What Are the Gospels?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2023
- Many say the Gospels are myths or fables, but there is a lot of evidence they are biographies. The ramifications of this are often missed.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilosophy.locals.com/ - บันเทิง
We need to specify 1 thing. When the Gospel authors "don't follow chronological order," this does not mean that one author gets the chronology wrong. It simply means that an author is narrating without a chronology. Lydia McGrew has dubbed this achronological narration. Excellent video!!!
can further explain this? I don't really get it.
@lbwnova6654 Absolutely. Many times, the gospel authors (Luke and Matthew, I would say most often) narrate some events without giving them any specific chronology. For example, common Greek phrases like, "Kai", and "De" are used to connect sections of scripture. These Greek conjectures don't necessarily indicate sequential order. Let's take Luke 10:25 as an example. It begins with simply, "and behold, a lawyer stood up...". Luke does not tell us exactly when this event occurred. It doesn't necessarily mean it happened chronological, exactly after the prior passage. Luke narrates without any chronology. Another example is the temptations in the wilderness, but this response is getting quite lengthy...
I suggest checking out Lydia Mcgrews TH-cam channel for more information. Hope this helps!
Nice description. I'm unsure to what extent the comparison is appropriate, but I've always considered many portions of the Gospels to be like a selection of vignettes, constituting carefully selected episodes from Jesus's ministry arranged with thematic significance/typological correspondence as a priority over chronological adherence.
@@everyisnaadisfabricated3784 😂😂
i agree but i do think that this factor does make the gospels slightly less reliable since we have to use a non instinctive reasoning to explain it
thanks its always nice to see the gospels backed up by science
*"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.*
Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."*
*As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).*
*"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
Also, look up:
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies - Reductio Ad Absalom"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
What do you mean By gospels are back up by science?
1. The dating of the Gospels is disputed. While some scholars date the Gospels to 40-60 years after Jesus, others argue for earlier datings, even within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. For example, Richard Bauckham argues that the Gospel of Luke was written before 60 AD, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. The dating of ancient works is difficult and inconclusive.
2. The Gospels as anonymous works is also disputed. While the titles "According to Mark/Matthew/Luke/John" were added later, there are still reasons to believe the authors were connected to eyewitnesses. For example, the author of Luke/Acts explicitly cites eyewitnesses as sources (Luke 1:2), and the details in John's Gospel suggest an eyewitness source. The anonymity of the Gospels is inconclusive.
3. The Gospels were likely written in Greek, which was commonly spoken in first century Palestine, especially in Galilee. Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, so it is possible for eyewitnesses to write in Greek. The language of the Gospels does not preclude eyewitness authorship.
4. The claim that the Gospels were written by "unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions" is an overstatement. While the evangelists certainly selected and arranged material, there is good evidence that they preserved historical information, and they intended to write historical biographies of Jesus. Ancient historians like Luke explicitly say they interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2).
5. The fact that the Gospels aim to confirm faith does not mean they do not preserve historical truth. As Richard Bauckham argues, for early Christians "faith in Jesus was faith in the Jesus who actually lived and died in Palestine." The purpose of confirming faith does not preclude historical reliability.
while scholarly opinions vary, there are substantial reasons to believe the Gospels were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, and that they plausibly preserve eyewitness testimony about the historical Jesus. The historical evidence leaves room for the traditional view that the Gospels are based on eyewitness sources.
1. The Gospels were written early, within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. The book of Acts, which ends abruptly in 60-62 AD, does not record the deaths of Peter, Paul, or James, so it was likely written before their deaths. Since Acts is the sequel to Luke, the Gospel of Luke must have been written even earlier. And since Luke incorporates parts of Mark, Mark must be even earlier. This points to dating the Gospels from the 50s to 60s AD, when eyewitnesses were still alive.
2. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or their associates. The author of Luke explicitly says he compiled his account from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). And the "we" passages in Acts suggests the author traveled with Paul, indicating he likely knew other apostles as well. The details in John's Gospel also have been shown to match the geography of Jerusalem from before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, suggesting the author was familiar with the city at that time.
3. The Gospels contain eyewitness details. The Gospels record vivid details that suggest eyewitness testimony, like the names of secondary characters, details of geography, and descriptions of personalities. The details in the passion narrative in particular have been shown to match what we know of crucifixion techniques used by the Romans. These details would have been difficult to fabricate after the fact.
4. The Gospels were written to preserve the testimony of eyewitnesses. According to early church leaders like Papias and Irenaeus, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John were based directly on the testimony of Peter, Matthew, and John, respectively. While these attributions are disputed, they show the early church understood the Gospels to preserve eyewitness testimony. And Luke explicitly says his Gospel preserves the accounts passed down from "eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:2).
5. Manuscript evidence confirms an early dating. The Rylands Papyrus, containing fragments of John's Gospel from about 125 AD, confirms circulation of John's Gospel at an early date. The Magdalen Papyrus from about 66 AD may contain fragments of Matthew. This pushes the dates for these Gospels back very early, when eyewitnesses were still present.
the evidence from dating, authorship, details, purpose, and manuscripts all point to the Gospels being based on eyewitness testimony. While not conclusive, this provides grounds for confidently believeing in the historical reliability of the Gospels
@@bluex.1016 Why even have 4 different account? Why not just one?? Can’t your “”all-powerful”” god get it right the first time??? Why even have a Old AND New Testament if your deity is so called “”perfect”” as Christians claim what kind of “”perfect”” god makes NEEDS multiple books to get his “”perfect”” messages across????? 🙄
Frank and straight to the point with scientific and historical facts.
Source?@@everyisnaadisfabricated3784
@@everyisnaadisfabricated3784 It's called prophecies and typology. The Bible seems to repeat itself, but it's because it all points toward the then-future Jesus Christ. It's how Scripture works.
It is important to understand the nature of Biblical prophecies and typology before spreading conspiracies like you're doing.
I love it when atheists spend their time posting long drawn out arguements in Christian TH-cam channel comments. It makes a lot of sense for you to do that. Please continue.
I love it when people believe in fairy tales like a magical sky daddy being really true. It makes for some fun times.
Why cannot you and others deal with real reality?
"Please continue." Okay, at your request:
QUESTIONS: (copy and paste from my files):
Questions: Okay, it's claimed that a sub-set of humanity, in only a certain time in human history, out of all the other humans in existence on this Earth throughout time, as well as all the other species on this Earth throughout time, as well as any other life that might exist in this galaxy, as well as all the life in other galaxies, is the only chosen people of God. Really? They truly believe this? Ego centric much?
* God did not make man in God's image, man made God in man's image.
GOD, DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER
(copy and paste from God's files):
FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND INSIST THAT 1 TRUE GOD EXISTS AND IS THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE AND ALL IN IT: (Also how the universe expands and what 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' truly are): PLEASE PROVE YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS REALLY TRUE AND THAT THIS VERSION OF GOD IS NOT REALLY TRUE:
The entire universe and all in it came from the fart of a female rainbow colored unicorn. While this cannot be proven to be true, nobody can prove it not to be true either.
All hail the female rainbow colored unicorn and her life giving fart.
One just has to have 'faith' and 'believe' and not question 'God'.
And anybody who persecutes anybody who believes the above would be guilty of religious persecution and should be punished for such.
Oh and also: This 'God' said abortion is okay for any and all who want it. I and people who believe this 'faith religion', claim religious exemption from all laws making abortion illegal.
And anybody who does not obey this 'God' will be dumped on throughout all of future eternity by the rainbow colored unicorn herself.
She is a God of 'absolute truth'. She says that life itself from this Earth is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. She says all life from this Earth is going to die one day from something, is going to forget everything they ever knew and experienced, and are all going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if they never ever existed at all in the first place. She says that if anybody does not like it, 'tough', she is God and that is how it is.
* And recently, she also passed onto me that vaccine mandates are also up to the believers for any believers who choose not to get vaccinated for whatever reason or reasons they and they alone might have.
* And then she told me that anybody can own and operate any weapon at all that they desire.
🌈🦄💥☁
ALL HAIL THE FEMALE RAINBOW COLORED UNICORN AND HER LIFE GIVING FART!!!
* More legal exemption requests to follow, based upon what the female rainbow colored unicorn tells me via our connection within my mind.
* Oh and also, she said that anybody who sends me money and/or other wealth (since I am currently one of her representatives here upon this planet called Earth), will receive abundant benefits after they die when in 'rainbow heaven'. She said it, so it must be really true.
* Spread this message far and wide around this Earth and beyond. You have my permission to copy and paste this message elsewhere to help spread the word of the 'real' God of the universe.
* Added note:
The expansion of the universe is due to the fart of God. This is basically just as valid as 'dark energy' coming from another dimension into this dimension and you probably don't want me to go into what 'dark matter' truly is (God's 'poop' in various forms).
Nothing in this video indicates your god is real or legitimate. Educational? Sure. Not necessarily convincing though.
You’re problem isn’t with atheists, closed minded Christians only think atheists are the problem. Do better.
A quantitative study on the stability of the New Testament compared early manuscripts to later manuscripts, up to the Middle Ages, with the Byzantine manuscripts, and concluded that the text had more than 90% stability over this time period.
Can you link me to the study?
@@InspiringPhilosophy. Heide, K. Martin (2011). "Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas". In Stewart, Robert B. (ed.). Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament.
@@twitherspoon8954outdated and incorrect information.
@@twitherspoon8954
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.
What do Christian writings tell us?
The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place - under the aegis of the Roman empire - where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious - a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) - reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians - Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
@@twitherspoon8954
How about Conflicts with known history: 🙄👉
A major problem with the Gospels and Acts as history is that when they are compared with known historical events or people, they fail spectacularly.
Richard Carrier wrote about some of these issues:
“”If you want a more historically plausible account of how the Jewish elite would have actually handled the Jesus problem, look at how we’re told they planned to handle the Paul problem (Acts 23:12-21). More likely, they would have killed him immediately upon his vandalism of the temple square, which was guarded by six hundred armed soldiers (with thousands more to summon just a javelin’s throw away in Fort Antonia, which housed a whole Roman legion, adjacent to the Temple: Josephus, Jewish War 2.12.1, 4.5.1, 5.238-248; Jewish Antiquities 20.8.6, 20.8.11), who were not afraid to beat down any rebellious public who got in their way (most especially trouble-makers in the Temple). Certainly in the temple they could have arrested him easily, with ample armed support (note that Gentiles were permitted in the Temple area that Jesus vandalized, so Roman legions could police it, as well as the Jewish guards authorized to kill any Gentiles who entered the forbidden areas).””
“”Thus, as Acts would have it, Claudius Lysias had no difficulty dispatching hundreds of soldiers and cavalry from within Jerusalem to escort Paul outside the city (Acts 23:22-24), and Paul was able to be arrested even in the middle of a riot. As Josephus relates in Antiquities 20.1, the Romans regularly killed political undesirables surrounded by hundreds of fanatical supporters, without wasting time on an arrest or trial. And even Mark seems to imagine the Jews could assemble a large armed force, and indeed arrest Jesus with one (Mark 14:43, Matthew 26:47; according to John 18:3, they even came with six hundred Roman legionairies, a full cohort).””
Some other issues that come up are: 😒👉
>>Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents (Matthew 2:16-18) is not recorded in any other history (or Gospel) - not even by Josephus, who really didn't like Herod and meticulously catalogued his other misdeeds.
>>Luke 2:1-4 claims Jesus was born in the year of a universal tax census, but the first such census did not occur until 74 CE - and it is not in the other gospels.
>>Luke 2:2 KJV specifically states "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Cyrenius is the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, who came to this position in 6 CE.
>>Luke 3:1 KJV references a "Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene" but the only Lysanias ruling Abilene that can clearly be identified in secular sources was killed by Mark Antony in 36 BCE.
>>Luke 3:2 KJV talks about "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" but there is a major problem with that: according to Josephus, Annas and Caiaphas were never high priests together. Annas was high priest c 6 CE - c 15 CE while Caiaphas was high priest c 18 - c 36 CE with a priest called Eleazar the son of Ananus between them.
>>The throwing out of the moneychangers in the Court of the Gentiles area (10 acres or over 7.5 American football fields) would have prompted a response as there were guards, both Jewish and Roman, there to prevent just such an action.
>>Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for Judas' betrayal. A real Roman official would have sent a modest group of soldiers and got the guy as what happened with John the Baptist. In fact, based on what Josephus writes, even this would have been subtle by Pilate's standards which can be summed up as being on par with the Silver Age Incredible Hulk i.e. 'puny people annoy Pilate, Pilate smash'.
The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century. In fact, a little quirk of the Sanhedrin court was that a unanimous verdict for conviction resulted in acquittal.
>>Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Josephus relates two accounts where Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple-have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed. Moreover, it is never really explained in the Bible why, if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy, Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus' crime has been sedition, then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas - or for the Sanhedrin to be involved for that matter.
>>The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life of Flavius Josephus (75)
Given Jesus' short time on the cross and reports of him being out and about afterwards, certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked. Never mind that theft of a body was a capital crime. Yet there is nothing in the reports about the Romans acting on either possibility. Carrier describes how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.
>>Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels, yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians.
Even some of the surrounding events are at odds with history from other sources to where a form of time shifting and condensing seems to have occurred.
>>Acts has Theudas' death before Judas the Galilean which would put his death before 6 CE; Josephus clearly puts Theudas' death during the time of Fadus or 44 to 46 CE
The Gospels talk of robbers but Josephus only talks of them for two time periods: 63 BCE to 6 CE and 48-70 CE.
>>Mark 15:7 KJV states "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection." But Josephus gives no account of an actual insurrection in the time of Pilate. Instead we are told of two non-violent protests and Pilate's reaction to the Samaritan prophet of 36 CE. In fact, in what little of Tacitus that covers this time period that was preserved we are told “Under Tiberius all was quiet.”
>>Outside of the questionable Testimonium Flavianum Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 BCE. and 46 CE
The Gospels indicate friction between the Jews and Samaritans in the time of Pilate; Josephus records no such friction until well after Pilate, finally resulting in the Galilean-Samaritan War (48-52 CE).
>>Acts 6:5-8:2 tells of an attack against a man called Stephanos, a very uncommon name in the area. This is identified as Saint Stephen who was killed 34 CE. The only Stephanos Josephus mentions in his entire work is c. 48 CE and that Stephanos was simply robbed.[29]
Josephus does record co-reigning high priests but these are Jonathan, son of Annas, and Ananias, son of Nebedaios at 48-52 CE.
Thanks for the great job, God bless you
Thank you for the donation
Another great video my friend, thank you for the hard work!
Glad to help
@@InspiringPhilosophy can you help me with a discussion im having pls?
im having lots of trouble with it
a guy said that if i cant define what a God is you cant prove that he exists
then i said that the word God is defined subjectively since there are lots of views on what God is
(some of them are omnipotent and some are not etc, etc)
and he said that things that are defined subjectively dont exist in reality
(it doesnt make a lot of sense i know)
i gave him some examples like the word gender that is defined subjectively but it still exists
but it wasnt enough
can you help me? with it
i think the name of it is epistemological objectivism
i dont know if it is right, but can you help me with it?
@@Guilherme-JK I would say completely forget about the fact that some people have different subjective definitions of who God is, and instead focus on who God says He is. Then work from there to show how that depiction is an accurate description of what God in reality is.
I always enjoy listening to your video essays on Friday, thank you for this, as I feel this organizes alot of the thoughts you laid out in your Playlist on "contradictions"
Thank you
@@InspiringPhilosophyunrelated note, but do you think you could organize your debate reviews/aftershows into a Playlist like you have with your debate themselves? I know they are spread across a wide variety of channels and they can be quite difficult to find
@@InspiringPhilosophyHey, I saw a claim online where someone claimed Josephus and Paul were the same person. This has really thrown me into a crisis of faith. What do you think?
@@AnakinSkywalkerYT You didn't ask me, but I think it's bonkers. There will always be new, spectacular theories. You don't need to have an answer immediately.
Anyway I went to wikipedia and they listed Paul as having lived circa 5 AD to 64/65 AD. Josephus lived circa 37 AD to 100 AD. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is dated to 31-36 AD, before Josephus was born. That's enough for me to not take that theory seriously.
@@AnakinSkywalkerYTso some random people online make some random claim with no evidence and no scholars of ancient history to back it up, and that puts you in a crisis of "faith"? Not trying to be rude, but maybe you should check what kind of faith you have.
THIS IS GOING TO BE MY FIRST IP STREAM SO EXCITED!!! ❤️✝️✝️✝️💪
Very excited for this one IP! 👍
Michael, I'd just like to tell you, you have helped my faith in so many ways so thank you! God bless you brother
He's done the same for me. When I was on the brink of despair, I prayed to God. And he pointed me to his insta.
Very interesting. Some fascinating insights presented here. Great work!
Thank you, brother, for all your work and effort. God bless you
Great work IP !!!! Just wanted to say would be better to make the music less loud another time. Other than that it’s perfect thank you for this video !!!
You clarify so much for us here... thank you! Have you every thought about doing live seminars? Something like this video and many of your other full length ones would be amazing live in person!
He does livestreams sometimes by the way
Another great video..
Thank you
Brilliant video Michael.... You do good works really... So proud to be a fan.... Keep preaching brother ✊🏾❤️
Nice work! Thanks for sharing your knowledge
Your videos are always outstanding, both in their research and in their presentation.❤
Thanks, one of the most informative presentation of how the gospels were written.
Another excellent piece in the books...keep it going.
Highly appreciate your work. God bless you
Thank you for the donation
Your divine hiddeness really helped me out a lot man 💯
Thanks for this. Easy and accessible.
Let me answer you in brief,it's history
Thank you so much for making these videos, they've really helped my strengthen my faith in God!
@@twitherspoon8954 If it were 100% proven without any doubt that God existed, what would you do?
@@x-popone6817Even if God exists, I won't worship him. 🙄
Beyond all the other nonsensical arguments to be made asserting that God exists, this is how it boils down for me.
I had a religious conversation with a Christian friend of mine the other night, when something occurred to me. In the earlier part of our conversation she was making all kinds of declarations in attempts to answer my questions on how God made no sense. For example: If God is good and all powerful, why would God allow children to suffer horribly? Or if God is good and all knowing, why would he make heaven and then bar it from anyone who didn't believe in him, when he clearly knows that the majority of people won't be born into a Christian religious framework. If you're born in India for example, you're likely to be Hindu, not Christian. You generally end up most likely either not religious, or the religion you were raised with, and God would know this.
Her argument to this was that in the beginning, God gave man the free will to choose, then forbid him to make a choice. Man made the forbidden choice, and now we are all judged for it.
So I began thinking: Why would we want to worship this being even if he did exist? I asked her this, and her response was that he made us.
I said, "so"? Why does an all powerful being think it deserves to be worshipped because it made us?
So she said that he gave us eternal life after death. I said, "so"? Why does an all powerful being think it deserves to be worshipped because of that either?
Then it dawned on me the almost twisted irony of the whole situation: God set up the rules of the game, giving us an option to suffer. Why would a God who's good and all powerful even do that?
If you have the power to make the forbidden fruit or not make it, then render punishment if your creation eats the fruit you forbid, yet still made, why wouldn't you just not make the fruit? Or alternately, why wouldn't you just not make the fruit forbidden? You're God, after all. Either you exist and you're good and all powerful and thus you have no limits, or some of those things aren't true, such as you just don't exist.
I find it interesting that we don't use this line of thinking in our arguments more often. Too often do theists want to debate the existence of God, instead of the argument over whether or not God is actually a just and/or moral deity at all. Imagine if a sinister God had made us - should we praise him? Pray to him? Grovel before him? Honor him? Would it not be within an evil God's power to create? So how do we even know God's good at all? Because it's in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God?
Says who? A person, didn't they? Just a person.
I find it unequivocally odd that the entirety of the major monotheistic religions are all predicated on books meant to be written by God, albeit the only knowledge we have to verify this is just a human's word. Additionally, we have the issue of a God who if all powerful, timeless, and has literally no limits, yet somehow seems to choose to create a game and rules for that game, and creating us who he knew would break those rules, so he punishes his creations who broke the rules he created knowing all the while that's what was going to happen.
Can you just imagine? God makes man. God makes fruit. God makes a rule about the fruit. God knows man will break the rule before he even created man, the fruit, or the rule, yet God still chooses these paths. God then punishes man for the rule he choose to make that he could have not made for the fruit he didn't have to make.
No thank you. Such a God, even if he did exist (and I don't believe for a second that he does) is not a goodly God, but a treacherous, dishonest, ambiguous one. Such a deity does not deserve my worship. In fact, no god, no matter what they were, "deserves" my worship. The mere notion OF worship carries with it a nefarious connotation. If you are a being who believes you should be worshipped, you cannot be goodly. You're more likely callous, self-centered, and jealous. Those are not the attributes of even a paragon of man, let alone a goodly, all powerful deity.
So no thanks. If there is actually a God, then when I die, I want to see him just so I can tell him to go fu€k himself.
@@benclark4823en if atheism is true, I wouldn’t take part in identifying myself in it. It’s a walking contradiction in many ways. One of many problems atheism fails to resolve is the idea that human life is valuable. Some say nature, but of course Darwin himself said nature is all about the strongest organisms dominating the weak. Some say we create them, but if we created them, we can just toss them out the window based on the majority opinion because 1,000 years ago people did not think slavery was wrong but now it is, whose to say it will be wrong in the future?
Even respected atheists like Fredrick neitchzie and John Gray admit that the idea of equal human rights and universal benevolence only makes sense in the Christian worldview. Neitzche even said it’s not fine for an atheist to hold on to the idea of equal human rights because if you do and say I don’t believe in God, you’re still believing in Christianity wether you like to believe it or not. In a sense you end up borrowing from another worldview which really shows you’re own doesn’t work in some important factors of life. So in the end, morality is a hopeless relative and meaningless tactic in a godless world because it rests on unsteady foundations. In a sense I would still be a practicing Christian even if I identify as atheist because I still hold on to moral values that society imposes that derive from that worldview. So yeah great different worldview isn’t it.
@@benclark4823 Your manifesto is just as nutty as Karl Marx’s manifesto.
@@connerdozier6689 The argument "from" morality is useless, first you need to demonstrate that morality exists.
That's about it. Subjective is defined as something that exists only in the mind as opinion. For morality to be objective, it would need to exist outside of anyone's mind. This can't be demonstrated, therefore objective morality doesn't exist, therefore the argument for God from objective morality is useless.
Second The moral implications of Christianity are strange and Obligatory “I’m sure there are some Christians who don’t think this is how it works.”
Christianity has some strange morality when it comes down to it. This is all based on the idea that, while for us some sins are worse than others, to god they are all equal in severity.
Take these two people: Adolph Hitler and an atheist who, apart from being atheist and actively rejecting Christianity, followed every single moral command in the Bible. According to the traditional view of Christian morality, both of them are getting the same punishment in the afterlife. The crime of choosing to be atheist is equivalent to choosing to exterminate millions of god’s chosen people. And right next to Hitler and the atheist in hell is Gandhi, a man who knew of Christianity but chose instead to be Hindu. And right next to him is a serial killer and child rapist. And right next to him is someone who lived a perfect life except for that one time they lied when they were 22. Each of these individuals, according to Christian morality, are deserving of the exact same punishment.
As a quick aside, I’m aware of one branch of Catholicism that thinks hell is temporary and while it’s still the worst thing possible in all of reality, you spend less time if you did less bad things. While that’s a step in the right direction, it’s still strange that every single crime, from mass murder to cheating on a math test, warrant the worst suffering possible in reality, even if for varying amounts of time.
I’m aware that the response is that under divine command theory, morality doesn’t have to make sense to us. God is the potter and if he thinks the clay that cheated on his math test deserves the same punishment as the clay that raped children, he can do that. And sure, you can believe in that moral system, but it’s still really strange and you can’t follow it without accepting that it indeed does not make any real sense from our perspective, aka the only one we have access to.
God-given objective morality would've gotten in the way of this.
The marrying age in ancient Israel was 12. According to the Talmud, Rebekah was as young as 3 when she was betrothed to Isaac, a grown man. If God had no problem with it in the time period he was more directly involved in the law of the Israelites, then according to his morality, there is no reason to change this. And it also applies to things such as slavery. As much as Christians like to claim abolition was a Christian movement, it raises the question as to why it didn't happen sooner then. Christianity dominated western society for over a millennia before abolition became a global ideal. And slavery absolutely was widespread before the transatlantic slave trade, the only caveat that Christians had against it was the sale of Christian slaves to non-Christians, pretty much everything else was fair game. Not that the bible had anything to say about it, it specifically tells slaves to be submissive to their masters, and anything else would be a sin against God himself. Verses like these are why imposing Christianity on African slaves was such a common occurrence.
But abolition just happened to follow the secular enlightenment period?
The truth is, Christians influenced by secular ideas went on to interpret their own scripture in this new light, not the other way around. Similarly, Christians will do the same when they say pedophilia is wrong, not by any inherent scripture telling them to do so. But if you truly believe that your Christian objective morality is perfect, this would never happen.
Morality is the framework that one uses to make decisions in life. But humans don't know everything. We have to grow and develop as a society and our morals reflect this. It wasn't until we had a better understanding of human development that we considered pedophilia to be bad, and it wasn't until we analyzed our place without fellow humans in society did we assert that enslaving others was wrong. And obviously, it's not perfect, but secular morality got us in 200 years to a place that Christianity couldn't do after 1200.
Mike Licona’s book on resurrection is really helpful.
Everyday my faith is strengthened, cheers!
Great video InspiringPhilosophy! God bless you!
Excellent work, May God Bless you and the ministry 🙏✝️
Great video! Very informative!
This really inspires my philosophy
You're a Master and GOAT in such work. God bless you.
Excellent video!!
Great video! The first time I came across this "gospels as biography" approach was when reading "Evangelium als Biographie" by Dirk Frickenschmidt from 1997. For me that book pretty much closed the case. I have to check out some of those newer works however.
One little nitpick, if I may. Bultmann isn't the boogeyman he's made out to be. When I started reading Christian literature at around 19 maybe, it was mainly evangelical stuff and Bultmann was painted as a kind of "destroyer of the gospels". When I later actually read him when studying theology, I noticed that nothing could be further from the truth. I'd even say he was kind of an apologist (though he refused to call himself that) because he tried to save the eternal message of the gospel from the historical void that seemed to exist at the time when everyone attacked the gospels as being pure fiction. He searched for the existential meaning (and one cannot deny the gospel has an existential meaning). Even one German protestant bishop who viciously attacked him, later apologized to him for having misunderstood what he tried to do.
@@LM-jz9vhLuke 3:1
"[1] In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar-when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-"
But no they are not attempting to write a historical Account 😂
Thank you, God bless you.
Good stuff, dude!
What a great video, very convincing with literary sources showing the depth and extensive evidence for the Gospels being an historical biography of Jesus life.
Great work
Hey IP, my friend asked me wether salvation is a one time thing, once you fall away you can’t return to God. Some verses we looked at that give some notion of this idea are Hebrews 6:4-8, 1 Cor 9:24-27, Hebrews 10:26-31, Mark 4:13-20 and Matthew 10:22. It would be wonderful to get an answer from you considering I have no clue how to crack this serious topic as of now.
Awesome video!
Very interesting video, Michael. Thank you for it.
IMHO, while I agree the gospels certainly contain a biographical aspect in them, I still think that reducing them to merely biographies is wrong. The gospels are truly unique as a literary genre, not for their shared biographical aspects, but that, unlike other biographies that simply want to speak about certain historical figures, the gospels also go beyond that and rather contain true words for salvation. In other words, they are not just biographies, but an everlasting, living teaching to find eternal life and peace itself. That is what makes them their own literary genre, far beyond any other biography, for no other biography of any other man could achieve that...
TL;DR: The gospels aren't just another biography, they are far beyond that, hence they are indeed a unique genre on themselves. Though, they are certainly a biography as well.
Well done, Michael..
Odd question: whats the background music? Pretty chill and enjoyable to listen to.
Yes, the gospels are reliable!
Great video
Very well researched
Hi IP! Thank you for another amazing video! I did have one question in relation to the historical biography claim: If the gospels are based upon eye-witness accounts, how would you explain portions of the narrative where Jesus says and does things without eye-witnesses present? (Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, for example).
I’m a poor substitute for Michael, but the common explanation (and the one that I believe to be the case) is that Jesus was still within ear shot of the disciples. Matthew and Mark say that Jesus went “a little farther” and Luke says “about a stone’s throw beyond them”. Depending on how you interpret this, it’s very plausible that Jesus could still be heard by them. It was also nighttime, so his voice would probably have carried more.
In addition, Jesus may have repeated his prayers several times, or uttered something very similar over and over. He was extremely distressed, and when people are distressed and pleading, they tend to repeat what they are earnestly asking for. This would have made Jesus’s words easier to remember.
As for something like where Jesus was tempted in the desert, he could have simply told his disciples about what happened.
@@JabberW00kie I think that's a reasonable explanation. Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly answer!
Powerful!!
Yes, most scholars do believe the Gospels are ancient biographies today, but that doesn't mean the authors were as concerned with factual details as today's authors.
While the authors of the Gospels considered themselves historians, they also had their own communities they were speaking to, and their own communal contexts, which leads to different perspectives on who Jesus was. Sometimes, these differences are not incidental, like the difference between Matthew and Luke.
I would love to hear your views on this one scholar Bart Erhman. What do you think about his takes on the book of revelation and other books?
This is IP summary of the New Testament reliability in one video!!!
Thanks!!!
Could you do this kind of digging into wether other early Christian saints existed? Like Catherine of Alexandria for example?
I find her story to he incredible but I’m not sure how old the oldest sources on her are or if she was just a legend that grew later. I also think it be cool if you could look at the legends of how the apostles of Christ all died and what proof we have of their stories.
Would you be willing to do a video about the historicity/veracity of Hinduism and Buddhism? There’s a lot of content out there disproving Islam, and a lot of proof for Christianity, but it’s difficult to find anything that debunks the other major world religions
Argument that they're fiction is nonsense. They're were believed. And they are verifiable.
Derek Lambert and Dennis MacDonald: "And I took that personally."
Great Video! Yea basically the Gospels are at the core of the New Testament in the Christian Bible consisting of four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each tells the accounts of Jesus Christ's life, teachings, death, and resurrection but from different perspectives. The scholarly consensus about the Gospels generally agree on these aspects: Written as Testimony: Scholars argue that the Gospels were written as testimonies of Jesus Christ's life and teachings. Richard Bauckham in his book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" emphasizes, “The Gospels were written to provide testimonies about the life of Jesus.” Their Dating: Most scholars concur that the Gospels were written between 70 CE (Mark’s Gospel) and near the end of the first century (John’s Gospel). E.P. Sanders mentions in his book “The Historical Figure of Jesus” that "we know quite a lot about the circumstances of their (Gospels) production." Synoptic Gospels and Johannine Gospel: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called Synoptic Gospels because they share a lot of similar content and can be "seen together,” while John's Gospel is unique in content and structure. "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" explains that, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called Synoptic Gospels because they can be "seen together" (syn-optic) and compared in a Synoptic Problem.” Literary Dependency: Many scholars agree on the relationship of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. Bart D. Ehrman in his book "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" writes, "The Synoptic Gospels are so similar that their literary interrelationship can be visually portrayed." Diverse Perspectives: Each Gospel writer had a unique audience and emphasized different aspects of Jesus's life to get across specific theological points. L. Michael White in his book, "Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite," says, “Each of the Gospels was written for a different audience and presents a portrait of Jesus that is intended to meet the needs of that audience.” The Gospels as History and Interpretation: Scholars point out that the Gospels mix historical details with interpretative elements to convey their messages. John P. Meier in his book, “A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus,” asserts that, “The Gospels are a mix of history remembered, history interpreted and history created.”
The gospels were ancient biographies very similar to other ancient biographies. That has been well established in the doctoral thesis "Evangelium als Biographie" by Dirk Frickenschmidt. All of the texts have most likely been written before 70 CE. I have studied theology in Bamberg, Germany, so I'm well familiar with the higher criticism that Ehrman quotes. But the theory of the destruction of the temple being a "vaticinium ex eventu" does not make much sense and has been thoroughly criticized by multiple scholars with very good arguments.
@@MrSeedi76 yup
We love you IP thanks for doing what the Lord has called you to do, but can you please respond to some of the criticisms of Christianity posed by dawahoverdunya
God has spoken thru his word!
"What are the Gospels?"
TRUE
hey could you do a video adressing the “you have to marry your rapist” verse i always went to catholic schools and respect the religion fully since it has been a big part of my life with family, school, etc just sometimes when people bring up that specific topic i kinda freeze, either way i hope this message finds you well and keep up the amazing content! Cheers!
There should already be a video about that verse.
From another youtuber
I always appreciated the gotquestions article on this
th-cam.com/video/QevlDqkLvHw/w-d-xo.html
“”Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
-Jesus telling people to trash the Old Testament as a whole (Matthew 5:17)-
"But that was the Old Testament!" is the claim that God was a mean drunk in the Old Testament but turned over a new leaf in the New Testament (and so Christians need not defend the horrific God of the Old Testament). Similarly, the claim that the law of Jesus superceded the law of Moses is used to absolve Christians of the duty to carry out Mosaic law.
The claim is a favorite tactic of Christian apologists when confronted with the violence and bigotry of the Bible. This claim faces two major problems: first, that the Bible and Jesus themselves disagree; and second that (although the New Testament is much less gruesome than the Old Testament) the New Testament still features violence and bigotry.
Evrry of your video were made out of love for Jesus
Beautiful always...
What do you think, brother, of Robyn Faith's arguments against the Gospels?
She doesn’t argue “against” the gospels.
Excellent work! I am going to make this required viewing for my students. Thank you for your continued contribution, just be careful diving into tiktok ... I can feel brain cells dying even accidently watching some of that material. 🤣
That is great to hear!
I don't know who you are or what you teach, but your standards of scholarship are incredibly low.
@@ericbess4477 I don't know who you are or what you do, but your thoughts that your comments are of any value is entertaining
@@tripperdan Yeah, but... what I said is true. So... 🤷🏾♂️
@@ericbess4477 "what I said is true" LOL!! Of course, of course. For you truth is like ice cream, and you have your favorite flavors and anyone who doesn't like your favorite flavor, well, they just don't know the TRUTH!! Right, LOL, you are so hilarious! Thank you thank you, I didn't know we would have a comedian doing standup in the threads. This is Awesome.
Goated philosophy thank you for making me more confident in my faith!
He truly is a blessing, I thank the Lord for pointing me to him when I was almost hopeless.
Good stuff here.
So what literary genre was the gospels? I'd guess marketing tracts. With large amounts of copying between the synoptic versions...
^^^so what’s your evidence it was all a giant marketing scheme? You made a claim, so I’m asking.
how does someone contact you
Completely random, but can you do a video on Calvinism? It's driving me crazy. Thanks
I’m sure IP will make an awesome video on that topic. In the meantime, here’s a recent video I made about Calvinism:
th-cam.com/video/g7LMXdDMGy0/w-d-xo.html
MICHAEL JONES, have you ever heard of Ryan Pitterson ? I encourage you to buy and read his two books. “JUDGMENT OF THE NEPHILIM” and “THE FINAL NEPHILIM”.
He also has a TH-cam channel named after his first book, “Judgment of the Nephilim”.
11:31 think the theological information destroys all arguments of the theological agenda for writing the Gospels, such as the apparent divinity claims in John, as well as bizarre overtones that seem to contradict Jesus being God, or when Jesus explicitly says he is God in Mark, and seems to not know the hour, This kind of inconsistency in theological information gives me great confidence that the writers - the disciples - did not have a theological agenda.
IP you know I love you and that your ministry has been a huge blessing to me, and in fact was a large part if my coming to faith. As such I hate disagreeing with you.
That being said I was in agreement with most of what you were saying in this video until you got to around the 19 minute mark where you started quoting Licona's work where he argues that the ancients weren't writing with the same commitment to precision as we moderns do. I have to say Lydia McGrew absolutely blows this assertion out of the water in her book "The mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices".
In chapter 5 "Are the Gospels Greco-Roman Biographies?" some of the points she makes (in summation) are:
"The claim that the gospels are or have much in common with the specific genre of Greco-Roman biographies is widely accepted in evangelical scholarly corcles today.
Theorists such as Richard Burridge and Michael Licona believe that this genre claim supports assigning not only a minimum degree of historicity in the Gospels but alsoba maximum degree. The idea is that, because the Gospels are ir have much in common with this genre,we should expect them to use at least some fictionalizing literary devices, since these were part and parcel of the genre.
We need to ask whether the Gospels belong to or resemble the genre of Greco-Roman biographies in the informative sense that the authors were probably influenced by the conventions of this genre and chose to write their Gospels according to the conventions of this genre.
We need to ask whether Greco-Roman standards of history generally and/or the practices of Greco-Roman biographies in particular support the claim that some degree of fictionalization was part and parcel of this genre.
The criteria used to conclude that the gospels are in or strongly resemble the specific Greco-Roman genre of biographies are too general to yeild a significant conclusion concerning the adoption of specific conventions and the document's degree of truthfulness.
The few more specific arguments that Richard Burridge gives (such as the pressence of infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew) do not support the conclusion that the authors were trying to write in this genre."(McGrew, 85).
Futher in chapter 6 "Let Ancient People Speak for Themselves" she says (again in summation):
"Even if an author were influenced by the genre of Greco-Roman biographies this would be only very minimally informative about his historical intentions. We should recognize the limits of genre identification as a clue to historical reliability.
By the theorists own admission there is a wide range of historical accuracy among Greco-Roman biographies, so authors will need to be judged on their own intentions and performance as we discover these independently.
It is not true that it was part and parcel of Greco-Roman biographies to change historical facts.
Richard Burridge claims that ancient people generally had a different view of truth and of legitimacy of fabrication than we do in modern times.
Burridges view is false. We can see it's falsehood by quotation after quotation from ancient authors such as Thucydides, Polybius, Cicero, and Lucian.
Michael Licona misinterprets and missapplies Lucian in "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?"
Of particular interest to the question of ancient Christians' view of truth is a quotation from Julius Africanus. He rejected in the strongest terms the idea that the Gospel writers would have changed the facts in Jesus' genealogy for theological reasons." (McGrew, 111)
All of the above are quotations from the summaries at the end of chapters 5 and 6. There's so much evidence she goes through to back each of those points up. I know you are a reasonable guy and that you changed your mind on your view of the exodus so maybe you'll change your mind on this approach to why there are differences in the gospels. Now I don't know if you have read Lydia's book TMOM yet, but if you haven't I'd strongly urge you to do so as I think that the approach your taking, and scholars your quoting in this video are factually incorrect on many points, and are inadvertently doing more harm to the cause of gospel reliability then good.
I... Can already see the McGrew's eyes start twitching. In sync too, which is a bit odd
If it has not been covered in the video itself I would be very curious about IP’s take a dive into the gospel of Judas.
I want to learn about why the early fathers did not consider it a legitimate for obvious gnostic retelling of Jesus ministry, but I would love to see how you go over why it a falsehood as a gnostic kept referring to it as a source of his own proof.
its false bc its illegitimate lol end of story
He did in a video years ago lol
@@grubblewubbles dam would like to find a link to this vid
@@assyrianchristian764 sort by oldest on his videos, it was six years ago or so I believe
@@grubblewubbles found it
God bless
Praise the Lord! Thank you for such a great video @IP.
To all the atheist who even after all evidence try to falsely discredit and lead others astray. I wish you all never existed in this world.
I wish you particular didn’t exist, but I won’t lower myself like you have and say “I wish all Christians didn’t exist”
Some of the best people I know are Christians, and unfortunately some of the worse people who are Christians happen to be people like you.
Atheist don’t preach on street corners or churches trying to lead others “astray”.
The road to atheism is littered with bibles that have been read cover to cover
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
They told me to use the brain God gave me. I did. Now I’m an Atheist. Ironic, isn’t it?
I believe what you really mean is that you wish that there aren’t be any humans on earth who think like that. That’s your utopia. The real world is what we all factually acknowledge, regardless of emotions, as fallen. Thanks to the freedom of choice, part of the image of God.
Would the Iliad be considered a biography about Achilles?
How you we reconcile when Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants call each other heretics? Does Jesus care which of those denominations you are part of or does he care whether you love him and others regardless of their denomination?
What do you really think Jesus will say when He greets each of His saints?
Hi! Welcome home!
Ummmm… which region of the kingdom of heaven should we put you in? Catholic, Baptist, Church of…, Pentecostal, independent, etc. ????
God cares about both. It is objectively true the Catholic Church has some heterodox doctrines and Protestantism is based on a foundation of heresy. However, God judges each person according to what they know, and God does not judge people who through no fault of their own are born into heretical groups. It is the responsibility of each individual to pursue truth where it leads, and the more truth one is exposed to, the more morally responsible one is for obeying or disobeying truth. So someone who is born into a Fundamental Baptist family that teaches them to love Jesus Christ and to trust in Him as their Savior and who never learned that the Eastern Orthodox Church even exists it's not accountable for rejecting the fullness of truth about Jesus Christ that the Eastern Orthodox Church proclaims.
As someone who is a mainstream Christian .
If you see a fellow brother or sister calling another brother or sister a heretic . You rebuke them . Dispite denominational differences . If the differences do not effect salvation they are a brother or sister in Christ
The Gospels are eye-witness accounts. Because they were written under the inspiration of God's Spirit, every single word is true, both historically and spiritually. They are not fiction or myths - the are God's Word which is Truth.
The story of stories…
HIStory…
I know I'm being knit-picky here, but isn't it just "The Gospel" aka the The Good News, since the books Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are four different accounts of the same message, that Jesus Christ is Alive and that someday He will return?
Why even have 4 different account? Why not just one?? Can’t your “”all-powerful”” god get it right the first time??? Why even have a Old AND New Testament if your deity is so called “”perfect”” what kind of “”perfect”” god makes NEEDS multiple books to get his messages across????? 🙄
Each one has been referred to as a gospel for a long time. Indeed, there is only one “good news”, but I think the custom is so well established that the possibility of referring to each individual Gospel by another term has probably sailed long ago. What other term would you suggest using.
@@benclark4823Go home, Ben. You’re drunk.
@@benclark4823Why do we have multiple biographies of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington or Joseph Stalin or any other person? Why not just one?
@@holtscustomcreations The gospels aren't corroborative, they are dependent. 🙄
1 - Mark is the oldest gospel
1.1 - Even if you hold a different priority, the logic below still works out.
2 - Matthew and Luke both copy Mark, word for word.
3 - Matthew and Luke use a common second source we'll call Q
3.1 - We don't have Q so we cannot establish Q as independent of Mark. We can't use speculative sources as conclusive corroboration. Speculation in: speculation out.
3.2 - We also don't have any of the other proposed hypothetical sources, like gmat - speculation in: speculation out.
3.3 - It's also possible Luke just uses Matthew - none of these permutations matter to this case.
4 - Thus, Mark, Matthew, and Luke are not independent of one another and on this grounds their testimony has as much evidentiary value as Mark alone.
5 - John is late enough that he shows awareness of the other gospels, and many scholars believe John is a response to Luke whether or not he had it open while writing it
6 - This further establishes John as not independent.
6.1 - If you contest that John had any clue about the other gospels, you at least cannot establish John as independent. John's corroboration is too weak to hinge a conclusion on.
7 - Thus none of the gospel accounts can be used to verify one another, since they all used one another to create their own message.
If you had 4 suspects who you know consulted each other before giving their testimony, the evidentiary value of all 4 suspects testimony is equivalent to one suspect testimony.
For example, let's take the only miracle besides the resurrection that appears in all 4 gospels: The feeding of the 5000. My conclusion shows that this is a mundane agreement given that the gospels are not independent of one another, and that the evidentiary value of the gospels' historical claim is exactly as powerful as if only Mark wrote this story.
Ok ,But how can we know that Jesus the miracles which these authors wrote about .Do we have any other historical proves for the miracles other. than gospels and bible.
We are not ignorant satan schemes! Lord Jesus Christ is truly our Lord and Savior🙏🏼❤️🕊REPENT, believe in the Gospel, Be Born Again
Matthew 7:21-23
New King James Version
>
[21] “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[22] Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
[23] And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
So much for being the so called “”savior”” that you Christians LOVE talking about. 😒😇
@@benclark4823
1Co 4: 9-14 KJV -
9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you."
John 15:13 KJV - " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
God is Love.
To warn is great love.
To sacrifice is the greatest love. 🙏
@@eswn1816 [part 2]
Love is patient, love is kind.
Admittedly, I don't think there are passages that specifically have God being impatient for any particular thing. But there are countless moments where God does not follow the "kind" trait.
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
(Bold mine for emphasis.)
This outright states that God will only be merciful if you obey him, and do what is pleasing to him. In this case, what's pleasing to God is killing everyone and burning a town that worships other gods.
Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)
This passage says that you must fear God and obey him. Nowadays if there are people who believe differently than us, we (mostly) shrug and move on. We don't kill them because most agree that would be sick and immoral. Unless God commands it, apparently.
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Here God says to kill people who do any work on the Sabbath. I understand having a day of rest, but banishing or killing someone has nothing "loving" or "kind" about it.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
True, words can hurt, but God brutally mauling children for taunting someone is downright cruel and evil. Whatever happened to just, you know, giving them a scolding, or ignoring them?
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered.” O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.” (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
Clearly God isn't exactly "pro-life" like people say if he takes this viewpoint. Not to mention the whole "bring out your children to be slaughtered" thing.
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Murder, assault, and slavery are pretty much the three most unkind things you could do. In this passage alone, God endorses all three.
@@eswn1816 [part 3]
And for those who say "Oh, what about the New Testament"? Well...
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15:1-5)
Jesus outright rebukes the Pharisees for not following God's command in the Old Testament to kill disobedient children. Indicating that he still endorses it rather than supposedly "abolishing the law so we don't have to follow it" like many proclaim (ignoring the fact that Jesus didn't say he came to abolish the law). Also Jesus and his disciples didn't wash their hands before they eat? Minor tangent, but you'd think that if Jesus was God (though that line of thinking is only supported in John, the latest Gospel) he'd know about basic hygene.
“”Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.””
-Jesus telling people to trash the Old Testament as a whole (Matthew 5:17)-
"But that was the Old Testament!" is the claim that God was a mean drunk in the Old Testament but turned over a new leaf in the New Testament (and so Christians need not defend the horrific God of the Old Testament). Similarly, the claim that the law of Jesus superceded the law of Moses is used to absolve Christians of the duty to carry out Mosaic law.
The claim is a favorite tactic of Christian apologists when confronted with the violence and bigotry of the Bible. This claim faces two major problems: first, that the Bible and Jesus themselves disagree; and second that (although the New Testament is much less gruesome than the Old Testament) the New Testament still features violence and bigotry.
There are probably a hundred more passages I could include of similar ones, but seeing as this is only the first section I'll move on to the rest::
@@eswn1816 [part 4]
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
Oh boy, this one. First off...
Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:11-14)
God outright says that not only is he a jealous/envious god, but that his name is Jealous. He equates jealousy as such a core part of himself that he says his name is jealous. Given the above passages mentioning his orders to slaughter those who worship other gods, those could easily fit in this section too.
As for God being boastful and proud:
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:
“Brace yourself like a man; I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at all who are proud and bring them low, look at all who are proud and humble them, crush the wicked where they stand.
Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave.
Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you. (Job 40, 6.5-14)
Here God basically boasts "I'm much more powerful than you so you have no right to question me on anything." That seems pretty boastful and proud to me. Really much of the Book of Job could apply here.
Why is Markan priority always assumed? The only justification I hear given for it is that Matthew must have expanded on what Mark wrote. But then why would all of the church fathers insisted Matthew was the first one? Couldn't it be argued that Mark trimmed down Matthew for a gentile audience? What other reasons for Markan priority are there that I don't know about?
That's actually their entire argument. Mark is simpler so it must be the first.
@@cavithalilparlak2264 Well I for one don’t find that reasoning alone to be persuasive.
@@billowspillow Me neither
Yes Matthew is the first gospel according to all ancient Christian sources from the first to second century. Markan priority is a new view by many scholars especially non religious ones to try to cast doubt on the gospels and diminish their reputation and reliability by saying they copied it from some anonymous “Q gospel”
@@cavithalilparlak2264basically just narrative evolution?
You know this was settled decades ago that the Gospels were written in the 1st Century about a real person, Jesus of Nazareth. Just shows the World will continually keep attacking the record of Jesus' Life, death and resurrection.
The fact that Jesus is called {Jesus of [Nazareth]} and NOT {Jesus of [Bethlehem]} should SHOW that these where NOT “”eyewitness”” accounts. 🙄
@@benclark4823 I see you never read the Gospels have you?
@@MountainFisher I see you ONLY read the so called Luke and Matthew accounts because NOWHERE does mark and John mention Jesus being born in Bethlehem BUT Nazareth THAT is why they are not so called “”eyewitness”” accounts moron 🤦♂️
@@benclark4823Go home, Ben. You’re drunk.
@@benclark4823he was born in Bethlehem, raised and lived in Nazareth. Simple reading makes that clear.
Let.s go
bart "the hack" ehrman pissing his pants rn
10:16
14:00
17:17
21:31
Good info on the sepcifics of the Gospels as a work of literature.. But still, how do we know if the oral traditions were already exaggerated before it reached the gospel writers..
Well Jesus death burial crucification and appearances .
As recorded in Paul . Is not only pre gospels . Its pre Pauline .
That belief dates to just a few years after Jesus death
It didn’t “reach” them, they either themselves were, or got their info from people who were, there when the events happened.
Oh nice Ip
None of the Gospel writers were authors. John was a fisherman.
I wonder if you would entertain the idea of Matthean priority, then that the Gospel writings were occasional in purpose, and finally that Matthew saw himself writing something more akin to an Old-Testament-style account of Jesus as a prophet for the encouragement and challenge of his early, persecuted Jewish audience. There’s a lot behind that summary, and I’m working through my own research to tease out the details, but I find the narrative compelling.
What makes each person of the trinity distinct?
Each person in the Trinity is made distinct by their roles. For example, in the pardoning of sin, the Holy Spirit moves someone to sorrow and repentance of sins, the Son is the sacrifice that allows those sins to be forgiven, and the Father is the one who pardons sins. They have different roles for the same goal
@mattreynolds3178 1- How do you they are distinct? One entity can have multiple roles.
2- So they aren't really distinct? They are only "distinct " from our point of view. In that case they are actually one and technically the Father is the Son, who is also the Holy Spirit. The father died for our sins and Holy Spirit pardons out sins.
They are really one with no real distinction then
I paused and read the verses that you put up to show Jesus calling that women a dog. He didn't call her a dog. The only mentions of dogs were where he said not to take the bread from the kids and give it to the dogs and that the dogs will eat the crumbs from the kids. Is there more to it?
The children is Israel ..gentiles.are the dogs .
Israel gets the good stuff first and then the gentiles get the crumbs ..essentially
Same way Jesus uses sheep to refer to his followers
The Gospels are the truth!
Can you answer Ahaziahs age
"Spider-Man fallacy" campers punchin the air rn
I guess you never heard of “”cargo cults”” 🙄
@@benclark4823Ben, man, you’re on every single comment here!
InspiringPhilosophy? Heh more like 🔥🔥🔥🔥Philosophy the goat😩😩😩 talking that talk!!!!
Y am I always late?
I would personally classify them as treatises. The main point of the Gospels is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, in that sense they are treatises.