coffeehousedialogue I see a question, to the positive claim that the author of Mark was accurately reporting the words of the Jesus character. I guess that you don't have an answer otherwise you would have given it.
I listened to his (Kipp Davis on IP) video for 7 minutes and was waiting for him to say ANYTHING worth listening too. Even the title of his video comes across as, IP Don't know Greek but I do, IP should know Greek or IP should not speak on anything. That reeeks of the appeal to authority fallacy. He's assuming that his level of scholarship and Greek puts him on a level higher than IP and he's insinuitating that IP is an idiot. That approach isn't even worth listening to.
Kipp Davis is a clown who resorts to petty credentialism when challenged, like many modern critical "scholars." He's reliable when it comes to anything related to the Dead Sea Scrolls but apart from that he's the same as any other social media "scholar."
Exactly, the destruction of Jerusalem was such a major event that it certainly would have been mentioned in some of the epistles or even Acts if it occurred before the gospels were written.
An excerpt from Bart Ehrman Blog post titled “Why Date the Gospels after 70 CE?” “Someone may respond by saying that in these passages Jesus is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, not looking back on it. Fair enough! But when is a Christian author likely to record a prediction of Jesus in order to show that he predicted something accurately? Obviously, in order to show that Jesus knew what he was talking about, an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled. Otherwise the reader would be left hanging, not knowing if Jesus was a true prophet or not. So even if we assume that Jesus did predict such things, the fact that they are written so confidently by later authors suggests that they did so after the events took place, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 c.e.”
@@akprice17 That's at least a fair point to make. I don't agree with much of Dr. Erhmann's conclusions, but he's got interesting conclusions. It's good to read different prospectives.
@@akprice17 There is nothing determinative in anything that Ehrman stated. If the prediction of the destruction of the temple was stated or written after the fact, it would be meaningless to readers, who would greet its claim with a huge yawn.
The earlier dating of Mark and therefore Luke Matthew and Acts is the timeline I was taught in college 40 years ago by Sr. Damien. It was a Theology course on the Synoptic gospels and was the common orthodox catholic interpretation at the time.
Given the fact that the First Temple had in fact been destroyed, and that there had been numerous uprisings in recent years, there would have been nothing improbable in a prediction that sooner or later, the Second Temple would have a similar fate.
Many people have commented here that scholars date Mark (and the other gospels) late ONLY because they reject prophecy. Not true. Just to give one example... Mike Licona did a study showing that many scholars, including non-believing ones, date Mark PRIOR to 70. He says that the majority of scholars date Mark late 60s to early 70s. They wouldn't date Mark earlier than 70 if they rejected prophecy. (I think, however, one could argue that if Mark was written late 60s, it was clear that the Temple was coming down.)
I wish you could cover these in your videos in the future 1. Da Vinci Code 2. Old testament Reliability 3. Violence in the Old testament and as well as Slavery 4. About Hell 5. prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 in detail
The main reason I think one could argue that Mark dates after 70 is that Jesus (supposedly) nailed the Temple prophecy, which I find highly unlikely--and then he didn't return in that generation, as predicted. So, it makes sense that Mark was writing after 70, putting words into Jesus' mouth, and Mark was mistaken about Jesus' imminent return. That makes more sense than: Jesus made a remarkable prediction 40 years in advance, even seeming to know (roughly) when it would take place (during his generation)... and then he was mistaken about his imminent return. (Even if Jesus did in fact make the remarkable Temple prediction... if he did in fact screw up the return part, that makes him just human.) It's the same exact reason that most scholars (many whom are Christians) date Daniel (chapters 7-12) very precisely in the mid 160s BC. Daniel gets everything remarkably accurate until 164 BC, and then his prophecies certainly seem to fail at that point. (Even an early dating conservative scholar like Tremper Longman admits that Daniel's prophecies appear to fail.) To be fair, people come up with multiple rationalizations for how Jesus (or Daniel for that matter) was NOT mistaken. And it's certainly possible that one of these explanations is correct. But it's much simpler to understand that Mark "invented" this speech, writing ex-eventu, and mistakenly thought that Jesus would return very, very soon.
Excuse me sir I know you appealed to the actual reasons people give, but IP and every other Christian apologist just assert that the real reason is because of bias and circular reasoning so this isn't really computing for me
IP can you do a video explaining the book of numbers? specifically the " spoils of war section in Numbers 31: 21- 54? 28: You will offer as tribute to the Lord from each warrior who went into battle one living being in five hundred, whether HUMAN, oxen, donkeys, or flocks 31 : Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. 32 The valuable property remaining from the spoils of war that the people of the army had taken was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 oxen, 34 61,000 donkeys, 35 and 32,000 women who hadn’t known a man intimately by sleeping with him. 36 The half-share of those who had gone out to battle numbered 337,500 sheep, 37 of which the Lord’s tribute was 675. 38 The oxen were 36,000, of which the Lord’s tribute was 72. 39 The donkeys were 30,500, of which the Lord’s tribute was 61. 40 Humans were 16,000, of which the Lord’s tribute was 32 persons. Now up above the Lord's tribute of 32 people was specified to be virgin women........ Why would God want 32 virgin women as his own personal spoils of war and a bunch of gold sheep and living sacrifices Unless he was a fucking dragon? 😂 How can anybody think that a God like this is good when he demands virgin women as sacrifice for him for Spoils of war? What could God possibly want from 32 virgin women who have not been touched by a man..... What is God going to just devour them or have sex with them himself ? It just doesn't make any sense. It's hard for me to get behind the idea that I should have faith in a God who says weird crap like this
The priests take the tithes. Perhaps God wanted wives for the priests? Perhaps to keep consanguinity from getting too thick within the families of the priesthood? Just a couple thoughts off the top of my head. Remember the Levites didn't farm, keep cattle or other beasts, etc. That's what the tithes were for.
James Crossley’s doctoral dissertation was on the very early dating of Mark. I’m on the hunt for an affordable copy(!). Crossley, btw, is an atheist whose primary interests are the social and economic climate surrounding the early Jesus movement. Great job on this video! Thanks for pointing out that the lack of precision in Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction actually strengthens the argument for an early dating of the gospels
I think the biggest issue with late dating is that critics then need to explain what Christianity was doing for 40+ years between the crucifixion and writing. If not gospels existed and they emerged ex-nihilo, all the christians of the past 40 years would be very confused. If the written gospels differed significantly from oral or prior written tradition, this too would cause unrest among the existing believers - of which there were *many* all through the empire. They were written early. Period.
Honestly though. I have no idea how so many scholars buy into this late dating idea. Are the early dating arguments just bad? Clearly not, so what then is the hold-up?
@@minifox3603 Because they would have to concede that if the Gospels were written earlier, they would be closer to the events of the Apostles and Jesus. Which would then shine light that Gospels might actually have been written by the Apostles or their contemporaries. Which would make them more reliable. With the late date, Scholars have more ammo to undermine the authorship of the Gospels and the reliability of it all as they can plausibly deny that the Apostles actually taught what was in them. With an earlier date, it becomes less likely that the texts were 'corrupted' or 'modified' from the ''original" oral traditions. Remember, Erhman believes that Mark originally did not claim Jesus as God, and it was only the later Gospels that developed that theology. So yes a lot of scholarship rides with the idea that the Gospels are late. It also rides on the fact that Mark was written first. Which I also reject.
IP acting like a typical creationist. Quote mining scholars who would not agree with the use of their material as evidence for the point he is making. People eat this stuff up though.
@@tgrogan6049 So, we're all just supposed to live in an echo chamber and only quote people that agree with every little thing we say, according to you? Reality check: Not every scholar is going to agree 100% on any topic.
Great video. Interestingly enough: i went to seminary with Michael Barber. Actually was in the same class with him and his future wife. Crazy to hear him being quoted on one of your videos. Great guy.
Mike, I’ve been following your channel for a while now, initially drawn in by your confident presentations and insightful discussions on Christianity. However, recent developments have left me deeply disillusioned. Your attempt to refute Bart Ehrman’s arguments in your latest video not only fell short but also highlighted a concerning trend in your content. It’s evident that you lack the academic rigor and expertise necessary to engage in the kind of scholarly discourse you often attempt. While your presentation may be polished and your voice commanding, it’s becoming increasingly clear that you’re out of your depth when it comes to grappling with the complexities of biblical scholarship. Your reliance on non-Christian sources like Dale Allison to bolster your arguments, while simultaneously trying to maintain a facade of confidence, is disheartening. It’s as if you’re trying to play in the big leagues of biblical scholarship without putting in the necessary work to earn your place there. Furthermore, your response to being called out by Ehrman and other scholars only serves to undermine your credibility further. Instead of acknowledging your limitations and committing to a more humble and intellectually honest approach, you continue to double down on your misguided assertions. As someone who once looked up to you as a beacon of intellectual Christianity, I implore you to reconsider your approach. Your overconfidence is not only damaging to your own reputation but also to the broader community of believers who may be influenced by your content. It’s time to acknowledge that you’re not a scholar and approach these topics with the humility they deserve. Stop pretending to be something you’re not, Mike. Take a step back, reassess your approach, and perhaps consider engaging with genuine scholars in a more meaningful and respectful manner. Your audience deserves better than the half-baked arguments and intellectual arrogance you’ve been peddling lately. Sincerely, Fergie
Hi Somethingrandomyt8367, Mike's response is steeped in hypocrisy, revealing a glaring disregard for his own limitations. He selectively cherry-picks scholars like Dale Allison to bolster his arguments while conveniently sidestepping Allison’s critique of his harmonizing tendencies. Despite leveraging the credibility of scholars like Bart Ehrman, Mike fails to acknowledge their expertise when it challenges his entrenched theological convictions. His claim to prioritize scholarship is hollow, as he consistently avoids engaging with genuine historical analysis that challenges his preconceived beliefs. By selectively engaging with scholars-such as inviting Ehrman to discuss Revelation while disregarding his expertise on Jesus-Mike exposes his intellectual dishonesty and perpetuates a narrative that serves his agenda rather than genuine scholarly inquiry. Thank you!✌️
It is video production like this that I stick around and ignore the red meat troll videos. Great Video Mike! I agree with the dating timelines. Single handedly the death blow of pointing out the circular logic that Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple is a biased denial that Jesus, if He was who He claimed to be, could actually have made such a prediction, especially when others who were not God prior to this also made the claim. Being taught in school by an actual priest that same stupid argument for gospel dating has frustrated me for years. I eagerly await the Book of Revelation dating video to see if you’ll get that one right!
@InspiringPhilosophy. I appreciate your work here, but I'm curious as to why you did not include the solid work of Dr. John Robinson's work, "Redating the New Testament" and his work "The Priority of John." He puts all the NT prior to AD 70 based on his detailed study.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Yet his arguments are actually sound, and they are in line with what you've presented. Have you actually read Robinson's books? Or did you hear about them from others? One of his main points was how liberal dating scholarship depends on invalid assumptions, such as the dubious preconceived idea that predictive prophesy is not possible. That was a valid point. How is that not "convincing" to you? It's a valid, logical point.
18:53 Your argument aligns with Dr. Barbara Thiering’s in her three books which detail the chronology but which also explain the complex system of pseudonyms in use (the more important the figure the more different names bestowed upon them with Simon Magus (Lazarus) chief in this respect) - for instance that Stephen (the crown) was another name for Jesus’ brother James Crown Prince to the King position of Jesus as heir to the line of David. She also puts the gospel of John first in order of composition but shows how it was added to in significant ways afterwards. Her reasoning is always very closely detailed in its working out.
I agree with much of what you have said. You make an excellent point regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. If the Synoptics really were written after AD70 and the writers put words into Jesus' mouth as if spoken in the AD30's , why on earth would they not have had him been even more accurate and detailed than he was? They would have wanted to present him in the best possible light to get people to believe (according to the scoffers). Rather it seems, they simply record what he actually said, in AD 30-33. I would make two additional points- 1. Theudas in Acts. If Luke is correct there are 2 possibilities. One is that Josephus was wrong in his dating. This is a possibility as most historians today accept that Josephus didnt always get his facts right, especially when it came to dating the events he described. Therefore why automatically accept Josephus' description and dating, and reject Luke? That seems to me to be an unreasonable position to hold. The second possibility, which I think is more likely, is that Luke and Josephus are referring to 2 different individuals with the same or similar name who led revolts at different times. As you say, although both are referred to be leaders of a revolt, the descriptions in Acts and Josephus are significantly different. So why assume they must be referring to the same individual, except for a bias against Luke? To make this point, imagine if historians in 2000 years time from now had the same dearth of historical writings about the last few decades as we have about events and people in the 1st century. Do you really think all historians in 2000 years time (AD4024) would accept there were 2 different Presidents of the United States, both called George Bush, who lead the USA at different times?! I suspect many of them would laugh at such an idea, and insist that some of the writers must have gotten their information and timings confused. But we, living at the time, know better. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that Luke's Theudas is the father and Josephus' his son who led a similar revolt a generation, 30-40 years, later. The son following in the footsteps of his father, having a similar mindset and hatred of the Romans. I looked at this issue some time ago and found that 'Theudas' was found, for example, on a Jewish ossuary from the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, dating to around 1BC - 'Yehuda son of Theudas'. Some have tried to say Theudas was a very uncommon name, but such findings negate that. As if there was only ever one person named Theudas who could have led a revolt against the Romans - laughable. Therefore there is no reason to believe Luke relied on Josephus' writings and that he wrote after him. 2. Protective Anonymity. Scholars such as Richard Bauckham have highlighted the apparent use of a literary technique called Protective Anonymity. This is where a writer chooses not to name an individual they refer to despite knowing who they are, typically for safety reasons. In the context of the Gospels, this would be to ensure the safety of individuals or their families if the writings fell into the wrong hands and therefore produced unnecessary persecution. But I think there is another way of looking at that. In my view, Mark did not name the Jewish High Priest who condemned Jesus precisely because he did not want to encourage unnecessary persecutions of Christians by Jewish authorities led by the powerful High Priest and his family, as they would have had significant influence as to who would be persecuted. So Mark purposefully withheld the name of the specific High Priest under whom the 'Messiah' was executed. But both John and Matthew are happy to name him, Caiaphas. Why? Because they were writing after the Annas family had any influence on the Jewish authorities. This means Mark wrote his Gospel at a time the Annas family had significant influence over Jewish authorities. This officially ended in AD43. Although there was a final son of Annas who became High Priest later, this was a long time after, 20 years in fact. So I strongly suspect Mark wrote sometime between the early 40s to early 50s at the latest when that family still had important influence. This is another reason for believing Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written. Excuse me for the long post!
@@tomasrocha6139 I disagree. 'Let the reader understand' refers the reader to where that wording was used before, in Daniel. They are to understand what is being foretold by Jesus - within a generation (40 years) the Temple will be a place of sacrilege. We now know after the fact what he was referring to - the Romans standing in the place where the Temple stood, including the Holy of Hollies. Made desolate by an idolatrous army.
Whether a person is Christian or not, it’s hard to deny the 1st century is a fascinating time period
@@theguyver4934 the „you will know them by their fruits“ is for false prophets like Mohammed and Joseph smith
@@theguyver4934 did they not eat lamb for passover?
@@theguyver4934 I don't know where to begin...so much of you comment is confusing to me.
@@liljade53I wouldn't bother :)
@@theguyver4934By their fruits you will know, which is why I am a Christian and not a Muslim
As a full time Private Investigator for the past 10 years... I have to hand it to you. You conducted a great investigation into this. Keep up the great work!
What happens and how do you respond to those who don’t believe the results of your investigations?
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid that's not up to me that's up to God. The information is there for whoever wants to seek it. I seek more so I can assist them if they wish to ask me questions.
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid Police will tell you that when they collect testimony from an innocent person and ask "why should I believe your testimony?" The most common response an innocent person will give is something like "you don't have to believe me." In other words, a person who has truth is not "upset" or "worried" if others do not believe them.
On the other hand, in cases where someone is later proven guilty, when police pose the question "why should I believe your testimony?" A guilty person will respond with demands to be believed, counter accusations, and emotional laden language about why they must be right. In other words the person without truth is worried about those who do not believe.
Provide a demonstration of truth, be willing to engage with those who ask questions, but whatever happens to people who don't believe truth is not really our concern. If you are concerned, it could show you are insecure in your own belief system.
As someone who previously studied Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and others who study the so-called "Historical Jesus", your arguments are very sound. Their logic is often circular and deep down, they know it and sometimes come close to admitting it in their writings. The Gospels actually make a lot of sense chronologically once you come to know that they are speaking the truth. Thank you Jesus Christ for gifting me grace and truth!
@@bengoldberg6198 I absolutely agree with you. It's even more obvious with Daniel's dating - you either admit that prophecy exists... or you use circular logic to twist it incredibly so that it matches your presuppositions. Ehrman is definitely smart enough to see it, but his heart is hardened. I pray that someday he sees God's love glory.
On Tuesday my best friend, Sam Gonzalez succumb, to chronic depression, of which the last symptom is suicide please pray for him, and his family
Thank you all!
I am putting his name on my heart, that every time I lift my heart in prayer, I will be praying for your friend.
🙏
I am so sorry for the loss of your friend, prayers for all.
May our gracious Lord and Savior have mercy on Sam and the suffering that overtook him. May He redeem Sam at the final judgment and may Sam's family find peace that surpasses understanding in Christ.
Congratulations on another clear explanation of a contested biblical topic.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@TheWorldTeacher ,
Are you an ATHEIST?
If so, what are your reasons for your DISBELIEF in God?
Thanks for playing with an incoherent worldview.
Fantastic work IP. My brother, you are a true blessing to the church.
@@TheWorldTeacher It's hard to prove Atheism, because one would need to look at vast amounts of the data of life, and only then could one be partly confident .. not enough years for that. Someone like Richard Dawkins is masterly in his academic niche, and writes well, but to prove Atheism he'd need to be impartial, and say investigate for instance christians doing reportedly supernatural things ... but he doesn't, as in it's often comfortable to build up a familiar nest , and not fly off to investigate.
@@utopiabuster, I am your lord, your god, and your MASTER.
Therefore, whenever you send me a message or respond to a comment of mine, it is IMPERATIVE that you address me accordingly.
E.g. “How are you, Master?”
Is that understood, SLAVE?
I have been waiting for a good response to the objection that states “Luke copied from Josephus” and finally here it is, You’re a blessing! God bless you IP! Keep going
I always thought it was quite strange that they dated Mark via the destruction of the temple. Its begging the question to the highest degree. "We know that prophecy is B.S, therefore this has to have been written after."
This is simply an unwarranted a priori assumption.
does making a claim that turns out to be right proves it was a true prophecy? the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem was a yes-or-no kind of guess: either it would happen, or it wouldn't. likewise, roulette players who bet on any valid number and win, just got lucky by picking one possible result from a pool of all possible events. in general, coincidences by chance are the best and most frequent explanation for people correctly "predicting" an event. the second best explanation is cheating by manipulating the system and knowing beforehand the result.
@@ALEX-KYLE-g9, your healthy skepticism is fine. That said, NO ONE in the early 1st Century would have believed that the Temple could be destroyed. Rome was strong, and Rome protected the Temple. Herod Agrippa had been raised in the imperial household of Caesar Agustus, and was close friends with the future emperor, Claudius. In fact, all of the Herods seem to have been on very chummy terms with the imperial family, another reason that no Jew would believe that the Temple could be destroyed while Rome reigned.
@@mysotiras21 precisely because of the perceived low likelyhood of the destruction of the Temple, the impact on believers was significant because "who could have predicted it?" there are always people who see things differently, who obtain huge gains with little investment. Jesus bet on a low-likelyhood event, which costed Him nothing beyond making the claim, and the potential credibility gain was huuuuge in exchange for peanuts.
Well said
I'm feeling a really strong desire to see Inspiring Philosophy perform a particular urban style of dancing
Same
Hit the fortnite boogie woogie Micheal
You should see someone to help you with your perversions.
Breakdance
Nice
Jesus died and rose agian if you believe that he died and rose and were saved by grace through faith alone you will be saved. Once Saved Always saved no need to repent from your sins for salvation.
It's clear the gospels are earlier than 70AD but if atheist scholars admit that then they'd be admitted that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple
This is similar to the book of Daniel which is also often dated to the 2nd century BC, because if they accepted the original date of the 6th century BC they would be forced to deal with the numerous prophecies in it.
I could be wrong, but didn't other people also predict the destruction of the temple?
Which, if you think about it, isn't even that impressive of a prediction. We're talking about something that had happened once before, and about a society trending toward open rebellion against a powerful and ruthless government.
@@briandiehl9257Yes. If I can recall correctly Josephus reports that a Jewish leader before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, went running around at the top of his lungs screaming that Jerusalem as well as the temple will be destroyed soon because the people of Israel are sinful. Why can’t the same standers apply to Jesus?
@@jdotoz Jesus literally predicted a war in the middle east, scholars, "how could he possibly have known unless it had already happened?"
Attempts to date the Gospels after 70AD are circular reasoning. If people didn’t make assumptions about the possibility (or lack thereof) of prophecy before even beginning their investigations, they would reach far more accurate conclusions.
@@tomasrocha6139 copy pasta does not make your argument strong for spamming it everywhere.
@@davethebrahman9870 Could we also ask "what is the evidence Mark and Matthew and Luke was written after year 36?" Is there any solid evidence?
@@davethebrahman9870 Yes thats what I mean. While I dont believe it myself, is there any evidence that makes it unprobable.
You mention that other NT writers dont quote them. This seems like an argument from silence to me. Much of what Paul deals with would not have been answered in the gospels regardless. So we should expect quotation to be neccessary. And he does seem to be familiar with the gospels when talking about the Lords supper. But its a fair point against that he never quotes it verbatim.
While disputed by many, 1. Timothy does quote Luke. I havent looked into the arguments against Pauls authorship, but I hope they dont say "since Luke is late. 1.timothy must be later - therefore not by Paul."
@@davethebrahman9870 Post-120 though, they'd have guessy knowledge of what happened in the 1C, so would not include material on what Jerusalem, and Galilee were like then, they'd get it wrong. You'd get something more like the late sources used for e.g the Quran's version of Jesus, like infancy gospel of Thomas, which however aren't knowledgeable about 1C Jewish culture, rituals and infrastructure, and so deemed outright inauthentic.
@@tomasrocha6139that is a massive stretch. That phase do not in any way imply that it is post-70 AD
Each time I am again blown away by this kind of video quality and level of research. Truly the numer one Christian academic channel out there!
Christian and academic, a contradiction in terms!
@@DrWrapperband Oh, another troll! I was already expecting you, finally. And great argument as always!
@@DrWrapperband That's funny, because the christian church created the bases of the western system of education
@@DrWrapperband lots of scholars throughout history have been Christian.
@@DrWrapperbandignorant statement.
This might be the greatest video I've ever seen. Twenty minutes in, I've got nearly 2.5 pages of notes, notes which will help build my holy armor in the fight for Christ and God. Thank you so much for compiling these facts and creating this video. You have truly done the work of God.
Attaboy! Puttin in *work!* 😤😤💪🏻💪🏻✊🏻💯
Can you post the notes on yt? I’d like to use them
It’s crazy this video came up right after I saw two guys promote their book “Christ Before Jesus” on TikTok. Stating the gospels were written in the 2nd Century. Thanks for the work you do @Inspiring Philosophy.
Very informative and well argued!
Thank you for the donation.
Day 1 of asking IP to breakdance
No
Let’s make this a thing
@@InspiringPhilosophymaybe? 👀 😂 i hope youre doing well
😂
Yes
Thank you Michael, I think the gospel dating is one of the most important issues with gospel apologetics. A presupposition of late dating often comes from begging the question that there can't be prophecyin the gospels. This them lead to begging the question that there couldn't be plenty of eye witnesses during the composition and early circulation of the gospels. Late dating casts more doubts that the gospels were written by Mark Matthew and Luke. Then this casts doubts on anything the early church fathers said about the gospels.
So this simple claim casts unreasonable doubts on the entirety of new testament apologetics and has long needed to be refuted by more apologist in the TH-cam Christian community.
can you find an example of anyone using this type of reasoning with invalid presuppositions, in their own words, to date the prophecy and therefore the gospels?
i've only heard the TH-cam Christian apologists say that this is what other people say
@@tomasrocha6139 this in context is applied to the "abomination of desolation" and another section that is clearly prophecy and written as prophecy by all 3 authors of the synoptic gospels. Nothing in those words imply the events have already passed just that the reader should pay attention.
@@tomasrocha6139no that’s not what the comment implies at all. In fact that’s huge a stretch.
I really appreciate the effort and research that you've put into this video. Thank you!
I'm new to the channel but after watching this video, I will definitely be checking out your other work.
Thank you, and welcome.
Excellent video and summary! I've heard most of these points before, but this is the most comprehensive compilation and clearest presentation on this subject that I've heard to date. Kudos, and thanks!
Thank you for your videos sir you strengthen my faith and always provide accurate sources. Thank you have a nice day
I think you've got it exactly right. There's no believable way that the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD would not be mentioned by the Synoptic writers. That alone dates them prior to that even.
It would not have been mentioned by the gospel writers for the same reason that a history of U.S. presidents written in 1890 would not have mentioned Harry Truman. You can't write about events that haven't happened yet.
We like many of your videos and wish we had em on DVD for when it's all banned but This particular subject is not even an issue. Keep up the good work. Thank you
You can download them
I had listened to this before, and saved it to listen to it again.
I am convinced.
Thank you!
Hallelujah ✝️❤️
You have given me much to think about. I like it!
This is absolutely fantastic. The arguments for early dating just better. Great research. Will be recommending this to others.
If Acts can reasonably be dated by even non-Christian scholars to c. AD 62, then Luke must be earlier than that; and if Luke is c. 60, then, Matthew and/or Mark must be earlier still, because I don't know many who hold to Lucan priority. This has always seemed to me a more straightforward framework than all the post-70 ad hoc rationalizations dubbed "consensus."
The only reason it's dated to 90 is because the so-called scholars insist without evidence that Luke was written then. But Luke was a companion of Paul and wrote in the 60s and 70s, soon after Paul's death.
@@tomasrocha6139
The pool at Bethesda was discovered by archaeologists long after skeptics claimed that such a pool never existed. Skeptics never apologized. John's gospel was this confirmed for knowing facts about Jerusalem that skeptics claimed were not true. In addition, John mentions the pool in the present tense, but it was destroyed in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Therefore, John was written before 70 AD.
Skeptics are pathetic creatures, they have no truth in them.
@@tomasrocha6139It is odd though that it does not complete to the end ... as in you could not say Luke did not like to report on mistreatment of christians, as Acts has a lot of that, including martyrdom and persecution. So most explicable in terms of the text we have being in most final state at that time, which was before Paul's passing. Luke is keen to show his speeches before the rulers in authority (something Jesus said would happen), so would be keen to show the trial and his defence.[One could speculate on why he stopped, but good reasons could be conceived]
@@tomasrocha6139You clearly haven’t studied the issue much. There are many reasons why Acts should be dated early 60’s or at the most, late 60’s. The in-depth understanding of the temple arrangements, the positive attitude towards the Roman state, etc.
@@davethebrahman9870 Nobody takes Pervo’s argument seriously dude. You found this off wikipedia, because they have a deeply anti-Christian bias, but most scholars put it between 70-95; and an early date in 60’s is not unheard of.
That was a good explanation IP, great work and God bless
Really excellent presentation! Very Compelling
This was an awesome video. Thank you for your hard work
Excellent work here , one small note tho at 27:29 .
The average age of death was 50 only because infant mortality was so high . If you exclude people who died before reaching the age of 5, most people lived into their late 70’s at the time.
Meaning even if the gospels were written late (which they weren’t, they’re definitely written before 62 AD) , that still wouldn’t be grounds for dismissing disciple authorship.
@@davethebrahman9870 Did you…not watch the video lol. He literally presented the evidence there…
@@davethebrahman9870 Arguments and evidence are not mutually exclusive. Well developed arguments often contain pieces of evidence to give credibility to the claims posited ..
@@davethebrahman9870 And I’ve been saying that my evidence is the same evidence that has been presented in the video by Inspiring Philosophy’s arguments.
If you don’t find them convincing then so be it I guess.
@@davethebrahman9870Do you have any good arguments against the arguments made in this video?
@@davethebrahman9870 And as I’ve said multiple times , his arguments contain evidence that I also hold to be accurate.
If you disagree you’re entitled to, if you wish to discuss them , why not pick an argument you found exceptionally unconvincing and break down its flaws.
A good argument for partial preterism as well
I’m not very familiar with this doctrine. What is the reconciliation between this view & the book of Revelation?
@@PierregentryIP has a good video on Postmillennial partial preterism. I think it's "The End Times: A New Perspective".
@@Pierregentry Bruce Gore has an amazing series on Revelation that explains postmillennial partial-preterism.
I think it's called the apocalypse in space & time
There are no good arguments for either full or partial preterism.
@@TrivialCoincidence I appreciate that!
One of my favorite videos so far. Nice work!
Another great study from you IP. love your work. God bless you and to God be the glory!
@InspiringPhilosophy you are amazing and I truly appreciate your work. I would like to meet you someday and ask some questions. Thank you for strengthening my faith and for defending it. God bless ☦️✝️🙏❤️
Really excited for this!
The ONLY reason they date it 70ad and later is because they would have to admit prophecy and eyewitness.
Search "The Date of Mark’s Gospel Apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13-17) as Evidence" by Christopher B Zeichmann"
@@mjt532 looked it up and am familiar with the arguments. Has a few problems. 1. Roman coins were not unusual to find in Jerusalem at the time. Many coins among many other Roman paraphernalia are found in the area of Jerusalem. 2. "Ceasar" had by then become a title for the Emperor, no longer just a family name.
Octavian and Tiberius had used the name "Caesar" during Jesus's lifetime. 3. this type of deduction still proves my point that if we have silence about something like when a coin was mented that does not "therefore" mean that it didn't happen sooner and they were lying or it was something written later. NORMALLY historians would look at this evidence of what the bible tells us and say "ok I guess the distribution of coins with the name Ceasar happened alot sooner AND there must have been a period of time where taxation was happening for reasons beyond trade." But of course when it comes to the bible we make historical exceptions.
@@voiceofthefathertv guessing the destruction of the most sacred place for Judaism at the time and getting it right was a yes-or-no guess: either it would be destroyed, or it wouldn't. but there was a precedent to be taken into account: the Solomon's Temple having been destroyed some 6 centuries before by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, when Jerusalem was conquered. in Jesus' time, Jerusalem was under control of the Roman Empire, and the Second Temple was almost finished. see the similarities here? foreign domination, destruction.
@@tomasrocha6139 No the literal translation is "let the reader take heed" or be warned. as he immediately after tells those who believe what is written should flee to the hills once they see the armies surrounding. which is recorded that the christian Jews in Jerusalem did exactly that. there is archeological evidence namely the famed "upper room" where christians returned to the ruined city and built synagogues with christian symbols facing the place of crucifixion which is now The church of the Holy Sepulcher. all other synagogues face the temple
@@tomasrocha6139 Here we go: Strong's Number
G3539
Original Word
νοιέω
Strong's Definition
From G3563; to exercise the mind (observe) that is (figuratively) to comprehend and then take HEED: - consider perceive think understand... So lets go with the common translation of "understand". the context still points to it being instruction for the reader, not just "hey look at what I'm saying it just happened."
I really enjoyed this, thank you! I knew one or two of these points, but much of it was new information. This was so helpful.
10 out of 10 IP keep up the good work
God bless you and your work sir I.P. respect from Croatia Europe 😇😇😇💙💙💙
You forgot the best argument: the destruction of the temple was already prophecized in Daniel 9.
8:31
@@MeanBeanComedy True 👍🏻
Really well researched video. Excellent work!
I didn't know that there is a consensus of modern scholars deciding such nonsense. There is assuredly an older (and what must be considered a conservative approach) tradition that uses the earlier dates for Mark, Luke-Acts, and Matthew. The post-70 dates are logically and traditionally implausible, not to mention sacrilegious.
Thanks for an amazing video. Great summary and excellent flow, with tons of evidence. God bless 🙏🥰
Excellent. As an atheist I assumed that the Gospels being much later was irrefutable. I was shocked when I tried looking up the evidence supporting my belief and found it was a castle built of sand. I was particularly struck by the fact that Jesus didn't refer to the destruction of "the temple" as I had assumed, but that he was talking about the destruction of the *second temple*
Always saving from tight spot
Thanks
And God increase you
I dont know why this is so important. I 've seen enough evidence already and I know 100% that christianity is the truth.
I do sometimes think we spend too much time debating Christianity to those that have no interest in listening. I think this kind of work does help Christians stay the course. Especially those who can be persuaded by people that I would describe as atheist elites who enjoy stiring up nonsense.
@@bassmanjr100true dat
@@EvilXtianity - even when nothing comes something is evidence enough for you, eh?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@EvilXtianity - why bother responding to someone who believes that something can come from nothing???
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@EvilXtianity sooo… you’re not an atheist??
Thanks, IP! One of your most significant videos.
I would respectfully submit that Matthew was written first, then Mark, then Luke-Acts and then John was written last.
The Matthean Priority has more compelling cases than Markan priority
I concur. Dr. Brant Pitre makes a pretty good case for Matthaean priority. It's also the tradition most early christians held as well.
@@davethebrahman9870I do but I'm not seeing what you're getting at here with the Mrk 1 / Mat4 comparison let me know
@@davethebrahman9870 I would suggest that Mark making his version based on the oral teaching of Peter reading Matthew (which is what tradition suggests) would also explain the data. It then becomes a question as to which argument is better, and i think people can disagree on that. Indeed, if one side was really definitive there wouldn't be scholarly debate, but I'm sure you know there is plenty ongoing to this day.
This is beautifully laid out! Thank you!! 🙏🏼🙏🏼
The main problem with dating them past 70 appears to be the need to rely on the presupposition that prophecy can't happen. It just becomes an ad hoc argument based on reasoning that looks slightly round in shape.
the inverse could be said as well
@@polystrate1 not really, because there is actual evidence for it being earlier, you know, like what is in the video.
You don't have to oresuppose prophecy to get an earlier date, you do have to presuppose no prophecy to get a late one.
@@euanthompson we don't have original writings so we cannot know if the originals that were said to be before 70 contained the passages in question. Having men write a book so save the lives of mankind was a terrible plan
@@polystrate1 well since we don't have the originals we can't know they didn't contain the passages.
That is a genuinely terrible argument, it is just a modified argument from silence. Also how did you expect it to be written down and transmitted and translated? Magic?
@@euanthompson we know that manuscripts were edited over time in various ways so it is the defenders' problem. Almost like god should have done a better job. He has only himself to blame
Thankyou Lord Jesus for more and more proof to us to defend the truth.
On the abrupt ending to Paul's imprisonment in Acts, I really like N.T. Wright's spin on the hypothesis (imho, obvious and most likely assumption) that Luke ends it with Paul in Rome because his history caught up with the present day.
N.T. Wright articulates in his 2018 work, _Paul: A biography,_ that Luke may have originally written Acts in as his testimony before Caesar of who Paul was and why he was innocent.
Part of what is so elegant about Wright's version of the hypothesis is that it makes sense anyway you slice it. Its only assumptions are:
1) Lucian authorship;
2) It ends at present day.
The dedication to "Theophilus" is a problem anyway you slice it. It looks like "Theophilus" is who paid for the letter to be written (which is very likely). But this is problematic because "Theophilus" isn't a name, it is a title. This means he could have written it for a friend and just been calling him, "the one God loves." It also could be that _I_ am "Theophilus", and _you,_ and the crazy guy down the street, and anyone else who reads his gospel and Acts. N.T. Wright's simple hypothesis treats this secondary issue as an afterthought and allows it to be explained independently of the text.
If Theophilus really was a real man, then perhaps Luke sought from him to help pay for the materials so he could write his defence for Paul in court.
If Theophilus were a real man, then perhaps Luke wrote his testimonial for Paul, then reworked it later and sent it to Theophilus.
If Theophilus is not real, then perhaps Luke lightly modified his testimonial and published it as a book.
I was helped by JAT Robinson’s “Redating The NT” as well as E. Earle Ellis “Making the NT Documents” I am also convinced by Ken Gentry’s “Before Jerusalem Fell”
Thanks. There are many solid reasons to believe that the Gospels were written early, probably before 70 AD. I think honest scholars and historians are gradually coming around to this point of view, albeit grudgingly. Accepting early dates for the Gospels means accepting that Jesus DID predict the destruction of the 2nd Temple.
Wow! Very thorough and informative. Always amazed how some put forth theories that every other culture or religion could possess literacy skills to record their histories, traditions and beliefs, but it’s never extended to ancient Jews and early Christians. I think it’s plausible that people were writing home about the events in Jerusalem about a guy who healed the sick, was executed, snd rose from the grave pretty soon after the event occurred. Thank you for your presentation and God bless your work.
Future atheist scholars will date this video to 2080, and then use that assumption to say that you didn't actually post it
@@tomasrocha6139 Spamming same thing with the presumption of your interpretation, does not suddenly make it true. You're going to have to elaborate further than that.
@@tomasrocha6139 boy ur are just copy pesting the same comment for 100th time😂. get a life bro
@@tomasrocha6139it’s a very weak argument from you.
Absolutely freaking amazing
The idea that Paul's journeying in Acts was not written until 20 or 30 years after the events is unreasonable. Acts mentions the death of Stephen but not the death of Paul. Acts mentions a great famine in the Levant but does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts mentions Gallio as the proconsul in Achaia, which archaeology has confirmed was in 51ad. There is no reason then to assume Acts was written any later than about 63 ad. The author of Acts wrote Luke first, which puts Luke at about 60 ad. And Luke was based in part on Mark, which puts Mark at about 57 ad. All this is reasonable dating.
Excellent work
Paul quotes Luke so both Luke and Acts had to be written BEFORE Paul’s death around 62-62 AD.
I was a bit surprised that IP didn't include that detail, as it puts Luke's Gospel in the exact same time frame that IP argues for here.
Now the issue with this, is that some assert that Luke and the other gospels are the ones quoting the epistles, I think the mire likely alternative than one referencing the other is that they are simply drawing from the same well of knowledge.
@@minifox3603 That doesn't really make sense if you read the citation Paul makes. 1 Timothy 5 :17-18 - "for the Scripture says, "you shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" and "the laborer deserves to be paid"."
Paul is quoting two separate "Scriptures". The first one about the ox is Deuteronomy 25 :4. The second one about the laborer is found NOWHERE but in the Gospel of Luke. If he's not quoting that, please provide another "Scripture" source for it.
@@tomasrocha6139 "Paul would not call a recent biography scripture." - You're presupposing divine inspiration is false. Same error as presupposing prophecy is not possible in order to date the Gospels later.
@@schlauchmeister234 No. Tomas is concluding that Paul wouldn't view Luke as scripture. It's a pretty easy case to make.
Very interesting and informative IP. I've always seen the late dating as a bit odd because Paul references things in those gospels and critics have little issue with the dates of many of Paul's letters.
Except that Air-man (a funny closed caption rendering of Ehrman) et al now claim that only 6 of Paul's epistles are genuinely Paulian, and the rest are all denounced as forgeries (an entirely unfair accusation). Oh, of course i believe Ehrman, notwithstanding his affable veneer in the "Misquoting Jesus" video series, is utterly full of gaseous air when he makes those nonsensical claims about the Pauline letters, but strict accuracy compels me to note the shenanigans in which he is engaging.
Well made! Funny how some scholars date the texts to 70-99, I've had multiple people try to tell me that the gospels weren't written until 200 years after the subject matter!
No you haven't.
@@downenout8705 Skeptics are the one saying that the texts were written somewhere between 70 to 80AD . And they only come up with assumptions not with the facts in what is written. People who say they were written like 200 years after Christ, those are mythicist.
@@carloswater7 You clearly haven't read anything by Richard Carrier. It is not the dating of the stories that make a mythicist, it's, amongst other things, the lack of any contemporary written evidence and the way the stories reflect the style of known mythological stories from the time.
I personally have no problem with an apocalyptic preacher wandering around the Levant named Jesus but that doesn't defacto make all the magical stuff true.
@@downenout8705 I'm going to destroy you with this sentence. Richard carrier is more of a mythicist than a historian. All atheist Scholars don't take him seriously. Even Bart Eherman.
@@downenout8705 actually my reply was not for you it was actually for the person you reply to. I just noticed it
Great stuff man!
It is WILD how much detail you put into each video.
Great work!
Please pray for my healing
Very good arguments, you've convinced me.
high quality video im forever grateful for this insight❤
You mention that the average lifespan was 50. However, it seems to be about 30-35. Where did you find the 50 as the average? Great video, and I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
Skeptics - " Jesus could not predict the destruction of the temple "
Also skeptics - " Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic religous preacher "
For those who dont understand the relevance . An apocalyptic jewish preacher was someone who predicted the destruction of EVERYTHING
🤨
Skeptics - Jesus and his earliest followers believed everything would be destroyed and renewed by God and his prophecies failed
Also skeptics - " but no Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the temple that is the exception "
🤦
No offence but these skeptical scholars are not reasoning . They pick an choose when their theory applies and make arguments that contradict their own theories !!!
@@tomasrocha6139 already addressed .
@@tomasrocha6139
I notice you like to spam the same thing over an over aging but can't actually engage
@@tomasrocha6139
Yes . I responded already under your original post . You haven't responded
@@tomasrocha6139 you ran away
well done. Thank you for doing the work.
1 Concern I have with this reasoning:
If the fact that the destroyed temple is not mentioned, shows that the synoptics were writting prior to 70ad, than that would be true for John as well. But john (from what I hear) is never classified that way. So if it isnt an Argumemt for John how can it be for the synaptics???
Good job as always IP!
@@tomasrocha6139
I've heard that argument as well. However I've also heard the counter argument that Jesus is not talking about the temple itself being the temple destroyed. He's talking about his human body as a temple. We see this concept also in the Pauline letters that the Christian or disciple of Christ is the Temple of the Lord.
So it is possible that the author of The Gospel according to mark is telling the reader that Jesus as a temple was destroyed and then three days later rebuilt, in other words, he came back to life. If Jesus is referring to himself as the temple being destroyed and his listeners misunderstood him referring to the temple as a building, Mark could have been written at any time after 33 ad.
Doesn’t make sense for even revelation to be late… especially when Jesus begins and ends it with I am coming soon.
Church tradition dates John and revelation which is also believed to be written by John to the 90s. The church has everything to gain by putting the gospels including John as close to the date of Jesus's death as possible to show them as more reliable historical accounts, so if the church position is that John is later and it's in their interest to put him earlier then it's very believable.
@@johnmccrossan9376 a lot of folks also go off of Iraneus’ very unspecific words about John and the revelation.
Also if the revelation was written in the 90’s… there are still references for it to happen soon and quickly.
@@CupOJoeOuttaIdaho yes and those are true but remember st Peter's comments about the nature of time how a thousand years is like a day and vice versa in God's eyes. Soon out of Jesus's mouth does not nessicerially mean soon by human standards
To continue along the lines of this video, please consider making a series pointing out the MANY question-begging naturalistic assumptions that underpin arguments against God, Christianity, religion in general, and the supernatural. Apologetic arguments often fall flat because naturalistic presuppositions are not interrogated and challenged at the outset
Excellent work sir! Excellent.
"But BaRt EhRmAn says something else" yeah but lil bro contradicts himself depending on who he talks to while cashing in for every interview 😂😂😂 Convenient
The crazy thing is I don't think he's necessarily being disingenuous, he's got some major cognitive dissonance going on. I think he compartmentalizes each topic and argument, and can't see the forest for the trees. A good example is the recent video IP reacted to where Matthew could or couldn't have known Greek in responses to two different claims within minutes of each other. (Edit: I think it was Hebrew, gotta double check the video. Caffeine hasn't kicked in yet lol.)
@@tomasrocha6139 Truly baseless when you can observe this on IPs channel even
@@tomasrocha6139 Not really, the man claims and still claims that in Mark; Jesus makes no divine claims. Yet Brant Pitre got him to admit that Jesus is making some divine claim which is why he was on trial for blasphemy. Something that Bart wants to forget.
Well presented. Thank you 🙏
Why couldn't Mark have used the Book of Daniel to retrodict sayings into the mouth of Jesus on the destruction of the Temple?
Why should we believe that Mark did do that?
@@coffeehousedialogue Why should we believe that Mark didn't do this?
@@downenout8705 Why should we believe that he did so? Is not the Burden of Proof on the positive claim?
@@coffeehousedialogue I see a question, to the positive claim that the author of Mark was accurately reporting the words of the Jesus character.
I guess that you don't have an answer otherwise you would have given it.
@@downenout8705 Boy, you are not weaseling your hypocritical tail out of this. You say he retrodicted it, so where's the proof?
I can't wait for this to start
ip, you should respond to kipp davis' recent video critiquing you.
Yes, please.
I listened to his (Kipp Davis on IP) video for 7 minutes and was waiting for him to say ANYTHING worth listening too. Even the title of his video comes across as, IP Don't know Greek but I do, IP should know Greek or IP should not speak on anything.
That reeeks of the appeal to authority fallacy. He's assuming that his level of scholarship and Greek puts him on a level higher than IP and he's insinuitating that IP is an idiot. That approach isn't even worth listening to.
Kipp Davis is a clown who resorts to petty credentialism when challenged, like many modern critical "scholars."
He's reliable when it comes to anything related to the Dead Sea Scrolls but apart from that he's the same as any other social media "scholar."
If you watch the entire thing, I feel Kipp is very generous to IP and even offering to help him learn if IP is interested.
Exactly, the destruction of Jerusalem was such a major event that it certainly would have been mentioned in some of the epistles or even Acts if it occurred before the gospels were written.
An excerpt from Bart Ehrman Blog post titled “Why Date the Gospels after 70 CE?”
“Someone may respond by saying that in these passages Jesus is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, not looking back on it. Fair enough! But when is a Christian author likely to record a prediction of Jesus in order to show that he predicted something accurately? Obviously, in order to show that Jesus knew what he was talking about, an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled. Otherwise the reader would be left hanging, not knowing if Jesus was a true prophet or not. So even if we assume that Jesus did predict such things, the fact that they are written so confidently by later authors suggests that they did so after the events took place, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 c.e.”
Ehrman’s word isn’t gospel, but I am trying to show that there’s more nuance to the argument than “Prophecy is BS therefore date the gospels after 70”
@@akprice17 That's at least a fair point to make. I don't agree with much of Dr. Erhmann's conclusions, but he's got interesting conclusions. It's good to read different prospectives.
@@akprice17
There is nothing determinative in anything that Ehrman stated. If the prediction of the destruction of the temple was stated or written after the fact, it would be meaningless to readers, who would greet its claim with a huge yawn.
To be honest, those responses don’t make any sense to me
@@akprice17
Typo fixed.
The earlier dating of Mark and therefore Luke Matthew and Acts is the timeline I was taught in college 40 years ago by Sr. Damien. It was a Theology course on the Synoptic gospels and was the common orthodox catholic interpretation at the time.
iT mUsT bE lAtE bEcUz TeMpLe NoT dEsTrOyEd.
Average liberals when they see predictive prophecy.
Given the fact that the First Temple had in fact been destroyed, and that there had been numerous uprisings in recent years, there would have been nothing improbable in a prediction that sooner or later, the Second Temple would have a similar fate.
Many people have commented here that scholars date Mark (and the other gospels) late ONLY because they reject prophecy. Not true. Just to give one example... Mike Licona did a study showing that many scholars, including non-believing ones, date Mark PRIOR to 70. He says that the majority of scholars date Mark late 60s to early 70s. They wouldn't date Mark earlier than 70 if they rejected prophecy. (I think, however, one could argue that if Mark was written late 60s, it was clear that the Temple was coming down.)
I wish you could cover these in your videos in the future
1. Da Vinci Code
2. Old testament Reliability
3. Violence in the Old testament and as well as Slavery
4. About Hell
5. prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 in detail
The main reason I think one could argue that Mark dates after 70 is that Jesus (supposedly) nailed the Temple prophecy, which I find highly unlikely--and then he didn't return in that generation, as predicted. So, it makes sense that Mark was writing after 70, putting words into Jesus' mouth, and Mark was mistaken about Jesus' imminent return. That makes more sense than: Jesus made a remarkable prediction 40 years in advance, even seeming to know (roughly) when it would take place (during his generation)... and then he was mistaken about his imminent return. (Even if Jesus did in fact make the remarkable Temple prediction... if he did in fact screw up the return part, that makes him just human.)
It's the same exact reason that most scholars (many whom are Christians) date Daniel (chapters 7-12) very precisely in the mid 160s BC. Daniel gets everything remarkably accurate until 164 BC, and then his prophecies certainly seem to fail at that point. (Even an early dating conservative scholar like Tremper Longman admits that Daniel's prophecies appear to fail.)
To be fair, people come up with multiple rationalizations for how Jesus (or Daniel for that matter) was NOT mistaken. And it's certainly possible that one of these explanations is correct. But it's much simpler to understand that Mark "invented" this speech, writing ex-eventu, and mistakenly thought that Jesus would return very, very soon.
Excuse me sir I know you appealed to the actual reasons people give, but IP and every other Christian apologist just assert that the real reason is because of bias and circular reasoning so this isn't really computing for me
Really enjoyed that !
IP can you do a video explaining the book of numbers? specifically the " spoils of war section in Numbers 31: 21- 54?
28: You will offer as tribute to the Lord from each warrior who went into battle one living being in five hundred, whether HUMAN, oxen, donkeys, or flocks
31 : Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. 32 The valuable property remaining from the spoils of war that the people of the army had taken was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 oxen, 34 61,000 donkeys, 35 and 32,000 women who hadn’t known a man intimately by sleeping with him. 36 The half-share of those who had gone out to battle numbered 337,500 sheep, 37 of which the Lord’s tribute was 675. 38 The oxen were 36,000, of which the Lord’s tribute was 72. 39 The donkeys were 30,500, of which the Lord’s tribute was 61. 40 Humans were 16,000, of which the Lord’s tribute was 32 persons.
Now up above the Lord's tribute of 32 people was specified to be virgin women........ Why would God want 32 virgin women as his own personal spoils of war and a bunch of gold sheep and living sacrifices Unless he was a fucking dragon? 😂
How can anybody think that a God like this is good when he demands virgin women as sacrifice for him for Spoils of war?
What could God possibly want from 32 virgin women who have not been touched by a man..... What is God going to just devour them or have sex with them himself ? It just doesn't make any sense. It's hard for me to get behind the idea that I should have faith in a God who says weird crap like this
The priests take the tithes. Perhaps God wanted wives for the priests? Perhaps to keep consanguinity from getting too thick within the families of the priesthood? Just a couple thoughts off the top of my head. Remember the Levites didn't farm, keep cattle or other beasts, etc. That's what the tithes were for.
James Crossley’s doctoral dissertation was on the very early dating of Mark. I’m on the hunt for an affordable copy(!). Crossley, btw, is an atheist whose primary interests are the social and economic climate surrounding the early Jesus movement.
Great job on this video! Thanks for pointing out that the lack of precision in Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction actually strengthens the argument for an early dating of the gospels
I think the biggest issue with late dating is that critics then need to explain what Christianity was doing for 40+ years between the crucifixion and writing.
If not gospels existed and they emerged ex-nihilo, all the christians of the past 40 years would be very confused.
If the written gospels differed significantly from oral or prior written tradition, this too would cause unrest among the existing believers - of which there were *many* all through the empire.
They were written early. Period.
Honestly though. I have no idea how so many scholars buy into this late dating idea. Are the early dating arguments just bad? Clearly not, so what then is the hold-up?
@@minifox3603 Because they would have to concede that if the Gospels were written earlier, they would be closer to the events of the Apostles and Jesus. Which would then shine light that Gospels might actually have been written by the Apostles or their contemporaries. Which would make them more reliable.
With the late date, Scholars have more ammo to undermine the authorship of the Gospels and the reliability of it all as they can plausibly deny that the Apostles actually taught what was in them. With an earlier date, it becomes less likely that the texts were 'corrupted' or 'modified' from the ''original" oral traditions. Remember, Erhman believes that Mark originally did not claim Jesus as God, and it was only the later Gospels that developed that theology.
So yes a lot of scholarship rides with the idea that the Gospels are late. It also rides on the fact that Mark was written first. Which I also reject.
@@Cklert which one do you think was first?
Thank you, man!
IP acting like a typical creationist. Quote mining scholars who would not agree with the use of their material as evidence for the point he is making. People eat this stuff up though.
He's a theistic evolutionist, first off. Second, how is he wrong?
What a childish statement. Did you even watch the video? He is quoting people who agree with whatever he is quoting them on. SMH.
@@ReasonedAnswers Would the people he is quoting agree with his conclusions? I seriously doubt it!
@@tgrogan6049 So, we're all just supposed to live in an echo chamber and only quote people that agree with every little thing we say, according to you? Reality check: Not every scholar is going to agree 100% on any topic.
Great video. Interestingly enough: i went to seminary with Michael Barber. Actually was in the same class with him and his future wife. Crazy to hear him being quoted on one of your videos. Great guy.
Mike, I’ve been following your channel for a while now, initially drawn in by your confident presentations and insightful discussions on Christianity. However, recent developments have left me deeply disillusioned. Your attempt to refute Bart Ehrman’s arguments in your latest video not only fell short but also highlighted a concerning trend in your content.
It’s evident that you lack the academic rigor and expertise necessary to engage in the kind of scholarly discourse you often attempt. While your presentation may be polished and your voice commanding, it’s becoming increasingly clear that you’re out of your depth when it comes to grappling with the complexities of biblical scholarship.
Your reliance on non-Christian sources like Dale Allison to bolster your arguments, while simultaneously trying to maintain a facade of confidence, is disheartening. It’s as if you’re trying to play in the big leagues of biblical scholarship without putting in the necessary work to earn your place there.
Furthermore, your response to being called out by Ehrman and other scholars only serves to undermine your credibility further. Instead of acknowledging your limitations and committing to a more humble and intellectually honest approach, you continue to double down on your misguided assertions.
As someone who once looked up to you as a beacon of intellectual Christianity, I implore you to reconsider your approach. Your overconfidence is not only damaging to your own reputation but also to the broader community of believers who may be influenced by your content. It’s time to acknowledge that you’re not a scholar and approach these topics with the humility they deserve.
Stop pretending to be something you’re not, Mike. Take a step back, reassess your approach, and perhaps consider engaging with genuine scholars in a more meaningful and respectful manner. Your audience deserves better than the half-baked arguments and intellectual arrogance you’ve been peddling lately.
Sincerely,
Fergie
A bit harsh.
Hi StudentDad,
Respectfully, I appreciate your perspective, but sometimes tough love is necessary for growth and self-awareness. Thanks!✌️
Could you tell me what he got wrong
Hi Somethingrandomyt8367,
Mike's response is steeped in hypocrisy, revealing a glaring disregard for his own limitations. He selectively cherry-picks scholars like Dale Allison to bolster his arguments while conveniently sidestepping Allison’s critique of his harmonizing tendencies. Despite leveraging the credibility of scholars like Bart Ehrman, Mike fails to acknowledge their expertise when it challenges his entrenched theological convictions. His claim to prioritize scholarship is hollow, as he consistently avoids engaging with genuine historical analysis that challenges his preconceived beliefs. By selectively engaging with scholars-such as inviting Ehrman to discuss Revelation while disregarding his expertise on Jesus-Mike exposes his intellectual dishonesty and perpetuates a narrative that serves his agenda rather than genuine scholarly inquiry.
Thank you!✌️
@@FergieFerg622 you can make a case for the early gospels none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem
It is video production like this that I stick around and ignore the red meat troll videos. Great Video Mike! I agree with the dating timelines.
Single handedly the death blow of pointing out the circular logic that Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple is a biased denial that Jesus, if He was who He claimed to be, could actually have made such a prediction, especially when others who were not God prior to this also made the claim. Being taught in school by an actual priest that same stupid argument for gospel dating has frustrated me for years.
I eagerly await the Book of Revelation dating video to see if you’ll get that one right!
inspiring philosophy has excuses for every bible condtradiction
You have every excuse to not repent and bow your knee to Christ.
@@axderka Jesus was human prophet..nothing less nothing more....He.never said worship me..Saint paul changed everything
@@politicaleconomy9653you prophet is false and burning in hell stop making up false things to discredit the truth
Well done Michael Jones. Thank you.
@InspiringPhilosophy. I appreciate your work here, but I'm curious as to why you did not include the solid work of Dr. John Robinson's work, "Redating the New Testament" and his work "The Priority of John." He puts all the NT prior to AD 70 based on his detailed study.
I disagree and don’t think his arguments are convincing. Craig Blomberg dates John to the 80s or 90s.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Yet his arguments are actually sound, and they are in line with what you've presented. Have you actually read Robinson's books? Or did you hear about them from others?
One of his main points was how liberal dating scholarship depends on invalid assumptions, such as the dubious preconceived idea that predictive prophesy is not possible. That was a valid point. How is that not "convincing" to you? It's a valid, logical point.
18:53
Your argument aligns with Dr. Barbara Thiering’s in her three books which detail the chronology but which also explain the complex system of pseudonyms in use (the more important the figure the more different names bestowed upon them with Simon Magus (Lazarus) chief in this respect) - for instance that Stephen (the crown) was another name for Jesus’ brother James Crown Prince to the King position of Jesus as heir to the line of David. She also puts the gospel of John first in order of composition but shows how it was added to in significant ways afterwards. Her reasoning is always very closely detailed in its working out.
I agree with much of what you have said. You make an excellent point regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. If the Synoptics really were written after AD70 and the writers put words into Jesus' mouth as if spoken in the AD30's , why on earth would they not have had him been even more accurate and detailed than he was? They would have wanted to present him in the best possible light to get people to believe (according to the scoffers). Rather it seems, they simply record what he actually said, in AD 30-33.
I would make two additional points-
1. Theudas in Acts. If Luke is correct there are 2 possibilities. One is that Josephus was wrong in his dating. This is a possibility as most historians today accept that Josephus didnt always get his facts right, especially when it came to dating the events he described. Therefore why automatically accept Josephus' description and dating, and reject Luke? That seems to me to be an unreasonable position to hold.
The second possibility, which I think is more likely, is that Luke and Josephus are referring to 2 different individuals with the same or similar name who led revolts at different times. As you say, although both are referred to be leaders of a revolt, the descriptions in Acts and Josephus are significantly different. So why assume they must be referring to the same individual, except for a bias against Luke?
To make this point, imagine if historians in 2000 years time from now had the same dearth of historical writings about the last few decades as we have about events and people in the 1st century. Do you really think all historians in 2000 years time (AD4024) would accept there were 2 different Presidents of the United States, both called George Bush, who lead the USA at different times?! I suspect many of them would laugh at such an idea, and insist that some of the writers must have gotten their information and timings confused. But we, living at the time, know better.
Indeed, I think it is quite possible that Luke's Theudas is the father and Josephus' his son who led a similar revolt a generation, 30-40 years, later. The son following in the footsteps of his father, having a similar mindset and hatred of the Romans. I looked at this issue some time ago and found that 'Theudas' was found, for example, on a Jewish ossuary from the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, dating to around 1BC - 'Yehuda son of Theudas'. Some have tried to say Theudas was a very uncommon name, but such findings negate that. As if there was only ever one person named Theudas who could have led a revolt against the Romans - laughable. Therefore there is no reason to believe Luke relied on Josephus' writings and that he wrote after him.
2. Protective Anonymity. Scholars such as Richard Bauckham have highlighted the apparent use of a literary technique called Protective Anonymity. This is where a writer chooses not to name an individual they refer to despite knowing who they are, typically for safety reasons. In the context of the Gospels, this would be to ensure the safety of individuals or their families if the writings fell into the wrong hands and therefore produced unnecessary persecution. But I think there is another way of looking at that. In my view, Mark did not name the Jewish High Priest who condemned Jesus precisely because he did not want to encourage unnecessary persecutions of Christians by Jewish authorities led by the powerful High Priest and his family, as they would have had significant influence as to who would be persecuted. So Mark purposefully withheld the name of the specific High Priest under whom the 'Messiah' was executed. But both John and Matthew are happy to name him, Caiaphas. Why? Because they were writing after the Annas family had any influence on the Jewish authorities. This means Mark wrote his Gospel at a time the Annas family had significant influence over Jewish authorities. This officially ended in AD43. Although there was a final son of Annas who became High Priest later, this was a long time after, 20 years in fact. So I strongly suspect Mark wrote sometime between the early 40s to early 50s at the latest when that family still had important influence. This is another reason for believing Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written.
Excuse me for the long post!
@@tomasrocha6139 I disagree. 'Let the reader understand' refers the reader to where that wording was used before, in Daniel. They are to understand what is being foretold by Jesus - within a generation (40 years) the Temple will be a place of sacrilege. We now know after the fact what he was referring to - the Romans standing in the place where the Temple stood, including the Holy of Hollies. Made desolate by an idolatrous army.
@@tomasrocha6139you are a misinformation parasite