This is why I don’t believe the late gospel theory. I believe they underestimate how important the destruction of the temple and fire of Rome was in the first century.
I think you may be surprised and interested in the orthodox church and it's followers interpretations of story and scripture. Pretty interesting stuff that differs from most of our western understandings thanks to the catholics & protestants
@@1stdebunker My friend goes on and on about how awesome Eastern Orthodoxy is and how it's the most true continuation of the Church 2,000 years ago, but then I hear Father Spryidon talk about The Sacraments of The Eucharist and Confession in largely the same way Catholics do, both being clear heresies not in keeping with the Gospel, that the one sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross paid for the sins of all mankind for all time.
Happy to say I actually caught this one myself recently! It was beautiful to see how they connect and complete each other. Rereading the Gospels back to back every year is something I recommend anyone to do for this.
To add to John’s focus on Jesus as the new Temple, Dr Brant Pitre mentions John 19 (water and blood coming out Jesus’ side) and points out the comparison to the view of the Jewish Temple viewed to the North (I think that’s the orientation), the water used to wash out the blood of sacrificed lambs came out on the west side, per recorded by Josephus. So, on the “right side” of the Temple, you would have water and blood washing out from the mountain. Hence why the writer of John feels the need to comment on this, then restate that the one who “bore witness” was not mistaken. John saw the blood and water coming out of Jesus’ side as a parallel to the Jewish temple after a sacrifice.
Who do you think the author / narrator of the gospel of John was? The gospel never mentions James or John by name and it doesn't have a story of their being called as disciples.
@@seanhogan6893assuming this is a serious comment, Matthew 4:21-22, for starters, and if you mean John's gospel in particular doesn't call them disciples, there's John 21:2. John's gospel doesn't tell Jesus' ministry from the beginning in Galilee, only in Judea, so that's why it doesn't include the story of their calling
@@slick_Ric right, you need the other gospels to even know who John 21:2 is referring to. It's things like that which raise suspicions that the author of John assumed his audience knew the other gospels. Even the church fathers seemed to have a rough consensus that John was written last and knew the other gospels.
Huge fan of Dr. Brant Pitre. Plenty of excellent videos and books on apologetic and theological matters. Oh and as for the other user’s question, Pitre and many Christian academics make good arguments that it was indeed John the Apostle. He avoids mentioning himself by name exactly because he’s the Beloved Disciple. The early Church fathers disagreed on a decent amount of things but they were all unanimous on traditional authorship. There are also, as Dr. Pitre himself points out, no “anonymous” copies of the Gospels. All extant manuscripts including those from the early second century and from many different geographical regions attribute the appropriate authors in the title.
@rcbmmines4579 for me, the unanimity (is that the word?) of the early church regarding the authorship of the gospels is what cements the more reasonable nature of traditional authorship. They had no problem disagreeing with each other but were in agreement regarding that. That speaks volumes.
@@danielboone8256 Violence done by the State is always [REDACTED]. Violence done by anyone else is always bad. This is a lie that has been foisted on the masses in all Nations in all eras since the beginning of Creation. A necessary lie perhaps, but a lie nonetheless.
@@danielboone8256 Acts of non-pacifism are only bad when conducted by those not endorsed by the State. This is a lie that has been told in all Nations in all eras since the beginning of Creation. A necessary lie, perhaps, but a lie all the same.
What I’ve noticed about scripture is this: Humility and diligent study is worked into the system to feel the full force of its veracity and richness. Undesigned coincidences is part of that. A cursory level, arrogant ‘prove it god or I wont believe you’ (in my way, according to my standards) allows you to walk away feeling confident the text is unreliable and you’re like, super smart and stuff, but it’s more obviously a weak coping mechanism to those who try to drive their hearts lower before God and study for the primary purpose of Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 2:15, not to look brilliant or learned. It’s almost like that Jesus guy knew what He was talking about when He said stuff like: ‘Humble yourself and you’ll be exalted’ and ‘Exalt yourself and you’ll be humbled’
Hi Eric! I am doing some research and I recently left a comment with a question on your posted livestream “The apostles and suffering: Answering Paulogia’s skepticism”. If you have time I’d really appreciate it if you could clear it up for me. Your videos have been super helpful for me in my apologetics journey.
But see, I don't totally get why the interpretation of Him literally destroying the temple is necessarily wrong either. Yes, it's clearly a metaphor for His death and resurrection, but taken on its face, I think it's also a statement of power: "It took y'all nearly half a century to build this place, I could do it in three days" or "It took y'all nearly half a century, I could bring it down in an instant". Both interpretations, as is often the case with Christ, work equally well and even better together.
Eric, I absolutely love your content. I find it so edifying. My question is, I've heard before from skeptics, that the story of the turning over of the tables or the story of talking about the destruction of the temple "proves Jesus sinned." I put that in quotes because it's not what I believe of course. How would you recommend countering this? Just to show the person that righteous anger is sometimes justified? I'm curious what you'd say to someone who tries to point to some action or words of Jesus to accuse him of being imperfect. Thanks in advance if you answer, and God bless Eric. :)
Sure, I wrote this on my blog a few years ago: Was Jesus just throwing an unjustified temper tantrum when he cleansed the Temple? To answer that, we need to give a little background. The temple market was established after the Babylonian captivity. JB Lightfoot says “There was always a constant market in the temple in that place, which was called ‘the shops;’ where, every day, was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep in the spacious Court of the Gentiles” Josephus estimated there would be up to 3 million Jews traveling to Jerusalem for the Passover. Seeing their devotion, the money-changers saw an opportunity to get rich. They made a business of accommodating those who didn’t have the half-shekel temple tax. (See Mt 17:24) Everyone was expected to pay it, rich or poor, in the month of Adar. So it became necessary to change a shekel into two halves, or exchange foreign money for the Jewish half-shekel. (Money that bore the image of “Divine Caesar”, in some cases) These men made a nice profit by charging a percentage for the exchange. The animals were in the courts to be sold as a sacrifice since people traveling from afar weren’t usually able to bring them. Jesus was upset that in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews were designated to worship, people were being deprived of the opportunity to pray because of greedy, irreverent people and this happened under the watch Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 that the temple was to be a place of prayer for all nations. This would be like trying to have worship in the middle of Walmart on a normal Black Friday. The Gentiles were pushed out of participation with the Passover. Matthew previously writes “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 8:11) This event is called “The Cleansing of the Temple” for good reason. Jesus was purifying the temple from defilement. Nearly 200 years before, Judas Maccabeus cleansed the Temple after it was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. By cleaning out the Temple, Jesus is saying that the present Jewish leadership had defiled the Temple in the same way the Greeks did when the sacrificed a pig inside of it. Talk about an act of defiant protest! Shortly afterward, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and the coming judgment upon the nation for their lack of response to Jesus’ Gospel. (Mark 13, Matthew 24) So to sum up, you have noisy people who care nothing for God there to make an easy buck in the place where Gentiles were to worship, exploiting the poor in the process. Jesus taught that we can’t serve both God and money, and to him, this was both oppression, greed, and idolatry blatantly in his Father’s own house. Jesus said that this was to be a place of prayer, not a den of robbers. (Jeremiah 7:11) He was rightfully ticked off. Not only that, but there’s not a hint that Jesus harmed any human or any animal. He flipped some tables. He fashioned a whip and gave it a good crack or two, but this would sort of like firing a gun in the air in a crowd. It would clear the people and the animals out in a hurry.
First of all, skeptics don't get to dictate whether Jesus sinned or not, since they don't even have an objective basis for morality. Second, since Christianity does have the objective basis for morality in God, shouldn't we believe the Word of God when He calls Jesus sinless and raises Him from the dead in confirmation of this fact. Third, if we take issue with something Jesus said or did, it's much more likely that the problem is with either our understanding of what Jesus said or did, or with our understanding of morality. So what exactly was immoral about cleansing the temple? Unless you conflate politeness with morality, then there was nothing wrong. We are not morally obligated to be polite in the face of injustice. Anger is not sinful, because God's anger is the righteous response to sin. Now it is possible to have a sinful anger, but assuming that Jesus' anger is sinful is begging the question. Jesus also didn't beat up the people, he only chased them out while cracking the whip. Any sort of accusation of Jesus sinning would have to rely on assumptions that simply cannot be substantiated from the text, rendering the argument circular.
@@TestifyApologetics That was a great response Eric. I probably would say something similar to a skeptic, but I would've been missing some details you explained. I'm glad you're doing the work you're doing. You're inspiring me to read the Bible 25 hours a day like you probably do. ;)
@@truthmatters7573 I agree with what you've said. I wonder what your thoughts are on righteous anger? Do you believe we ought to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and being angry at certain sinful behavior? I find myself slow to anger even in situations where I know something quite sinful is occurring. I'm wondering if I should sometimes adjust my calm demeanor. I'm curious of your thoughts.
@@Gadowscar The Bible does call us to be slow to anger, so that much is good. We ought to be slow to anger especially when personal slights are concerned. Turn the other cheek is basically about not retaliating when someone offends you. We also ought to be slow to anger because oftentimes a sinner may make a mistake unintentionally, and anger usually is not the right way to respond to otherwise reasonable people that you can talk things out with. It's not always clear whether you are dealing with wilful sin or careless sin. Being slow to anger also helps in disputes or discussions. If someone else raises the temperature of a conversation, then nothing good will come of you also raising the temperature usually. However, certain sins are so heinous and so blatant that the anger can come a little quicker. Even then we need to be careful that it is righteous indignation and not our sinful tendencies that we are giving free reign. Jesus was not an angry man, but in specific circumstances he did have to express righteous indignation. Think of what He said would happen to those who harm children. Think of how he addressed corrupt spiritual leaders. It takes discernment however, because we can say: this spiritual leader is corrupt, but in reality he is just honestly mistaken, or we may even be honestly mistaken, but since you always believe you are right even if you are unknowingly mistaken, you see the other person as the problem. We ought to be known for our love (for God, family, believers, neighbors, and enemies), but love is also protective, so there are circumstances where love will properly manifest as anger. It's a wisdom issue, where we ought to be guided by the Spirit and Biblical principles. I hope that helps.
Where you see undesigned coincidences I see confirmation of the truth of God's word through His omnipotent design. All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2Tim 3:16). He tells us in Isaiah 28:10 how we are to read His word and lays it out through his Holy Spirit filled godly men in the pattern he ordained; For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: We have no need to take the witness of man in determining the truth of God's word because; if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater (1John 5:9). Herod did not rebuild the temple, he added on to it, Ezra and Zerubbabel built the temple (the book of Ezra see 4:24) in 46 of the 49 years prophesied by Daniel's 7 weeks (Daniel 9:25). Give glory to God by worshipping him in Spirit and in Truth, his word is truth (John 17:17).
The only problem I see with this is that a lot of scholars think John's telling of the cleansing of the temple is the same event as the synoptics', just arranged in a different place chronologically. That is, Jesus only cleansed the temple once, it's just placed early in John's account and late in the synoptics. I don't think you need to date the temple cleansing so early; saying "it took 46 years to build this" doesn't mean that, at the time Jesus is cleansing the temple, the temple was just finished being built. It also makes more sense to me for the accusations at the trial scene to be grabbing onto something Jesus was saying in like, the last week, rather than something years ago. I appreciate these recent set of videos! They're very edifying to listen to.
There is also the possibility that the temple was not fully completed at the time they said that. And while able to be used still had construction being done to it. which could leave wiggle room.
3:00 univocality is a false assumption and therefore a fallacy as an argument (just watching Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan i learn so much how to spot and counter bullshit immediately)
I recently watch usefulcharts video about when Jesus was crucified and he concluded it was around 33 AD but u said 29 AD based on the comment about when the temple was built (which I don’t think he mentioned). His video was very precise and the points he brought up were good. If u seen it What do you think?
But wouldn't a skeptic just say, "the author of John had access to M & M and so wrote something into his gospel to flesh out this story more..."? This example of undesigned coincidence doesn't seem so _casual_ as others, I gotta be honest. EDIT: I do appreciate all the content you put out, let's make that clear. Thanks for always lifting up the name of Jesus.
but then he leaves out the charge in the trial? Yeah, I don't think that's is as probable. Not every example might have the same punch for everyone though, it's a cumulative case.
On the contrary, this is a difficult example to explain. With John’s knowledge of Mark, John will research Mark’s trials and invent a whole story and make it a prophecy about the death of Jesus and forget all of Mark’s prophecies about the death of Jesus? strange....
@@AnHebrewChild I meant that, if we assume that John read the trial of the Lord Jesus in Mark and took the phrase “You builder of the temple, and you will destroy it in three days” from Mark and based on it his story about Jesus cleansing the temple and making it a prophecy of Jesus’ death because the temple is his body, it is clear that the scenario The above is unreasonable because the goal of John’s story is to clarify that the temple is the body of Jesus to indicate his death and resurrection, and Mark is full of clear indications of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It would have been better for John to take them and implement them instead of going to the temple and the destruction if he read mark
Yeah, it seems odd to have the goal of "fleshing out a story" while leaving out key details (like the trial accusation). Reads more authentic than fabricated.
Besides the whole bit about it being an undesigned coincidence, I wonder why we as Christians like the nice Jesus so much, yet don’t really talk much about the controversial nature of Jesus’ ministry. Do you think we care more about being accepted by the world and about being seen as “nice” than we like to admit? I can’t help but think that maybe this contributes to the common image of the God of the NT being “nicer” than the God of the OT (modern day Marcionism). Does Jesus being controversial make us uncomfortable?
I notice it too. I'm naturally non confrontational, so bringing things up inorganically isn't my course of action. if someone plainly asks or declares in my presence something that Jesus clearly didn't teach or stand for, I'll answer plainly, but I don't go around randomly shining attention on the controversial or non controversial things Jesus did.
@@seijin4426 i suppose it's "controversial" in the sense that It's unpopular/makes some or many uncomfortable. Everything He did was right and just, but I wouldn't say * none of it was controversial in this context. I mean He did say pluck out ur eye/cut off your hand after all.
@@freddurstedgebono6029 But it can't work with the 33 AD date? It's just that there are some very good arguments for the 33 date as well, for example, Eusebius quoted a Greek writer which mentioned a darkness and earthquake which happened at that exact time: "In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the sixth hour the day was changed into night, and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa" Also, there was a partial lunar eclipse in the evening of April 3rd 33 AD (the alleged crucifixion date), which could line up with the blood moon that Peter mentioned in Acts.
Tiberius was given a shared role with Augustus in managing provinces and conducting a census after Tiberius returned from Germany in 12 A.D. So, the fifteenth year of Tiberius points to 27 A.D., aligning with Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. The temple cleansing likely happened the following Passover (John 2:13), around spring 28 A.D. By using information from John, Luke, Josephus, and Suetonius, and employing two separate methods, we've confirmed the date of Jesus cleansing the temple. This kind of coincidence, especially the natural fit of the puzzle pieces, is best explained by the sources being rooted in truth.
Just like there were going to be two anointings of Jesus's body. First by Nicodemus as recorded in John. Second by Mary Magdalene as recorded in the synoptic gospels.
Hello Eric, what do you think of the unplanned coincidence between Mark and Luke-Matthew in the story of the centurion, where a centurion says when he saw Jesus: Indeed, this was the son of God (I agree!) But who would make a Roman centurion crucify a Jew says that he was the son of God? Luke says that a centurion's servant was healed by Jesus. I know that most will say that it is not the same centurion
There's no indication it's the same centurion. Ppl that were non Jewish picked up on how different Jesus was (the. Canaanite who begged for healing of her demon possessed daughter, for example) Pilate's wife having a nightmare about Jesus, and concluding Pilate should have nothing to do with Him. The Samaritan at the well. I think the crucifixtion centurion is more likely just another candidate that Jesus had an impact on, rather than the centurion that's daughter was revived by Him. Ur theory could be correct, I could be wrong in this case, I just don't think the centurion's confession necessarily points to them having a history. After all during the crucifixion many events occurred darkness/earthquake/etc., all possible reasons the centurion confessed Jesus was the son of God.
They didn't, this model coincides with AD 30 for the crucifixion, AD 27 for start of ministry, and AD 28 for the "terrorist threat." Subtract 46 years from AD 28 (with no zero year) and you get 19 BC, which is when Josephus has it that Herod started building the temple.
Jesus saying that he will "destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days" proves that he is God, when he was killed the temple walls shook and it broke, Muslims might say that God destroyed the temple. Yes, he did because, Jesus said, "I will destroy the temple". Jesus also said he would rebuild it in 3 days, which is him resurrecting and becoming The New Temple.
What happened? All of a sudden you've completely abandoned doing longform content in favor of these tiny 5 minute things. I used to like to listen on the way to/from work.
I'll be doing long form, I just started to work a job and have had to learn to adjust to a new routine. I've always done shorter videos. Long form was actually more of a new thing.
Hey Eric, I don't quite remember the verse and cannot access it at the moment but in Acts of the apostles, when the Holy Spirit was sent and people were receiving it, One man and his wife came and asked for it in exchange for money but peter said that he was lying to God himself and he and his wife died. So wouldn't that be quite immoral for God to kill a man because of this mistake?
Lying to the Holy Spirit in order to look more generous than you really are so you can get the praise of man wouldn't be a "mistake" it would be a grave sin, especially in the context where God is not at all hidden but making his presence very obvious through the apostles.
They are not FACTS! That's a theory. A Fact is Jesus giving his first reasoning and justification and record on a solid piece of literature that can be used as evidence. I don't get why Abrahamic gods always find the most irrelevant and illiterate person in the land, to deliver his message. Nice video though. it made atleast as a proper foundation for speculation.
@@TestifyApologetics I was actually considering it, I live in Kenya tho so lets see how the payment options are, but I assume it shall work, your work as an apologist is very helpful, you are one of the youtubers that got me to join Christianity and leave hinduism, I highly appreciate your work! So in that case I would love to become a patron
I understand the point you are trying to make. But I feel I must state that the fact the Bible itself was edited by Rome during the canonization, flies in the face of the idea of coincidences being undesigned, as the final form of the Bible is literally designed. Unless this coincidence could have been said to have existed in the pre-canonization scriptures, your entire argument falls apart. Essentially I call nonsense on anything in the current state of the Holy Bible being claimed to be undesigned as the nature of "editing" IS D E S I G N. This is not an attack. I want you to explain to me how I am wrong here, with all due humility. Your answer cannot rely on "well you gotta have faith the Romans didn't design their edit too deeply" I will not take anything on faith that comes from what the Lord, Himself, called the Beast that was and is not and yet will be (Rome).
This is why I don’t believe the late gospel theory. I believe they underestimate how important the destruction of the temple and fire of Rome was in the first century.
I think you may be surprised and interested in the orthodox church and it's followers interpretations of story and scripture. Pretty interesting stuff that differs from most of our western understandings thanks to the catholics & protestants
@@1stdebunker What do you mean? What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have to say about the late Gospel theory?
@@1stdebunker My friend goes on and on about how awesome Eastern Orthodoxy is and how it's the most true continuation of the Church 2,000 years ago, but then I hear Father Spryidon talk about The Sacraments of The Eucharist and Confession in largely the same way Catholics do, both being clear heresies not in keeping with the Gospel, that the one sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross paid for the sins of all mankind for all time.
@@1stdebunkersend me some links brother ☦️☦️
@@HunterStiles651 Why do all the churches that trace their origins to the 1st century have similar doctrines?
Happy to say I actually caught this one myself recently! It was beautiful to see how they connect and complete each other. Rereading the Gospels back to back every year is something I recommend anyone to do for this.
To add to John’s focus on Jesus as the new Temple, Dr Brant Pitre mentions John 19 (water and blood coming out Jesus’ side) and points out the comparison to the view of the Jewish Temple viewed to the North (I think that’s the orientation), the water used to wash out the blood of sacrificed lambs came out on the west side, per recorded by Josephus. So, on the “right side” of the Temple, you would have water and blood washing out from the mountain.
Hence why the writer of John feels the need to comment on this, then restate that the one who “bore witness” was not mistaken. John saw the blood and water coming out of Jesus’ side as a parallel to the Jewish temple after a sacrifice.
Who do you think the author / narrator of the gospel of John was?
The gospel never mentions James or John by name and it doesn't have a story of their being called as disciples.
@@seanhogan6893assuming this is a serious comment, Matthew 4:21-22, for starters, and if you mean John's gospel in particular doesn't call them disciples, there's John 21:2. John's gospel doesn't tell Jesus' ministry from the beginning in Galilee, only in Judea, so that's why it doesn't include the story of their calling
@@slick_Ric right, you need the other gospels to even know who John 21:2 is referring to. It's things like that which raise suspicions that the author of John assumed his audience knew the other gospels. Even the church fathers seemed to have a rough consensus that John was written last and knew the other gospels.
Huge fan of Dr. Brant Pitre. Plenty of excellent videos and books on apologetic and theological matters. Oh and as for the other user’s question, Pitre and many Christian academics make good arguments that it was indeed John the Apostle. He avoids mentioning himself by name exactly because he’s the Beloved Disciple. The early Church fathers disagreed on a decent amount of things but they were all unanimous on traditional authorship. There are also, as Dr. Pitre himself points out, no “anonymous” copies of the Gospels. All extant manuscripts including those from the early second century and from many different geographical regions attribute the appropriate authors in the title.
@rcbmmines4579 for me, the unanimity (is that the word?) of the early church regarding the authorship of the gospels is what cements the more reasonable nature of traditional authorship. They had no problem disagreeing with each other but were in agreement regarding that. That speaks volumes.
Jesus and terrorism is something i never thought i would see in the same sentence😂😂😂
Don't read Reza Aslan then, you'll hear it more.
I'm not surprised, after all many dismiss Him as a failed rebel etc. They'll call Him anything but God.
The term is a meaningless one anyway. One man’s terrie is another man’s freedom fighter.
@@danielboone8256 Violence done by the State is always [REDACTED]. Violence done by anyone else is always bad. This is a lie that has been foisted on the masses in all Nations in all eras since the beginning of Creation. A necessary lie perhaps, but a lie nonetheless.
@@danielboone8256 Acts of non-pacifism are only bad when conducted by those not endorsed by the State. This is a lie that has been told in all Nations in all eras since the beginning of Creation. A necessary lie, perhaps, but a lie all the same.
Thanks!
This series is amazing. Your labor in the Lord is a blessing.
What I’ve noticed about scripture is this: Humility and diligent study is worked into the system to feel the full force of its veracity and richness. Undesigned coincidences is part of that. A cursory level, arrogant ‘prove it god or I wont believe you’ (in my way, according to my standards) allows you to walk away feeling confident the text is unreliable and you’re like, super smart and stuff, but it’s more obviously a weak coping mechanism to those who try to drive their hearts lower before God and study for the primary purpose of Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 2:15, not to look brilliant or learned. It’s almost like that Jesus guy knew what He was talking about when He said stuff like: ‘Humble yourself and you’ll be exalted’ and ‘Exalt yourself and you’ll be humbled’
This is really good stuff! Thank you for making this video. I look forward to more insightful study. Happy Easter!
Hi Eric! I am doing some research and I recently left a comment with a question on your posted livestream “The apostles and suffering: Answering Paulogia’s skepticism”. If you have time I’d really appreciate it if you could clear it up for me.
Your videos have been super helpful for me in my apologetics journey.
Send me an email. Just check my about page
Yay for the new video :) and glad there will be more to come !
Awesome stuff, man!
But see, I don't totally get why the interpretation of Him literally destroying the temple is necessarily wrong either. Yes, it's clearly a metaphor for His death and resurrection, but taken on its face, I think it's also a statement of power: "It took y'all nearly half a century to build this place, I could do it in three days" or "It took y'all nearly half a century, I could bring it down in an instant". Both interpretations, as is often the case with Christ, work equally well and even better together.
very cool info in your vids. Hopefully you get many more subscribers.
Eric, I absolutely love your content. I find it so edifying. My question is, I've heard before from skeptics, that the story of the turning over of the tables or the story of talking about the destruction of the temple "proves Jesus sinned." I put that in quotes because it's not what I believe of course. How would you recommend countering this? Just to show the person that righteous anger is sometimes justified? I'm curious what you'd say to someone who tries to point to some action or words of Jesus to accuse him of being imperfect. Thanks in advance if you answer, and God bless Eric. :)
Sure, I wrote this on my blog a few years ago: Was Jesus just throwing an unjustified temper tantrum when he cleansed the Temple? To answer that, we need to give a little background. The temple market was established after the Babylonian captivity. JB Lightfoot says “There was always a constant market in the temple in that place, which was called ‘the shops;’ where, every day, was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep in the spacious Court of the Gentiles”
Josephus estimated there would be up to 3 million Jews traveling to Jerusalem for the Passover. Seeing their devotion, the money-changers saw an opportunity to get rich. They made a business of accommodating those who didn’t have the half-shekel temple tax. (See Mt 17:24)
Everyone was expected to pay it, rich or poor, in the month of Adar. So it became necessary to change a shekel into two halves, or exchange foreign money for the Jewish half-shekel. (Money that bore the image of “Divine Caesar”, in some cases) These men made a nice profit by charging a percentage for the exchange. The animals were in the courts to be sold as a sacrifice since people traveling from afar weren’t usually able to bring them.
Jesus was upset that in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews were designated to worship, people were being deprived of the opportunity to pray because of greedy, irreverent people and this happened under the watch Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 that the temple was to be a place of prayer for all nations.
This would be like trying to have worship in the middle of Walmart on a normal Black Friday. The Gentiles were pushed out of participation with the Passover. Matthew previously writes “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 8:11)
This event is called “The Cleansing of the Temple” for good reason. Jesus was purifying the temple from defilement. Nearly 200 years before, Judas Maccabeus cleansed the Temple after it was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. By cleaning out the Temple, Jesus is saying that the present Jewish leadership had defiled the Temple in the same way the Greeks did when the sacrificed a pig inside of it. Talk about an act of defiant protest! Shortly afterward, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and the coming judgment upon the nation for their lack of response to Jesus’ Gospel. (Mark 13, Matthew 24)
So to sum up, you have noisy people who care nothing for God there to make an easy buck in the place where Gentiles were to worship, exploiting the poor in the process. Jesus taught that we can’t serve both God and money, and to him, this was both oppression, greed, and idolatry blatantly in his Father’s own house. Jesus said that this was to be a place of prayer, not a den of robbers. (Jeremiah 7:11) He was rightfully ticked off.
Not only that, but there’s not a hint that Jesus harmed any human or any animal. He flipped some tables. He fashioned a whip and gave it a good crack or two, but this would sort of like firing a gun in the air in a crowd. It would clear the people and the animals out in a hurry.
First of all, skeptics don't get to dictate whether Jesus sinned or not, since they don't even have an objective basis for morality. Second, since Christianity does have the objective basis for morality in God, shouldn't we believe the Word of God when He calls Jesus sinless and raises Him from the dead in confirmation of this fact. Third, if we take issue with something Jesus said or did, it's much more likely that the problem is with either our understanding of what Jesus said or did, or with our understanding of morality.
So what exactly was immoral about cleansing the temple? Unless you conflate politeness with morality, then there was nothing wrong. We are not morally obligated to be polite in the face of injustice. Anger is not sinful, because God's anger is the righteous response to sin. Now it is possible to have a sinful anger, but assuming that Jesus' anger is sinful is begging the question. Jesus also didn't beat up the people, he only chased them out while cracking the whip.
Any sort of accusation of Jesus sinning would have to rely on assumptions that simply cannot be substantiated from the text, rendering the argument circular.
@@TestifyApologetics That was a great response Eric. I probably would say something similar to a skeptic, but I would've been missing some details you explained. I'm glad you're doing the work you're doing. You're inspiring me to read the Bible 25 hours a day like you probably do. ;)
@@truthmatters7573 I agree with what you've said. I wonder what your thoughts are on righteous anger? Do you believe we ought to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and being angry at certain sinful behavior? I find myself slow to anger even in situations where I know something quite sinful is occurring. I'm wondering if I should sometimes adjust my calm demeanor. I'm curious of your thoughts.
@@Gadowscar The Bible does call us to be slow to anger, so that much is good. We ought to be slow to anger especially when personal slights are concerned. Turn the other cheek is basically about not retaliating when someone offends you. We also ought to be slow to anger because oftentimes a sinner may make a mistake unintentionally, and anger usually is not the right way to respond to otherwise reasonable people that you can talk things out with. It's not always clear whether you are dealing with wilful sin or careless sin. Being slow to anger also helps in disputes or discussions. If someone else raises the temperature of a conversation, then nothing good will come of you also raising the temperature usually.
However, certain sins are so heinous and so blatant that the anger can come a little quicker. Even then we need to be careful that it is righteous indignation and not our sinful tendencies that we are giving free reign.
Jesus was not an angry man, but in specific circumstances he did have to express righteous indignation. Think of what He said would happen to those who harm children. Think of how he addressed corrupt spiritual leaders. It takes discernment however, because we can say: this spiritual leader is corrupt, but in reality he is just honestly mistaken, or we may even be honestly mistaken, but since you always believe you are right even if you are unknowingly mistaken, you see the other person as the problem.
We ought to be known for our love (for God, family, believers, neighbors, and enemies), but love is also protective, so there are circumstances where love will properly manifest as anger. It's a wisdom issue, where we ought to be guided by the Spirit and Biblical principles.
I hope that helps.
Thank you
Great observations.
Where you see undesigned coincidences I see confirmation of the truth of God's word through His omnipotent design. All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2Tim 3:16). He tells us in Isaiah 28:10 how we are to read His word and lays it out through his Holy Spirit filled godly men in the pattern he ordained; For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
We have no need to take the witness of man in determining the truth of God's word because; if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater (1John 5:9). Herod did not rebuild the temple, he added on to it, Ezra and Zerubbabel built the temple (the book of Ezra see 4:24) in 46 of the 49 years prophesied by Daniel's 7 weeks (Daniel 9:25).
Give glory to God by worshipping him in Spirit and in Truth, his word is truth (John 17:17).
The inspiration of Scripture and undesigned coincidences are not mutually exclusive.
@@TestifyApologetics Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Love the videos dude, have you ever considered making some long form content on similar topics? I'd like to listen while I work 🤩
See my live tab, I got a few. Hopefully more to come
The only problem I see with this is that a lot of scholars think John's telling of the cleansing of the temple is the same event as the synoptics', just arranged in a different place chronologically. That is, Jesus only cleansed the temple once, it's just placed early in John's account and late in the synoptics. I don't think you need to date the temple cleansing so early; saying "it took 46 years to build this" doesn't mean that, at the time Jesus is cleansing the temple, the temple was just finished being built. It also makes more sense to me for the accusations at the trial scene to be grabbing onto something Jesus was saying in like, the last week, rather than something years ago. I appreciate these recent set of videos! They're very edifying to listen to.
There is also the possibility that the temple was not fully completed at the time they said that. And while able to be used still had construction being done to it. which could leave wiggle room.
3:00 univocality is a false assumption and therefore a fallacy as an argument (just watching Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan i learn so much how to spot and counter bullshit immediately)
your using the fallacy of composition
Lol no I'd say you're learning what you think you're spotting. The point is going over your head. I have many videos responding to both of those guys.
@@onlylettersand0to9I literally addressed the issue of dependence like 3 videos ago. I'm sensing some projection here.
Wouldn't the lack of mention of the actual destruction of the temple be another undesign coincidence used for dating John's gospel before 70 AD?
that wouldn't be an undesigned coincidence. it might be an indicator for early dating, but not a strong one.
I recently watch usefulcharts video about when Jesus was crucified and he concluded it was around 33 AD but u said 29 AD based on the comment about when the temple was built (which I don’t think he mentioned). His video was very precise and the points he brought up were good. If u seen it What do you think?
I responded to it here
th-cam.com/video/GkryoVskf6A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eedRK-_-P2osukPT
@@TestifyApologetics OH! Thank u!!!🙏🏻
This is a good one.
Love the videos keep up the good work
But wouldn't a skeptic just say, "the author of John had access to M & M and so wrote something into his gospel to flesh out this story more..."?
This example of undesigned coincidence doesn't seem so _casual_ as others, I gotta be honest.
EDIT: I do appreciate all the content you put out, let's make that clear. Thanks for always lifting up the name of Jesus.
but then he leaves out the charge in the trial? Yeah, I don't think that's is as probable. Not every example might have the same punch for everyone though, it's a cumulative case.
On the contrary, this is a difficult example to explain. With John’s knowledge of Mark, John will research Mark’s trials and invent a whole story and make it a prophecy about the death of Jesus and forget all of Mark’s prophecies about the death of Jesus? strange....
@@Sjsg68 what exactly do you mean, forget all about Mark's prophecies about the death of Jesus? Can you please clarify?
@@AnHebrewChild I meant that, if we assume that John read the trial of the Lord Jesus in Mark and took the phrase “You builder of the temple, and you will destroy it in three days” from Mark and based on it his story about Jesus cleansing the temple and making it a prophecy of Jesus’ death because the temple is his body, it is clear that the scenario The above is unreasonable because the goal of John’s story is to clarify that the temple is the body of Jesus to indicate his death and resurrection, and Mark is full of clear indications of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It would have been better for John to take them and implement them instead of going to the temple and the destruction if he read mark
Yeah, it seems odd to have the goal of "fleshing out a story" while leaving out key details (like the trial accusation). Reads more authentic than fabricated.
Besides the whole bit about it being an undesigned coincidence, I wonder why we as Christians like the nice Jesus so much, yet don’t really talk much about the controversial nature of Jesus’ ministry. Do you think we care more about being accepted by the world and about being seen as “nice” than we like to admit? I can’t help but think that maybe this contributes to the common image of the God of the NT being “nicer” than the God of the OT (modern day Marcionism).
Does Jesus being controversial make us uncomfortable?
The answer is idolatry. The human tendency is to make God into something we prefer
I notice it too. I'm naturally non confrontational, so bringing things up inorganically isn't my course of action. if someone plainly asks or declares in my presence something that Jesus clearly didn't teach or stand for, I'll answer plainly, but I don't go around randomly shining attention on the controversial or non controversial things Jesus did.
How is it controversial when His Holiness was only telling the truth since that's what the people really needed even at that time!
@@seijin4426 i suppose it's "controversial" in the sense that It's unpopular/makes some or many uncomfortable.
Everything He did was right and just, but I wouldn't say * none of it was controversial in this context. I mean He did say pluck out ur eye/cut off your hand after all.
Is this timeline compatible with the idea that Jesus was killed in 33 AD?
30 AD. 15th year of the reign of Tiberus was 27 AD, as he served as co-ruler starting in 12 AD
@@freddurstedgebono6029 But it can't work with the 33 AD date?
It's just that there are some very good arguments for the 33 date as well, for example, Eusebius quoted a Greek writer which mentioned a darkness and earthquake which happened at that exact time:
"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the sixth hour the day was changed into night, and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa"
Also, there was a partial lunar eclipse in the evening of April 3rd 33 AD (the alleged crucifixion date), which could line up with the blood moon that Peter mentioned in Acts.
@@hermanessences could be im not sure. I’d have to look onto either argument. Anything is possinle
Have you ever discussed Lazarus in John?
No, but I don't think he wrote John
What's the significance of the AD 14 and AD 12 dates? I didn't see how that ties in.
Tiberius was given a shared role with Augustus in managing provinces and conducting a census after Tiberius returned from Germany in 12 A.D. So, the fifteenth year of Tiberius points to 27 A.D., aligning with Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. The temple cleansing likely happened the following Passover (John 2:13), around spring 28 A.D. By using information from John, Luke, Josephus, and Suetonius, and employing two separate methods, we've confirmed the date of Jesus cleansing the temple. This kind of coincidence, especially the natural fit of the puzzle pieces, is best explained by the sources being rooted in truth.
Good video!
4:58 _"when"_ = the first time.
?
@@arcguardian There were two cleansings of the temple, the second one a few days before the Crucifixion.
Just like there were going to be two anointings of Jesus's body. First by Nicodemus as recorded in John. Second by Mary Magdalene as recorded in the synoptic gospels.
@@seanhogan6893 _"First by Nicodemus"_
Oh? What verse in John 3? If it's there, I missed it.
@@hglundahl John 19;39-40
How timely with IPs video having just come out on the early dating of the Gospels too.
Do you use AI to create the images for your videos? :)
Sometimes, but not in these. Just using Canva.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks! So for examble the images in the videos concerning Jesus' birth were created with canva?
@@kiviakengassaoh some of those are AI but also still Canva. They do AI images too
when did Jesus die if he started his ministry in 27 AD?... I thought he started in 30 AD.
Yeah and the earlier date is likely correct
I didn't know that Jesus had a plane
Hello Eric, what do you think of the unplanned coincidence between Mark and Luke-Matthew in the story of the centurion, where a centurion says when he saw Jesus: Indeed, this was the son of God (I agree!) But who would make a Roman centurion crucify a Jew says that he was the son of God? Luke says that a centurion's servant was healed by Jesus. I know that most will say that it is not the same centurion
There's no indication it's the same centurion.
Ppl that were non Jewish picked up on how different Jesus was (the. Canaanite who begged for healing of her demon possessed daughter, for example)
Pilate's wife having a nightmare about Jesus, and concluding Pilate should have nothing to do with Him.
The Samaritan at the well.
I think the crucifixtion centurion is more likely just another candidate that Jesus had an impact on, rather than the centurion that's daughter was revived by Him. Ur theory could be correct, I could be wrong in this case, I just don't think the centurion's confession necessarily points to them having a history. After all during the crucifixion many events occurred darkness/earthquake/etc., all possible reasons the centurion confessed Jesus was the son of God.
It's surprising that John didn't know his name was Longinus.
I don't think it's a UC at all
Who made the calculation that Jesus started His ministry in 30ad
What date would you give it?
They didn't, this model coincides with AD 30 for the crucifixion, AD 27 for start of ministry, and AD 28 for the "terrorist threat." Subtract 46 years from AD 28 (with no zero year) and you get 19 BC, which is when Josephus has it that Herod started building the temple.
@KalonOrdona2 the traditional date is that Jesus died in 33ad . I was talking about it.
Jesus saying that he will "destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days" proves that he is God, when he was killed the temple walls shook and it broke, Muslims might say that God destroyed the temple. Yes, he did because, Jesus said, "I will destroy the temple". Jesus also said he would rebuild it in 3 days, which is him resurrecting and becoming The New Temple.
What happened? All of a sudden you've completely abandoned doing longform content in favor of these tiny 5 minute things. I used to like to listen on the way to/from work.
I'll be doing long form, I just started to work a job and have had to learn to adjust to a new routine. I've always done shorter videos. Long form was actually more of a new thing.
@@TestifyApologetics Cool, thanks for the answer about that.
Hey Eric, I don't quite remember the verse and cannot access it at the moment but in Acts of the apostles, when the Holy Spirit was sent and people were receiving it, One man and his wife came and asked for it in exchange for money but peter said that he was lying to God himself and he and his wife died. So wouldn't that be quite immoral for God to kill a man because of this mistake?
Lying to the Holy Spirit in order to look more generous than you really are so you can get the praise of man wouldn't be a "mistake" it would be a grave sin, especially in the context where God is not at all hidden but making his presence very obvious through the apostles.
They are not FACTS! That's a theory. A Fact is Jesus giving his first reasoning and justification and record on a solid piece of literature that can be used as evidence.
I don't get why Abrahamic gods always find the most irrelevant and illiterate person in the land, to deliver his message.
Nice video though. it made atleast as a proper foundation for speculation.
Oh, you post it to the playlist first. Okay.
you figured out the free way to get early access, congrats. :)
@@TestifyApologetics Shhh you weren't meant to reveal the secret like that
@@Vanta1111become patrons all of you. It's literally as low as a dollar a month lol.
@@TestifyApologetics I was actually considering it, I live in Kenya tho so lets see how the payment options are, but I assume it shall work, your work as an apologist is very helpful, you are one of the youtubers that got me to join Christianity and leave hinduism, I highly appreciate your work! So in that case I would love to become a patron
Who does this Jesus think he is...GOD...😉 God Bless You All In Jesus Name.
I’m unsubscribing from this channel.
Because the Undead William Paley thing sounds pretty cool.
😂
I understand the point you are trying to make. But I feel I must state that the fact the Bible itself was edited by Rome during the canonization, flies in the face of the idea of coincidences being undesigned, as the final form of the Bible is literally designed. Unless this coincidence could have been said to have existed in the pre-canonization scriptures, your entire argument falls apart.
Essentially I call nonsense on anything in the current state of the Holy Bible being claimed to be undesigned as the nature of "editing" IS D E S I G N.
This is not an attack. I want you to explain to me how I am wrong here, with all due humility.
Your answer cannot rely on "well you gotta have faith the Romans didn't design their edit too deeply" I will not take anything on faith that comes from what the Lord, Himself, called the Beast that was and is not and yet will be (Rome).
Cool, prove it was altered :P
If you folks stop being demons, we might all can make it to the Kingdom
what?