ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- When were the Gospels written? Many scholars say they were written too late to be reliable sources. Other historians believe they were written earlier than the scholarly consensus. Here I look at two of the main reasons for early dating and late dating of the Gospels.
Lydia McGrew's author page on Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Lydia McGrew, Arguments From Silence: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly • Arguments From Silence...
Tim McGrew the argument from silence: www.researchga...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
The easiest way to date a gospel is:
1. Smell nice
2. Dress sharply
3. Have confidence
4. Buy them a nice dinner
5. Dont blatantly ignore all the evidence pointing to the actual dating of the gospels to sell more book
6. Give them a goodnight kiss.
Lol
@@TestifyApologetics I’m a huge fan, because you give me the confidence to be a Christian!
This is Perfect 😂
Jonathan Bernier wrote a really good book back in may of this year called: “Rethinking the dates of the New Testament -Evidence for early composition” In this book he makes a really convincing argument that almost, if not every book of the New Testament was written before 70 ad. He also says that mark was written around 42-45 ad, which is only a decade after Jesus’s ministry.
Wow a biblical scholar - who are these people today when did this prophecy take place?? - "Habakkuk 2:5"
I've read his book, it's really good. My only complaint is that he doesn't address more arguments in favor of an early dating.
@@austinapologetics2023
I'll ask you the same question - who are these people and when did this happen??
"Habakkuk 2:5"
@@Revelation-cb1rb try reading the whole book in its context!
@@davidjanbaz7728
You seem offended at the word of God - which means you understand exactly who it's talking about - let's look further - note the phrases - "is this the Man" and "prepare slaughter for his ...."
(Isaiah 14:12,15-16,21) How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Yet thou shalt be brought DOWN TO HELL, to the sides of the PIT
They that "SEE" THEE" shall narrowly LOOK upon THEE, and consider thee, "SAYING, IS THIS THE MAN" that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms PREPARE SLAUGHTER for his children for the INIQUITY of "THEIR" FATHERS that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities
The late, extremely liberal J.A. T. Robinson, in his 1976 book, _Redating the New Testament_ posed a question that has never been adequately answered by Late Composition advocates; namely why does no book of the New Testament, in any manuscript, refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple unambiguously in the past tense, even as fulfilled prophecy?
Very good that you mention this book. Bishop Robinson destroys late dating.
I've always said that the early dating scenario makes much more sense than the late dating scenario; especially since not one of the Gospels mentions that Jesus' prophecy had been fulfilled, as Luke does with the prophecy of Agabus about the famine during the reign of Claudius.
It's funny how liberal scholars like Harnack and Robinson agree with the early dating.
James A.Crossley date Gospel of Mark to date 30's and he is atheist lmao
Another great video! I’ve always been an early date proponent but even if the gospels were written from 70 AD-95 AD it’s foolish to assume that would change anything.
It’s not a “broken telephone game “ of the authors were present within the lifetime of Jesus.
Amen :)
I agree with you, even if the gospels were written late, that wouldn’t mean that they aren’t reliable. They were all written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could verify the claims. Luke himself wrote that he based his account on those who saw Christ and John and Matthew walked with Christ.
What do the writings have to do with you is my question
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT SENT but unto the list sheep of the house of ISRAEL
@@Revelation-cb1rb _What do the writings have to do with you is my question_
Ignorance must be your trademark. Why do you only have questions but no answers? You must not know anything (Mark 16:15).
@@khill4053
Your running from comment to comment stalking me - yet the result is the same your ethnic people are mummy dust as it's written - obviously "mark 16:15" has absolutely nothing to do with you - so again note the phrases "no repentance" n "not 1 remaining"
(Hebrews 12:16-17 kjv) Lest there be any fornicator, or profane as E S. A U when he would have inherited the blessing, he was REJECTED: for he found NO PLACE OF "REPENTANCE"
(Malachi 1:2-4) yet I loved Jacob, And I hated E. S. A. U and they shall call THEM, The border of "WICKEDNESS" and, THE PEOPLE against whom the Lord hath indignation FOREVER
(Psalm 11:5-6) The Lord trieth the righteous: but the "WICKED" and him that loveth violence his soul hateth Upon the WICKED he shall rain "FIRE" and "BRIMSTONE" this shall be the portion of their cup
(Obadiah 1:18) And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of E. S. A. U for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall NOT BE ANY REMAINING of the house of
E. S. A. U. for the LORD hath spoken it
THUS SAYETH THE LORD
@StPaul _Considering the average life expectancy back then was late 30s early 40s. I doubt it._
That's basically just a bunch of talking points and is really just a straw man claim. Broad generalizations, even if that's true, when that's not, don't disprove explicit facts. To prove that's false with explicit facts, why did Tacitus the historian live to 64 years of age? Socrates lived to the age of 71. Plato lived to 76. Aristotle lived to 62 years of age. Peter was around 50 when Jesus was crucified, and ministered many years after that, making him far older than 40, probably close to 60 when he was executed, fully alive and well. So that's just an ignorant cop out with that 30s to 40s claim. But as for the "gnostic" claim:
_"One of the earliest church fathers claiming the gospel of Mark is a Gnostic book at the core,"_
That's cherry picking, saying _"one of...",_ that one that supports what you think.
_that tons of books are written trying to explain it away._
You mean like you are, hypocritically, cherry picking and broadly generalizing to attempt to explain away the facts of Christianity? But if so, you don't believe Socrates, Aristotle or Plato existed either, right? Because we don't have anything older than hundreds of years, as you would say, "generations", after they lived.
But the facts are that just because someone, such as yourself, doesn't like the facts, doesn't mean someone gets to make up new ones to suit themselves. The facts say otherwise:
*"6 After that **_He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present,_** but some have fallen asleep."*
Quote: "Of whom the greater part remain to present", meaning were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written testifying to the eyewitnesses to all you are in denial of happening.
@StPaul
Note the comment to "k Hill" - your running from comment to comment stalking me - yet the result is the same your ethnic people are mummy dust as it's written - obviously "mark 16:15" has absolutely nothing to do with you - so again note the phrases "no repentance" n "not 1 remaining"
(Hebrews 12:16-17 kjv) Lest there be any fornicator, or profane as E S. A U when he would have inherited the blessing, he was REJECTED: for he found NO PLACE OF "REPENTANCE"
(Malachi 1:2-4) yet I loved Jacob, And I hated E. S. A. U and they shall call THEM, The border of "WICKEDNESS" and, THE PEOPLE against whom the Lord hath indignation FOREVER
(Psalm 11:5-6) The Lord trieth the righteous: but the "WICKED" and him that loveth violence his soul hateth Upon the WICKED he shall rain "FIRE" and "BRIMSTONE" this shall be the portion of their cup
(Obadiah 1:18) And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of E. S. A. U for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall NOT BE ANY REMAINING of the house of
E. S. A. U. for the LORD hath spoken it
THUS SAYETH THE LORD
I'm glad you addressed the argument from silence straight away.
Testify with another banger!
Great video. Thank you!
the idea of having the gospels dated at 70-90 ad just makes more proof for its legitimacy because persecutions were documented way before then. (fire of rome 64AD) so even if the gospels were late or later it doesn't change the fact that the gospels were not "man made" in the sense that it's doctrines weren't tacked on by people for their own purposes.
How can Luke write in 85AD, he dead before that time
@@agreekknight4606 i never said that he did :/
Very interesting cause Paul’s epistles we’re written even before the gospels!
Also, the gospels written 50-60 years is actually a pretty quick time relative to other histories written about other famous peoples (alexander the great, Muhammad) which some were even 300+ years after their deaths like the hadiths.
@@maxwellstevens9562
Wow a biblical scholar - who are these people today when did this prophecy take place?? - "Habakkuk 2:5"
@@Revelation-cb1rb doesn’t take long to do a little research. Check out Nelson’s complete study system, Dakes annotated reference Bible, Holmans master study Bible, and the Oxford companion to the Bible.
@Nidemos _@Maxwell Stevens This is a naive view. The fact is, traveling theologians and philosophers and mystery-cult preachers were commonplace at this time period._
Straw man fallacy. That doesn't mean the Bible is that nor does it make the accounts of the Bible untrue.
@Nidemos _@David - People made up stories. People spread the stories._
People make up stories, exactly. You need to stop believing people that make stories about the Bible being untrue. Why is it okay if you believe made up stories?
Excellent video brother
Great video as usual
@Testify. I'm not sure why you have not also pointed people to the excellent work of Dr. John A.T. Robinson's "Redating the New Testament." His work first introduced me to the assumptions and speculations people were using to argue for late dating of the Gospels. So is there a reason you left out his work in your videos?
Love Robinson! You should also read (if you haven't already) "The priority of John".
In the 1980s I remember that even liberal Scholars used to say that the gospels Mark was written around 60AD Matthew and Luke around 70 ad and John around 90AD. Now modern day liberal Scholars are pushing it further. Now they're saying that Mark probably was written around 70AD Matthew and Luke now they're saying it was written around 90. Even today there's some liberal Scholars trying to push Matthew and Luke like 110 AD. In the next 20 years I'm sure they're going to say now that they were written around 150 ad. They're going to come up with many illogical reasons why
Great video👏
If the gospels were written down later, then why wouldnt it have reports in it about the destruction of jerusalem?
Yes that’s true. Actually in Acts, Luke records a prophecy of a famine and then also records its Fulfilment.
He doesn’t do this with Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem.
The answer simply could be that Luke’s numerous references to the event (there are more in his gospel than in any other) are the evidence that he clearly knew of the Fall of Jerusalem and was merely giving Jesus’ words a preterist bent in order to explain away the imminent apocalypticism of Matthew and Mark’s gospels and deflate it. It is worth noting that only his gospel has Jesus give a saying about the Kingdom stating that it would not come by material observation (Luke 17:20-21).
@@ManoverSuperman nah I don’t think so. Since Luke was written before 70 A.D he couldn’t have known about the fall of Jerusalem.
Hi @Testify! Can you give an elevator pitch video that can give the best maximal facts case to a non-believer who has no context? Maybe some combination of the best undesigned coincidences across the New Testament, the best summary for the facts that Luke gets right that are “hard facts”, and a quick summary of the best extra Biblical references that verify details claimed in the Gospel? Thanks!
Great question!. See Lydia McGrew's recent interview on Apologetics 315.
30-35 years ago Kurt Cobain sang “Smells Like Teen Spirit”… I remember it like it was yesterday…
If he had walked on water in front of my boat during a storm and had come a climbed in - believe me I would not forget a detail!
If he had been nailed to a cross and died - and then some days later had come to say hi and shown me his wounds - believe me, I’d KNOW what I was saying.
If I’d invented stuff to make a new religion which would take centuries after my death to happen - what would be the gain for me?
If I was then arrested and tortured for telling people exactly what He’d said and what I’d seen - why,
If I was lying, would I go to my death refusing to back down?? Why would so many others who had seen the same also go to their torturous deaths - even willingly?
They wouldn’t…
Atheism is bullshit.
Christ was GOD come to Earth to fish for the few of us with the imagination and beauty inside to follow Him into Eternity.
The Good News is for ANYONE with the sun shining inside them as well as up there in the sky.
Peace!
Even the consensus dating IS NOT LATE, by the standards of ancient history. It's special pleading it seems to me, to say that this dating is late for Jesus, but not late for other ancient historians (see Tacitus, as one example: he wrote about events 100 years before published).
Coupled with the robust oral culture that the stories of Jesus inhabited, there simply wasn't room for the types of embellishments that skeptics posit occured.
So frustrating. Does it even have to be said to skeptics that they must be consistent?
(Oh, And I do favour an earlier dating...)
You mean to tell me the late dating of the Gospels is based on bad assumptions and _a priori_ naturalistic biases? Unbelievable!
Yeahhhhhh lol
I wondered if you’ll do a video on 2nd Peter. That book was heavily attacked.
The Apostles were most likely in their early 20s to early 30s when Christ died. It doesn't make sense to me that they would wait until their 70s or 80s to write, or commission others to write, the Gospels. I think early dates between 45-70 AD make more sense. There were probably other documents written down during, and shortly after, Christ that were written down and lost to time.
And yet, no group of ACTUAL scholars stand by Erik’s assertions. His ideas of early dating are just conjecture. Erik believes, what he believes, and then goes out to “prove” it. This is nothing more than confirmation bias.
How do scholars know John came after the synoptic gospels, and how do scholars come up with the date for John (pre 95 AD)?
I think they were nicely backdated to the time of Jesus, but written after the destruction of the temple in the year 70; that is probably why everything happened precisely as prophesied... the sleight of hand did a pretty good job.
Who is this Jesus fella? He man is the master of the universe!⚔️💪
@@stephenrandell7152 🤜🏻🤛🏻
Awesome, I have a special touch I want to add. It is noted that the Gospels end with the resurrection of Jesus and the visions of the disciples ended. Talk about events My conversation with him will end at the end of the exam, but if many hours have passed since the exams and someone comes and asks me how the exam was, our conversation will probably not end at the end of the exam, but rather my details will be more due to the passage of more time. I don't see this in the Gospels as meaning that the later dates differ from the context of the narrative after these things. There is no talk of the disciples preaching or traveling and preaching, nor about the help of the Lord Jesus Christ to them in preaching after the resurrection. All this does not exist. Well, that didn't get into the discussion. In fact, it's important because "the longer the time between the end of a certain event and the present, the more details will be about what happened after the end of the main event." Like I just got out of an exam and someone asked me about the exam, I would tell him what happened and how the exam ended
I heard there was an academic debate between Lydia McGrew and Mike Licona over her book The Mirror and the Mask. What are your thoughts on the debate, Testify?
There's not really a debate outside of some back and forth but I'm a rabid McGrewpie. I think Licona's views damage rather than help Gospel reliability and her arguments against his position are knockdowns.
@@TestifyApologetics I couldn't agree more. I haven't heard much from him but what I have is disappointing.
@@TestifyApologetics Hmm... I don't know many details about the issue between them, is it worth examining it in detail or is my time better spent elsewhere?
Can you please do a video arguing against the Maricon Priority theory. That argues that Luke and the Gospels were all based on the Gospel of Maricon?
This is that. Positive evidence disconfirms silly theories. The Marcion first theory is super fringy.
Daniel (9:26) predicts the destruction of the second temple so the gospel writers including Jesus' prophecy is nothing major. This argument makes no sense. It's weak at best, if we're being charitable. Even in the naturalistic sense, accurate predictions can be. made.
You got that right!!
Markan primacy is intended to undercut early Christian thinking as much as late dating is. Mark isn't first.
I always found it odd that the most important event to happen in human history (death and resurrection of Christ) that his disciples would wait decades to write it down. And before you say "they were busy", please don't. That argument isn't a good one.
Maybe it was already being preached in the streets and in the early churches, passed down orally and they did write it early while witnesses were still around, not decades later. I'm arguing that Luke was written in the 50s, Mark possibly in the 40s (BTW Maurice Casey and James Crossley say Mark was written during that time too, they are both atheist scholars)
Why isn't, "they were busy," a good argument. Because it hurts your feelings?
The argument that makes the most sense is that they needed something in written form as soon as there were so many communities that they couldn't reach them all by preaching in person. That's when gospels became important. But there is no reasons why people wouldn't have written stuff down long before we had a complete gospel.
If to establish a late date you have to assume Jesus could not predict the future, then you can not use the late date as grounds for doubting Christianity--because you already started by assuming Christianity was false.
It is not about if Jesus actually predicted the future or not, but the fact the prophecy is written in the gospel, the writer knew the Reader's would be surprised by Jesus predicting it. Besides, jesus' prophecy about the end times was not fulfilled
@@cyc2818 Which of the Gospel writers pointed out that the Temple was indeed destroyed as Jesus predicted? At least one of them right?...right?
@@reasonforge9997 the gospel writers never mention any event that happened after jesus' death, never
@@cyc2818 This is neither true nor even helpful for your point if it was.
@@reasonforge9997 it is, and it is
Testify quote(ish): Deal with the elephant that's not in the room, after the elephant that is!
@@lizzard13666 and just what is so wrong with packing in a pachyderm? Hmmmm?
You seem to quote the McGrew's a lot. But when you're talking about Luke-Acts you never mention the man most associated with the work: conservative, evangelical scholar, Dr. Craig Keener. Although Dr. Keener has written numerous books on the NT, no scholar anywhere has researched, written or spoke about Luke-Acts more than Keener. It's his life's work. And yet, as far as I can tell, you've never used him in any of your videos as a source, which seems very odd. Why is that?
the book of revelations can be dated to not later than early 68 ad because the 2 manuscript families of the mark of the beast is 666 and 616, a difference of the letter nun of the name of nero in the hebrew. plus the narrative still identifies the temple to be standing, etc...
There also might be an allusion to Matthew in Luke 1:2-3.
What's the Christian argument against the claim that none of the disciples could read/write in Koine Greek hence none of the gospels were written by them? The argument is they were written much later by Greek writers who attributed the gospels to the apostles.
It is certainly possible that at least some of them, like Matthew, must have had at least some knowledge of Koine Greek
The arguments against the truth of the Gospels all seem to be based on the premise that the Gospels are false.
All scholars agree that the Gospels are 1st-century documents documenting 1st-century events. That makes them the most historically accurate documents we have and above criticism.
Here's some questions I'm wrestling with on both sides:
Mark written in 70:
If Mark was written after the destruction of the temple, would it have really been written within a year of the destruction of Jerusalem? It sounds like establishing this date to shoehorn in Jesus' prophecy is still a little early.
Acts written by 70:
As you mentioned, Luke is silent on Paul's execution just prior to 70, thus making it reasonable to assume it was written before Paul's death. And if Luke wrote his Gospel before Acts, then that would make it even earlier. And if Luke used Mark as a source, that would make Mark even earlier (probably around 50s at latest). Here is then another challenge: Papias says Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter's death (around 55), and then Luke wrote. But if Luke wrote his Gospel before Acts, and both after Peter's execution, why didn't he mention Peter's execution, or the fire of Rome which Tacitus tells us about caused the martyrdom of many Christians?
P.S. I do think the silence about Paul's execution is a more series matter than the silence of Peter's execution because Luke was up and close with the facts about Paul's life and not Peter's. He may not have received the report for some time later. It may also have been a topic which Christians weren't comfortable talking about, because in John's Gospel, it is clear he knows about Peter's execution, and yet he doesn't explicitly tell us about it: "This he told him regarding in what way he [Peter] would be killed." I guess the thing I'm most curious about why Luke was silent is about the fire in Rome, which incited the Romans to execute many Christians. Perhaps even the fire isn't a big concern either, if Luke was written to a Roman official, he probably didn't need fingers pointed at him: "You guys killed Peter and others because of Nero!"
Hey Kenton , Great thoughts here. Question however, where did you get the date for Peter’s death from ?
It’s actually estimated Peter was martyred from around 64-68 AD , not in 55ad.
Which makes more sense as that’s when the fire of Rome occurred, which Nero pinned on Christians and caused mass persecutions.
@@sjappiyah4071 Sorry for the delay in replying (I don't know how to make TH-cam give me notifications). I don't remember where I heard it was around 55 that Peter was executed. Sorry. Really though, if Peter was executed in the 60s, then that does make Papias' claim even harder, especially if it was around 68. Because that is such a small time frame for Peter to die, then Mark to write, then Luke to write two books, then Paul to die, and then Jerusalem get destroyed.
The simplest solution is that Papias was wrong about Mark writing after Peter's death, and assume that the silence was really only because these books were in fact written before Peter's death. But I feel like taking that approach is just doing so because it best supports the Gospel authorship. It is a possible explanation, but kind of disingenuous.
Do we know anything about Luke’s death? When? How? Where?
I don't think the assumption that Theophilus was a specific person is necessarily valid, the word means "lover of God" and while that was a common name, it could also be a literary device, he could just be addressing every reader by that title, like Stan Lee addressing his monthly commentary in Marvel Comics (a column titled "Stan's Soap Box") to "True Believer"
Seems like he's a person and a patron rather than a literary device, even if it's a pseudonym. It's still addressed to someone. What you're saying is possible but I don't think it's all that probable.
@@TestifyApologetics Christian apologists tend to assume it is a specific person because the assumption makes it easier to argue for an early date, but surely the complete lack of any ancient traditions or even speculation as to whom this person might have been is rather troubling isn't it? Surely the early Church would have known this person's identity, I also don't find the argument that Paul must have still been alive when Acts was written to be iffy at best, it is entirely possible that Acts ends when it does because it concludes the story of how Christianity came to Rome, i.e. "the ends of the Earth" as Jesus predicts in the first chapter
@@Michael-bk5nz I'm not sure that works. Theophilus was a real name people had back then. And it is being addressed to him in particular. It might be a stand-in for the audience, but I don't think that's the most natural way to take the prologues.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl the fact that the Early Church had absolutely no traditions about who this person was, is odd is it not when there were elaborate backstories created ( or remembered if you think the traditions are accurate) about every single person mentioned in the New Testament, even in only one verse, I mean there is even a tradition of the supposed names of the Magi, and exactly where they supposedly came from, but nothing about a person to whom two books of the New Testament are addressed? Very odd
@@Michael-bk5nz _ @Jimmy the fact that the Early Church had absolutely no traditions about who this person was, is odd is it not when there were elaborate backstories created_
Not if it's really relevant. That's a straw man that it has to do that for what Luke was telling to be true.
Good video Erik but I'm just saying Idc if it's early doesn't matter to me
I had no idea that 70 AD wouldn't make the disciples very old men... What the heck lol
To be honest, even the "late" dating seems pretty close, relatively speaking. Like I feel like a historian writing within about 100 years is still fairly accurate. Not agreeing with late dating, just saying
Hey man, do you think Matthew was written first like the church fathers did?
Interesting video. I enjoyed it as always, even if I disagree with some of it.
I guess I just don't understand how you can be so confident in what you think Luke would or would not have written. Even assuming Luke the physician was the author, what do we really know about him other than the little we can infer from his two books? He claims that he's writing so that Theophilus (presumably his patron) will be certain of what he has been taught (whatever that means); but other than that we have no idea of his motivations.
We do know that he takes enormous liberties with his gospel source material, and passes along information which couldn't possibly be true, e.g. fantastic miracle stories and re-imaginings of Old Testament traditions. (And yes, I know that Christians are not always prepared to rule out the fantastic, but I am not a Christian and I have no particular reason to grant even as a hypothesis that Epimenides slept for fifty-seven years.)
His book of Acts seems to be considerably more trustworthy than his gospel, but that's not saying very much, and it's not as if we can really know in any case. The most we can say is that he appears to get some things right and some things wrong; but usually we have no way to know whether what he is telling us is accurate.
Without knowing more about him than this, how can we possibly say with any confidence that he would have written such-and-such had he known of it? Or that he would have known of it in the first place?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. "I guess I just don't understand how you can be so confident in what you think Luke would or would not have written. Even assuming Luke the physician was the author, what do we really know about him other than the little we can infer from his two books? He claims that he's writing so that Theophilus (presumably his patron) will be certain of what he has been taught (whatever that means); but other than that we have no idea of his motivations."
Well, again it's going off what the author was like. I'm dealing with probability, not a complete certainty, and as I said in the video (thanks to some of your helpful criticism) I'm not married early dating, and early dating by itself doesn't equal reliability.
"We do know that he takes enormous liberties with his gospel source material, and passes along information which couldn't possibly be true, e.g. fantastic miracle stories and re-imaginings of Old Testament traditions. (And yes, I know that Christians are not always prepared to rule out the fantastic, but I am not a Christian and I have no particular reason to grant even as a hypothesis that Epimenides slept for fifty-seven years.)"
Do we? How do we know that? Sometimes variation is just variation, not taking enormous liberties. And sometimes what he says differently than Mark because of partial dependence and partial independence, he has his own information to add.
"His book of Acts seems to be considerably more trustworthy than his gospel, but that's not saying very much, and it's not as if we can really know in any case. The most we can say is that he appears to get some things right and some things wrong; but usually we have no way to know whether what he is telling us is accurate."
He gets a lot of things right and very few things wrong, so that tells us what the author like. It shows that he's scrupulous, habitually truthful, and close-up to the facts. If he traveled with Paul, he likely was willing to suffer alongside Paul so what kind of person tells these stories while living a life of dangers, labors, sufferings, and possible death?
"...Or that he would have known of it in the first place?"
I think it's a very reasonable inference to think he would have been "in the know" because he traveled with Paul, and Paul met with the apostles on various occasions. Acts 21 details Paul's trip to Jerusalem and meeting with James and "all the elders were present". Presumably, he could've (since he tells us he had sources) interviewed people there regarding the miracles of Jesus and resurrection appearances. Also, remember Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea Maritima for 2 years; which is just 75 miles from Jerusalem. Luke would've had plenty of opportunities to interview people and he clearly would have had an interest to.
_Even assuming Luke the physician was the author, what do we really know about him other than the little we can infer from his two books?_
Your whole comment is a straw man and purely subjective. You could say that about anyone. And how much is knowing enough? You could say the same about Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, any historical writer, particularly ancient history. We don't know everything about Aristotle, Plato or Socrates, do we? So per you, we shouldn't put any stock in what they have written. But you do, despite not knowing enough about them like you say is so important. I hate to be blunt, but your comment is a lousy excuse to try to avoid accepting what Christianity teaches.
@@khill4053 Again, you don’t know what a strawman fallacy is. So if you are going to be blunt, at least have the correct terminology. What you are trying to argue is that it is a non sequitur-that is, his conclusion doesn’t follow from his argument.
Secondly, it’s not for you to say that his skepticism is an excuse to not be a Christian. I’m a Christian myself and even I have the intelectual integrity to realize that his concerns are valid. We don’t just believe ancient authors because they claim X, Y and Z. The historical process of reconstruction is complex and can take long swaths of time to analyze sufficiently and assess. Asking serious questions about where exactly a narrator got their material and how confident we can be of its reliability and truthfulness is historiography 101.
So to be blunt in Christ Jesus: get back in your lane.
@@TestifyApologetics Solid response, friend. I am thankful for your awesome channel. Keep up the good work.
@@khill4053 Did you think I was saying we can't put any stock in Luke-Acts? On the contrary, I think Acts is probably a good historical outline of the missionary journeys of Paul, even if it gets a lot of details wrong. The Gospel of Luke is less historically valuable, but that's mostly because we have a better source in the form of Mark. And even GLuke has _some_ historical value, even if it is limited.
Instead, I was only pointing out that Testify's argument from silence seems a lot weaker to me than it does to him. I don't think we know enough about Luke that we can divine what he knew about Paul's fate, and whether he would have included it in the second book of his two-volume work if he did know. These are the kinds of speculations I don't find persuasive. And I don't think he should be persuaded by that kind of speculation either, as I explained in my original comment.
Thank you for naming the other Jesus (Jesus Ben Ananias) who predicted the fall of Jerusalem.
@Testify Can you please give me sources to research the reliability of the gospels and their authors?
Christobiography
By Craig S. Keener, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
By Richard Bauckham, Anything by Bloomberg...
Some extra information: Luke doesnt mention the death of James, Jesus' brother. But Josephus does, and its dated at 62 A.D. “Festus now dead, and with Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus the high priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was so called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions], and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”
Phlegon of Tralles a writer born in the first century notes that Jesus was right about his predictions. Origen writing in his work "Against Celsus"... “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14) This could suggest a early dating.
Paul who's letters date in the 50's, uses Luke twice, once 1 Tim 5:18 (Luke 10:7) and even calling it "scripture" and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (Luke 22:19-20).
The Last Supper is in all the Gospels, Paul could have been referencing Mark or Matthew. I haven't checked the Greek, but I don't immediately find an annotated English translation that indicates that Paul was quoting one specific gospel in particular.
1 Timothy was written later, and not by Paul, so it isn't evidence. Actually this is strong evidence that it was not written by Paul. How does Paul quote Luke, when Luke was writing at the same time as Paul? Luke certainly could not have written earlier than Paul, because Luke's writings describe the events late in Paul's life. Paul could certainly not have honestly called Luke "scripture" while it was still being written! So this would require not only an extremely early date for Luke (~40-50) but also an awkward 10-20 year gap between Luke's gospel and Acts. While not impossible, it is much more likely that Luke wrote his gospel and Acts within a 3-5 year period. Acts would have been easier to write for him, since much of it was personal experience.
@@fluffysheap “The Last Supper is in all the Gospels. Paul could have been referencing Mark or Matthew. I haven't checked the Greek, but I don't immediately find an annotated English translation that indicates that Paul was quoting one specific gospel in particular”
Its not in John. Its worded differently in Luke than Matthew and Mark. Paul uses Luke’s version.
“1 Timothy was written later, and not by Paul, so it isn't evidence.”
There is no doubt that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. All the church fathers agree. Its used early by Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. Who only use Paul’s writings. There are no gnostic works from in there writings.
“How does Paul quote Luke, when Luke was writing at the same time as Paul? Luke certainly could not have written earlier than Paul, because Luke's writings describe the events late in Paul's life. Paul could certainly not have honestly called Luke "scripture" while it was still being written!”
Timothy could have been written early sixties.
Luke’s gospel written in the late 50’s then Acts around the same time.
@@farmercraig6080 I agree that there is no doubt about whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy or not. He absolutely didn't.
I'm obviously not talking about John, which everyone knows was written decades later. You really can't assume anything on the Internet!
Paul is hardly averse to exact quotes when they suit him. But Paul's phrasing in 1 Corinthians has elements that are shared with all three synoptics. It is close, but not identical to, any of the three. Barring some kind of scholarship showing that Paul was actually quoting one particular version more than the others, this looks like Paul was going by his memory and not *any* of the written gospels when he wrote 1 Corinthians in 53-54. This isn't exactly *proof* that none of the gospels existed yet (and wouldn't say anything about lost gospels) but it is I think solid evidence that none of the gospels known today had been written yet. I think it's safe to assume that if Matthew, Mark, or Luke existed yet, that Paul would have had access to them.
Just because Paul didn't write 1 Timothy doesn't mean it's somehow gnostic. It contains significant anti-Gnostic teaching (I would go so far as to say that the entire purpose of it is to counter Gnosticism), which is further evidence that it was not written by Paul, because Gnosticism did not arise until after Paul had already died. It's no surprise that Clement liked it - there's a good chance that Clement wrote it!
The problem with Luke writing the gospel in the 50s is that this conflicts with Paul's third missionary journey, which ended in 57 and on which Luke was his companion. Luke could not have done the detailed interviews and research necessary to write his gospel while traveling with Paul, and which would have taken him at least a year, if not longer. So the earliest plausible date for the composition of Luke is 58, which is too late for 1 Corinthians in 53-54. It is more likely that Luke wrote the gospel after 60, when Paul was in prison and Luke had time on his hands. There is simply no time for Luke to write his gospel, for a copy of the gospel to reach Paul (no email in those days, travel was slow and books were expensive), and then for Paul to write 1 Timothy, before Paul was executed. And this ignores the blatant impropriety of Paul calling a brand-new gospel "scripture." It takes years, even decades, for writings to be accepted as scripture.
The theories just don't work. Paul didn't have access to the Gospel of Luke and he didn't write 1 Timothy.
@@fluffysheap Part 1 “I agree that there is no doubt about whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy or not. He absolutely didn't.”
Unless you can provide historical evidence against the Paul as the author, ie one of the early church saying otherwise or a manuscript with a different title. Then it stays as a Pauline letter.
“I'm obviously not talking about John, which everyone knows was written decades later.”
You said in the Gospels. You should have said the synoptics. Never mind.
“Paul is hardly averse to exact quotes when they suit him. But Paul's phrasing in 1 Corinthians has elements that are shared with all three synoptics. It is close, but not identical to, any of the three. Barring some kind of scholarship showing that Paul was actually quoting one particular version more than the others, this looks like Paul was going by his memory and not any of the written gospels when he wrote 1 Corinthians in 53-54.”
When Paul refers to “the Lord,” he is referring to the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; 4:5; 7:12; 7:25; 9:5). Jesus, of course, spoke about the subject of divorce in a number of places in the Gospels (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18). This seems to be a strong allusion to the notion that Paul has a copy of at least one of the Gospels. Otherwise, how could he claim to know Jesus’ stance on divorce? This is especially true in light of verse 12, where does not claim to know Jesus’ views on unbelieving spouses.
(1 Cor. 11:23) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
The synoptic Gospels all record this saying of Jesus from the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:17-20). However, Paul’s citation is “closest to Luke’s account.” For one, Paul and Luke both mention the breaking of the bread, and both record, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:24; Lk. 22:19). Second, Paul and Luke both mention that Jesus’ body is “for you” (1 Cor. 11:24; Lk. 22:19). Third, Paul and Luke both associate the “cup” with the “new covenant” (1 Cor. 11:25; Lk. 22:20).
By contrast, Matthew and Mark both use the word “bless,” rather than “given thanks” (eucharisteō). Furthermore, Matthew and Mark both include Jesus’ imperative to “take,” while Paul and Luke simply state, “This is my body.”
(1 Tim. 5:18) The Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Again, Paul cites from the gospel according to Luke (“The laborer is worthy of his wages.”). Indeed the Greek is “exactly paralleled” and is an “exact replication” of Luke 10:7, while the parallel passage in Matthew 10:10 is slightly different.
(Lk. 10:7) axios gar ho ergatēs tou misthou autou
(1 Tim. 5:18) axios ho ergatēs tou misthou autou
You may not have noticed an unintended “coincidence” in these citations above: The Church Fathers state that Luke wrote under Paul’s supervision, and in his letters, Paul regularly quotes from Luke’s gospel-not Matthew or Mark. This further vindicates the idea that Luke wrote his gospel early, and he did so alongside Paul.
@@fluffysheap Part 2 “Just because Paul didn't write 1 Timothy doesn't mean it's somehow gnostic. It contains significant anti-Gnostic teaching (I would go so far as to say that the entire purpose of it is to counter Gnosticism), which is further evidence that it was not written by Paul, because Gnosticism did not arise until after Paul had already died.”
No Paul says teaching other than the true gospel were being taught.
“It's no surprise that Clement liked it - there's a good chance that Clement wrote it!”
Again there’s actually no evidence for that. No mentions from the early church, no manuscript titles, Paul’s name is on Timothy. Nothing.
“The problem with Luke writing the gospel in the 50s is that this conflicts with Paul's third missionary journey, which ended in 57 and on which Luke was his companion. Luke could not have done the detailed interviews and research necessary to write his gospel while traveling with Paul, and which would have taken him at least a year, if not longer. So the earliest plausible date for the composition of Luke is 58, which is too late for 1 Corinthians in 53-54. It is more likely that Luke wrote the gospel after 60, when Paul was in prison and Luke had time on his hands. There is simply no time for Luke to write his gospel, for a copy of the gospel to reach Paul (no email in those days, travel was slow and books were expensive), and then for Paul to write 1 Timothy, before Paul was executed.”
But really that’s Acts all that stuff, not Luke’s first work his gospel.
And this ignores the blatant impropriety of Paul calling a brand-new gospel "scripture." It takes years, even decades, for writings to be accepted as scripture.”
Well since it was Jesus who said it, it was straight from God. All scripture is God breathed.
“The theories just don't work. Paul didn't have access to the Gospel of Luke and he didn't write 1 Timothy.”
The evidence says he did, rather than he didn’t.
But my obvious question is: If you've seen everything that the disciples have seen, then why wouldn't you write a gospel immediately after Jesus was taken up with the clouds? Or maybe a year after they got the Holy Spirit?
Writing was much less common back then
@@tylerjarjoura3270not as much as some people think. At that point in time Judaism was already a "book religion" so being able to read was almost a requirement. The archeological findings of "ostraca" also prove that many people could write in those times. There is no reason to believe that some of Jesus's words and teachings couldn't have been written down very shortly after his death.
I think the work on the Gospels began a few days after Pentecost (Acts 6:2, 4:20).
I know you've read a lot of Ehrman's work, and I'm sure he's heard this line of arguing for early dates. Does he provide a better counterpoint than trying to discredit the "argument from silence?" I feel like he must have something more substantial than that, or he is really foolish (which I don't believe to be the case).
No, he is seeking for ways to dismiss the faith he once believed in. He is searching for reinforcement of his apostasy.
@Carver The basis for a late date is to read a natural explanation for the destruction of the temple prophesies. That looks to be driven by an agenda, but I guess only Christians have an agenda.
@carver3147😂 Err-man is certainly not "providing a Jewish context". None of the Jewish scholars who wrote about Jesus, the gospels or Paul, agreed with him. That's a ridiculous claim.
Jesus was repeating and affirming Isiah. The seven sevens came true.
I think that Mark was written around 55 by John Mark using Peter's memories, Luke around 66, Acts around 75 (both written by the travel companion of Paul), Matthew around 85 (written by someone that used Matthew's name to earn some credibility. Perhaps "Matthew" was the author of 'Q', but "perhaps" is not evidence, it's just a conjecture), and John in the 90s (not written by John of Zebedee, but by other John, a disciple that, when Jesus was alive, has around 15 or 17 years old).
I do not find the argument from the silence of Luke as being persuasive because his goal is not to narrate every thing that happened to Paul, but rather, to show that the gospel message reach "the whole Earth". And since that at that time Rome was considered the "capital" of the world, Jesus prophecy was fulfilled.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the date when something is written is not so important as some people might think. The time that a legend takes to spread is not decades, but rather, the first time when someone takes to tell the story for the first time. Thus, what is really important, is the reliability of the sources used by the authors. And I do think that the gospels meth these criteria.
Why do you think Matthew wasn’t written by Matthew, but by someone using his name?
Wow a biblical scholar - who are these people today when did this prophecy take place?? - "Habakkuk 2:5"
@@sneakysnake2330 I think that Matthew's gospel is anonymous. Probably, the first readers SURELY know who was the author.
@@j.victor right, but why do you think it was anonymous?
@@sneakysnake2330 I find Ulrich Luz (Hermeneia Commentary), Nollan (Matthew commentary 2-4) and Richard Bauckham (Jesus and The Eyewitnesses) concerns about this issue very helpful. The argument is presented there.
Please repeat what you have rushing off at 200 mph here.
Can we stop calling Israel Palestine? At least be historically accurate and refer to Israel is Judea since that's what is was named at that time until the second century. It was Israel back 1200 by and Judea all the way from 934 BC all the way to 200 AD. Let's be accurate and not pander to the Islamic lie
Christianty is vicarious atonement through human sacrifice, communion is rituistic cannibalism. The story of Yeshu is a kabbalistisc parable.
DOES GOD WANT ETHNIC UNITY??
(Deuteronomy 32:8-9) When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he "SEPARATED" the sons of Adam For the Lord's portion is HIS PEOPLE Jacob is the lot of HIS INHERITANCE
(Deuteronomy 7:6-7) For thou art an holy people unto the Lord THY God: the Lord THY God hath chosen THEE to be A speciaYl PEOPLE unto himself ABOVE ALL PEOPLE that are upon the face of the EARTH the Lord did not set his LOVE upon YOU nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people
(Isaiah 40:15,17) Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing all NATIONS before him are AS NOTHING and they are COUNTED to him LESS THAN NOTHING and vanity
(1st kings 10:9) because the Lord LOVED ISRAEL FOREVER
(Matthew 10:34-35) Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword for I am come to set a man at variance AGAINST his father, and the daughter AGAINST her mother, and the daughter in law AGAINST her mother in law
(Luke 12:51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; BUT RATHER "DIVISION"
(Matthew 25:31-32) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory and before him shall be gathered ALL NATIONS: and he shall "SEPARATE THEM" one from another, as a shepherd DIVIDETH his sheep from the goats
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent BUT unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL
(Revelation 21:12) And had a wall great and high, and had TWELVE GATES, and at the gates twelve angels, and NAMES WRITTEN thereon, which are the NAMES OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
(Joel 2:27) and ye shall know that I am in the midst of ISRAEL and that I am the LORD YOUR God and NONE ELSE
"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." (Romans 11:11
"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)
You are abusing the Bible, OP. I don't think I'll be able to change your mind with one comment, but here a couple of verses that I hope you'll think about.
1. Jesus talking about different people(Jews & Gentiles) coming together to make one group:
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
John 10:16
2. Peter saying God showed him to not separate himself from the Gentiles:
While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”
Acts 10:27-29
Why would the Most High destroy the Tower of Babel only to have Kristianity bring everyone back together?
Either Kristianity is a lie as you see the world upside down now. No way these people are following Christ in any way, shape or form.
They tell you the Law is done away with but follow every wicked greko-roman holiday, god, philosophy, law, etc. Something ain't right here and it's these people.
Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
- Genesis 12:1-3
In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”
- Genesis 22:18
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
- Psalm 22:27
May his name endure forever;
May his name increase as long as the sun shines;
And let men bless themselves by him;
Let all nations call him blessed.
Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,
Who alone works wonders.
And blessed be His glorious name forever;
And may the whole earth be filled with His glory.
Amen, and Amen.
- Psalm 72:17-19
So the nations will fear the name of the Lord
And all the kings of the earth Your glory.
For the Lord has built up Zion;
He has appeared in His glory.
- Psalm 102:15-16
Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.
And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
- Isaiah 2:2-3
They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.
Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.
- Isaiah 11:9-10
In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”
- Isaiah 19:23-25
“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
“He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
“A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
“He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law.”
- Isaiah 42:1-4
He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
- Isaiah 49:6
“Pay attention to Me, O My people,
And give ear to Me, O My nation;
For a law will go forth from Me,
And I will set My justice for a light of the peoples.
“My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth,
And My arms will judge the peoples;
The coastlands will wait for Me,
And for My arm they will wait expectantly.
- Isaiah 51:4-5
For as the earth brings forth its sprouts,
And as a garden causes the things sown in it to spring up,
So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise
To spring up before all the nations.
- Isaiah 61:11
It shall be in those days when you are multiplied and increased in the land,” declares the Lord, “they will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ And it will not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor will they miss it, nor will it be made again. At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The Throne of the Lord,’ and all the nations will be gathered to it, to Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord; nor will they walk anymore after the stubbornness of their evil heart.
- Jeremiah 3:16-17
“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
“And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
- Daniel 7:13-14
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
Therefore He will give them up until the time
When she who is in labor has borne a child.
Then the remainder of His brethren
Will return to the sons of Israel.
And He will arise and shepherd His flock
In the strength of the Lord,
In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God.
And they will remain,
Because at that time He will be great
To the ends of the earth.
- Micah 5:2-4
“For the earth will be filled
With the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
As the waters cover the sea.
- Habakkuk 2:14
Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. “Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.
- Zechariah 2:10-11
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
And the bow of war will be cut off.
And He will speak peace to the nations;
And His dominion will be from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.
- Zechariah 9:9-10
And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.
- Zechariah 14:9
For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts.
- Malachi 1:11
For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”
- Luke 2:30-32
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
- Matthew 28:18-20
When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
- Acts 11:18
and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
- Acts 17:26-28
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
- 1 Peter 2:9-10
And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
- Revelation 5:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
- Revelation 7:9
And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
O Lord God, the Almighty;
Righteous and true are Your ways,
King of the nations!
“Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy;
For all the nations will come and worship before You,
For Your righteous acts have been revealed.”
- Revelation 15:3-4
@@farlado5459
The audience written to in Galatia were redeemed from the "curse" of the law - so post the scripture where nonisraelite were given or ordered to obey the law and were under the curses
(Galatians 3:13) Christ hath redeemed "US" from the CURSE OF THE LAW, being made a CURSE FOR "US"
(Deuteronomy 28:15) But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments that all these "CURSES" shall come upon thee, and overtake thee
(Daniel 9:11) Yea, all ISRAEL haveY TRANSGRESSED THY LAW therefore THE "CURSE" is poured upon "US" and the oath that is written in the "Law of Moses" the servant of God, because we have sinned against him
(Amos 3:1-2) Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying YOU ONLY have I known of ALL THE FAMILIES of the earth: therefore I will PUNISH YOU for all your iniquities
DID CHRIST DIE FOR EVERYONE??
Christ Isaiah Peter the Angel of the Lord n Paul make it clear that Christ's sacrifice was for ethnic bloodline Israelites ONLY - are we to call them lying schizophrenics to uphold the modern day Christian doctrine??
ISAIAH
(Isaiah 53:5,8) and with his "STRIPES" WE are healed He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of "MY PEOPLE" was he stricken
PETER
(1st Peter 2:24) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that WE, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose "STRIPES" WE were healed
GOD'S ANGEL
(Matthew 1:21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS
(Matthew 2:6) 6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule MY PEOPLE ISRAEL
PAUL
(Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME
CHRIST
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL
And yet, you look only at a portion of the Word:
ISAIAH: “I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the prison, those who sit in darkness from the prison house.”
“Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
LUKE: “And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.”
‘When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”’
JAMES: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.’
“Known to God from eternity are all His works. Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” ‘
PAUL: ‘Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” ‘
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
GOD Himself, confirming Paul’s mission:
‘Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.”’
@@LetTalesBeTold
Have you noticed that the entire doctrine of modern day Christianity is nothing more than the intentional twisting of 316 and the words Greek and Gentile - it's ridiculous - question are these the same Strangers Greeks n Gentiles written of in the NT
(Christ speaking 👇)
(Revelation 2:26-27) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power OVER THE NATIONS and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father
(Psalm 2:8-9) Ask of me, and I shall give thee the "HEATHEN" for thine INHERITANCE, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel
(Daniel 2:44) And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall NOT be left to OTHER PEOPLE but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever
(Leviticus 25:45-46) Moreover of the children of the STRANGERS that do sojourn among you, of THEM shall ye BUY and of their families that are with you and THEY shall be your POSSESSION and ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you, to INHERIT them for a POSSESSION they shall be your BONDMEN FOREVER
(Isaiah 54:3) ; and thy seed shall inherit the "GENTILES"
(ISAIAH 14:1-2) for the LORD will have mercy on Jacob and will yet choose ISRAEL and set them in their own land: and the "STRANGERS" shall be joined with them and the house of ISRAEL shall POSSESS them in the land of the Lord for "SERVANTS" and "HANDMAIDS" and they shall take them CAPTIVITIES whose CAPTIVES they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors
(Isaiah 60:11-12) 11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the "GENTILES" and that their kings may be brought For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted
@@Revelation-cb1rb These verses do not have to cancel one another out as you suggest, nor do I see any reason the Gentiles of the OT are any different in consideration than the Gentiles of the NT. Can you show Scripture that supports your theory that there is a difference between the references to Gentiles? Because what you have presented does not.
Also, in Leviticus, about strangers/Gentiles: “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
I’m curious to see what you will respond with.
@@LetTalesBeTold
(Matthew 4:15-16) The land of Zabulon(Israelites) and the land of Nephthalim(Israelites) by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the "GENTILES" the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up
(2nd Chronicles 15:9) And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the "STRANGERS" with them out of Ephraim(Israelites) and Manasseh(Israelites), and out of Simeon(Israelites) for they fell to him out of ISRAEL in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him.
It's simple - there are 2types of gentiles and strangers in scripture 1 is Israelites cast off for idolatry etc 2 is natural born gentiles - all nutural born "gentiles" that survive the return get neck and ankle bracelets as it's written - so your attempts to label Christ the prophets and apostles lying schizophrenics is blasphemy
@@Revelation-cb1rb Yet you forget, in the days of Solomon, the Gentile king Hiram was granted 20 cities in Galilee due to his help in creating the Temple; this was, of course, prior to Isaiah’s writings referring to Galilee as “of the Gentiles.” It is not remotely unreasonable to say that this reference could indeed be to non-Israelites.
And as for 2 Chronicles 15, the word used for the Israelites is a different form than the word used for stranger in Leviticus. In the former, the implication is almost always, generically, “sojourner,” meaning the nationality is not set; in the latter, the implication is almost always “someone outside of an inheritance, a stranger from another land.”
These selections seem to hurt your case more than help it. All they do is prove that there can be a difference for “stranger” (depending on your Bible translation,) NOT for “Gentile.” Please try again.
Nice video