Some have commented that their Greek NT says "Maria" everywhere. In response, there are 3 critical Greek editions of the NT: the Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Society, and the Tyndale House Greek NT. Only the third version would be likely to show the variations in the name because of its commitment to following the manuscript evidence over other considerations like spelling consistency. And that version does show the variations. The reasons behind assuming that these variations of Mary’s name are original, as reflected in the Tyndale House Greek NT, is found in the link in the video description.
@@seanhogan6893 The majority of the earliest manuscripts have the Greek form, but it’s almost evenly split. The minority that have the Semitic form are more readily explained as intentional or unintentional changes from the original Greek form to the Semitic form. This is because Mary’s Semitic form occurs throughout the other usages in the infancy narrative, so it would be more natural for a scribe to accidentally or purposefully revert to the common usage rather than the alternative. There are other factors also brought into consideration. The link in the description has a chart of the early manuscript variants and goes into more detail.
All corrupt manuscripts and Tyndale house is based off the same Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which became the Novum Graece Testamentum, which became every new bible except the KJV. Not even the NKJV holds to the KJV as it pretends. So these differences in Maria are just different opinions of different people. What does the TR say? That's the real test. Not the KJV but the TR.
'Jesus' is not calling Peter or Cephas or Simon the rock which he will build his church on. The rock he will build his church on is what Simon answered him. "But who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is the rock of the church or it's supposed to be, not some man. Not even a disciple who denied 'Jesus' later and whom 'Jesus' called 'Satan, get behind me.'
@@chuckdeuces911 Then why was his name changed to Peter? "Peter is a masculine name originating in the Greek language meaning "rock" or "stone." This name is derived from the Greek version, Petros, which translates to "stone." This biblical name was most notably given to one of Jesus's apostles, Simon." Cephas: "Origin:Aramaic. Meaning:Rock. Cephas is a masculine name of Aramaic origin, meaning "rock." It is derived from the Aramaic word kephas, which means "rock" or "stone. "This biblical name was most notably given to one of Jesus's apostles, Simon" Jesus literally said "You are "rock" and on this rock I will build my church." And the denying him three times was corrected by him saying he loves him 3 times, and then being told to tend and *feed* his sheep. Feed them what? The bread of life? The fact that he made mistakes that were corrected by Jesus is a perfect example of how the men he left the church authority to aren't perfect, but have the Holy Spirit to correct them. Come home, brother ;)
Man I got chills all over when Luuk mentioned the only time Lukes Gospel mentions “Mary” as “Maria” her Greek name was when it talks about her storing up her memories wow! 😮 as if she’s being interviewed by Luke. That’s incredible.
It was written Maryām in Greek but her name was Mīryām in Hebrew and that's the only translation that counts! Mīryām in Hebrew literally means "Rebellion."
Papias says Mark wrote down what Peter told him. Papias also said John wrote his gospel. All 4 gospels are no doubt written by a eyewitness or a person in close contact with the eyewitness
Personally, I like to think that Lazarus wrote according to John. John just added a note to the end of it, giving his approval. This makes more sense. Lazarus was called the one who Jesus loves... It makes sense that he is the "disciple Jesus loved". Lots of people think this too not just me. It makes much more sense. Even that it was Lazarus at the cross. Why would Jesus send Mary to live with John? John should be scattered. Shouldn't John go out to spread the Gospel? Leaving Mary all alone. Makes more sense if Mary went to stay with Lazarus and his family. The other Gospel authors I agree with, Matthew, John Mark and Luke. I just think Lazarus wrote John.
So let me ask this question. If you believe that Bible is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and nothing was written without His guidance, inerrancy of Scripture as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, then do you not think that the Holy Spirit, who inspired all of Scripture, would also guide who was named as the authors of the Gospels?
@@chuckb5625 Hi, even though your question is not to me, I got the notice and if you don't mind I will offer my halfpence worth. I take an apparently unique view of the Bible. For example, I think God permitted things like the book of James to make it in to the Bible. Because the book of James helps expose demoniacs. Demoniacs always point to James, specifically James on works. You do raise a great question about the authorship assigned to the Gospels.. But I would like to somehow try to relate your question to doubting Thomas. Does it matter who wrote the Gospels? No. Does it matter how we got the Gospels? No. People say we got the Gospels thanks to the "church fathers" I say we got the Gospel despite the church fathers.
Lol and.... Papias said crazy, crazy stuff, such as: Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking: "Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth." This is CONTRADICTORY to the supposed eyewitness Gospels he touted, eh? Hmmmm. Maybe Paias wasnt the most reliable source 🤔
I’ve watched this twice to really internalize how powerful this information is. Thank you brother for your devotion and meaningful work in creating this video
This is an amazing series. You are condensing a tonne of academic research into a very succinct and easy to follow format. Well done Cameron and Co. 👏👏👏
It seems to me that some people never memorized a text, a poem, a song when they were young and can still reproduce these texts without errors 60 years later. These people cannot imagine that people of earlier times had a much better ability to remember and reproduce things more accurately. What strikes me now, shortly before professional retirement, is that the more the technical use of writing aids and information sources (PC programs, etc.) advances, the less people are able to remember information or texts.
@@macmac1022 You can present these questions as argument but scholarship demonstrates how texts that are considered very important tend to transmit through history with a high fidelity of accurate transmission. It may not be perfect but its close enough. So even in your question about the number of angels, and assuming there wasn't an answer to that question, you appear to miss the point that the story itself is repeated. Some of the smaller details are inaccurate but they both record the empty tomb and the reason for it. If I tell you about a car accident and recount that Snoop Dog was watching the rescue with you and your other friend that was there doesn't tell you about Snoop Dog but tells you about 20 others that were watching, would that make the story fake? Lets say that only 15 were there and one of them looked like Snoop dog, would that mean the crash never happened? Your going to throw out the story because some of the details don't align perfectly? To me that isn't rational.
@@macmac1022why do you think anyone wants to answer to your endless copy-pasted texts? I've seen this wall of text multiple times by now. You don't really want any answers. If you would, you could read a couple of books. What people want is to score points in a debate, even if it is just in their own mind 😂.
@@macmac1022 _So why are you not a muslim, or a hindu, or a buddhist? Why do you not accept the accuracy of their claims?_ The question wasn't if the claims are true but rather if they have been transmitted accurately through time. _I am so sick of answering questions and yet my questions get avoided. SO are you going to answer mine first and show me respect or this is only going to be a one way conversation where you avoid all my questions and expect me to answer yours?_ I understand how it can be frustrating when someone your interacting with ignores your question. I didn't ignore your question though. I have no interest in hashing out every apparent contradiction you believe exists in the Bible. I've never found that to be fruitful conversation. The answers are all online and simple to find, if you wish to do so. Remember that I jumped into this conversation. Your question wasn't posed to me but to someone else. I wrote what I thought was needed to be said. I granted you the contradiction so why am I expected to defend against it, now? _What is not rational is avoiding my questions._ Rationality has nothing to do with my choice to answer your question or not. And I did, since I gave you the contradiction. _If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking._ Watched the video. Can't say I learned much from it. It was full of stuff I've learned already or have at least heard of before, other then the scientific names given to Drew and Gun. _A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?_ I watched the video so it would be cheating to act smart and act like I got it right. This is similar to another test where you are asked to count all the "of" words in a sentence. Almost everyone gets it wrong. _The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex..._ I'm much less familiar with Carl Jung, other then who he was, that he developed archetypes and that Jordan Peterson appears to be a big fan. _Now I believe what is happening... about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection._ I essentially agree. A smarter person then I, once said, that the average person reacts to a contrary position by 1. Denying it, and 2. Forgetting it. _and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection_ That could be whats happening but it isn't the only reason one may avoid a question so it would be wrong to assume this until you know a bit more about a person. For instance, I rarely debate the Bible with an atheist. Its been so rare to find one that handles the text honestly that it isn't worth the time. An atheist doesn't believe in God, so if we discuss the resurrection, they have no choice but to deny it and claim its evolutionary fiction. They would do so no matter how credible the witnesses are. Therefore, I rarely talk about the Bible with atheists. I talk to them about the existence of God and sometimes, like in our case, methodology. Another reason might be laziness. There are many accusations of contradiction on the internet. Most of them are jokes but that doesn't mean that most people remember all the answers and someone at work or at 2 in the morning might not be interested in refreshing their memory, especially if they don't believe the person they are talking to - will show the intellectual honesty to cross it off their list if they give a reasonable explanation. - (That last little pat "-...-" is one of the main reasons I don't argue the Bible with atheists anymore.) _I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong,_ Its gotta be one of the hardest things for a human to do. Do you know why I think that is the case? I think its because they prioritize their beliefs over truth and they don't know that they do. _I am not exempt from this myself I do realize._ Nor am I. _if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long._ I think there is another reason for that, but I will say this. Its a lot harder to find a rational conversation between two opposing political parties then it is to find a rational conversation between a theist and atheist. _Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it._ I saw the question fine enough, but that wasn't the conversation I was trying to have and felt like it would just lead to a rabbit hole where, I answer and you say, "but but, how about Genesis and Deuteronomy," then I answer and you say, "but, but... ad infinitum. _video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him"._ I didn't watch this one. _Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well._ Probably not for the reasons you've given so far. He is consciously choosing not to answer a question he doesn't want to answer. Its a tactic, not a subconscious psychological response. _jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial_ Agreed. _I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point._ They probably don't know what steelmanning is and they don't want to look stupid. Better to avoid because they are to lazy to look it up. _Now we have integration and/or transmutation._ This paragraph was helpful to me. Thanks. It resonates with me for two reasons. First, in Christianity our closest representative is "sanctification." In other words the process of being made holy. Secondly, is an example in my own life. I tend to categorize people and that means that I unwittingly create a hierarchy of value and respect. I think I do this because it helps me to predict certain types more accurately, or it helps me to understand them, like, say, a personality test might. One of my shortcomings is loving the unlovable. Now for the Christian there is no one that is unlovable but in my mind there are. Though I'm aware of my unconscious behavior when it comes to how I love others, I haven't been able to correct it. I've been pursuing a natural(transmutation) love for the unlovable. Love that I don't have to strive after. I just do. Loving others becomes my unconscious behavior. What I think you should do better in the future, is that you shouldn't assume this conclusion until the person avoids multiple questions, or more importantly, avoids the same question again after you repeat it. I've had that happen many times and like you, I find it frustrating. I hope my reasoning for not engaging that question has been articulated already to your satisfaction. I didn't really avoid the question. I gave it to you. The reason I didn't engage it further is because of a principle built on experience. Therefore, my focus was methodology, i.e. that you appeared to be throwing out the entire story because of the conflict between minor details while the major details were intact.
_These people cannot imagine that people of earlier times had a much better ability to remember and reproduce things more accurately_ There is no evidence that suports this. If it was true, humans would have had no need to invent writing. You are making this claim via wishful thinking.
@@richardgregory3684 Tell me you cannot think for yourself without telling me you cannot think for yourself... If you do not have a tool, you have to recompense for not having that tool. As you do something without a tool, your skills in that increase to their biological limits. One could say we are not as proficient at shooting with a bow as before guns, but that is only because we do not need to be able to shoot with a bow. Similarly one could say we used to have a way better knowledge of the land, animals etc, but only because we needed to know to survive. Now we do not need those skills, hence we are no longer proficient. Same goes for memory, if you have to live just based on your memory, guess what is going to happen? Your memory will get better, a shocker isn't it. If you need to be able to remember where this bee nest is, or this or that, where this spring is, where this next town is. You will be having better memory. Imagine doing this all your life, what would be the consequence of this? I would find it odd if it wouldn't be an increase of your ability to remember vs if you didn't have to rely on your memory so much. Which you do not have to in todays age.
Thank you for your efforts in producing this series, Cameron. I am fairly conversant in the apologetical issues pertaining to the Gospels and Acts, and I’m still learning a bunch.
I cannot wait until these are all out so I can show them to my family, and parents. My dad has said a couple times about how the Bible is like a game of telephone and there is no way it's accurate. As well as his thought that it's only written by men and will have their own political and ideas pushed not what God necessarily would want, I'm slowly getting to him on the last one about how inaccurate that view is and that is just a way people try to explain it to justify their own ideologies when they don't want to agree with the Bible.
Also, tell him that the Pauline epistles are literally held to be primary sources by today’s scholarly consensus. And these contain some of the most important resurrection eyewitnesses.
@@EricTheYounger LOL - almost half the epistles are considered dubious at best or outright fakes at worst. And they only contain *claims* of being accounts of what people who *claim* to be eyewitnesses *claim* to have seen. In other words, they are hearsay. And the very earliest one is dated to around 48AD. So it was so important he wrote nothing for 15 years after the alleged "Jesus"
The bible isn;t accurate at all. It contains numerous errors of historical fact, contradicts itself frequently, and contains much that is provably untrue (one can, for example, dismiss Exodus as entirely fictional)
This is great! I'm a strong believer that Matthew was first via reading "The Four-Fold Gospel." After Matthew was written to a Greek-speaking Jewish audience, Luke had a Roman Greek-speaking noble benefactor he names Theophilus who wanted a gospel for himself and to share with his friends. He wanted someone he personally knew to investigate these things. (This video shows how lovelily Luke keeps local culture of his interviewees; he emphasized culture that wasn't his own, to keep it as they knew it, even though the readers were Gentiles. Luke's attention to detail is amazing). Then this is a little bit of my imagination, but I think this benefactor additionally wanted a living eyewitness to verify the information in Luke for his friends in a speech, so that is why one of the church fathers said he spoke to many nobles, which end result is Mark. For these lectures, Peter has the scrolls of Matthew and these new scrolls of Luke and gives his lectures to his Greek-speaking audience so they can know this new written document is trustworthy. Mark of course writes down Peter's words. Again my imagination: now the man and his friends are intrigued by a new question...how did we get from Jesus' resurrection to Peter and Paul and preaching to Gentiles? (They were intrigued by these men. They wanted to know how they met and how this all happened). So the benefactor asks Luke to keep writing. Peter and Paul ok this. This is why Acts focuses on Peter and then Paul. These Gentiles (who maybe had a history of knowing a bit about the African church also) wanted the answer of how the church got to be where it was through these two men. Luke had access to these two, so he did not go out and interview all the apostles. The narrative slows down at the end because those are the most recent events around the time when Luke is commissioned to write this follow-up.
Anyone ever think that one of the reasons why the Gospels were written later was because the eyewitness were still alive and they were there to talk about what they witnessed Then, prior to the deaths, their stories were written down because they would no longer be around to tell their stories. We live in a narcissistic society today where people want fame and fortune so they write their biographies while they are still alive to get this. Today's society has accepted this tyoe of behavior as the norm and we wrongly assume that it has ALWAYS been this way. Then we try to take what we have accepted as "normal" and "acceptable" and try to apply it to a time period where this behavior was NOT the norm and it causes society to say these books must be fake because they don't hold up to what we do today. Some people are so clueless and I swear they actively choose to be this way.
This is a critically important proof of Gospel authenticity, which I've been touting for years. "Semitisms" are more or less what I call a "Hebraisms"; i.e. Hidden in plain sight of the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels are MANY Hebraisms in the form of Hebraic-Aramaic-Jewish literary motifs, word plays, idioms, colloquialisms and of course many Jewish names, places and things. They are what we would expect to find in the canonical Gospels which come from events in the earlier part of the 1st Cent in Judea and the Galilee and what we would expect NOT to find in Greco-Roman gnostic forgeries written much later in the 2nd and 3rd century. "son of the most high" is a GREAT example. This was ridiculed for decades as a later Greco-Roman Christian Interpolation until the discovery of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved otherwise. It's actually one of four statements made in 4Q246 of the DSS that align with Luke's account given to him by Yeshua's Jewish mother Miriam in the first chapter of Luke's Gospel.
I got no education from school so a lot of this video and what your saying is over my head,how did you learn and understand all this,you obviously must understand this video content?
@@markwarne5049 Don't be discouraged. You will get there. I've been at this for 43 yrs. I attended a Bible college 30+ yrs ago and studied under Dr. Michael Brown. I have a Master's Degree in Theology. But much of what I learned really came together for me over the past 10 yrs. Don't give up...
The Gospels may be the first ever example of news journalism in history. And the high quality of news reporting / journalism in the Gospels is still holding up after 2,000 years!! This may be one of the greatest miracles.
Food for my brain who craves Bible knowledge, especially about the NT. I know that many of those things I would tell to my unbelieving friends will fall on deaf ears because due to ignorance. I should pray for them instead. Still thank you very much for your earnest work, the Lord is well pleased with you. God bless. Amen.
@@johnferguson8794 hi sister, God bless you. This is my answer: But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” - Matthew 4:4 Have a blessed day, sister. Love ya but God loves you more. Amen. (Btw, is that your cat on your pfp?)
@nodiet8660 If you really want to know about the book you're reading, you should get more info on its context. Gotta check out religion for breakfast and esoterica. Of course it's my cat! Love cats :)
The references he makes to Mary all but confirm he spoke to her directly for at least the portions of it about her. As they have details only she would have known about herself. So I'm going to say the woman who bore Christ and followed him until the very end would be a "pretty good" source of information. Luke 2:19 "But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart" Luke 1:39-56 is a lengthy speech that she would have been the only one to remember it all as Elizabeth was the only person present for it. Luke 1:34 suggests foreknowledge that her child was the Messiah which only she would have known with certainty. As she was the only one present for Gabriel's message.
@burntgod7165 right. But there's no evidence that he made it up. We must always go where the evidence leads. And there's simply no or very little evidence it was a fabrication. Virtually no evidence at all.
Man this is excellent my heart has been pulled about and was slightly rocked listening to Bart Eraman and other critical scholars pulling apart the scripture but this has helped so much thank you.
I checked Luke's gospel in NA28. • True, Mary the Mother of God is Μαριαμ in the early chapters of Luke every time but once, when the name's inflected - inlfection seems to be avoided as much as possible. • Also true, other Marys are spelled Μαρια, with the exception of Mary of sister of Martha, who also is Μαριαμ.
Hi Cameron, Happy New Year! I hope you had a pleasant break. I have to say this is your best-produced video so far, in this five-part series. The most interesting part for me was the section dealing with Semitisms in Luke. I was intrigued to hear that these Semitisms are five times (400%) more common in sections of Luke's Gospel which have no parallels in Matthew and Mark. I looked into that, and I'm happy to report that Van de Weghe is correct. I should mention, however, that even scholars who assign Luke a date of 80 to 90 A.D. (or later) are willing to allow that some of his sources (including a source unique to Luke, known as L) are quite old, and may well date to before 70 A.D. That said, I have a few criticisms. 1. In the video, Dr. Craig Keener defines the phrase, "within living memory," as "within 60 to 80 years of the events narrated." He argues that the four Gospels meet this criterion, since they were composed within the first century. It seems that Keener's position is much more in keeping with mainstream scholarship than that of Van de Weghe, who wishes to argue that Luke and Acts were composed around 60 to 62 A.D., and Mark and Matthew, even earlier. This is very much a minority view among scholars today. In a cogently argued article at bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/ titled, "When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?" (July 24, 2017), lawyer-turned-firefighter Doston Jones makes a strong case that Luke’s Gospel was written late in the first century, based on Luke's anachronistic assertion that an empire-wide census was held at the time of Jesus’ birth - a practice first instituted by Vespasian and Titus in the year 74 A.D. Let me quote from the online commentary on Luke 2, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (see bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/2 ): "Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful." These inaccuracies make it highly doubtful that Luke's infancy narrative is based on the testimony of an eyewitness. 2. Bart Ehrman's book, "Jesus before the Gospels" (HarperOne, 2017, paperback) draws on a wealth of evidence, including scholarly investigations of oral traditions, to show that stories get altered over time. New Testament scholar Theodore Weeden investigated some allegedly accurate Middle Eastern traditions "and showed decisively that they were not preserved with anything like verbatim, or even general, accuracy... Some of the different retellings of the story were so full of discrepancies and variations that it is hard to believe they were actually the same story" (2017, p. 76). For example, stories about an Egyptian missionary, John Hogg, underwent massive transformation between 1914 and the 1960s: "The stories were vastly different. The episodes were radically changed. The events were altered" (2017, p.77). Thus when Craig Keener speaks of an "oral archive," he betrays his ignorance of Ehrman's valuable work on the unreliability of human memory and the creativity of human storytelling in orally based cultures. 3. You mentioned 1 Corinthians 15 and its list of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. You really need to read Ryan Turner's article, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11" at carm.org/evidence-and-answers/an-analysis-of-the-pre-pauline-creed-in-1-corinthians-151-11/ (an article written for the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry). Turner points out that although the creed is very old, it was originally far shorter than the version found in St. Paul's letter. Most contemporary scholars think the original form ended at verse 5 and went like this: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." There was nothing in this short original creed about an appearance to the 500 or to James or all the apostles. Furthermore, Van de Weghe's contention that the pre-Pauline comes from a Semitic source is refuted by numerous lines of evidence described in Turner's article. In fact, there's positive evidence for a Hellenistic source. To quote Turner: "First, the reference to kata tas graphas (according to the scriptures) is likely from a Jewish Hellenistic church. Second, te hemera te trite (he was raised on the third day) corresponds exactly to Hosea 6:2 in the Septuagint. Third, opthenai “became something of a technical term for revelation, and hence was an obvious term for references to the resurrection appearances . . .” in passages such as Luke 24:24, Acts 9:17, 13:31, 26:16." And there's more. Turner concludes: "Due to the above arguments, it does not seem likely that the creedal material Paul cites took final shape in a Jewish milieu.56 In the present form it seems not to have definite signs of a Semitic original. Paul definitely developed the creed." 4. Van de Weghe also mentioned the calling of Peter in Luke 5:1-11, as evidence that Luke was drawing on the eyewitness testimony of Peter. Ask yourself first: why does Mark (who was, according to Papias, Peter's secretary) omit this incident, and offer us a different account of Peter's calling? Compare Mark 1:16-20 with Luke 5:1-11 and you'll see what I mean. In Mark, it is James and John who have a boat, and they are called after Jesus calls Simon and Andrew. But let that pass. Here's what the online commentary on Luke 5, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (see bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/5 ), says about Luke's story of Peter's calling: "Many commentators have noted the similarity between the wondrous catch of fish reported here (Lk 5:4-9) and the post-resurrectional appearance of Jesus in Jn 21:1-11. There are traces in Luke’s story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in Lk 5:8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus-see Lk 24:34; Acts 2:36-that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus) and recognizes himself as a sinner (an appropriate recognition for one who has denied knowing Jesus-Lk 22:54-62)." In other words, Luke's account of Peter's calling isn't historical. Instead, it's adapted from a different episode which really happened: the risen Jesus' appearance to Peter and the disciples. 5. Craig Keener mentions Arrian's and Plutarch's biographies of Alexander the Great. He regards these accounts as inferior to Luke's Gospel as they were written centuries later, whereas Luke's account was written in the same century as Jesus.What he overlooks is that Arrian and Alexander relied on earlier sources that were contemporary with Alexander. Plutarch quoted from actual letters of Alexander and Olympias (III.7.6, III.8.1, III.17.8, III.20.9, III.22.2‑5, IV.27.8, V.39.7, VIII.55.7), and the Memoirs of Aristoxenos (III.4.4). His Life of Alexander also contains numerous stories of Alexander's childhood, which he appears to have taken from a book called Alexander's education, written by a Macedonian named Marsyas, who went to school with Alexander. As for Arrian, his sources in writing the Anabasis of Alexander were the lost contemporary histories of the campaign by Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and, for his later books, Nearchus, a Greek officer in Alexander's army. Luke, by contrast, doesn't quote his sources, even in his preface (Luke 1:1-4). As Professor Robyn Faith Walsh comments in an interview with Derek Lambert of Mythvision at th-cam.com/video/d3dP04jaQ3M/w-d-xo.html [5:24], "I wonder: who are those people who are claiming that they're eyewitnesses? How do you know that that's true, with eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses, right? That's where you start to play that game of historical telephones. So when I read something like that, I am automatically dubious on multiple registers, if you see what I mean... If you encode an eyewitness, it's a rhetorical strategy to say: there are people who were there... So, it's hard to say what to make of eyewitnesses." Well, I think I've said enough for today. Over to you, Cameron. I'm looking forward to your next video. Cheers, Vincent Torley
I could be wrong, but I suspect Craig Keener might be familiar with Bart Ehrman's arguments. It might be that he just disagrees with him. That said, he's probably not catching that cutting-edge scholarship only available on Mythvision.
Right, and since we have a dozen or so references from the early church founders of the gospels being originally written in Hebrew, it makes the case very strong. Now that we are finding Hebrew gospel manuscripts from Catalonia Spain, St. Petersburg, Prague, India and the Vatican, our case is stronger than ever.
Here's something to think about. As technology on record keeping improves, our need to remember anything decreases. We have the most record keeping power in history now and yet can't remember how to drive to a location we've been to 10 times... yet I don't remember having this problem before gps.. scale this down to ancient times and memory is the best technology we had and therefore that was exercised regularly.
I notice the same thing with political events too, things that literally have video footage of, and I lived through seem vague and up to interpretation
The eyewitness account of not only the Gospel but the entire Bible is incomparable. And those who deny this are being confronted about their wickedness and running from the conviction and the judgment for their sins
I use telephone game with my students. First round I make something up. Second round, I use a rhyme. Kids do the second round perfectly every time. I show it as a way to show oral tradition is actually not bad. Especially as reading hasnt changed your brain.
@@macmac1022 There's an experiment from the 30s on this subject. (I've heard of but can't remember where, I heard it a while ago) A group of scientists went to an isolated tribe who didn't have writing and told all rhein stories through spoken word. They gave them this story to remember and said they'd return to hear the story in a year. Well WWII started so they didn't end up going back for 7 years or something. Eventually they returned and asked to hermar the story they'd taught them. They had it told back to them word perfect.
It's funny how this is the most important thing in your life supposedly and you can't even remember it or give a citation. This IS the telephone game. Just people saying stuff. @@danielkrcmar5395
@@macmac1022 "Do you think people normally spoke to each other in rhyme?" I suspect that it was at least more common than now. Perhaps not normal conversation, but at least when something is being taught.
@@macmac1022 "So when the gospel writers asked people what they saw, they started to sing what they saw?" First, I was answering a question about rhyme, not song. Second, I explicitly mentioned "when something is being taught", and yet you ask about when someone is being interviewed. "My teachers never sang songs to teach, unless it was music class." Did they ever teach you a mnemonic to help you memorise something? Such as the rhyme "Thirty days has September, April, June, and November. All the rest have 31, except February, which has 28 days clear, and 29 every leap year" (or some version of that)? "And how about the different number of angels for the accounts? One does not mention any angels, one says one angel and the others say 2 angels." Not mentioning something is not the same as contradicting something. If you're claiming a contradiction, you're wrong. "If you saw an angel, would you not have that in the story of the event?" But if instead you're claiming that someone "would have" done something because you think they would have, you're on flimsy ground.
@@macmac1022People didn't speak to each other in rhyme all the time, but major speeches were often given in poetry instead of prose on the ancient day. It was a standard part of Rhetorical education. Without the ability to follow a variety of meters and rhyming schemes, one wasn't considered educated. So yes, rhyme was everywhere. It was an important part of ancient life.
Hey! I’m an audio engineer/producer, and have worked for Apple Music Radio, Sprint, and other companies - a couple technical notes: using the larger SM7b windscreen can tame the highs quite a bit, so I recommend eq’ing a lift from about 6k to 8k all the way up past the air bands. You’d benefit from high-passing from about 100hz to 125hz. I’d start there to help with overall clarity, as your voice is somewhat “muffled”.
Thanks for the feedback! My mic sounds pretty clear on every monitor I listen back on, but I’ll try raising the higher frequencies a bit and see how that sounds!
Note: I noticed that I'm using a different method of proof; making inductive arguments. This video looks like it's doing what I call 'arguing from consistency.' If we're gonna accept copies of autographs as historical based on writing styles, then we should do that with the gospels as well. What I'm doing is to compare how Scripture fares with other ancient works that we regard as historical and then proceed to the likelihood of being historical given that they fare pretty well. The mechanism is to make a distinction between textual criticism and the bibliographic test, although they're both considered to be the a 'lower level criticism.' I’m adding my notes here to stay motivated as I’m writting a case for the resurrection and kinda memorize this. I’m up to close to minute 5. We’re answering the objection that the gospels were written late through oral tradition and errors may abound. Not so because of two things: the first century was the apex of ancient biography and naming patterns suggest that they were written within living memory. Thus, the gospels are contemporary historiographies. The naming patterns found in the gospels match naming patterns found in historiographies. These patterns are complex and that’s why we consider works like Plutarch as history. This writing style suggest that they had access to archives. Since we see that in the gospels, we inductively conclude that their authors also had access to archives. But there were no proceedings for stories about the life of Jesus. Then the archives had to be oral. Now its about explanatory power: what is the likelihood for a text to exhibit complex patterns akin to historiographies given that they were actual recordings of the facts? This last question is known as maximal data approach. This is because the skeptic is pushed re-think two hypotheses: literary dependency or harmonization. By leterary dependency we mean plagiarism. By harmonization, we mean harmonizing established tradition, another way of saying ‘literary evolution.’ The other options are c) pure speculation and d) mere coincidence. Pure speculation avoids the issue (the fallacy) and since coincidence implies independence, we can multiply their probabilities. This number will drop pretty fast the more the skeptic has to appeal to it. Semitisms and historical practices on proof The argument is as follows 1. No text in Greek that was written much later after the events had a significant amount (preferable none) of Semitisms 2. The gospels are written text with a significant amount of Semitisms. 3. Therefore, the gospels were written early on after the events that they report. Not only were they written early on, but they were also written within living memory. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 mentions two names. These people were considered to be witnesses and thus the text is in accord with the historical practices on method of proof. Thus, they were named for the purpose to ask them about it if need be. Then the text was written at the time the apostles were alive.
Even before I go deep into this video, the fact that the book of Acts doesn’t chronicle the deaths of Peter, Paul, or James the brother of Jesus presents a glaring problem for the “written much later” crowd. I’m guessing we have far too many manuscripts of Acts for them to say that those chapters were lost to the Sands of Time.
Anytime a person speaks another language (or a statement is translated into another language), traces of the original language are there. Like weird word order, wrong declinations, fixed phrases, etc. It happens all the time, and that's why we often recognize what the original language of a person is, even when they speak to us in English (or German in my case). In East Africa people recognize each other's indigenous identity just by their accent this way.
True, but it doesn't prove they are eyewitnesses. Maybe they had contact with the numerous judeans that fled the destruction of the temple. Marlene Dietrich had a strong german accent, and yet she was entertaining the woke Antifa guys who stormed Omaha beach. Liebe Grüße.
Foolishness for Greeks and stumbling block for Jews. There were many brilliant men then, as now. "You've hidden them from the wise, yet revealed them to the childlike." It can, while not perfectly translated as hidden from the wise of worldly affairs, yet revealed to the innocent. . .those who know, yet transcend to higher, purer wisdom. We must, in humility, ask for this wisdom. . .like Solomon untainted.
I think Ehrman is proof education can’t create intelligence, nor can commentary ever replace discernment. I suspect he became interested in religion for a time, instead of ever experiencing a genuine salvation experience with the risen Christ.
@@pricklypear7497Ehrman is a classic example of a man becoming a scholar on one thing and then thinking he is the smartest man in the world. He is an educated textural critic, but is an idiot beyond that. For instance, he likes to compare the story of Christ with that of some Roman dude who loved 150 years later and whose first text is from 250 at the earliest, and use this to show Jesus was a copied idea. Moronic.
Here's another historical tell: Mark describes the Jews in the 3rd person and has to expand on their strange traditions for his readers because this just may not early Judean Christian literature, but Mediterranean literature for a Greek audience. Mk 7:3,4. Mk 12:18
Luke wrote that John Mark, the Mark that Christian history identifies as the author of Mark, traveled with Paul and Barnabas, but in one of their travels he left and went back home. That really upset Paul. (Acts 12:12) 12And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. Mary had a house church. Acts12:25 25And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. (Mark knew Peter in acts because Peter would go to his house church. He knew Paul and Barnabas and would travel with them.) Acts13:5 5And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister. They had John Mark as their helper. Look at what Mark does in 13, he leaves them. He abandons them and returns home. Acts13:13 13Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. Acts15:36-41 36And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. (Barnabas broke fellowship with Paul over Mark and Paul took Silas. Why did Barnabas choose Mark? Different books written at different times give you your answers…because they are miraculously designed.) Col4:10 10Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) (Mark was Barnabas cousin. He was fighting for his cousin and chose him over Paul. Barnabas took his cousin’s side even though Paul was right. Now Paul is writing while he is in prison. Later he is reconciled to Mark, their friendship is restored and Paul takes Mark with him. Mark is with Paul while he is in prison… Col 4:14 14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. (Luke and Mark know each other, they were both disciples of Paul. They traveled with Paul. Of course, here we are told that Luke is a Physician, but look who else is with them…Demas! Another letter that Paul wrote while he was in prison to Philemon a believer.) Phm1:23-24 23There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; 24Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers (When Paul is writing Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians. He’s writing them while in prison. The last that Paul writes before he is martyred. He’s writing to Timothy to see him before he dies.) See the last thing that Paul writes and what he says about Demas! Lord please forgive me as I’m writing this…wow what a bad testimony. Demas started the race but didn’t finish for his love of this world. He abandoned Paul. Even Paul didn’t know who the true believers are. A person who he thought was solid and left him for the world. Only the Lord knows and may he fill use with the same spirit that he fill Mark,Paul and Peter and that we finish well and not abandon him for the world.) 2Tim4:10-11 10For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. (The last letter Paul writes, he praises Mark and shows that Luke is faithful and remains with him. These different books written at different times one another showing that these disciples know each other.) 1Pet5:12-13 12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. Silvanus is Silas who knows Peter and that is writing for him…and Mark is right along with them. Read Rev 17,18&19 Babylon is a code name for Rome. So if this is a code name for Rome like it is in revelation, here you have both Peter and Mark in Rome. Evidence for Peter and Mark in Rome like the early church states. Look at who Paul is greeting in Rome. Romans16:13 13Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Remember Mark wrote while in Rome. He’s writing to an audience who knows the people that he’s addressing. Mark15:21 21And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. Paul say greet Rufus, a choice man who is at Rome and his mother who has become his mother. He mentions Alexander & Rufus whose Father carried the cross. Simon an eyewitness to Jesus. So is Mark is writing to the son of the man who saw Jesus killed and carried his cross. Which would explain why they converted, because the father would have realized that Jesus left the tomb empty. And it explains why Rufus would have became on fire for the Lord. Luke mentions that when he wrote Luke, there were others that had written accounts, that he personally varied and personally went other. So that when he had written his gospel, assuring Theophilus that what he wrote was based on accurate history. Luke1:1-4 1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke10:7 7And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 1Tim5:18 18For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward Paul quotes, but looking at the second citation this isn’t in the Old Testament. Paul quotes Luke word for word in the Greek, calls it scripture and puts on the level of Moses is writing. Moses’ writings. Paul also expects that Timothy will know Luke’s gospel and believes it’s scripture. And the reason why Paul is quoting Luke’s gospel instead of Matthew’s. (2Tim4:11) Duet25:4 4Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Col4:14 14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you Acts21:8-20 8And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. 9And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 12And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. 14And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. 15And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 16There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. Paul's Arrival at Jerusalem 17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Luke is writing as an eyewitness. Look at how many eyewitness that Luke met. Philip is one of the original seven deacons. (Act6)
I am active in apologetics to Muslims online, and that entire space has basically acquiesced to not defending the authorship of the gospels. I recently discovered Testify! and my goodness I had no idea how much evidence there is. That whole apologetic community is still sleeping on this.
Cameron, can you explain to me how it's more likely based on "Bar" being included in the name, that these names were heard from eyewitnesses vs a later Greek community? If anything, I would expect the meaning of "son" to have been translated and NOT transliterated if they were heard from eyewitnesses; at the very least it seems equally likely one way or another. The reason I think they would have translated the meaning of "son" is because it would have been a frequent occurrence, and if you were actually talked to an eyewitness, there's no way you'd confuse the word "son" for actually being part of the name. On the whole, though, this does seem to support the idea that these were actually names of actual people rather than names made up later by Greek communities.
I grew up Mormon, and these arguments sound just like the stuff I heard to keep my hope in The Book of Mormon alive. Just because something sounds plausible doesn't mean you have to believe it.
@@SuperMichelleDJ yeah I don't have specific criticism at the moment. Just pointing out that we still have a responsibility to be skeptical of plausible ideas and remarking that I personally don't buy it.
@@trevordixon I can see that you would be jaded about holy books based on your Mormon experience. The gospels are different, but of course that's just a non provable statement. I work my way from miracles that indicate that Christianity is true back to the texts. That could be the way forward for you too, if you're interested. The Shroud of Turin is one such. There are many modern healing miracles.
Israel was a land bridge between north and south, east and west. Merchants from the east visited Israel to sell their goods as far away as Rome. Romans and Greeks came to Caesaria to purchases goods from the east. The language of commerce was Greek. The language of law was Roman. The language of religion was Hebrew. The language of the common man was Aramaic. Even if you were bi- or trilingual, you interpreted what you heard in the context of your individual culture, whether it was Roman soldier, Greek merchant, temple priest, or simple shepherd. Written history rose to prominence because oral history could not be relied upon confidently with different people interpreting things differently. Most of the apostles were not literate, but as their flocks increased, they could have literate followers to commit to writing what they were told. All of this could explain in part why there are so many differences in the Bible and the gospels where one account differs from another account of the same event.
The Creator KNOWS that Satan the Devil LIED to and deceived the first humans to mock, oppose, disobey, and defy his Sovereignty, will, and commandments that resulted in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever. The Creator KNOWS that he authorized and sent Jesus Christ from heaven to earth thousands of years ago to preach and teach the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" to imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings as written and recorded by Luke and apostle John in the BIBLE, in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26 ATHEISTS and EVOLUTIONISTS VS. the CREATOR The Creator KNOWS that like the first human beings, Satan the Devil also tricked and deceived all Atheists and Evolutionists to fill the world with the LIE and false claim that he doesn't exist and even if existing is still cruel, merciless, and undeserving to be honored and respected as the True and Sovereign GOD that will only result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, exactly like what happened to Adam and Eve. ALL RELIGIONS VS. JESUS CHRIST The Creator KNOWS that like Atheists and Evolutionists, Satan the Devil also tricked and deceived all Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions to reject Jesus Christ's Biblical authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" and fill the world instead with the LIES and Unbiblical teachings and doctrines of their Pastors and Leaders about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "rapture", and "reincarnation" that will only result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, exactly like what happened to Adam and Eve. ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on EARTH FOR FOLLOWERS of JESUS CHRIST The Creator KNOWS that all persons who willingly submit to the authority of Jesus Christ and put their faith and hope in his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" in their obedience to what were written in Matthew 28:18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26 are his Worshippers and Followers of Jesus Christ on earth who are definitely bringing themselves honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without LIARS, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. The Creator KNOWS that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6 but he knows too that he will not let his loving, kind, and respectful worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's followers, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the right and proper time and as written in John 11: 25, 26, he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or HIs Kingdom and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
Been a Christian for 40 yrs, but it's so disappointing to watch apologists highlight all the "hits" and dismiss or ignore all the misses. Possible "historical tells" are fine to explore but you can't be selective and not give equal focus and weight to the scholarship that crushingly presses against the weak narrative of eyewitness history and oral tradition of Christian communities being enscripturated. There are huge literary tells all over the NT of this being greek literature with very commonly used themes and devices like divine translation of a corpse, even having attending witnesses. As Dale Alison has said, our sources for facts around the resurrection are ultimately thread bare and "when there are too many unknowns, one cannot solve an equation....this is why the apologists have failed to dispatch every skeptical scenario."
Birth the Man Child 🎉 The Christ in You the Hope of Glory comes to the outside full grown 🎉 Like David's Tabernacle 🎉 YOU are the tent 🎪 The WORD is written on your hearts 🥰 The Spirit of God is in YOU 🎉 sABBAth with Daddy 24-7 A LIVING ARK OF THE COVENANT 🔥 A TEMPLE MADE WITHOUT HANDS ❤️ A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD ❤ CHERUBIM R US 🔥🔨 Must be Born Again 😮
I almost fell out of my chair with laughter when Cam announced another WLC-Clip… Here is my personal bucket list for the remaining two episodes: - a wild William Lane Craig appearing at least one more time - a wild Lydia McGrew appearing at least one time - a „skeptical position“ from Richard Carrier or Robert Price, cited in a 5s clip and easily refuted immediately - more serious but soothing background tracks What did I miss?
@@a.c.m.4548 yes, sure, I wrote another, more serious comment, see down below. This one is mostly trolling and a little bit complaining about random guest appearances
First of all, God our Father is our God of the impossible !!! He is the word and the word is him !!! Secondly, he has and will protect his word from the evil one !!! Third, Jesus Christ said that during days that we are in now, God will reveal to his children what was hidden !!! God is in control and take him out of the box many have placed him in!!! Those who have ears let them hear 🙏
However, some possible factors that could affect the reliability of record keeping in the first century are: The availability and quality of writing materials, such as papyrus, parchment, clay tablets, stone, metal, and wax. Some of these materials were more durable, expensive, and accessible than others, and they may have influenced the choice and purpose of what was written down12 The literacy and education of the writers and readers of the records. The level of literacy in the ancient world was relatively low, and most people relied on oral communication and memory. Only a small elite of scribes, priests, officials, and scholars had the skills and resources to produce and access written records13 The motives and perspectives of the writers and readers of the records. The records may have been written for different reasons, such as propaganda, entertainment, instruction, worship, or documentation. The writers may have had different agendas, biases, and sources of information, and the readers may have had different expectations, interpretations, and criticisms of the records13 The transmission and preservation of the records. The records may have been copied, edited, translated, lost, damaged, or destroyed over time, either intentionally or unintentionally. The copies may have introduced errors, variations, or alterations to the original records. The preservation of the records may have depended on the environmental conditions, the care of the custodians, and the interest of the users13 Therefore, the evidence for or against the reliability of record keeping in the first century is not conclusive, and it may vary depending on the type, context, and analysis of the records. Some records may be more reliable than others, but none of them can be taken at face value without critical examination13
I think the God that spoke everything into existence is certainly able to preserve the document that He wanted to reveal to human kind. If He couldn’t I am not sure I would want to give my life to that god.
@@blair00725 thank you, didn’t mean it hateful, most don’t study, I have extensively and still do on a daily basis, Yahweh and Jesus seem very different to supposedly the same.
18:40 When did Jesus call Peter the rock?? Matt 16:18 is not talking about Peter being the rock, but the revelation of who Jesus is that Peter had, that is the rock. Jesus is the rock. He's the real big deal. :)
In job 38:16 God Mentions springs of the sea, if the bible is a book that was just purely man written without God's Inspiration and without having direct God's Words written in, how could have humans known of springs of the seas thousands of years ago when they were not first hand observable then
Here's a Genesis 5: Sacred Secret: Adam = Man, Seth = Appointed, Enosh = Mortal, Cainan = Sorrow, Mahalalel = The Blessed GOD, Jared = Shall Come Down, Enoch = Teaching, Methusela = His Death Shall Bring, Lamech =The Despairing, Noah = Peaceful Rest. "Man (is) Appointed Mortal Sorrow; The Blessed GOD Shall Come Down Teaching (that) His Death Shall Bring The Despairing Peaceful Rest."
Mark has the Sea of Galilee as a sea because it was a later Christian theological development of the messiah coming out of the sea in Isaiah. Again, another TELL that Mark wrote from a later period.
Apostolic succession John’s disciples: Polycarp (polika:rp/; Greek: ПоЛкарто, Polykarpos; Latin: Polycarpus; AD 69 - 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna.2 According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake, then stabbed when the fire failed to consume his body.131 Polycarp is regarded as a saint and Church Father in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polycarp’s disciple: ( Polycarp was taught by the apostle, he knew John.) Irenaeus (Irineros/; Greek: Eipnvatos Eirenaios; c. 130 - c. 202 AD) 4) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, 5- who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, 6 and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles. Irenaeus testified that the disciples of Jesus wrote their gospels. (He says that Matthew wrote Matthew,Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and Acts, John wrote John and Revelation. Another witness is, Papias, quoted by Eusebius. Papias: Papias (Greek: anias) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 - c. 130 AD!2113] He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Aoyiwv Kuplakv 'Eshynols) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels. Eusebius: quoted Papias. (Eusebius wrote the history of the church and he finished his works in 324 A.d. He had access to Papias’ source material. Papias referred to John as John the elder. Papias wrote 5 books on the saying of the Lord. In his writings, he wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic and then people translated it in Greek. Mark wrote Mark from Peter. He was Peter’s interpreter and he wrote down what Peter preached. This is confirmed by Irenaeus as well as Jerome after Eusebius, that mark wrote down the gospel while in Roma. He was writing down what Peter preached and Peter approved of the gospel and commanded that it should be published.) Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας Eusebios tēs Kaisareias; c. 260/265 - 30 May 339), also known as Eusebius Pamphilus[7] (from the Greek: Εὐσέβιος τοῦ Παμφίλου), was a Greek[8] or Palestinian[9] historian of Christianity, exegete, and Christian polemicist. In about AD 314 he became the bishop of Caesarea Maritima in the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the biblical canon and is regarded as one of the most learned Christians during late antiquity.[10] He wrote Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the biblical text. As "Father of Church History"[note 1] (not to be confused with the title of Church Father), he produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus, the Chronicle and On the Martyrs. He also produced a biographical work on Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, who was Augustus between AD 306 and AD 337.
Why would the creators of the Bible "hide details" that prove the Bible, within the Bible. Shouldn't these details be front and center on page #1? Think about it!
Even pagans knew the world was spiritual. Nowadays, atheists are ignorant of even that! They think they are being clever by following scientific materialism. I know that doesn't directly answer your question.
What would they need to prove? That Luke met Peter, or that Luke met Maria/Mary? Why would they feel the need to 'prove' things like that if it is just giving an account of what happened?
@@worldofenigma1 If the Bible is just a story, your right!...there is no need to prove anything. You don't need to prove that Luke Skywalker met Yoda in the Star Wars series. If however, you claim that the Star Wars series is a historical record of actual characters and events that actually occurred in reality, then you will have to provide proof of your claim. Furthermore, no one is too concerned that person "A" met person "B", but when person "A" claims to have met person "B", who was excecuted and died three days ago, now we have an issue that requires verifiable evidence.
A tree is known more accurately by the fruits it brings forth in the summer than by the leaves gathered by the wind at its feet in winter. The parable of the fig tree fits in somewhere, since figs were a mediteranean fruit and the fig leaves were an allegory for "covering their nakedness" in Genesis. The serpeant was Egypt's icon for 'divine wisdom', but more specifically a serpeant swallowing its own tail- so wisdom coming full circle and consuming its own tail as a universal icon of 'the golden age'-Adam's ascent to the throne as the Holy of Holies- the Father of All Humanity. This is why Jesus said that no man would be able to reunite to The Father except through him, because he fulfilled the purpose for all laws among all peoples and to submit even unto death to restore people to true understanding of the covenant of Life. Moses represented the books of the Law for the tribes of Israel and every people they shared the fruits of their labors with. But a law enforcer who condemns innocent children to pay for their parents sins or evils is evil and not of God. A line must be drawn- one which gives those who are paying the price a new beginning, where we learn how deceptive human desires and vanities can lead people down the wrong paths, and how this culminates with the suffering of innocent people. That's why Jesus said, "Woe to those who cause these little children to stop believing in me, for their angels see my father's face in Heaven always".
The first Christians were Jews. As such it makes much more sense that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew. By Hebrews. To Hebrews to be used for Religious purposes. Once Church and State were created in the 300 Ad's the Gentile Church vehemently removed all things Jewish from Christianity even the Jewish Christian writings. And the Pharisaic & Sadduceeic Jews sought to eliminate all things Christian from their Jewish writings.
The Bible - the written Word of God - doesn't need to "accidentally" prove itself true. It is INTENDED to be true, and to prove itself so. Anyone who believes that it needs to be proven true by accident doesn't understand the Bible, nor do they get the point of its existence. I pray for those people...
1:43 Even if true how does that mean that Luke and Acts were written in the early first century? 1:51 John at least was likely not written within "living memory". And this is something that historians definitely agree on. 2:57 So because the Gospels were written in between these 2 time periods they are definitely NOT hagiographies. Ok. I suppose that anything written during say the height of novel writing has to also be a novel then? 3:36 Yeah, John's Gospel, which portrays Jesus as "the Word", that already existed before everything else, is TOTALLY a contemporary biography of the man named Jesus. Mmmhmmm. 3:57 The Golden and Silver age was when comics like those from Marvel and DC were flourishing at their peak. Does that mean that other comics were also flourishing too? That the most prominent works then were only comics? This is at best a circumstantial case even if true. In fact, the Gospels could only have been written because Jesus supposedly lived and died yes? So are we to conclude that somehow this "height of contemporary biography" also conveniently occurred during that time or that Jesus' life and death kickstarted the "height of contemporary biography"? 4:02 The most conservative acceptable time of the earliest Gospels is around 4 decades after Jesus' death, the latest time period is about a century after his death. "So soon" is dong quite a bit of heavy lifting here. 4:10 Which events exactly? Recorded events? If they were recorded events then it's not surprising that they could be written about much later on. Aren't filmmakers still making movies about Biblical stories even in this modern era? 4:47 Which maybe explains why Mark wasn't that great on the geography of ancient Israel? 4:58 Ah, an ORAL archive. Sure. Still doesn't explain why no reference is made about that oral archive eh? (5:25 "dependable archival information" he says..) 5:08 Hold on hold on....Cameron is talking about the Gospels being contemporary biography right up to this point when Luuk comes back on, but what Luuk is saying is "how did the Gospel authors get the names of the characters right", because they had an oral archive"! If you are writing a contemporary biography you wouldn't need an oral archive because people who were alive during the events you are writing about can be consulted directly (and this is what is being implied by the Gospels being contemporary biography!). And as we can see from conflicting stories about certain narratives like Luke and Matthew's Jesus birth narratives, they likely had different information sources (or else simply wrote different narratives they believed were accurate without any source). So yeah, how reliable is that oral archive? And did it contain conflicting sources about certain things? 6:10 Notice that Cameron's question was whether or not Jesus's teachings were "uniquely conserved" by this supposed oral archive. The response is not an answer to the question, nor does it give any evidence about the oral archive being reliable except through asserting it is so. 6:41 The problem with this analysis of course is that it is upheld primarily by the 4 Gospels being consistent with each other...but they are not. In fact the depiction of Jesus changes noticeably from the earliest Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of John where Jesus is basically portrayed as divine. No being consumed by terror in the Garden of Gethsemane for John's Jesus no, he's strong enough to nonchalantly chat and give orders to his disciples while on the cross, the only Jesus recorded as having done so. Also, Jesus' final words are different according to different Gospels. Is this an example of "creative liberty" or is that oral archive made up of people who had different views somehow? 6:50 Now here is the problem: Oral archives have been touted as holding reliable information about Jesus' life, but oral archives and eyewitness accounts are decidedly different things and oral archives are supposed to be persistent through oral tradition (and still remain "reliable" according to these good folk). But if oral archives are as reliable as touted, then the later Gospels could also be corroborated by them. The argument here is that the early Gospels are reliable because they could be corroborated by eyewitness accounts and the later Gospels are less so and more fantastical precisely because they could not be. But if oral archives are as reliable as eyewitness accounts according to these good folk, then they should have persisted even up until the time of these later Gospels! So if one is saying that it's less likely that the earlier Gospels are not accurate due to corroboration through "living eyewitnesses", if oral archives are equally reliable then this would also apply to the later Gospels, they too would be able to be corroborated just as easily as the earlier Gospels. So the reason being given here for why the later Gospels are more fantastical and less reliable than the earlier Gospels is thwarted by their very own inclusion of oral archives and the insistence that said archives are as reliable as eyewitness accounts in preserving the details of Jesus' life to be used for corroboration.
God -the Holy Spirit -wrote the Gospels through the authors. They are so obviously genuine and true that everyone scared and with an agenda almost immediately started their still incessant prattling. The final gospel - John’s - was written (by John) by 70 AD. So, they were all written within 35 years after Christ. For any late middle-aged Englishman reading - that’s a similar time looking back to when the Stone Roses were strutting their stuff… Curt Cobain and Nirvana’s first song - that was 32 years back… Remember that?! Reckon you’d remember if a guy had raised a 4 day dead man in front of you?!? Reckon you’d remember it all clearly if a chap walked on water right in front of your eyes? Or if anyone started monkeying around with the Truth? What about a guy rising up from death and walking about with you before floating up into the sky? Reckon you’d go to your death without backing down having seen God on Earth do all that? I think it’s the only way to explain all this. Jesus Christ was the real deal. Everything you read is true. This entire life we live and this planet is a totally amazing miracle. Praise God through Christ and no longer worry about anything as long as you live but that you may disappoint your eternal Father and live in peace and love of others. Peace
Holy crap. When he mentioned that when narrating the Christmas story Luke used semitism’s like calling Mary Miriam but at the end he uses the Greek from when he says “she cherished these things in her heart” blew me away bc it absolutely sounds personal, recalling what Mary had told him. Wow.
Listening to this video reminds me of how liturgy is said at mass.. How is semitism detected and counted as 400 - is it by a jewish person, or linguist? Is the list of semitisms available for those insterested? Many thanks. Great video.
Some have commented that their Greek NT says "Maria" everywhere. In response, there are 3 critical Greek editions of the NT: the Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Society, and the Tyndale House Greek NT. Only the third version would be likely to show the variations in the name because of its commitment to following the manuscript evidence over other considerations like spelling consistency. And that version does show the variations. The reasons behind assuming that these variations of Mary’s name are original, as reflected in the Tyndale House Greek NT, is found in the link in the video description.
Do all the manuscripts have this rendering? Could it be just as easily explained as copying errors?
@@seanhogan6893 The majority of the earliest manuscripts have the Greek form, but it’s almost evenly split. The minority that have the Semitic form are more readily explained as intentional or unintentional changes from the original Greek form to the Semitic form. This is because Mary’s Semitic form occurs throughout the other usages in the infancy narrative, so it would be more natural for a scribe to accidentally or purposefully revert to the common usage rather than the alternative. There are other factors also brought into consideration. The link in the description has a chart of the early manuscript variants and goes into more detail.
All corrupt manuscripts and Tyndale house is based off the same Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which became the Novum Graece Testamentum, which became every new bible except the KJV. Not even the NKJV holds to the KJV as it pretends. So these differences in Maria are just different opinions of different people. What does the TR say? That's the real test. Not the KJV but the TR.
'Jesus' is not calling Peter or Cephas or Simon the rock which he will build his church on. The rock he will build his church on is what Simon answered him. "But who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is the rock of the church or it's supposed to be, not some man. Not even a disciple who denied 'Jesus' later and whom 'Jesus' called 'Satan, get behind me.'
@@chuckdeuces911 Then why was his name changed to Peter?
"Peter is a masculine name originating in the Greek language meaning "rock" or "stone." This name is derived from the Greek version, Petros, which translates to "stone." This biblical name was most notably given to one of Jesus's apostles, Simon."
Cephas: "Origin:Aramaic. Meaning:Rock. Cephas is a masculine name of Aramaic origin, meaning "rock." It is derived from the Aramaic word kephas, which means "rock" or "stone. "This biblical name was most notably given to one of Jesus's apostles, Simon"
Jesus literally said "You are "rock" and on this rock I will build my church."
And the denying him three times was corrected by him saying he loves him 3 times, and then being told to tend and *feed* his sheep. Feed them what? The bread of life? The fact that he made mistakes that were corrected by Jesus is a perfect example of how the men he left the church authority to aren't perfect, but have the Holy Spirit to correct them.
Come home, brother ;)
Man I got chills all over when Luuk mentioned the only time Lukes Gospel mentions “Mary” as “Maria” her Greek name was when it talks about her storing up her memories wow! 😮 as if she’s being interviewed by Luke. That’s incredible.
It was written Maryām in Greek but her name was Mīryām in Hebrew and that's the only translation that counts! Mīryām in Hebrew literally means "Rebellion."
Papias says Mark wrote down what Peter told him. Papias also said John wrote his gospel. All 4 gospels are no doubt written by a eyewitness or a person in close contact with the eyewitness
Personally, I like to think that Lazarus wrote according to John. John just added a note to the end of it, giving his approval. This makes more sense. Lazarus was called the one who Jesus loves... It makes sense that he is the "disciple Jesus loved". Lots of people think this too not just me. It makes much more sense.
Even that it was Lazarus at the cross. Why would Jesus send Mary to live with John? John should be scattered. Shouldn't John go out to spread the Gospel? Leaving Mary all alone. Makes more sense if Mary went to stay with Lazarus and his family.
The other Gospel authors I agree with, Matthew, John Mark and Luke. I just think Lazarus wrote John.
So let me ask this question. If you believe that Bible is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and nothing was written without His guidance, inerrancy of Scripture as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, then do you not think that the Holy Spirit, who inspired all of Scripture, would also guide who was named as the authors of the Gospels?
@@br.m
Intriguing.
@@chuckb5625 Hi, even though your question is not to me, I got the notice and if you don't mind I will offer my halfpence worth.
I take an apparently unique view of the Bible. For example, I think God permitted things like the book of James to make it in to the Bible.
Because the book of James helps expose demoniacs. Demoniacs always point to James, specifically James on works.
You do raise a great question about the authorship assigned to the Gospels..
But I would like to somehow try to relate your question to doubting Thomas.
Does it matter who wrote the Gospels? No.
Does it matter how we got the Gospels? No. People say we got the Gospels thanks to the "church fathers" I say we got the Gospel despite the church fathers.
Lol and.... Papias said crazy, crazy stuff, such as:
Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking:
"Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth."
This is CONTRADICTORY to the supposed eyewitness Gospels he touted, eh? Hmmmm. Maybe Paias wasnt the most reliable source 🤔
I’ve watched this twice to really internalize how powerful this information is. Thank you brother for your devotion and meaningful work in creating this video
This is an amazing series. You are condensing a tonne of academic research into a very succinct and easy to follow format. Well done Cameron and Co. 👏👏👏
I love how this series pulls you in. As a believer, my belief is embolden every time I watch. Thank you
It seems to me that some people never memorized a text, a poem, a song when they were young and can still reproduce these texts without errors 60 years later.
These people cannot imagine that people of earlier times had a much better ability to remember and reproduce things more accurately.
What strikes me now, shortly before professional retirement, is that the more the technical use of writing aids and information sources (PC programs, etc.) advances, the less people are able to remember information or texts.
@@macmac1022 You can present these questions as argument but scholarship demonstrates how texts that are considered very important tend to transmit through history with a high fidelity of accurate transmission. It may not be perfect but its close enough.
So even in your question about the number of angels, and assuming there wasn't an answer to that question, you appear to miss the point that the story itself is repeated. Some of the smaller details are inaccurate but they both record the empty tomb and the reason for it. If I tell you about a car accident and recount that Snoop Dog was watching the rescue with you and your other friend that was there doesn't tell you about Snoop Dog but tells you about 20 others that were watching, would that make the story fake? Lets say that only 15 were there and one of them looked like Snoop dog, would that mean the crash never happened? Your going to throw out the story because some of the details don't align perfectly?
To me that isn't rational.
@@macmac1022why do you think anyone wants to answer to your endless copy-pasted texts? I've seen this wall of text multiple times by now. You don't really want any answers. If you would, you could read a couple of books. What people want is to score points in a debate, even if it is just in their own mind 😂.
@@macmac1022 _So why are you not a muslim, or a hindu, or a buddhist? Why do you not accept the accuracy of their claims?_
The question wasn't if the claims are true but rather if they have been transmitted accurately through time.
_I am so sick of answering questions and yet my questions get avoided. SO are you going to answer mine first and show me respect or this is only going to be a one way conversation where you avoid all my questions and expect me to answer yours?_
I understand how it can be frustrating when someone your interacting with ignores your question. I didn't ignore your question though. I have no interest in hashing out every apparent contradiction you believe exists in the Bible. I've never found that to be fruitful conversation. The answers are all online and simple to find, if you wish to do so.
Remember that I jumped into this conversation. Your question wasn't posed to me but to someone else. I wrote what I thought was needed to be said. I granted you the contradiction so why am I expected to defend against it, now?
_What is not rational is avoiding my questions._
Rationality has nothing to do with my choice to answer your question or not. And I did, since I gave you the contradiction.
_If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking._
Watched the video. Can't say I learned much from it. It was full of stuff I've learned already or have at least heard of before, other then the scientific names given to Drew and Gun.
_A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?_
I watched the video so it would be cheating to act smart and act like I got it right. This is similar to another test where you are asked to count all the "of" words in a sentence. Almost everyone gets it wrong.
_The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex..._
I'm much less familiar with Carl Jung, other then who he was, that he developed archetypes and that Jordan Peterson appears to be a big fan.
_Now I believe what is happening... about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection._
I essentially agree. A smarter person then I, once said, that the average person reacts to a contrary position by 1. Denying it, and 2. Forgetting it.
_and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection_
That could be whats happening but it isn't the only reason one may avoid a question so it would be wrong to assume this until you know a bit more about a person. For instance, I rarely debate the Bible with an atheist. Its been so rare to find one that handles the text honestly that it isn't worth the time. An atheist doesn't believe in God, so if we discuss the resurrection, they have no choice but to deny it and claim its evolutionary fiction. They would do so no matter how credible the witnesses are. Therefore, I rarely talk about the Bible with atheists. I talk to them about the existence of God and sometimes, like in our case, methodology.
Another reason might be laziness. There are many accusations of contradiction on the internet. Most of them are jokes but that doesn't mean that most people remember all the answers and someone at work or at 2 in the morning might not be interested in refreshing their memory, especially if they don't believe the person they are talking to - will show the intellectual honesty to cross it off their list if they give a reasonable explanation. - (That last little pat "-...-" is one of the main reasons I don't argue the Bible with atheists anymore.)
_I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong,_
Its gotta be one of the hardest things for a human to do. Do you know why I think that is the case? I think its because they prioritize their beliefs over truth and they don't know that they do. _I am not exempt from this myself I do realize._ Nor am I.
_if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long._
I think there is another reason for that, but I will say this. Its a lot harder to find a rational conversation between two opposing political parties then it is to find a rational conversation between a theist and atheist.
_Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it._
I saw the question fine enough, but that wasn't the conversation I was trying to have and felt like it would just lead to a rabbit hole where, I answer and you say, "but but, how about Genesis and Deuteronomy," then I answer and you say, "but, but... ad infinitum.
_video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him"._
I didn't watch this one.
_Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well._
Probably not for the reasons you've given so far. He is consciously choosing not to answer a question he doesn't want to answer. Its a tactic, not a subconscious psychological response.
_jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial_
Agreed.
_I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point._
They probably don't know what steelmanning is and they don't want to look stupid. Better to avoid because they are to lazy to look it up.
_Now we have integration and/or transmutation._
This paragraph was helpful to me. Thanks. It resonates with me for two reasons. First, in Christianity our closest representative is "sanctification." In other words the process of being made holy. Secondly, is an example in my own life. I tend to categorize people and that means that I unwittingly create a hierarchy of value and respect. I think I do this because it helps me to predict certain types more accurately, or it helps me to understand them, like, say, a personality test might. One of my shortcomings is loving the unlovable. Now for the Christian there is no one that is unlovable but in my mind there are. Though I'm aware of my unconscious behavior when it comes to how I love others, I haven't been able to correct it. I've been pursuing a natural(transmutation) love for the unlovable. Love that I don't have to strive after. I just do. Loving others becomes my unconscious behavior.
What I think you should do better in the future, is that you shouldn't assume this conclusion until the person avoids multiple questions, or more importantly, avoids the same question again after you repeat it. I've had that happen many times and like you, I find it frustrating.
I hope my reasoning for not engaging that question has been articulated already to your satisfaction. I didn't really avoid the question. I gave it to you. The reason I didn't engage it further is because of a principle built on experience. Therefore, my focus was methodology, i.e. that you appeared to be throwing out the entire story because of the conflict between minor details while the major details were intact.
_These people cannot imagine that people of earlier times had a much better ability to remember and reproduce things more accurately_
There is no evidence that suports this. If it was true, humans would have had no need to invent writing. You are making this claim via wishful thinking.
@@richardgregory3684
Tell me you cannot think for yourself without telling me you cannot think for yourself...
If you do not have a tool, you have to recompense for not having that tool. As you do something without a tool, your skills in that increase to their biological limits. One could say we are not as proficient at shooting with a bow as before guns, but that is only because we do not need to be able to shoot with a bow. Similarly one could say we used to have a way better knowledge of the land, animals etc, but only because we needed to know to survive. Now we do not need those skills, hence we are no longer proficient.
Same goes for memory, if you have to live just based on your memory, guess what is going to happen? Your memory will get better, a shocker isn't it. If you need to be able to remember where this bee nest is, or this or that, where this spring is, where this next town is. You will be having better memory. Imagine doing this all your life, what would be the consequence of this? I would find it odd if it wouldn't be an increase of your ability to remember vs if you didn't have to rely on your memory so much. Which you do not have to in todays age.
These are by far my favorite videos you’ve made. Thanks for making such high quality videos!
Thank you for your efforts in producing this series, Cameron. I am fairly conversant in the apologetical issues pertaining to the Gospels and Acts, and I’m still learning a bunch.
I cannot wait until these are all out so I can show them to my family, and parents. My dad has said a couple times about how the Bible is like a game of telephone and there is no way it's accurate. As well as his thought that it's only written by men and will have their own political and ideas pushed not what God necessarily would want, I'm slowly getting to him on the last one about how inaccurate that view is and that is just a way people try to explain it to justify their own ideologies when they don't want to agree with the Bible.
read "The case For Jesus" it adresses this issue with other critics
@@CatholicElijah that is definitely one on my list to buy, I have the audiobook but not the physical book
Also, tell him that the Pauline epistles are literally held to be primary sources by today’s scholarly consensus. And these contain some of the most important resurrection eyewitnesses.
@@EricTheYounger LOL - almost half the epistles are considered dubious at best or outright fakes at worst. And they only contain *claims* of being accounts of what people who *claim* to be eyewitnesses *claim* to have seen. In other words, they are hearsay. And the very earliest one is dated to around 48AD. So it was so important he wrote nothing for 15 years after the alleged "Jesus"
The bible isn;t accurate at all. It contains numerous errors of historical fact, contradicts itself frequently, and contains much that is provably untrue (one can, for example, dismiss Exodus as entirely fictional)
This is so beautiful! This will add yet another layer of meaning and deepened my reading of the Gospels
I absolutely love this series. Very well done. I hope you can make many more!
This is great! I'm a strong believer that Matthew was first via reading "The Four-Fold Gospel." After Matthew was written to a Greek-speaking Jewish audience, Luke had a Roman Greek-speaking noble benefactor he names Theophilus who wanted a gospel for himself and to share with his friends. He wanted someone he personally knew to investigate these things. (This video shows how lovelily Luke keeps local culture of his interviewees; he emphasized culture that wasn't his own, to keep it as they knew it, even though the readers were Gentiles. Luke's attention to detail is amazing).
Then this is a little bit of my imagination, but I think this benefactor additionally wanted a living eyewitness to verify the information in Luke for his friends in a speech, so that is why one of the church fathers said he spoke to many nobles, which end result is Mark. For these lectures, Peter has the scrolls of Matthew and these new scrolls of Luke and gives his lectures to his Greek-speaking audience so they can know this new written document is trustworthy. Mark of course writes down Peter's words. Again my imagination: now the man and his friends are intrigued by a new question...how did we get from Jesus' resurrection to Peter and Paul and preaching to Gentiles? (They were intrigued by these men. They wanted to know how they met and how this all happened). So the benefactor asks Luke to keep writing. Peter and Paul ok this. This is why Acts focuses on Peter and then Paul. These Gentiles (who maybe had a history of knowing a bit about the African church also) wanted the answer of how the church got to be where it was through these two men. Luke had access to these two, so he did not go out and interview all the apostles. The narrative slows down at the end because those are the most recent events around the time when Luke is commissioned to write this follow-up.
Kind of crazy how a text can give you so much information about the author.
This whole series is wonderful. 6 months of work is a serious commitment. Very very inspiring and thank you.
Anyone ever think that one of the reasons why the Gospels were written later was because the eyewitness were still alive and they were there to talk about what they witnessed
Then, prior to the deaths, their stories were written down because they would no longer be around to tell their stories.
We live in a narcissistic society today where people want fame and fortune so they write their biographies while they are still alive to get this.
Today's society has accepted this tyoe of behavior as the norm and we wrongly assume that it has ALWAYS been this way. Then we try to take what we have accepted as "normal" and "acceptable" and try to apply it to a time period where this behavior was NOT the norm and it causes society to say these books must be fake because they don't hold up to what we do today.
Some people are so clueless and I swear they actively choose to be this way.
This is a critically important proof of Gospel authenticity, which I've been touting for years. "Semitisms" are more or less what I call a "Hebraisms"; i.e. Hidden in plain sight of the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels are MANY Hebraisms in the form of Hebraic-Aramaic-Jewish literary motifs, word plays, idioms, colloquialisms and of course many Jewish names, places and things. They are what we would expect to find in the canonical Gospels which come from events in the earlier part of the 1st Cent in Judea and the Galilee and what we would expect NOT to find in Greco-Roman gnostic forgeries written much later in the 2nd and 3rd century. "son of the most high" is a GREAT example. This was ridiculed for decades as a later Greco-Roman Christian Interpolation until the discovery of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved otherwise. It's actually one of four statements made in 4Q246 of the DSS that align with Luke's account given to him by Yeshua's Jewish mother Miriam in the first chapter of Luke's Gospel.
I got no education from school so a lot of this video and what your saying is over my head,how did you learn and understand all this,you obviously must understand this video content?
@@markwarne5049 Don't be discouraged. You will get there. I've been at this for 43 yrs. I attended a Bible college 30+ yrs ago and studied under Dr. Michael Brown. I have a Master's Degree in Theology. But much of what I learned really came together for me over the past 10 yrs. Don't give up...
This series is so good!
The Gospels may be the first ever example of news journalism in history. And the high quality of news reporting / journalism in the Gospels is still holding up after 2,000 years!! This may be one of the greatest miracles.
What's a miracle is that you haven't yet drowned looking up at the rain.
The first ever example of news? Have you read any history at all dating to before the gospels?
Food for my brain who craves Bible knowledge, especially about the NT. I know that many of those things I would tell to my unbelieving friends will fall on deaf ears because due to ignorance. I should pray for them instead. Still thank you very much for your earnest work, the Lord is well pleased with you. God bless. Amen.
Excrete bodily fluids in one hand and pray in the other....feel free to tell me which fills up faster.
@@johnferguson8794 hi sister, God bless you.
This is my answer: But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” - Matthew 4:4
Have a blessed day, sister. Love ya but God loves you more. Amen.
(Btw, is that your cat on your pfp?)
@nodiet8660 If you really want to know about the book you're reading, you should get more info on its context. Gotta check out religion for breakfast and esoterica. Of course it's my cat! Love cats :)
Nice, dude. Thanks for putting these together!
This is an important series, deeply deeply helpful, profoundly encouraging; very well done, brother.
Just wanted to say I so appreciate this series and can only manage the amount of work this took. Thank you!
Amazing content, and very important in combating the kind of biblical criticism that’s been making the rounds again
The references he makes to Mary all but confirm he spoke to her directly for at least the portions of it about her. As they have details only she would have known about herself.
So I'm going to say the woman who bore Christ and followed him until the very end would be a "pretty good" source of information.
Luke 2:19 "But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart"
Luke 1:39-56 is a lengthy speech that she would have been the only one to remember it all as Elizabeth was the only person present for it.
Luke 1:34 suggests foreknowledge that her child was the Messiah which only she would have known with certainty. As she was the only one present for Gabriel's message.
Or that the author made it up.
@burntgod7165 right. But there's no evidence that he made it up. We must always go where the evidence leads. And there's simply no or very little evidence it was a fabrication. Virtually no evidence at all.
Man this is excellent my heart has been pulled about and was slightly rocked listening to Bart Eraman and other critical scholars pulling apart the scripture but this has helped so much thank you.
Was Bart Erahman credible or is he a skeptic?
@@markwarne5049 form what I see he sold out to book sales and doesn't like the truth
Erhman is a joke. Outside of some textural analysis, the men is a moron.
@@markwarne5049he's just a critic. Most scholars agree the historical documentation within the gospel is reliable
This content is great. I appreciate your work.
Amazing stuff. Probably my favorite episode so far!
What an interesting analysis! Thank you so much for creating the series. I’m really enjoying it.
Just seeing the video title is encouraging. Thank you.
I'll go now to start watching the 1st episode.
Really good stuff, Cam. You’re not just a TH-camr anymore. You’re a communicator.
I checked Luke's gospel in NA28.
• True, Mary the Mother of God is Μαριαμ in the early chapters of Luke every time but once, when the name's inflected - inlfection seems to be avoided as much as possible.
• Also true, other Marys are spelled Μαρια, with the exception of Mary of sister of Martha, who also is Μαριαμ.
Hi Cameron,
Happy New Year! I hope you had a pleasant break. I have to say this is your best-produced video so far, in this five-part series. The most interesting part for me was the section dealing with Semitisms in Luke. I was intrigued to hear that these Semitisms are five times (400%) more common in sections of Luke's Gospel which have no parallels in Matthew and Mark. I looked into that, and I'm happy to report that Van de Weghe is correct. I should mention, however, that even scholars who assign Luke a date of 80 to 90 A.D. (or later) are willing to allow that some of his sources (including a source unique to Luke, known as L) are quite old, and may well date to before 70 A.D.
That said, I have a few criticisms.
1. In the video, Dr. Craig Keener defines the phrase, "within living memory," as "within 60 to 80 years of the events narrated." He argues that the four Gospels meet this criterion, since they were composed within the first century. It seems that Keener's position is much more in keeping with mainstream scholarship than that of Van de Weghe, who wishes to argue that Luke and Acts were composed around 60 to 62 A.D., and Mark and Matthew, even earlier. This is very much a minority view among scholars today. In a cogently argued article at bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/ titled, "When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?" (July 24, 2017), lawyer-turned-firefighter Doston Jones makes a strong case that Luke’s Gospel was written late in the first century, based on Luke's anachronistic assertion that an empire-wide census was held at the time of Jesus’ birth - a practice first instituted by Vespasian and Titus in the year 74 A.D. Let me quote from the online commentary on Luke 2, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (see bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/2 ): "Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful." These inaccuracies make it highly doubtful that Luke's infancy narrative is based on the testimony of an eyewitness.
2. Bart Ehrman's book, "Jesus before the Gospels" (HarperOne, 2017, paperback) draws on a wealth of evidence, including scholarly investigations of oral traditions, to show that stories get altered over time. New Testament scholar Theodore Weeden investigated some allegedly accurate Middle Eastern traditions "and showed decisively that they were not preserved with anything like verbatim, or even general, accuracy... Some of the different retellings of the story were so full of discrepancies and variations that it is hard to believe they were actually the same story" (2017, p. 76). For example, stories about an Egyptian missionary, John Hogg, underwent massive transformation between 1914 and the 1960s: "The stories were vastly different. The episodes were radically changed. The events were altered" (2017, p.77). Thus when Craig Keener speaks of an "oral archive," he betrays his ignorance of Ehrman's valuable work on the unreliability of human memory and the creativity of human storytelling in orally based cultures.
3. You mentioned 1 Corinthians 15 and its list of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. You really need to read Ryan Turner's article, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11" at carm.org/evidence-and-answers/an-analysis-of-the-pre-pauline-creed-in-1-corinthians-151-11/ (an article written for the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry). Turner points out that although the creed is very old, it was originally far shorter than the version found in St. Paul's letter. Most contemporary scholars think the original form ended at verse 5 and went like this: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." There was nothing in this short original creed about an appearance to the 500 or to James or all the apostles. Furthermore, Van de Weghe's contention that the pre-Pauline comes from a Semitic source is refuted by numerous lines of evidence described in Turner's article. In fact, there's positive evidence for a Hellenistic source. To quote Turner: "First, the reference to kata tas graphas (according to the scriptures) is likely from a Jewish Hellenistic church. Second, te hemera te trite (he was raised on the third day) corresponds exactly to Hosea 6:2 in the Septuagint. Third, opthenai “became something of a technical term for revelation, and hence was an obvious term for references to the resurrection appearances . . .” in passages such as Luke 24:24, Acts 9:17, 13:31, 26:16." And there's more. Turner concludes: "Due to the above arguments, it does not seem likely that the creedal material Paul cites took final shape in a Jewish milieu.56 In the present form it seems not to have definite signs of a Semitic original. Paul definitely developed the creed."
4. Van de Weghe also mentioned the calling of Peter in Luke 5:1-11, as evidence that Luke was drawing on the eyewitness testimony of Peter. Ask yourself first: why does Mark (who was, according to Papias, Peter's secretary) omit this incident, and offer us a different account of Peter's calling? Compare Mark 1:16-20 with Luke 5:1-11 and you'll see what I mean. In Mark, it is James and John who have a boat, and they are called after Jesus calls Simon and Andrew. But let that pass. Here's what the online commentary on Luke 5, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (see bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/5 ), says about Luke's story of Peter's calling: "Many commentators have noted the similarity between the wondrous catch of fish reported here (Lk 5:4-9) and the post-resurrectional appearance of Jesus in Jn 21:1-11. There are traces in Luke’s story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in Lk 5:8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus-see Lk 24:34; Acts 2:36-that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus) and recognizes himself as a sinner (an appropriate recognition for one who has denied knowing Jesus-Lk 22:54-62)." In other words, Luke's account of Peter's calling isn't historical. Instead, it's adapted from a different episode which really happened: the risen Jesus' appearance to Peter and the disciples.
5. Craig Keener mentions Arrian's and Plutarch's biographies of Alexander the Great. He regards these accounts as inferior to Luke's Gospel as they were written centuries later, whereas Luke's account was written in the same century as Jesus.What he overlooks is that Arrian and Alexander relied on earlier sources that were contemporary with Alexander. Plutarch quoted from actual letters of Alexander and Olympias (III.7.6, III.8.1, III.17.8, III.20.9, III.22.2‑5, IV.27.8, V.39.7, VIII.55.7), and the Memoirs of Aristoxenos (III.4.4). His Life of Alexander also contains numerous stories of Alexander's childhood, which he appears to have taken from a book called Alexander's education, written by a Macedonian named Marsyas, who went to school with Alexander. As for Arrian, his sources in writing the Anabasis of Alexander were the lost contemporary histories of the campaign by Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and, for his later books, Nearchus, a Greek officer in Alexander's army. Luke, by contrast, doesn't quote his sources, even in his preface (Luke 1:1-4). As Professor Robyn Faith Walsh comments in an interview with Derek Lambert of Mythvision at th-cam.com/video/d3dP04jaQ3M/w-d-xo.html [5:24], "I wonder: who are those people who are claiming that they're eyewitnesses? How do you know that that's true, with eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses, right? That's where you start to play that game of historical telephones. So when I read something like that, I am automatically dubious on multiple registers, if you see what I mean... If you encode an eyewitness, it's a rhetorical strategy to say: there are people who were there... So, it's hard to say what to make of eyewitnesses."
Well, I think I've said enough for today. Over to you, Cameron. I'm looking forward to your next video.
Cheers,
Vincent Torley
I could be wrong, but I suspect Craig Keener might be familiar with Bart Ehrman's arguments. It might be that he just disagrees with him. That said, he's probably not catching that cutting-edge scholarship only available on Mythvision.
Awesome series thank you for putting this together. God bless you.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for this! I want to read Luke now :)
There are way too many things going for the Bible writings that push to the direction of authenticity.
Right, and since we have a dozen or so references from the early church founders of the gospels being originally written in Hebrew, it makes the case very strong. Now that we are finding Hebrew gospel manuscripts from Catalonia Spain, St. Petersburg, Prague, India and the Vatican, our case is stronger than ever.
Here's something to think about.
As technology on record keeping improves, our need to remember anything decreases. We have the most record keeping power in history now and yet can't remember how to drive to a location we've been to 10 times... yet I don't remember having this problem before gps.. scale this down to ancient times and memory is the best technology we had and therefore that was exercised regularly.
I notice the same thing with political events too, things that literally have video footage of, and I lived through seem vague and up to interpretation
Excellent video! Never thought about these kind of literary ‘tells’ to source material before. Very intriguing. Thank you!!!
Hoping after the fifth one comes out you put all of these into one video. Great content!
Might publish that for our patrons. Great idea!
The eyewitness account of not only the Gospel but the entire Bible is incomparable. And those who deny this are being confronted about their wickedness and running from the conviction and the judgment for their sins
I use telephone game with my students. First round I make something up. Second round, I use a rhyme. Kids do the second round perfectly every time. I show it as a way to show oral tradition is actually not bad. Especially as reading hasnt changed your brain.
@@macmac1022 There's an experiment from the 30s on this subject. (I've heard of but can't remember where, I heard it a while ago)
A group of scientists went to an isolated tribe who didn't have writing and told all rhein stories through spoken word. They gave them this story to remember and said they'd return to hear the story in a year. Well WWII started so they didn't end up going back for 7 years or something. Eventually they returned and asked to hermar the story they'd taught them. They had it told back to them word perfect.
It's funny how this is the most important thing in your life supposedly and you can't even remember it or give a citation. This IS the telephone game. Just people saying stuff. @@danielkrcmar5395
@@macmac1022
"Do you think people normally spoke to each other in rhyme?"
I suspect that it was at least more common than now. Perhaps not normal conversation, but at least when something is being taught.
@@macmac1022
"So when the gospel writers asked people what they saw, they started to sing what they saw?"
First, I was answering a question about rhyme, not song. Second, I explicitly mentioned "when something is being taught", and yet you ask about when someone is being interviewed.
"My teachers never sang songs to teach, unless it was music class."
Did they ever teach you a mnemonic to help you memorise something? Such as the rhyme "Thirty days has September, April, June, and November. All the rest have 31, except February, which has 28 days clear, and 29 every leap year" (or some version of that)?
"And how about the different number of angels for the accounts? One does not mention any angels, one says one angel and the others say 2 angels."
Not mentioning something is not the same as contradicting something. If you're claiming a contradiction, you're wrong.
"If you saw an angel, would you not have that in the story of the event?"
But if instead you're claiming that someone "would have" done something because you think they would have, you're on flimsy ground.
@@macmac1022People didn't speak to each other in rhyme all the time, but major speeches were often given in poetry instead of prose on the ancient day. It was a standard part of Rhetorical education. Without the ability to follow a variety of meters and rhyming schemes, one wasn't considered educated. So yes, rhyme was everywhere. It was an important part of ancient life.
This series is amazing!!!!
Great work this series !!! Thank you
Hey! I’m an audio engineer/producer, and have worked for Apple Music Radio, Sprint, and other companies - a couple technical notes: using the larger SM7b windscreen can tame the highs quite a bit, so I recommend eq’ing a lift from about 6k to 8k all the way up past the air bands. You’d benefit from high-passing from about 100hz to 125hz. I’d start there to help with overall clarity, as your voice is somewhat “muffled”.
Thanks for the feedback! My mic sounds pretty clear on every monitor I listen back on, but I’ll try raising the higher frequencies a bit and see how that sounds!
Alright, I went in and made those changes (adjusted the lows as well) and it does sound a bit better! Thanks again!
Note: I noticed that I'm using a different method of proof; making inductive arguments. This video looks like it's doing what I call 'arguing from consistency.' If we're gonna accept copies of autographs as historical based on writing styles, then we should do that with the gospels as well. What I'm doing is to compare how Scripture fares with other ancient works that we regard as historical and then proceed to the likelihood of being historical given that they fare pretty well. The mechanism is to make a distinction between textual criticism and the bibliographic test, although they're both considered to be the a 'lower level criticism.'
I’m adding my notes here to stay motivated as I’m writting a case for the resurrection and kinda memorize this. I’m up to close to minute 5.
We’re answering the objection that the gospels were written late through oral tradition and errors may abound. Not so because of two things: the first century was the apex of ancient biography and naming patterns suggest that they were written within living memory. Thus, the gospels are contemporary historiographies.
The naming patterns found in the gospels match naming patterns found in historiographies. These patterns are complex and that’s why we consider works like Plutarch as history. This writing style suggest that they had access to archives. Since we see that in the gospels, we inductively conclude that their authors also had access to archives.
But there were no proceedings for stories about the life of Jesus. Then the archives had to be oral. Now its about explanatory power: what is the likelihood for a text to exhibit complex patterns akin to historiographies given that they were actual recordings of the facts?
This last question is known as maximal data approach. This is because the skeptic is pushed re-think two hypotheses: literary dependency or harmonization. By leterary dependency we mean plagiarism. By harmonization, we mean harmonizing established tradition, another way of saying ‘literary evolution.’
The other options are c) pure speculation and d) mere coincidence. Pure speculation avoids the issue (the fallacy) and since coincidence implies independence, we can multiply their probabilities. This number will drop pretty fast the more the skeptic has to appeal to it.
Semitisms and historical practices on proof
The argument is as follows
1. No text in Greek that was written much later after the events had a significant amount (preferable none) of Semitisms
2. The gospels are written text with a significant amount of Semitisms.
3. Therefore, the gospels were written early on after the events that they report.
Not only were they written early on, but they were also written within living memory. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 mentions two names. These people were considered to be witnesses and thus the text is in accord with the historical practices on method of proof. Thus, they were named for the purpose to ask them about it if need be. Then the text was written at the time the apostles were alive.
Amazing episode
Always interesting to watch your videos, great work.❤
Great video. Thank you!
Even before I go deep into this video, the fact that the book of Acts doesn’t chronicle the deaths of Peter, Paul, or James the brother of Jesus presents a glaring problem for the “written much later” crowd. I’m guessing we have far too many manuscripts of Acts for them to say that those chapters were lost to the Sands of Time.
Anytime a person speaks another language (or a statement is translated into another language), traces of the original language are there. Like weird word order, wrong declinations, fixed phrases, etc. It happens all the time, and that's why we often recognize what the original language of a person is, even when they speak to us in English (or German in my case).
In East Africa people recognize each other's indigenous identity just by their accent this way.
True, but it doesn't prove they are eyewitnesses. Maybe they had contact with the numerous judeans that fled the destruction of the temple. Marlene Dietrich had a strong german accent, and yet she was entertaining the woke Antifa guys who stormed Omaha beach. Liebe Grüße.
Thank you for this video series!
I would love a video of you talking about the Baptist “Trail Of Blood” it was brought up in a conversation with some friends about church history.
Wow, such a great series sir.
Bart Ehrman makes too many boldly untrue and foolish statements for such a brilliant man.
Foolishness for Greeks and stumbling block for Jews. There were many brilliant men then, as now.
"You've hidden them from the wise, yet revealed them to the childlike."
It can, while not perfectly translated as hidden from the wise of worldly affairs, yet revealed to the innocent. . .those who know, yet transcend to higher, purer wisdom.
We must, in humility, ask for this wisdom. . .like Solomon untainted.
He likes all the attention on TH-cam. And he is incredibly malicious in the way he is putting his opinion out there.
I think Ehrman is proof education can’t create intelligence, nor can commentary ever replace discernment. I suspect he became interested in religion for a time, instead of ever experiencing a genuine salvation experience with the risen Christ.
@@pricklypear7497Ehrman is a classic example of a man becoming a scholar on one thing and then thinking he is the smartest man in the world. He is an educated textural critic, but is an idiot beyond that. For instance, he likes to compare the story of Christ with that of some Roman dude who loved 150 years later and whose first text is from 250 at the earliest, and use this to show Jesus was a copied idea. Moronic.
Here's another historical tell: Mark describes the Jews in the 3rd person and has to expand on their strange traditions for his readers because this just may not early Judean Christian literature, but Mediterranean literature for a Greek audience. Mk 7:3,4. Mk 12:18
Luke wrote that John Mark, the Mark that Christian history identifies as the author of Mark, traveled with Paul and Barnabas, but in one of their travels he left and went back home. That really upset Paul. (Acts 12:12)
12And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Mary had a house church.
Acts12:25
25And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
(Mark knew Peter in acts because Peter would go to his house church. He knew Paul and Barnabas and would travel with them.)
Acts13:5
5And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
They had John Mark as their helper. Look at what Mark does in 13, he leaves them. He abandons them and returns home.
Acts13:13
13Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Acts15:36-41
36And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
(Barnabas broke fellowship with Paul over Mark and Paul took Silas. Why did Barnabas choose Mark? Different books written at different times give you your answers…because they are miraculously designed.)
Col4:10
10Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
(Mark was Barnabas cousin. He was fighting for his cousin and chose him over Paul. Barnabas took his cousin’s side even though Paul was right. Now Paul is writing while he is in prison. Later he is reconciled to Mark, their friendship is restored and Paul takes Mark with him. Mark is with Paul while he is in prison…
Col 4:14
14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
(Luke and Mark know each other, they were both disciples of Paul. They traveled with Paul. Of course, here we are told that Luke is a Physician, but look who else is with them…Demas!
Another letter that Paul wrote while he was in prison to Philemon a believer.)
Phm1:23-24
23There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; 24Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers
(When Paul is writing Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians. He’s writing them while in prison. The last that Paul writes before he is martyred. He’s writing to Timothy to see him before he dies.)
See the last thing that Paul writes and what he says about Demas! Lord please forgive me as I’m writing this…wow what a bad testimony. Demas started the race but didn’t finish for his love of this world. He abandoned Paul. Even Paul didn’t know who the true believers are. A person who he thought was solid and left him for the world. Only the Lord knows and may he fill use with the same spirit that he fill Mark,Paul and Peter and that we finish well and not abandon him for the world.)
2Tim4:10-11
10For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
(The last letter Paul writes, he praises Mark and shows that Luke is faithful and remains with him.
These different books written at different times one another showing that these disciples know each other.)
1Pet5:12-13
12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Silvanus is Silas who knows Peter and that is writing for him…and Mark is right along with them. Read Rev 17,18&19 Babylon is a code name for Rome. So if this is a code name for Rome like it is in revelation, here you have both Peter and Mark in Rome.
Evidence for Peter and Mark in Rome like the early church states. Look at who Paul is greeting in Rome.
Romans16:13
13Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Remember Mark wrote while in Rome. He’s writing to an audience who knows the people that he’s addressing.
Mark15:21
21And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
Paul say greet Rufus, a choice man who is at Rome and his mother who has become his mother. He mentions Alexander & Rufus whose Father carried the cross. Simon an eyewitness to Jesus. So is Mark is writing to the son of the man who saw Jesus killed and carried his cross. Which would explain why they converted, because the father would have realized that Jesus left the tomb empty. And it explains why Rufus would have became on fire for the Lord.
Luke mentions that when he wrote Luke, there were others that had written accounts, that he personally varied and personally went other. So that when he had written his gospel, assuring Theophilus that what he wrote was based on accurate history.
Luke1:1-4
1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke10:7
7And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
1Tim5:18
18For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward
Paul quotes, but looking at the second citation this isn’t in the Old Testament. Paul quotes Luke word for word in the Greek, calls it scripture and puts on the level of Moses is writing. Moses’ writings. Paul also expects that Timothy will know Luke’s gospel and believes it’s scripture. And the reason why Paul is quoting Luke’s gospel instead of Matthew’s. (2Tim4:11)
Duet25:4
4Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Col4:14
14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you
Acts21:8-20
8And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. 9And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 12And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. 14And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
15And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 16There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Paul's Arrival at Jerusalem
17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Luke is writing as an eyewitness. Look at how many eyewitness that Luke met. Philip is one of the original seven deacons. (Act6)
You have done great research here ,im not educated from school so I didn't understand much in the video but wish I could it sounds really interesting.
@@markwarne5049 just stick with it, you will slow start to understand.
I am active in apologetics to Muslims online, and that entire space has basically acquiesced to not defending the authorship of the gospels. I recently discovered Testify! and my goodness I had no idea how much evidence there is. That whole apologetic community is still sleeping on this.
I’m a Muslim revert who studied comparative religion. Islam is indeed the true religion.
@@She_iswisedon't mislead yourself come back to Jesus.
@@She_iswise why do you believe Islam is the truth?
@@phun1901it can't be the truth. The simple historical fact Jesus died the quran got it wrong
The opening with the creepy music and the fake damaged film just cracks me up.
Cameron, can you explain to me how it's more likely based on "Bar" being included in the name, that these names were heard from eyewitnesses vs a later Greek community? If anything, I would expect the meaning of "son" to have been translated and NOT transliterated if they were heard from eyewitnesses; at the very least it seems equally likely one way or another. The reason I think they would have translated the meaning of "son" is because it would have been a frequent occurrence, and if you were actually talked to an eyewitness, there's no way you'd confuse the word "son" for actually being part of the name.
On the whole, though, this does seem to support the idea that these were actually names of actual people rather than names made up later by Greek communities.
Great quality!
Thank you for your work
I grew up Mormon, and these arguments sound just like the stuff I heard to keep my hope in The Book of Mormon alive. Just because something sounds plausible doesn't mean you have to believe it.
I guess that means whatever you say doesn't have to be believed either. We can come up with a circular argument about everything.
@@SuperMichelleDJ yeah I don't have specific criticism at the moment. Just pointing out that we still have a responsibility to be skeptical of plausible ideas and remarking that I personally don't buy it.
@@trevordixon
I can see that you would be jaded about holy books based on your Mormon experience. The gospels are different, but of course that's just a non provable statement.
I work my way from miracles that indicate that Christianity is true back to the texts. That could be the way forward for you too, if you're interested.
The Shroud of Turin is one such. There are many modern healing miracles.
@@sliglusamelius8578What modern healing miracles?
@@davidmcfarland8967
This stupid site deletes texts. Why? Can't handle discussion?
Look up Lourdes healing miracles.
The part about Luke using Maria in only that one place is really special. You'd never see this in the English.
Israel was a land bridge between north and south, east and west. Merchants from the east visited Israel to sell their goods as far away as Rome. Romans and Greeks came to Caesaria to purchases goods from the east. The language of commerce was Greek. The language of law was Roman. The language of religion was Hebrew. The language of the common man was Aramaic. Even if you were bi- or trilingual, you interpreted what you heard in the context of your individual culture, whether it was Roman soldier, Greek merchant, temple priest, or simple shepherd. Written history rose to prominence because oral history could not be relied upon confidently with different people interpreting things differently. Most of the apostles were not literate, but as their flocks increased, they could have literate followers to commit to writing what they were told. All of this could explain in part why there are so many differences in the Bible and the gospels where one account differs from another account of the same event.
The Creator KNOWS
that Satan the Devil LIED to and deceived the first humans to mock, oppose, disobey, and defy his Sovereignty, will, and commandments that resulted in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever.
The Creator KNOWS
that he authorized and sent Jesus Christ from heaven to earth thousands of years ago to preach and teach the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" to imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings as written and recorded by Luke and apostle John in the BIBLE, in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26
ATHEISTS and EVOLUTIONISTS VS. the CREATOR
The Creator KNOWS
that like the first human beings, Satan the Devil also tricked and deceived all Atheists and Evolutionists
to fill the world with the LIE and false claim that he doesn't exist and even if existing is still cruel, merciless, and undeserving to be honored and respected as the True and Sovereign GOD
that
will only result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, exactly like what happened to Adam and Eve.
ALL RELIGIONS VS. JESUS CHRIST
The Creator KNOWS
that like Atheists and Evolutionists, Satan the Devil also tricked and deceived all Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
to reject Jesus Christ's Biblical authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
and
fill the world instead with the LIES and Unbiblical teachings and doctrines of their Pastors and Leaders about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "rapture", and "reincarnation"
that
will only result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, exactly like what happened to Adam and Eve.
ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on EARTH FOR FOLLOWERS of JESUS CHRIST
The Creator KNOWS
that all persons who willingly submit to the authority of Jesus Christ and put their faith and hope in his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
in their obedience to what were written in Matthew 28:18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26
are
his Worshippers and Followers of Jesus Christ on earth
who
are definitely bringing themselves honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without LIARS, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8.
The Creator KNOWS
that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6
but
he knows too that he will not let his loving, kind, and respectful worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's followers, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
in the right and proper time and as written in John 11: 25, 26,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or HIs Kingdom
and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
Been a Christian for 40 yrs, but it's so disappointing to watch apologists highlight all the "hits" and dismiss or ignore all the misses. Possible "historical tells" are fine to explore but you can't be selective and not give equal focus and weight to the scholarship that crushingly presses against the weak narrative of eyewitness history and oral tradition of Christian communities being enscripturated. There are huge literary tells all over the NT of this being greek literature with very commonly used themes and devices like divine translation of a corpse, even having attending witnesses. As Dale Alison has said, our sources for facts around the resurrection are ultimately thread bare and "when there are too many unknowns, one cannot solve an equation....this is why the apologists have failed to dispatch every skeptical scenario."
Great work!. One critique, can the music during the dialogue. It's fine for a beginning and the end though.❤
Birth the Man Child 🎉
The Christ in You the Hope of Glory comes to the outside full grown 🎉
Like David's Tabernacle 🎉
YOU are the tent 🎪
The WORD is written on your hearts 🥰
The Spirit of God is in YOU 🎉
sABBAth with Daddy 24-7
A LIVING ARK OF THE COVENANT 🔥
A TEMPLE MADE WITHOUT HANDS ❤️
A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD ❤
CHERUBIM R US 🔥🔨
Must be Born Again 😮
You will like: When Was Jesus REALLY born? th-cam.com/video/ptlsXtTf6n0/w-d-xo.html
Compelling and, importantly, academic discussion.
If you knew God , that would be proof enough😮
If you are Born Again, You have 24-7 access to Father 🎉
YOU are a LIVING ARK OF THE COVENANT 🔥
I almost fell out of my chair with laughter when Cam announced another WLC-Clip…
Here is my personal bucket list for the remaining two episodes:
- a wild William Lane Craig appearing at least one more time
- a wild Lydia McGrew appearing at least one time
- a „skeptical position“ from Richard Carrier or Robert Price, cited in a 5s clip and easily refuted immediately
- more serious but soothing background tracks
What did I miss?
Do either of you have an argument against anything said here?
@@a.c.m.4548 yes, sure, I wrote another, more serious comment, see down below. This one is mostly trolling and a little bit complaining about random guest appearances
I love these!!!
First of all, God our Father is our God of the impossible !!!
He is the word and the word is him !!!
Secondly, he has and will protect his word from the evil one !!!
Third, Jesus Christ said that during days that we are in now, God will reveal to his children what was hidden !!!
God is in control and take him out of the box many have placed him in!!!
Those who have ears let them hear 🙏
However, some possible factors that could affect the reliability of record keeping in the first century are:
The availability and quality of writing materials, such as papyrus, parchment, clay tablets, stone, metal, and wax. Some of these materials were more durable, expensive, and accessible than others, and they may have influenced the choice and purpose of what was written down12
The literacy and education of the writers and readers of the records. The level of literacy in the ancient world was relatively low, and most people relied on oral communication and memory. Only a small elite of scribes, priests, officials, and scholars had the skills and resources to produce and access written records13
The motives and perspectives of the writers and readers of the records. The records may have been written for different reasons, such as propaganda, entertainment, instruction, worship, or documentation. The writers may have had different agendas, biases, and sources of information, and the readers may have had different expectations, interpretations, and criticisms of the records13
The transmission and preservation of the records. The records may have been copied, edited, translated, lost, damaged, or destroyed over time, either intentionally or unintentionally. The copies may have introduced errors, variations, or alterations to the original records. The preservation of the records may have depended on the environmental conditions, the care of the custodians, and the interest of the users13
Therefore, the evidence for or against the reliability of record keeping in the first century is not conclusive, and it may vary depending on the type, context, and analysis of the records. Some records may be more reliable than others, but none of them can be taken at face value without critical examination13
Beautiful
Another: The bible says it's true so it must be true. I'm convinced, praise God!
I think the God that spoke everything into existence is certainly able to preserve the document that He wanted to reveal to human kind. If He couldn’t I am not sure I would want to give my life to that god.
I think he should be able to communicate outside of a 2k year old document written by men.
If there is a God and he wrote “MrFireman164, I am God worship Me” in flames across the sky would you believe?
@@blair00725 I believe in a creator just not the biblical Yahweh who kills babies and demands worship, the mythical storm god, do some homework
@@MrFireman164 Well then I guess having a civil conversation is out of the question. Have a great day
@@blair00725 thank you, didn’t mean it hateful, most don’t study, I have extensively and still do on a daily basis, Yahweh and Jesus seem very different to supposedly the same.
18:40 When did Jesus call Peter the rock?? Matt 16:18 is not talking about Peter being the rock, but the revelation of who Jesus is that Peter had, that is the rock. Jesus is the rock. He's the real big deal. :)
In job 38:16 God Mentions springs of the sea, if the bible is a book that was just purely man written without God's Inspiration and without having direct God's Words written in, how could have humans known of springs of the seas thousands of years ago when they were not first hand observable then
So good!
Background music serves only to distract or to disturb us.
Here's a Genesis 5: Sacred Secret: Adam = Man, Seth = Appointed, Enosh = Mortal, Cainan = Sorrow, Mahalalel = The Blessed GOD, Jared = Shall Come Down, Enoch = Teaching, Methusela = His Death Shall Bring, Lamech =The Despairing, Noah = Peaceful Rest.
"Man (is) Appointed Mortal Sorrow; The Blessed GOD Shall Come Down Teaching (that) His Death Shall Bring The Despairing Peaceful Rest."
Mark has the Sea of Galilee as a sea because it was a later Christian theological development of the messiah coming out of the sea in Isaiah. Again, another TELL that Mark wrote from a later period.
This was awesome
Apostolic succession
John’s disciples:
Polycarp (polika:rp/; Greek: ПоЛкарто, Polykarpos;
Latin: Polycarpus; AD 69 - 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna.2 According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake, then stabbed when the fire failed to consume his body.131 Polycarp is regarded as a saint and Church Father in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox,
Polycarp’s disciple:
( Polycarp was taught by the apostle, he knew John.)
Irenaeus (Irineros/; Greek: Eipnvatos Eirenaios;
c. 130 - c. 202 AD) 4) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy.
Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, 5- who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, 6 and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles.
Irenaeus testified that the disciples of Jesus wrote their gospels.
(He says that Matthew wrote Matthew,Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and Acts, John wrote John and Revelation.
Another witness is,
Papias, quoted by Eusebius.
Papias:
Papias (Greek: anias) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 - c. 130 AD!2113] He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Aoyiwv Kuplakv 'Eshynols) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.
Eusebius: quoted Papias.
(Eusebius wrote the history of the church and he finished his works in 324 A.d. He had access to Papias’ source material. Papias referred to John as John the elder. Papias wrote 5 books on the saying of the Lord. In his writings, he wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic and then people translated it in Greek. Mark wrote Mark from Peter. He was Peter’s interpreter and he wrote down what Peter preached. This is confirmed by Irenaeus as well as Jerome after Eusebius, that mark wrote down the gospel while in Roma. He was writing down what Peter preached and Peter approved of the gospel and commanded that it should be published.)
Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας Eusebios tēs Kaisareias; c. 260/265 - 30 May 339), also known as Eusebius Pamphilus[7] (from the Greek: Εὐσέβιος τοῦ Παμφίλου), was a Greek[8] or Palestinian[9] historian of Christianity, exegete, and Christian polemicist. In about AD 314 he became the bishop of Caesarea Maritima in the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the biblical canon and is regarded as one of the most learned Christians during late antiquity.[10] He wrote Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the biblical text. As "Father of Church History"[note 1] (not to be confused with the title of Church Father), he produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus, the Chronicle and On the Martyrs. He also produced a biographical work on Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, who was Augustus between AD 306 and AD 337.
Why would the creators of the Bible "hide details" that prove the Bible, within the Bible. Shouldn't these details be front and center on page #1? Think about it!
Even pagans knew the world was spiritual. Nowadays, atheists are ignorant of even that! They think they are being clever by following scientific materialism. I know that doesn't directly answer your question.
What would they need to prove? That Luke met Peter, or that Luke met Maria/Mary? Why would they feel the need to 'prove' things like that if it is just giving an account of what happened?
@@worldofenigma1 If the Bible is just a story, your right!...there is no need to prove anything. You don't need to prove that Luke Skywalker met Yoda in the Star Wars series.
If however, you claim that the Star Wars series is a historical record of actual characters and events that actually occurred in reality, then you will have to provide proof of your claim.
Furthermore, no one is too concerned that person "A" met person "B", but when person "A" claims to have met person "B", who was excecuted and died three days ago, now we have an issue that requires verifiable evidence.
A tree is known more accurately by the fruits it brings forth in the summer than by the leaves gathered by the wind at its feet in winter. The parable of the fig tree fits in somewhere, since figs were a mediteranean fruit and the fig leaves were an allegory for "covering their nakedness" in Genesis. The serpeant was Egypt's icon for 'divine wisdom', but more specifically a serpeant swallowing its own tail- so wisdom coming full circle and consuming its own tail as a universal icon of 'the golden age'-Adam's ascent to the throne as the Holy of Holies- the Father of All Humanity. This is why Jesus said that no man would be able to reunite to The Father except through him, because he fulfilled the purpose for all laws among all peoples and to submit even unto death to restore people to true understanding of the covenant of Life. Moses represented the books of the Law for the tribes of Israel and every people they shared the fruits of their labors with. But a law enforcer who condemns innocent children to pay for their parents sins or evils is evil and not of God. A line must be drawn- one which gives those who are paying the price a new beginning, where we learn how deceptive human desires and vanities can lead people down the wrong paths, and how this culminates with the suffering of innocent people. That's why Jesus said, "Woe to those who cause these little children to stop believing in me, for their angels see my father's face in Heaven always".
The first Christians were Jews. As such it makes much more sense that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew. By Hebrews. To Hebrews to be used for Religious purposes. Once Church and State were created in the 300 Ad's the Gentile Church vehemently removed all things Jewish from Christianity even the Jewish Christian writings. And the Pharisaic & Sadduceeic Jews sought to eliminate all things Christian from their Jewish writings.
The Bible - the written Word of God - doesn't need to "accidentally" prove itself true. It is INTENDED to be true, and to prove itself so. Anyone who believes that it needs to be proven true by accident doesn't understand the Bible, nor do they get the point of its existence. I pray for those people...
Very interesting, but the music is an unecessary distraction.
Great video, although I do have a question. If Luke and Mark both used Peter as a source then why did they call the sea different names?
Fascinating content, of real quality. The background music is a little irritating. Many thanks and blessings from the uk.
It accidently happened wow!!!
1:43 Even if true how does that mean that Luke and Acts were written in the early first century?
1:51 John at least was likely not written within "living memory". And this is something that historians definitely agree on.
2:57 So because the Gospels were written in between these 2 time periods they are definitely NOT hagiographies. Ok. I suppose that anything written during say the height of novel writing has to also be a novel then?
3:36 Yeah, John's Gospel, which portrays Jesus as "the Word", that already existed before everything else, is TOTALLY a contemporary biography of the man named Jesus. Mmmhmmm.
3:57 The Golden and Silver age was when comics like those from Marvel and DC were flourishing at their peak. Does that mean that other comics were also flourishing too? That the most prominent works then were only comics? This is at best a circumstantial case even if true. In fact, the Gospels could only have been written because Jesus supposedly lived and died yes? So are we to conclude that somehow this "height of contemporary biography" also conveniently occurred during that time or that Jesus' life and death kickstarted the "height of contemporary biography"?
4:02 The most conservative acceptable time of the earliest Gospels is around 4 decades after Jesus' death, the latest time period is about a century after his death. "So soon" is dong quite a bit of heavy lifting here.
4:10 Which events exactly? Recorded events? If they were recorded events then it's not surprising that they could be written about much later on. Aren't filmmakers still making movies about Biblical stories even in this modern era?
4:47 Which maybe explains why Mark wasn't that great on the geography of ancient Israel?
4:58 Ah, an ORAL archive. Sure. Still doesn't explain why no reference is made about that oral archive eh? (5:25 "dependable archival information" he says..)
5:08 Hold on hold on....Cameron is talking about the Gospels being contemporary biography right up to this point when Luuk comes back on, but what Luuk is saying is "how did the Gospel authors get the names of the characters right", because they had an oral archive"!
If you are writing a contemporary biography you wouldn't need an oral archive because people who were alive during the events you are writing about can be consulted directly (and this is what is being implied by the Gospels being contemporary biography!). And as we can see from conflicting stories about certain narratives like Luke and Matthew's Jesus birth narratives, they likely had different information sources (or else simply wrote different narratives they believed were accurate without any source). So yeah, how reliable is that oral archive? And did it contain conflicting sources about certain things?
6:10 Notice that Cameron's question was whether or not Jesus's teachings were "uniquely conserved" by this supposed oral archive. The response is not an answer to the question, nor does it give any evidence about the oral archive being reliable except through asserting it is so.
6:41 The problem with this analysis of course is that it is upheld primarily by the 4 Gospels being consistent with each other...but they are not. In fact the depiction of Jesus changes noticeably from the earliest Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of John where Jesus is basically portrayed as divine. No being consumed by terror in the Garden of Gethsemane for John's Jesus no, he's strong enough to nonchalantly chat and give orders to his disciples while on the cross, the only Jesus recorded as having done so. Also, Jesus' final words are different according to different Gospels. Is this an example of "creative liberty" or is that oral archive made up of people who had different views somehow?
6:50 Now here is the problem: Oral archives have been touted as holding reliable information about Jesus' life, but oral archives and eyewitness accounts are decidedly different things and oral archives are supposed to be persistent through oral tradition (and still remain "reliable" according to these good folk). But if oral archives are as reliable as touted, then the later Gospels could also be corroborated by them.
The argument here is that the early Gospels are reliable because they could be corroborated by eyewitness accounts and the later Gospels are less so and more fantastical precisely because they could not be. But if oral archives are as reliable as eyewitness accounts according to these good folk, then they should have persisted even up until the time of these later Gospels! So if one is saying that it's less likely that the earlier Gospels are not accurate due to corroboration through "living eyewitnesses", if oral archives are equally reliable then this would also apply to the later Gospels, they too would be able to be corroborated just as easily as the earlier Gospels.
So the reason being given here for why the later Gospels are more fantastical and less reliable than the earlier Gospels is thwarted by their very own inclusion of oral archives and the insistence that said archives are as reliable as eyewitness accounts in preserving the details of Jesus' life to be used for corroboration.
God -the Holy Spirit -wrote the Gospels through the authors. They are so obviously genuine and true that everyone scared and with an agenda almost immediately started their still incessant prattling. The final gospel - John’s - was written (by John) by 70 AD. So, they were all written within 35 years after Christ.
For any late middle-aged Englishman reading - that’s a similar time looking back to when the Stone Roses were strutting their stuff…
Curt Cobain and Nirvana’s first song - that was 32 years back… Remember that?!
Reckon you’d remember if a guy had raised a 4 day dead man in front of you?!?
Reckon you’d remember it all clearly if a chap walked on water right in front of your eyes? Or if anyone started monkeying around with the Truth?
What about a guy rising up from death and walking about with you before floating up into the sky?
Reckon you’d go to your death without backing down having seen God on Earth do all that?
I think it’s the only way to explain all this.
Jesus Christ was the real deal.
Everything you read is true.
This entire life we live and this planet is a totally amazing miracle.
Praise God through Christ and no longer worry about anything as long as you live but that you may disappoint your eternal Father and live in peace and love of others.
Peace
Jesus died, was buried and was ressurected!!!
Holy crap. When he mentioned that when narrating the Christmas story Luke used semitism’s like calling Mary Miriam but at the end he uses the Greek from when he says “she cherished these things in her heart” blew me away bc it absolutely sounds personal, recalling what Mary had told him. Wow.
Phrasing.
All of this depends on how you define "reliable"
Oral stories are what the catholic church calls sacred traditions
Listening to this video reminds me of how liturgy is said at mass.. How is semitism detected and counted as 400 - is it by a jewish person, or linguist? Is the list of semitisms available for those insterested? Many thanks. Great video.