Who wrote the Gospels and when? Bart Ehrman vs Peter J Williams
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 พ.ย. 2019
- Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams debate the authorship of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life.
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
This is an extract of agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman and Peter J Williams debating the reliability of the Gospels.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig: • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. John Lennox & Dave Rubin Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
if Acts was written after AD 70, why did Luke not mention Peter or Paul's death? Or Nero's persecution of christians?
Or the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem?
@@michaeldeltz8229 Read Luke 21:20-22. 🙏🏻
Islam is the only true religion .
@@mendicantofraza2959 ?? That text is Jesus predicting the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. How does that have anything to do with Islam?
@@michaeldeltz8229 better check on old tastement. there is so many sign from God that always mention the place call Paran
@@ikiiko4439 what is that
in BArt's opening, he missed one key point that Luke opens with, Luke says he writes his account to confirm what they have..
Interesting
The video ended before any discussion, let alone any conclusion could be reached. Also. The title is misleading. It makes you think you are going to hear evidence for the authorship of the gospels, when it never gets to that topic. It only discusses the possible timing of the writing of the gospels.
i'm not gonna lie. As a Christian myself who's interested in history and theology I feel like, though both made good points, Bart was more willing to follow the evidence where it leads(even if I don't agree with all of his conclusions). Let me illustrate it like this. If the evidence pointed to say St Luke getting the dates right about the time of Jesus's birth, Bart would follow the evidence to that point. If the evidence pointed in the opposite direction, Bart would follow it to that point. I can't say the same thing with guys like Peter J Williams(who i respect) and other apologist. If the evidence pointed to St Luke getting those dates right, they would say this confirms our point. If the evidence points in the opposite direction, if feel as if they would come up with apologetic gymnastics to try and cover that point. In other words, I feel as if sometimes apologists are more susceptible to confirmation bias. You see this also in this clip on the dating of the Gospels
Don't you wonder why we even have these discussions? Wouldn't a God know that, what he "wrote" would confuse people in thousands of different ways? Why would God be able to create the universe yet can not successfully author a book?
@@easterlake..... People changed it to suit their agenda, why blame God for that
@@easterlake He didn’t write the book, the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote the book & men make mistakes, they’re not perfect.. but that doesn’t mean the books message is false because of some minor mistakes/variants that don’t even change the meaning.
@@vanessadesire7 I guess for your sake you kind of need that to be true. "Guys, the holy spirit was talking to me I think...but I wasn't really listening. Here's what I wrote down anyways. The holy spirit hasn't come back to correct me, but I think this is good enough for people to believe in the future. Just make sure you tell them that what we wrote was fully inspired and bullet proof, and make sure they are told this from a very young age!"
@@easterlake
You're confusing epistemology with metaphysics. Divine revelation is known to everyone, but given the noetic effects of sin people will never have an absolutely perfect understanding of the Bible. If anything, this is evidence for Christianity.
Even if the gospel writers didn’t speak Greek, most ancient writers had scribes. They didn’t literally write everything down themselves. Most likely, they were written in Greek because that was the most accessible language at the time.
If it makes you sleep at night lol
They were written in koine Greek because it was the language of scholars and aristocrats of the time !
Most likely they were written by educated Greek speaking Christians.
Stop. You're adding valid facts to the conversation!
@@neilzientek yeah they were called romans!
Well if translation is such an issue, I'll assume Plato, Socrates, Galileo, etc. are also unusable...translation you see...🙄
Nobody is forcing agendas on people or acting in a manner claiming that Socrates’s words are divine.
Perhaps you have some issues with the Quran and the resulting beliefs that inform subsequent actions?
@@guthrie_the_wizard I do. The quaran is evil AND full of BS.
@Aman Darul once again, no actual answer to my answer.
FWIW, there are portions of Plato's work that cause even his greatest 21st-century admirers to laugh and shake their heads. Likewise Aristotle and Galileo. Scholars outside religion do not have the slavish "hang on every word" orientation that is characteristic of Christians.
@@studogable interesting straw man you have. Pretty sure I don't "hang on every word". Also, God's got a great sense of humor.
1:28 What stories that were being passed around before the gospels are evidenced in pre gospel Christian writings?
The Egyptian scripture pre 1000 years before has the same story
Both give simple clear explanations of their views. Many writers /historians write about events they witnessed thirty or forty years ago.
The Gospels aren't historical accounts at all. Even if we accept that that's what they are, they're putting down the exact words of someone who lived decades ago. Even if you want to claim they were written much earlier than what is widely accepted, how can these guys remember EXACTLY, word for word, what Jesus and the other individuals present in their writings said?
@Cole James: The whole point of oral tradition is that people remember large chunks of in formation off by heart. Even in our modern age, there are children who have memorized the entire NT or Koran off by heart. In Bible times, students of Rabbis had to learn lengthy passages off by heart. When you consider the memorable speeches, parables etc, it is not too hard to see how much of this could easily have been remembered . These stories n told and retold time and time again within an oral culture and hence, remembered to be used as later sources for gospels.
@@ewankerr3011 - I think that's a ridiculous line of thought. Oral traditions aren't (and never have been) held to the standard of accuracy that we're accustomed to in the modern age. The stories changed over time, and that was fine and accepted in those cultures (and to be expected). They weren't trying to pass down with complete accuracy an account of their histories.
With the advent of literacy, accuracy become much more desirable, because it was actually possible. People now had references to refer back to, so the stories could be checked. That's why in the modern day, people can memorize Bible passages or the Qur'an or other blocks of text with a high degree of accuracy. There's a standard set IN WRITING. The importance of this really can't be overstated.
However, the Bible, and in our little discussion the New Testament/Jesus' words in particular, do not have this written reference to move forward on. There is absolutely no way, in the mostly illiterate province of early 1st century Judea, that the words of a wondering Rabbi were accurately recorded then lost, but memorized with 100% accuracy for 40 years, before they were transferred to the educated authors of the Gospels who recorded them in Greek (Mark being the first). I think that is absurd in the highest degree, Ewan.
@ Cole James: You can believe what you want, but I think you need to update your views on Oral traditions. You also over state your case as far as literacy in first century Palestine is concerned.
There is a strong tradition that Mathew complied a 'gospel' or sayings of Jesus in Hebrew(Aramaic?) and who is to say he did not follow the pattern of the Rabbis and take notes. Certainly, much of the gospels is composed of short, pithy sayings designed to be remembered. No doubt as Jesus toured the land, often gave the same talks, parables etc which were designed for his audience and were easy to remember, especially in an oral culture. The gospels are clearly based on oral tradition and other literary sources. 'Q' - oral or literary -is thought to have been existence some time before the gospels.
Today young children listening to bedtime stories can tell when an adult deviates from the written page. I'm sure even you can remember a poem or the lyrics of a song from your childhood.
The Jerusalem Church, with the Apostles and other leaders of the early Christian movement periodically checked up on the gospel story and would act as an effective 'check and balance.'
It is not my role to defend the gospels by any means, But there is much for you to learn, even if it is only an alternative point of view.
@@colejames423 I was just talking with someone about the gospel, if it was written decades after jesus, then how could they remember everything with detail and words, the exact words...
I think that John wrote his gospel. But when it comes to the others I’m pretty undecided to me it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day, whether or not they were actually written by who they’re attributed to or they’re written by scribes of the apostles.
I surprisingly disagree with Peter J Williams here more than I do Ehrman, I think it makes perfect sense of the gospels were written originally anonymously and then given names later, Greg Evans suggests that they could’ve been composed anonymously originally and written anonymously so they could prevent being persecuted by the Romans.
It even says in John that John didn't write his gospel...
@@malchir4036 it says no such thing. It doesn’t give explicit indication but it seems to give some indication in John 21.And there’s debate over whether or not the beloved disciple refers to John sound like Ben Wetherington say it’s Lazarus but I just don’t find that convincing at al.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 John21-24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
By definition, having a "we" means it's not a single person. And we would not be required if it was his testimony. It would've been: this is what I saw.
@@malchir4036 so this is a very oversimplistic and shower reading of the text. Yes many scholars do you suggest this is the case such as Raymond E brown Who suggests that there was more than one author involved in John’s composition. And Ben Witherington suggest that people of a disciple is Lazarus and the John’s gospel is truly anonymous. However this is not met without criticism I recommend Michael J Kruger he has an article addressing this very issue. I’m not entirely persuaded by either argument but I’m more convinced by Krueger’s position than I am Witherington’s and etc. I don’t think the we indicates that it’s multiple authors.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 So the face-value reading is oversimplistic? Cmon now...
I wonder why the translation book is used as a reference for people to study their religion ,why don't we learn to use the first language of Bible which makes us know more about the book itself, We know humans have many points of view, right? that's why there are so many differences between multiple translations Paul,Luke,Jhon and other's translation
This new phenomenon concerning who wrote the Gospels never seemed to be a problem with the early Church Fathers. We have very good reasons to think that the Gospels are in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Dont be such a dummy they're not even written in first person ffs !
The Roman Empire believed it too...they were there in Judea at the time.
deano dog Why shouldn’t they be written in third person? They’re basically like Ancient Greco-Roman biographies and meet all the criteria of being considered as such.
@@coolmuso6108 nonsense not one gospel writer says I saw jesus do this or do that therefore they are not eyewitness accounts,it would also make the writers a hundred years old at time of writing plus jesus followers weren't scholars who could write in Greek but simple people allegedly!
@@jamesgossweiler1349 nonsense!!
Within less than 165 years, more than *20* sources attributed or linked the fourth Gospel to the "disciple", "apostle" and/or "John".
That's a lot, and it astounds me how people just sweep this under the rug.
@@theloveofreading3563 _"hundreds of miles"_ - The Great Commission renders that irrelevant.
_"Decades later"_ - people can, did & do live more than a couple decades. The apostles were no exception, we even know the dates for some. John in particular is known to have lived into the AD 90s.
_"different language. [...] written in greek [...] couldn't possibly have written them."_
Except that's absolutely rubbish. (1) Greek was wide spread at the time and was considered the 'trading language'. Heck, English is not even my native tongue! (2) Not only that, we have evidence that both Jesus (a carpenter) and Phillip could communicate in Greek, who's to say John couldn't too? (3) Scribes could've been employed and others might've aided, as was often done in the ancient world - moreover there is also internal & external attestation & clues to a scribe/helper's involvement with this Gospel. (4) The reality of the Great Commission might also serve as a motivating factor to them having improved their Greek. Why would you write in Aramaic to Greek-speaking audience? Thats beyond foolish.
The fact that you say it's not even _possible_ shows ignorance.
Even if you still ultimately reject the authorship, don't make light of the 20+ sources in his favour.
@Jim Merrilees This is about the authors of the Gospels, not Jesus' divinity. Your comment is misplaced.
@@bromponie7330 but the authors claimed divinity so its relevant!
@@theloveofreading3563 The entire world at that time used GREEK as the lingua franca and right in the Gospels in many places Greeks and Greek cities are mentioned is Capidocia. Ancient tradition consistently points to students of the Apostles writhing the Gospels. No one put their own names on their writings in those days as they reference the source being the original Apostle.
@Jim Merrilees Humans are a spec of dust in a vast universe and you seem to put a lot of stock in what our peanut sized brains think. There is an unlimited amount of evidence that has been showing up in recent archeological finds that contradict your no evidence. Look at the case of Ancient Egypt where new archeological finds are overturning old theories every day. How can any man assert anything since no human has knowledge of over 90% of the universe? No evidence does not prove nonexistence. Again we are only recently learning of the existence of entire species of humans that we did not know about simply because we just found the evidence.
One thing both left out. Jesus told his disciples (Apostle's) I am sending the Holy Spirit to teach/guide bring back to your remembrance the thing I have told you/taught you/spoke to you about. With the Holy Spirit doing these thing, I doubt if the time is as important as the who. (Holy men of God) chosen by Jesus to bring the gospel to in entire world. I also feel the same Holy Spirit was present as always when the (Bible) became what we know it today. If God created all things, He can also preserve his word, so he can go back & say my Word will not return to me void. I do believe if we don't have it all, we have enough of as Paul put it, (to sustain ourselves in the faith with a good foundation). Takes more than just a Bible as well, it takes a correct relationship with the Father through Jesus. Things come with time (mature spirit), give yourself time even Peter spoke where will we go, We know you have the Words of eternal life. Paul even had Peter back up his writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16 as well.
They left it out because they are having a historical discussion based on textual and other evidence, and not presupposing a theological view. For example, you couldn't really publish a scholarly article saying the gospels are reliable because God made sure it was reliable.
There were people in Desert named Matthew? And Mark? Back in those days? Lol.
No? Thats the translated names lol.
Is Peter j Williams really 90 years old?!!
No reason not to believe in the traditional view of Mark in the 50’s, Matthew and Luke in the 60’s and John around 80 ad.
Trying to make the dates closer to Jesus's time to fit your narrative, eh?
@@NomadAAli These dates are historically based.
No reason to believe it.
Greeks were there at the beginning that is a historical fact. The Gospels were in GREEK and there were large Christian communities in Greece from the beginning. The students of the Apostles wrote the Gospels wrote them and the icons of the ancient church show that fact.
How do you know there were large 'christian' churches in the first century? Acts of the Apostles is not evidence!
I thought they were Hebrew?
@@russell311000 the old testament is in Hebrew. The 4 Gospels are written in greek
How do you know if we don't have the earliest Gospel preached by Jesus himself? Surely it would have been written in Aramaic.
The truth is, we have no clue who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the fact that it is a pseudonymous Gospel is very disturbing. Obviously, it is a scriptural text with one author (one style) but we have no idea who he is.
Considering the earliest manuscripts we have available name all of the original authors as the ones we have today, we have pretty valid reason to think that they were always attributed to them. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
@@gthompsonbjj No. We do not know if the writer of Luke/Acts is the same Luke mentioned by Paul in his epistles. There are discrepencies when comparing Acts with Paul's testimony in Galatians. Do not get me wrong-- it is authoritative, inerrant Scripture--we just don't know the true author. We only know it was given by God. It is same in the Torah with Moshe as the tradtional author of Deuteronomy. Some quotes could be directly attributed to Moshe (plausibly) but the book was not structured or written by him.
The truth is the gospels and the entire Bible were written by men only……. All complete make believe!
Mathew 9-9
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Whey Mathew called himself him and not me..???
if you look up ancient writings ALOT of people in the ancient times Wrote as a 3rd person not 1st.. also VERY VERY common was they never Titled themself As the Authors.. I suggest you please do research on these things before you comment please..
I've always wondered why a God would choose the written word as a way to communicate with it's creations? Especially a book that can be (and is) interpreted 100 different ways by a hundred different people. Also, what good is the written word if most people at that time were illiterate? Makes absolutely no sense.
Why didn't god choose the time between the creation of videography and the advent of developed video editing software if he wanted to show us what he was capable of. Why didn't he choose a time when you could broadcast your magic tricks to the whole world, LIVE?
@@harishthethird because He wants you to believe by faith and not by sight
@@harishthethird God spoke through people, he didn’t write the Bible but at the same time he did
@@christiansargent6053 lol
How do you think God should have communicated?
The historians Papaias and Clement recorded that Peter went to Rome and took Mark with him. On there way Peter related the Gospel story and Mark wrote down every word. Mark became the first Gospel and served as source for much of the other Gospels
It appears that Peter was the main contributor of the Gospels and it is he who introduced YHVH from Isa.40:3 and named him Jesus the Messiah. This is where Trinity started and it appears to originate from his quote of Joel at Pentecost. Joel 2:28; "You will know that I AM in Israel; that I AM the Lord your God and there is none else. Never again will my people be shamed. After that...My Spirit on all flesh..."
So Jesus became the God of Israel of Joel 2:27 and was introduced as such in all the Gospels. Yet ten days before that day of Pentecost Jesus had denied that it was given to Peter to know when this was to be. Therefore the Gospel story, and the identify of Jesus, departs from Joel 2:27,28 ....which in fact is still in the future.
Francois Le Roux I doubt that. Try writing an accurate biography on the go. On papyrus with a quelled pen as the person telling you the story relates it. And ever time he remembers something wrong he says oh shit that didn’t happen yet. You need to line thru that passage to omit. But you’re also trying to relate his back water Aramaic to Greek in your head as fast as possible to write it down the writing would be a sloppy mess. Yet our copies from later centuries have all the texts in line and aside from bad grammar have good penmanship. Would never happen if a Greek was copying a Hebrew speaking on the fly
Not to mention Papias and Clement were BORN WAY AFTER this supposed event of Mark traveling with Peter. How could they know anything about that other than hearsay. This is one of the major problems with Christianity. All hearsay. The only eyewitness who writes about Jesus is Paul. And that’s a VISION of Jesus. Not even a physical encounter. Very suspect, IMO.
@@christianlaraque2234 They probably had regular stopovers on a long journey when they could sit down and talk and write. The historians say that when the work was done Peter reviewed and approved it before it was used in the communities.
@@crackedfoundation4324 These events were also recorded by Eusebius, another historian, and appears to have been accepted at the time and also today.
Francois Le Roux you mean Eusebius, from the 4th century? How is that better? I kind of identify with Bart. I don’t question if Jesus lived and was a historic figure as the Bible describes. The issue I have is history can’t/doesn’t prove the miracles attributed to him, in particular, the resurrection. Contrary to popular belief, according to guys like Bart and other scholars, the gospels are not eyewitness written accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I can almost get onboard with Mark as the earliest and maybe written by him. But the other three grow thru embellishments (resurrected people that ONLY Matthew wrote about?) and then really get going with John. Factor that in with half Paul’s letters in dispute, Peter’s epistles in dispute and you only have ONE eyewitness (Paul) who actually wrote something down and even that wasn’t an in person meeting but rather a vision. All very hard to distinguish from any other religion of rising/dying Gods of the time.
So did any of the authors of the gospel meet Jesus?
No the didnt
absolutely not
Matthew was a tax collector of Rome and one of the original disciples of Jesus. John was also one of the original twelve. These two walked with Jesus during his years of ministry. Both wrote their eyewitness accounts which bear their names.
@dennis9423
Matthew the tax collector wasn't a desciple.
"As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew (Levi) sitting in the tax collector's booth".
This is a third person account. If Mathew the author and Matthew the tax collector were the same person, the account of their meeting would've been in the first person.
@@Mozee854 Your kidding, right? Lots of people speak of themselves in the third person. You remember Bob Dole? He was a Republican who always spoke of himself in the third person. Have you ever watched "Vice Grip Garage" on TH-cam? He is always talking about himself as "a guy". So, he will say, "A guy and his family went to the Rally today." Just because Matt used the third person in his writing does not disqualify him from being a disciple. It is just a style of writing.
It just doesn’t make any sense for Acts to be dated after the deaths of Paul or James the brother of Jesus, both of whom were the most important apostles in Acts. They both died in the 60s. That means Luke had to be written before the 60s as well, and implies, if it borrowed from Matthew and Mark, they also had to be written before the 60s. It simply is illogical, based on the content, the intent of the Book of Acts, that Acts would have missed the chance to include Paul and James’ martyrdoms, when they were the two main characters, and Acts clearly is interested in recording the martyrdoms of Apostles. There is also reason to believe, based on 1 Corinthians, written about 55 AD by general consensus, is referring to preexisting Christian scripture - and that scripture appears to most likely be Luke. If that is true, Matthew Mark and Luke are quite reasonably written, conservatively, no later than 55AD.
I’ve never read cases that made sense for the late dating of the Gospels. And particularly for Mark and Luke authorship questions, it just begs the question why you would preudopegriphically use either Mark or Luke as the fictional author for your book.
The gospels were written anonymously, written in the third person, and written decades after Jesus' purported death.
1)Which was common practice to write in that literary style
2)The names attributed are the actual apostles
3)Decades later doesnt matter, by every metric of ancient history, that is reliable
@@joe5959 So, you're saying that it appears that the bible is just like any of other books written by men of the time. I agree.
@@bibleburner8426No it wasnt. It is remarkably superior in quality, history and reliability. The record the life, death, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@joe5959 Only someone who is completely clueless can say something like that.
That isn't an argument lol. And what joe said was 100% true XD@@bibleburner8426
Everything Bart said is what we learned in the first year of seminary. He’s right on.
@Teach Peace Right on?Everything he said is not true!
The evidence of the dead sea scrolls of papyrus of the NT, especially of the gospel of Mark. The caves were closed 68AD.
P64 which is dated 66AD is from the gospel of Matthew.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, a letter universally claim to have been written in 52-53AD, quotes the gospel of Luke
“But there are several other indicators in John’s Gospel of an early authorship. One of them is his clear knowledge and understanding of the pre-AD 70 powers and proceedings of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the elders who administered and ‘clarified’ the Law of Moses. In AD 70, the Sanhedrin disappeared from off the face of the earth, not to be reconvened until AD 2005, some 1935 years later. So the gospel of John was written before 70AD.
@@thomasglass9491 clearly you haven’t been to seminary…
@Teach Peace That’s your argument? What happened with the evidence? Will you answer that?
Seminaries are unnecessary for a Christian. The Bible doesn’t ask that for a Christian, and clearly you’re brainwashed.
@@thomasglass9491 brainedwashed by experts in the field of Christianity? 🤦🏼♂️
@@thomasglass9491 No Bro, I purchased and expensive limited magazine about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT wasn't present.
Who wrote ther accounts?? I'm a Christian I need to here so e answers
All of the earliest sources we have for the authors confirms & agrees that the disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John, and then Mark was a traveling companion of the disciple Peter, and he used Peter as his source for the Gospel of Mark. Then Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and would have got his Gospel from the original disciples as well as James (Jesus' brother). They're eye-witness accounts.
@@100_1OO________1that is very much false
There’s multiple different ways to answer this question. It’s not really easy. I think at the end the day it doesn’t really matter as much whether or not the gospels were actually written by the apostles or we went by scribes of the apostles. Because one of Ehrman’s main arguments is that the apostles were illiterate so they couldn’t have known Greek or they wouldn’t have, even if that’s the case it was pretty common in that day for people to have translators and scribes, so even if the apostles didn’t know Greek they could’ve had scribes that knew Greek. 
@@MohamedAli-nf1rp not at all. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
So only Jesus disciples would know the kidron valley?
As a Christian who has rejected fundamentalism for a fuller faith in Jesus and not in the box I believe he must fill, I appreciate Bart Ehrmen’s scholarship on this. For those who’s faith may be shaken by Ehrmen’s comments, listen to the “Ask NT Wright Anyting” podcast on the Infallibility of Scripture. Ehrmine said he was a Christian for many years still after learning all of this stuff, but what really took him from his faith was theodicy, or the problem of evil.
Having said that do you think that the new testament/gospel/injeel is a reliable historical document of the life and teaching of jesus (PBUH) respect from a muslim
The guyver I haven’t seen any good historical evidence to deny it. The most compelling is that it contains the supernatural then you shouldn’t rely on it, but that shouldn’t be a problem for you as a Muslim. Another is contradictions, however I believe this actually strengthens the case for its historical reliability. If one was trying to make something up it would be overly concise. And none of these contradictions take away from who Jesus claimed he was, and the story. All four Gospels are clear on that.
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT - Wait are you saying that there are contradictions in the new testament then how can you say it's reliable not to mention ehrman also says that these people were unknown and did not met jesus what would be your response to that can you please recommend who has answered this historically
The guyver It’s your preconceived idea that contradictions discredit it. The fundamentalist concept of inerrancy has poisoned our position in the church. I don’t believe in inerrancy in the fundamentalist sense, I believe in infallibility. God let His children write the story. He didn’t whisper in their ear to tell them exactly what to write. This is a common mistake, and so I’m saying the (minor) contradictions between the gospels are proof that they are real. If we wanted to get together to try to make up a story we wouldn’t allow for these nuances in how the story was told. We would make sure it looked and sounded the same. You don’t get that in the Gospels. In the Gospels, I like to use this analogy. It’s like 4 different film makers of a biopic about Jesus. And that’s how ancient people saw biographies, there was an art to it, it wasn’t a calculated documentary. It was a drama based on a true story. And if you ever look at two biopics of the same person’s life, contradictions will arise because of the artistic choices of the film makers, but that makes the actual life and events no less true. Not knowing if the authors were not the original authors isn’t as big of an issue as one may believe. We have 5,000 manuscripts for the New Testament, which is 4,000 more than any other work of literature for that time. That includes the Iliad and the Odyssey, written in contemporary antiquity. Or Josephus, yet there is far less manuscripts for him. Yet no one doubts the authorship of Homer. And these writers claim to be eyewitnesses. There are records that the early church considered certain letters and writings authoritative and some not even before the canonization of Scripture. We have this first century community that are in contact with these writers, and then communities afterwards led by the disciples of those writers (Church Fathers), that state that these books really do come either from the pen of these men or from their real experiences captured on paper through means of their disciples. It’s the same with the Koran my friend, it was Mohammad’s followers that wrote down his teachings. It was the same for the disciples of Jesus and even the ones whom they taught. If you would like evidence for my claims I would love to share it. But above all, even though I believe Christianity is a very reasonable faith, it takes a matter of seeing Jesus for who He really is. Not merely as a prophet, but as Lord, as Thomas says “My Lord, and My God” in the Gospel of John. Unless this confession comes from our mouths, unless we say Jesus is King, and the truest representation of God on the Earth that has ever been, the forces of darkness will continue to entrench us. I will pray for you on your path to truth because it seems you are sincere, I text not to defend an ideology, but to love you as best as I know how through this technological space we find ourself in. For no one can love more than sharing what they have found to be absolute truth.
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT That is beautifully stated. I am interested in the books you read and your research materials 🤗 I hope you could share them with me!
The Quran 2:79 says:
"And woe to those who write the book with their
own hands and then say: "This is from Allah
(God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price!
So woe to them for what their hands do write,
and woe to themfor what they earn thereby!"
And ironically that's exactly what Muslims have done 😂
your book also confirms the gospel and the torah ALSO.. This verse never said Gospel or torah I'm confused didn't a lot of people back in the day even to the recent days try to make other books that claims to be from God other then the Bible... And if the case you are Describing is Almost true the quran contradicts itself BC it confirms the GOSPELS AND THE TORAH LEGIT SAYS THAT. do your research brother lmao
All good.. give me your sources.. I don't trust both of them...
if u don't trust, find the truth yourself the old testament Bible with Greek language you will see the real truth with no translation. should everyone learn about their own religious books, right?
They have ZERO sources! The Bible is just myth……
there are hebrew and aramaic copies of the new testament and the aramaic copies are older than the greek going back to 70 ad in aramaic copies of the gospels locked away in the vatican library
and the hebrew copies have links closer to the aramaic than the greek
The new testament was only in greek. What proof do you have that there is aramaic copies?
@@defenestratefalsehoods khaboris codex crawford codex both 164 to 154 ad and considering the fact the khaboris codex is missing the book of revelation which was written during 64 to 54 its probably a copy of a 64 to 54 ad text
@@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 i did more research and the Crawford codex is a 12th century document, the khaboris codex is a 10th century copy while the codex sinaiticus which is the oldest bible is in greek is from the 3rd century. From the 4th century we have the Codex Vaticanus also in greek. Your two may be copies written in Aramaic from centuries later.
@@defenestratefalsehoods wikipedia lies the colophon of the khaboris confirms the 164 to 154 ad text and the text itself looks about 2000 years old
If the Jesus story was true and he had performed all the miracles and amazing deeds attributed to him would not have the disciples and people who knew him have written the story down immediately after his death given that he was the son of god and the most amazing person to have ever been on earth???
Kinda skips the reality of oral history
Historical documents prove he did exist but the historical Jesus is proven by scholars to be born in Nazareth not Bethlehem.....and so many facts translate with no credibility...also where was he for 20 years of his life? What did he do in this time?
You're applying modern standards to something that happened two millennia ago. Most people in those times didn't know how to write or read and books weren't used as a way to preserve historical accounts, added to the fact that it seems likely that the first Christians thought the end was just around the corner, so there was even less of a need to write anything down. Paul's epistles are the earliest manuscripts in the New Testament and they were that: letters he wrote to far away churches because he had no other way to communicate with them, but I don't think he wrote them as Scripture and they seem to assume a lot of stories that are not clearly spelled out, so we know that there were shared stories being passed around orally about what really happened. It's likely that as the years passed, and the end wasn't coming, and the first witnesses were getting old and dying and were being persecuted, they decided to write these stories down so they're not forgotten and can testify for themselves about Jesus.
@@hullie7529 The NT gospels are not remembered history. They are not eyewitness accounts. They do not claim to be eyewitness accounts and do not read like eyewitness accounts. They were given the names Mathew Mark Luke and John decades after they were written circa 150 -180 CE.
@@shauntaylor8115 Where do you get that from? There's not a single instance in history where the Gospels have been known by any other name we know them now, also your dating is completely wrong and it goes against any evidence we have. And btw some Gospels do claim to be eye witnesses account, so I dunno what to tell you except to read them.
In my view, it doesn't matter. It's not my responsibility to make sure God has protected his words or not or how he's protected them or who he's chosen to write them down and copy, etc. These are all God's responsibility not mine. My responsibility is to simply call upon him and believe what he says. I was raised Muslim and when I grew up I found out about the Bible and then called upon God and he led me out of Islam and pointed me to the Bible.
I am a muslin and do you think that the new testament is a historically reliable document
@@theguyver4934 Doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what God says. You're asking the wrong person. I'm not God.
@@MarkusGhambari - I know but do think it's historically reliable or not
AMEN!!!!
So yeah what's so special of the bible which is error ridden?
U
Ou canput any construction on any languagr .How would you want God tocommunicate eith man.for all time..the written word of course
Did mr.erhman observe from the point of view of the jew?
First!
Bart Ehrman's face when Peter Williams is talking xD
He just looks like he wants to strangle him. I’m sure that’s not Bart’s intent 😂😂
@Brady Max stop lying. You don’t have a gf
Surely Jesus spoke Greek. His destiny, from birth, was to be a teacher, so one would suppose that his education would include the learning of other important languages especially of Greek, the lingua franca of the time. Then Jesus grows up in Egypt where Greek was the official language because it was ruled by Greeks. Cleopatra was Greek. All educated Romans spoke Greek. Jesus uncle Joseph, was very rich. Money would not have been an issue.
Jesus spoke Aramaic only. These gospels are written between 40 to 100yrs after he died n in greek.the msg is lost in translation . U have to listen to surah Al maidah that is conversation betwn Jesus n Allah .
You are correct. As a talented carpenter--often doing work for aristocrats, the LORD must have spoke Koine and even possibly even some Latin. The thing is, He is God (or for atheist readers, a supernatural figure) so he could have spoken any language.
It opens with a big historical lie: there was no Palestine in the first century, the land was called what is not respected: "Judea" - the Roman name for Land of the Jews.
Everyone seems to take for granted that the gospels were written between 70 CE and 100 CE but where is the evidence for that? I think it it could be much later but the church put it closer to the Jesus time line to make them witnesses or close to people who were there. Having looked for any evidence for the Jesus story and found little or none that is reliable from the first century, I am leaning towards a mythical story.
Where can u study those things? Like everything related to the history of Jesus and Christianity
@@sz5811 Bart Ehrman is a very readable scholar who asks what really happened in first century Jerusalem and the early church. Did Jesus really walk the earth? What did he do and teach? Did he deliver the Sermon on the Mount? Was he crucified? Was Paul really imprisoned and martyred? What was life like for the early Christians? How did the New Testament come to be written, and how much of it is historically accurate?
Ehrman doesn't try to prove or disprove the Bible, and he generally hews to the consensus of historians. He's written around 30 books. One of the best, I think, is "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium."
A similar book on Old Testament times is "The Bible Unearthed" by Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.
I believe the entire New Testament was written before AD 70. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul, and Jude were either witnesses or friends of eyewitnesses.
Since no New Testament author references the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70, nor the great Christian persecution by Nero in A.D. 64, and other things; therefore, I believe the entire New Testament was completed within forty years of Jesus' resurrection. All before AD 70.
@@gasoven3759 They do mention it, Jesus predicts it and the author adds his own comment "Let the reader understand". Luke adds to the prophecy "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by troops". The Petrine Epistles call Rome Babylon which began after Rome destroyed the Temple just as with Babylon.
@tomasrocha6139 There is a massive chasm of difference between Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple compared to the Apostles actually writing about the destruction of the temple in AD70 as a matter of history.
So , no, the Apostles did not write about the destruction of the temple, meaning that the New Testament was written prior to the destruction of the temple because, well, it hadn't happened yet.
Also, you referred to Luke chapter 21 as a source discussing the destruction of the temple. Your timing is off. Chapter 21 is about the end of the age, the end of times. Chapter 21 is not about AD70. Instead, Jesus is speaking about the future, when the Antichrist will desecrate the Jewish temple in the future; the third temple.
All the gospels were written within the same generation of Jesus.....
By 2 disciples (Matthew and John)
Mark is directly from Peter
Luke written by Luke who was a companion of Paul
And you believe that 🤔 wow dude ..!
@@letsdothis5131 of course....
Look at the dates Peter and Paul were martyred....
Peter was martyred in 64 AD (or CE if you prefer) Mark wrote his Gospel directly with Peter
Paul was martyred in 65 AD...
Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and acts....
Why did I mention this?
Luke's Gospel was written before Acts ....
He writes about Paul a lot including information where he was with Paul...acts does not mention Paul's death or Peters...
So say acts was written around 64 (I will go late here) than the Gospel of Luke probably written around 59 (again going late here) 30 - 31 years after the death of Christ....
Research it for yourself
@@letsdothis5131 for centuries there had been no debate on the authenticity of the Gospel writers....that started in the 19th century...
People will try anything to disprove something they don't want to believe and don't want to be true
@@letsdothis5131 just a side note
Matthew was probably written around 47 AD (again going late here)
John around 70 AD
That puts the earliest account (Matthew) around 14 years after Christ
The last (John) 37 years after Christ
@@thehelpdesk4051 If it could be proved that Luke was addressing his gospel toTheophilus who was the high priest between 37-41 A.D, it would be a whole new ball game. Paul quotes Luke twice. So at least puts Luke into the early 50’s and Matthew and Mark in the 30’s/40’s...
Alhamdulilaah for Islam !! Alhamdulilaah Allahu Akbar ❤❤❤❤ I’m Muslim woman who loves Mary and Isa ﷺ Jesus Christ peace and blessings be upon him as mighty prophet of Allah
Jesus is king always will be.. EVERY KNEE WILL BOW EVERY MOUTH WILL CONFESS JESUS IS LORD!!
These people need to understand they are not helping the trust in the bible as the word of God,trust your bible read it as the word of God and believe that it is the inspired word give by the Holy Spirit to us remember that these writings are nearly 2000 year old and still have the truth .love the Lord your God and others as yourselves
Should muslims and all other religions trust their holy books in the same manner?
So we should trust blindly that lot was sent to condemn homosexuals but comiited incest with his daughters? Or that God inpreganted Abrahams wife?
second!
**The doctrine of the trinity itself is problematic. Because you're wanting to believe that God sacrificed himself to God, in order to save God's creation from God. It's not logical. Yet people believe in something that they themselves can't rationalize - And it's a concept that can't even be explained to others in order for them to believe in it*
*And people say "Yeh but the answer(s) to that point have already been answered for years dozens of times". Yes they've been answered - But it doesn't mean that those answers made any sense. People prove their point based on what they CHOOSE to believe about it. But the concept itself is illogical*
*The alleged God Jesus, questioned the other Gods wisdom and asked him "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?!". 1..... If you're also god you should already know why. 2.... You should have already known why you were sent to earth, and what you were supposed to be doing - So why question all of a sudden when its time to do what you should already be aware that you were sent for?*
*Some say "He was quoting from the old testament, it was a recitation." Why does God need to recite something about someone calling on him from back when? If all 3 are 1 at the same time IN ESSENCE, shouldn't they all have died for three days when the god on earth died? Because if they're all truly 1 IN ESSENCE, then what effects 1 would effect the other*
*And if the other 2 gods (god the spirit & god the father) could run things in the universe perfectly fine for 3days without the 3rd, what do you need the 3rd for at all? So here again, regardless of what someone CHOOSES to believe on this, they're choosing to believe something that is totally illogical*
*Also, in at least three places in Romans alone Paul says that people are saved by faith alone without works (Romans **3:20**, 28; 5:1)*
*But in James **2:25** you read: A man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James **2:24**)*
*But the fact is that Jesus denied his divinity:*
*In Mark **10:18**, Luke **18:18**-19, Matthew **19:17**, Jesus was asked:*
*“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”*
*Jesus Said: “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone”. If you want eternal life, keep the commandments.”*
[Even though according to paul the old commandments don't apply anymore]
*"No one is good except GOD ALONE." So if he thought he himself was God, why would he correct the man and stop him from calling him 'good' (i.e. God)???*
There is no mention to the original sin, atonement, sin inheritance, salvation by faith alone, or accepting Jesus as savior, but inheriting eternal life by obedience.
*That is also confirmed in Luke **10:28** “Do this and you will live.”*
*Again, too many contradictions, inconsistencies, illogical and irrational concepts. It makes more sense to say Jesus was a prophet than all those other things that contradict common sense and reasoning. But there's no use, it's apparent people will believe anything - Even if it defies there own common sense and logic*
Look, at the end of the day, people will pull anything they want/can to try to justify what they want to believe. Here again, you speak of God-father, and God-son, don't forget God-spirit. Where did the third come from...and why. If all 3 are God, what do they need each other for. And who is the all-powerful out of the 3
So here again, you have 3 beings, considered God, hanging out with each other for eternity. What sense would it be for 3. Why would 3 need to exist when 1 can run the show just fine by itself
See, you mention pagan beliefs - The concept of 3 beings all being God is a form of pagan doctrine/belief itself, and it's remained represented in the Bible as we know it today. Another issue is the fact that no one even knows the real authors of the new testament because the writers are anonymous. Mathew, mark, Luke, John are names 'given' to the writings - Those are not the names of the real authors, they don't know who they really are. But the problem is people don't care now, and they didn't then. Like now, people just want to hear/follow/believe in whatever is along the lines of what they believe/think, even though the writers are anonymous
If you found a blank sheet of writing today, with no name of the author, but it contained things that you want to believe in, then you'll believe it because you 'want to'. But under the same circumstances, if the writing weren't in line with what you 'choose' to believe in, then you'd dismiss it. So regardless of how much it does or doesn't make sense, you're going to choose to believe whatever because that's what you 'want' to do
Also, the bible has undergone dozens of 'revisions/changes' since it came into existence (revised standard version etc). If you compare bibles today to others 80yrs ago, there are drastic changes that were made, many in areas where certain words were said that caused concepts to be problematic for people. So those words were changed.......or it makes people feel better hearing that they were "revised", or "updated" etc. And the bible itself strongly condemns ANY adding or taking away from it 🤔
And there's so many versions of it, which is correct....new revised version, king james version, catholic bible (which has 7 more books than the others). And who authorized a group of humans to say what IS, and what is NOT God's word(s). It's all a big mess because HUMANS got involved and changed the true words and teachings of Jesus - Because of their own beliefs and agendas, as professor Erhman has pointed out (based on historical facts) dozens of times. Human meddling turned it into something different and created much confusion of it - And *God is not the author of confusion*
I think you should look at the better thinkers on the Christian side if you want good answers to these types of questions. I can tell you there are solid, reasonable, contextual answers to all of these questions. I'm not going to unpack it for you because if you don't want to have your mind changed, it won't matter. Also, there are plenty of greater minds to get this info from - guys like William Lane Craig and so forth. Nothing you presented gives me even a moments pause because I've looked into these matters (and much of what you said is not quite accurate), and there are great answers out there (and some bad ones, depending on who you read).
@@CaryHawkins... I have. And all they do is come up with concepts to try to explain/justify their belief(s) in the trinity concept. But the concept of the trinity itself is illogical. So even though they explained it, as I mentioned in my original post - Their explanation(s) didn't make sense and were still illogical. I know some may take offense to what I'm saying, but I assure you it's not my intent
People have a way of reading words and adding their own tone to them. And I'm not saying you are, I'm just putting the disclaimer out just in case
As even a very large number of christians scholars say the concept is a (divine) mystery. But why would God want people to believe in a doctrine that's a mystery, or hard to rationalize, or make logical. He created the human brain. Why have His creation believe in something that's irrational, illogical, and a "mystery" to that brain. The doctrine/concept is confusing - *And God is not the author of confusion*
How is the trinity illogical?
@@CaryHawkins... For the same reason(s) many christian scholars label it a "mystery" themselves. If it made sense it wouldn't be a mystery because there wouldn't be anything mysterious about it. And it's considered "mysterious" because it doesn't make sense logically or rationally
@Desire Of All Nations... Ok, so tell Professor Ehrman that there's no contradictions in the Bible, I wonder what that reply will be
Look, at the end of the day, as previously stated, people will pull anything they want/can to try to justify what they want to believe. Here again, you speak of God-father, and God-son, don't forget God-spirit. Where did the third come from...and why. If all 3 are God, what do they need each other for. And who is the all-powerful out of the 3
So here again, you have 3 beings, considered God, hanging out with each other for eternity. What sense would it be for 3. Why would 3 need to exist when 1 can run the show just fine by itself
See, you mention pagan beliefs - The concept of 3 beings all being God is a form of pagan doctrine/belief itself, and it's remained represented in the Bible as we know it today. Another issue is the fact that no one even knows the real authors of the new testament because the writers are anonymous. Mathew, mark, Luke, John are names 'given' to the writings - Those are not the names of the real authors, they don't know who they really are. But the problem is people don't care now, and they didn't then. Like now, people just want to hear/follow/believe in whatever is along the lines of what they believe/think, even though the writers are anonymous
If you found a blank sheet of writing today, with no name of the author, but it contained things that you want to believe in, then you'll believe it because you 'want to'. But under the same circumstances, if the writing weren't in line with what you 'choose' to believe in, then you'd dismiss it. So regardless of how much it does or doesn't make sense, you're going to choose to believe whatever because that's what you 'want' to do
Also, the bible has undergone dozens of 'revisions/changes' since it came into existence (revised standard version etc). If you compare bibles today to others 80yrs ago, there are drastic changes that were made, many in areas where certain words were said that caused concepts to be problematic for people. So those words were changed.......or it makes people feel better hearing that they were "revised", or "updated" etc. And the bible itself strongly condemns ANY adding or taking away from it 🤔
And there's so many versions of it, which is correct....new revised version, king james version, catholic bible (which has 7 more books than the others). And who authorized a group of humans to say what IS, and what is NOT God's word(s). It's all a big mess because HUMANS got involved and changed the true words and teachings of Jesus - Because of their own beliefs and agendas, as professor Erhman has pointed out (based on historical facts) dozens of times. Human meddling turned it into something different and created much confusion of it - And *God is not the author of confusion*
The average life expectancy was less then 50 years in 30 ad. A person would have to be 5-10 years old at the time of jesus death to live long enough to be called an eye witnesses by the time the gospels was written down 40 years later.
the average life expectancy of my country is 60 years old...dang there was a guy who died at age 24 and another old man who lived up to 104, many reach their 80s....such a silly thing to apply
@@CS_Lewis I guess you're forgetting about medical technology which help people live a whole lot longer. Back then they believe the sickness was caused by demons. I'm very sure there wasn't a whole lot of people that lived past 60
@@defenestratefalsehoods when i read history (forget about the Bible) just a history of civilization i do believe many survived there 60s even in the history of Indian Civilization, i could see that
@@CS_Lewis and you do know the bible dont line up with real history
@@defenestratefalsehoods 😂😂😂you sounds like an expert....
While i value investigation, there are lots of assumptions made by Peter. Assumptions are made based on biases or opinions when missing info.
For many translation it is understood that they were “the gospel according to” and so…the authorship could be anybody (disciple of a disciple of Jesus).
Always understood it since school - that the importance in the Bible (and the gospels) was less about dates and facts but more on the message. 🤷♂️
The answer is we don't know who wrote them, they are unknown.
We do know who wrote them…… men did! Not some magical being….
@@Ex_christian who are those men?
@@morningmidnight9398 anonymous
third
@Dillinger Plan
54th 😁
They are not the real disciplines and was written 3/4 hundred years after Jesus ..Jesus spoke Aramaic..not Greek
Julius Caesar is known to have written his major works in Latin. Funny thing, in the bookstore yesterday. I saw a copy of one of his best penned books “The Gallic wars” in English. Caesar spoke Latin, not English…odd.
Saying of people with no surnames and none existance in hystory!
If the gospel writers were eyewitnesses then they wouldn't need to copy each other verbatim. In an age when few could read word of mouth was king . The gospels only became important when Marcion produced his heretical Bible.
What makes you say that they’re copied verbatim?
@@Peter-wl3tm Check Bart Ehrman's analysis of the gospels 'side by side'
Well, Luke already said he was taking information from reliable resources. Mark would be one of them.
Considering Mark's gospel would be derived from Peter, him and Matthew would have similar stories. Plus, plagiarism didn't even exist in the first century, meaning it was deemed perfectly acceptable to copy and paste works. I mean, they saw the same thing. No need in writing the whole thing out anyway.
Jesus
Actually, do we have any biblical evidence that Jesus was literate?
Luke 4:
14 Then Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread throughout the entire vicinity. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, being praised[j] by everyone.
16 He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. As usual, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him, and unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written:
18 The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me[k]
to proclaim release[l] to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to set free the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.[m]
20 He then rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. And the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him.
@@mikelipinski7615 Yes, Jesus read from Isaiah in a synagogue (Luke 4) and wrote something in the sand (John 8).
Of course, the latter is disputed whether it's genuinely Johannine (written by John), but there is likely still historical truth to it.
@MsMarian Rogers Luke 4 shows Jesus reading Isaiah.
@@bromponie7330 Nazareth never existed either not a single mention of it from a civilisation that were meticulous chronicle keepers !
It's kind of funny that secular scholars don't question the Church narrative that a Jesus existed in the first century altogether, and don't question the writing of the gospels by Christians, the existence of whom has no evidence to support it at all.
And none knew Jesus and born near a century after.... mark might have apparently, how can you write an autobiography about someone you never met? Just a thought
What? It's well known that they did in fact exist, and the gospels were written prior to 70 AD. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
@@gthompsonbjj The fact is that all the claims about the authenticity of the Christian texts in the first century are exclusively rooted in the Church. No corroborative external evidence exists outside of writings in the possession of the church itself. Nothing referring to the teachings of any type of Christianity is even found in the ancient Jewish midrashic and Talmudic texts. It was all developed in the age of Constantine and Eusebius.
The bible overall is in question and will continue to be so
Criticism is the backbone of science.
Question it and question the origins of Israel. Question what is the age of the earth. Question the origins of other religions. And you will find the Bible is true.
@@theriveroffaith852 Adam and Eve, not true, Noahs flood not true, Moses exodus, not true, Jesus many different people not just one. A story made up by the Romans to unite Rome. 1st comandment, I am the lord thy god thy shall have no another gods before me. But you worship Jesus, son of God. How is that possible. You have broken the most important comandment.
Derek Allen Jesus from the New Testament is the god speaking in the New Testament you idiot
@@Dreammaster695 allah is the god talking in the qu'ran then by that logic right?
@@theriveroffaith852 yeah hun, the universe ain't 6000 years old. Nice try, though.
Who cares who wrote them!
all I care about is if it's true what they wrote.
All that matters is, did a man survive death and ascend into heaven?
Is this man supernatural?
If you want to claim that he is.
Then do we have any way to confirm if anything supernatural exists?
Jesus didn't "survive death,' he suffered an actual mortal death like all of us will. The difference is that he was also divine and thus resurrected. By definition, "supernatural" means there are no scientific ways to prove it. There are plenty of things that cannot be proven scientifically but we know exists. How about hope? How can we test if "hope" exists?
@@jamesgossweiler1349
When I say supernatural, I'm talking about violating the laws of nature.
Id say that being bodily resurected as claimed in the Bible would violate the laws of nature.
We don't have any way at all to confirm if anything supernatural exists, so we have no justification for believing that anything supernatural exists.
If you want to put the existence of 'God' at the same level of the existence of 'hope' that's fine.
No
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 There are lots of things we can't confirm to be true but people still believe based on evidence, like the big bang for example, I would say life is evidence of the supernatural, life coming from non-life would violate the laws of nature seeing as no one has ever witnessed it, and even the simplest of life forms (a cell) is so complex today's smartest scientists are clueless on how to make one from scratch.
@@benjy288
Please show me the evidence that life came from non-life.
Please show me the evidence that life violates the laws of nature.
As I said, we have no justification for believing that anything supernatural exists.
DO they know the geography 😂😂😂 yeah because that will change in 50 years.
It would at least suggest that they were once present in the region and not in some distant far-off land, or that if they were, the traditions which came to them was at least somewhat accurate.
(Although technically yes, some of the geography has changed in the next 40 years)
No it wouldn’t. The “least” would be that they heard a story and repeated it. All descriptions in place. To say “at least” and then not describe the least possible explanation is either disingenuous or mistaken.
Imagine if there’s a disaster and humanity is reset, then imagine someone comes across a Spider-Man comic and sees pictures of spider man swinging across a very accurate depiction of New York. Does this give any weight to the truthfulness if the comic?
@@Theactivepsychos Yes it would. If all descriptions are in place then it would've come down at least *somewhat* accuractly - the geography would be one. Why on earth would I want to describe the least possible explnation?
Who are you arguing with? It would give *some* weight to the accuracy of at least *some* details. As I said, that would just come to show that either (A) that person is personally familiar with New York, or (B) that some of the info that person received was accurate. I am right.
But would say nothing as to whether the story was true. It’s definitely a fact that a person wrote it down. It’s definitely a fact that at some point someone who relayed the story was in the area. It’s says nothing for the truthfulness of the book. Just because a story is set in a factual climate does not mean it’s in any way true. Fiction can be set in reality. Even in events that occurred. It doesn’t make the story true.
@@Theactivepsychos It makes part of the story true and gives some credence for the rest.
Lmao Mark makes TONS of geographical errors!
Tons. Name five.
There is more faith in honest doubt than half the creeds ! TENNYSON
*Atheist Joseph Stalin* thought so as well. Just before he butchered millions of Christians for the sake of *ATHEISM*
@@electricspark5271 and of course Christian's never murdered anybody?!
@@deanodog3667 It is not a comparaison, which in terms of figures, atheism wins it all in one century, but a need to condemn it all,though. Of course, people has used christianity to many things wrongly, as well as badly. However, agreeing with that, what atheism try to do is change history, something terribly dangerous.
@@davidlara993 what are you ranting about ??
Lmao “ATHEISM” Joseph Stalin was an atheist. Snd Hitler was a Christian. Nice 👍
Barts arguments are so weak it's actually funny.
God wrote the bible
Are you a child ffs ?!
Lots of naughty bits in the Bible especially the OT.
Men wrote it but it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Men make mistakes when they write but the meaning is untouched because of God. The Holy Bible is the word of God.
@@vanessadesire7 if the gospel writers were inspired by the holy spirit then there should be no scientific errors in the bible
@@vanessadesire7 the word bible is not even in the bible gtfoh lol
I have to stay off of youtube. I'm really worried about my faith.
I love these scholarly debates. What I don't like is that Evangelicals will come down with unwarranted certainty on points of historical and scholarly controversy; and what is more if you don't believe it then you will burn in hell forever!
ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION FOR ALL THE POLLUTION.
Islam is pollution.
The Quran firm's the Gospels
I read a copy of Hamlet, printed in 1972. Does that mean that Hamlet was written in 1972?? Believing that is was .. Is using the same basic (weak) argument that people use when trying to discredit the Gospel. By claiming that it was centuries after Jesus life, death and resurrection. Because all of the copies that they've been able to acquire and date .. Were all written after Jesus resurrection. Thinking of Hamlet. Did you know that all of the Shakespeare writings, were created just after the KJV was published? I believe that they were created to muddy the water and confuse people. Just like the aforementioned argument, is used to confused people today.
nobody's faith and salvation hangs upon Hamlet, if it did then it would be crucial to know that the copy you read of 1972 was in fact faithfully taken from materials containing the truth about our salvation or taken from the source of salvation itself and not just hearsay/ unverifiable second hand sources
Peter is obviously a fool.
There was no "Nazareth" Jesus was potentially a Nazarite. Gospels got that wrong.
There was no Roman Census. Gospels got that wrong.
They wrote the whole nativity as a type of Moses and the Genealogies between Matthew and Luke are not only incorrect but also different because they were writing it to fit what they wanted.
I guess Matthew and Luke were dumb to not match their genealogies, I mean, they could have and that is what they have done for the other parts, it was their foolishness to not make their genealogies coincide.
@@niccolopaganini1782 Maybe when they were written they were written by different authors trying to make different points. One cared more about a relationship to David and one cared more about a connection to Adam. Without knowing who they really were or why, it's speculation.
Who wrote this BS? Who cares?
Exactly! But those in the Christian cult have to continually make crap up……
Bart in the trenches whomping biblical literalists.
Plus mark and Luke weren't apostles it's strange that they were included and yet gospels of Thomas,Judas and Mary magdalene were omitted, what a nonsense?!
deano dog those were Gnostic text written significantly later and were never seen as legitimate by the church in any context.
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT bullshit !
Mark & Luke were technically apostles. Although often referring exclusively to the 12 disciples (in which case you'd be correct), the term was also used for other followers of Jesus and other early messengers of the Word associated with them (see for example Barnabas in Acts 14:14).
deano dog that’s not an argument.
@@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT the gospel of Thomas is from same era some scholars date John at 120 ce !
And they totally glossed over the fact that there's not a single contemporary extra biblical source for existence of jesus !
A "contemporary extra biblical source" would be like...a newspaper? There were no newspapers in 1st century Judea. In fact, illiteracy was about 90-percenr then in Judea. That being said, more historians of the time wrote about Jesus than Tiberius who was the Roman Emperor when Jesus walked. Eleven (some say thirteen) ancient historians wrote about Jesus within a century after his death including Irenaus (130-200), Justin Martyr (103-165), Barnabas (70-130), Polycarp (65-155), Tacitus (56-117) Clement (30-100), Josephus (37-100), Ignatius (30-110), Pliny the Younger, (61-?), Suetonius (690130), and Lucian (115-200). Were you aware that there are no written "contemporary sources" about Alexander the Great and he conquered nearly all of Asia? Were you aware there are almost no written first hand contemporary accounts of anyone earlier than AD 500? In your view, did Alexander the Great exist? How about Socrates? How about Cleopatra? Why not? It's because people recorded history...but in order to record history it has to be history first!
deano dog There are many figures in Ancient History who don’t have contemporary sources as well. Only when it comes to religion do people start cherry-picking.
@@jamesgossweiler1349 None of those people you mentioned, Alexander, Cleopatra, etc. were gods. They were not the most important event in all of history ordained by the most powerful being who made it clear that he wanted everyone to hear this important message regarding his human sacrifice. I wish apologists would quit comparing their deity to other mortal humans.
The fact that you think that 11 historians started writing about jesus within a century is acceptable is disturbing. This is weak evidence
There were writers/historians at the time of jesus, but no mention of his magic tricks, raising the dead, controlling the weather, healing people, or *zombies* These are some of writiers:
Josephus Juvenal Lucanus
Philo-Judæus Martial Epictetus
Seneca Persius Hermogones Silius Italicus
Pliny Elder Plutarch Statius
Arrian Pliny Younger Ptolemy
Petronius Tacitus Appian
Dion Pruseus Justus of Tiberius Phlegon
Paterculus Apollonius Phædrus
Suetonius Quintilian Valerius Maximus
Pausanias Dio Chrysostom Lysias
Florus Lucius Columella Pomponius Mela
Lucian Valerius Flaccus Appion of Alexandria
Quintius Curtius Damis Theon of Smyrna
Aulus Gellius Favorinus
James Gossweiler the conquest of Alexander is supported by an abundance of archeological evidence. There is none for Jesus. Also all the ancient historians you listed are not first hand eye witnesses, most of them describe the events of the christian movement that began in the early first century.
Nearly none of the ancient historians listed described Jesus "as a God." In fact, many of the ancient records by professional historians aren't Jesus friendly. The best one is Tacitus who called Jesus "Christus" and marveled at the fact that he had people following him around chanting and believing he was the Messiah.
Bart is looking at the believer like what is your evidence you are just dancing around
So..only base on assumption
How come if Jesus knew he was the son of God that had importance for the future.. He didnt leave his own written teachings. There is really no evidence and whilst I want to believe it o do doubt especially as bible is so contradictory
I was wondering about that too. In fact, you can take it further in saying that God Almighty never took any effort to atleast PRESERVE the original manuscripts in their pristine condition. All the originals have degraded into dust. Nothing survived.
It's like you have a very important message to tell your descendants 2,000 years into the future, and you just let someone else write down the important message on a tissue paper. It makes no sense!
Well first, the Bible is not contradictory, take it as for different people telling the story and for different ways, and I feel like that they are not exactly the same just exactly proves that it was written by four different people second, the fact that Jesus didn’t leave any writings does not mean that he did not teach these things, Jesus was not coming here to write Jesus came here to save us and people wrote about Jesus, so the fact that Jesus didn’t write anything doesn’t really prove anything
@@12steps2JESUS
If Jesus did not write anything, then people writing ABOUT Jesus can commit mistakes and even forgeries. You should know that some Epistles attributed to the Apostle Paul, were not really written by Paul.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas hanged himself. But in Luke-Acts, Judas died by accident. So which one is it? You are telling me, the fact that stories of Judas' death being contradictory makes the story accurate and worthy of belief ??????? Seriously?
You should also distinguish between the "Bible" and the "New Testament". The Gospels you are quoting are not the Bible per se. And the Gospels are just a portion of the New Testament.
And contrary to your claims, there are several contradictions in the Bible. On TH-cam, search for "ahmed deedat contradictions in the bible".
Lastly, you claim that Jesus came here to save "us". Maybe you meant the people during Jesus' time. Not the people today in the 21st century.
By your own admission, Jesus did not leave any writings for you. You are merely relying on writings made by ANONYMOUS people who wrote stuffs 40 to 100 years after Jesus died and by your own admission you are not even sure how accurate those writings are. Jesus did not proof-read or edited those writings, had he?
In the Council of Nicaea some 300 years after Jesus died, the church fathers could not even agree whether Jesus was really a Divine God or not. It took them 3 months to debate among themselves because the scriptures were very vague. The church fathers who lost in the debate, their writings were burned as heretical.
@@TheEchoeman so first of all let’s get it clear I know that the Gospels are a part of a new testament, and I know they’re not the whole Bible, first of all the contradiction of the death of a Judas, it’s not contradictory bro, that’s not what I meant when I said that they were told in different settings, if I tell you a story about my mom, and my sister tells you a story about my mom, and they were told in different ways but the point is still the same does that make any of us heretical, or false considering that my mom didn’t write anything? First of all and the death of Luke of Judas he said he was split open and his guts port up, and in the others it says that he was hand, this is not contradictory Ford said that he was taken to this land of blood and he dropped, no one falls and dies, the body when it blows it is left several days and attended of course it starts weighing more and if he was hung by a branch, it’s obvious he would’ve fallen, you know that the body when it floats it explodes right? Also I’m getting the sense that you were Muslim, that’s trying to find contradictions in the Bible, let me tell you that your own koran firms up the Bible, if not then your koranw is affirming and corrupted version of the Bible, therefore it cannot be true, therefore the Bible is corrupt and then your koran is corrupt,
It’s not the word of God, when you look at the contradictions, alleged contradictions you’ll find there are none, for example like the alleged contradiction of who was Joseph’s father, a lot of people like to say oh Joseph‘s father was Jacob but it contradicts itself in the genealogy of Luke, first of all you Gotta know that the geology Luke is talking about Mary’s genealogy, in which the traditional Jewish way to describe the analogies was were putting the male first, only the male people in the family were mentioned, therefore Heli
Is Mary’s father, but considering she was a woman she was not mentioned and when women and men married they become one in Jewish tradition so they would already consider Joseph’s being he like son, that’s why, when you look at these alleged contradictions you have to take in the context, and these alleged contradictions you speak of the different people telling stories about Jesus, they all agree that Jesus is the son of God and Jesus came and died for us, you say that Jesus didn’t come and die first 20 for century people, but he came to die for all, for he brings judgmentTo all, Jesus brings judgment to all, but he also bring salvation, a lot of people like to say when he said they lost sheep of Israel he was only referring to Israel, and while that is in some part true the woman had faith in Jesus healed her, Jesus never doubted or hesitated and healing a gentile that had faith, that’s why with faith we are just justified in Jesus Christ
@@12steps2JESUS
Just because i mentioned "Ahmed Deedat" you immediately concluded i'm a Muslim? The way you judge things tells a lot. The reason i used Ahmed Deedat is because he clearly pointed out the contradictions in the Bible. Are you going to dispute what Ahmed Deedat says? He quoted the Bible verbatim.
I am not a Muslim. I am Roman Catholic with an Agnostic viewpoint. I don't care about the Quran. You hit a lot of strawman there writing a long paragraph about the Quran that i don't care about. The Quran is not even the topic of this TH-cam video on Bart Ehrman. Why bring up the Quran?
You seem to be extrapolating the death of Judas in an attempt to make the two differing accounts reconcile. That's what evangelists often do trying to fix the narratives to make them work.
If you tell a story about your mother, and your sister tells a different story about your mother - it can only ascertain one thing - that you share the same mother and therefore you are sisters. But as far as your STORIES go about your mother, they are UNRELIABLE. I will have to ask your mother to VERIFY both of your stories, since they differ.
Unfortunately for the Gospels, there's no way to ask Jesus Christ for clarification on what was written about him. You are now reduced to just picking out the things that are common to these writings.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY - the Gospels are supposed to be INSPIRED BY GOD. So how come even the manner of Jesus' death on the cross is different in the Gospel accounts?
When you say that a scripture is INSPIRED BY GOD, you expect it to be accurate and precise so that people reading it will not question it or be confused by it. But look at you, you are reduced to just plucking out what is common, and then making generous interpretations to fix the issues.
Bring on ravi for Bart to destroy.
Well...what would you say today.
Ask Satan to let Ravi out for a few hours.😂
You see your leader crucified by Rome as a disciple. So you go into hiding. So peter would go to Rome (the same people who killed his teacher to preach) after he cowared to outsiders ?? And if he went because after the resurrection he was bold and filled with gods words and not afraid to die. This makes your god a monster because he requires suffering and blood and torture from his early followers. That’s not a being worth worshipping
? Okay. I mean, it is not our universe. We just live in it. I don't like the concept of black holes but they definitely exist.
Disciples weren’t educated. Only aristocratics were educated and very few could write. Not plausible
I would say very few people 2000 years ago were educated and primative to say the least
Which is why the Bible is complete myth and made up……… otherwise the Bible shows the Malevolent war god of Abraham who committed Genocide, allows Murder, Rape, Incest, etc., all in his name……. I don’t see any love…….
Bart slaughtered
Seems alot like s cult
All religions ARE cults! We have the Christian cult in America trying to destroy our country!
Prophet Muhammad came with the New Law:
1- Deuter 18:15 AMP "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses]"
2- Isaiah 42:10 NET "Sing a Brand New Song"
3- Acts 7:35-37 ESV "This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge? ... God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses]"
4- Acts 3:21 CEV “But Jesus must stay in heaven until God makes all things new"
5- John 1:21 ESV "“Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."”
6- John 7:40 ESV "“When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This really is the Prophet."”
Q: Who is the prophet like Moses [Giving a Brand New Law]?
A: Prophet Muhammad not Jesus The Messiah peace be upon them because Jesus came to fulfill not to abolish not even to change a letter [Matthew 5:17].
It's very frustrating to hear this shallow "scholar."