Evidence that the Gospels Came from Eyewitness Accounts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- Gospels, eyewitnesses, Were the gospels written by eyewitnesses, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham, Craig Keener, evidence for the Bible, Bible archaeology, archaeological evidence, archaeological evidence for the Bible, archeological evidence for the Bible, evidence of God, proof of God, is God real, is Jesus real, evidence for Jesus, is the Bible true, Bart Ehrman
Music by: / @richctrl4459
Check out his channel! He’s got some great free music!
Logan, you took one of the most controversial subjects in the world and knocked it out of the park!!! This video was 1.) thoroughly grounded in modern and ancient historical research, 2.) impressively rooted in solid apologetics, logic, and critical analysis, and 3.) dynamically, concisely and entertainingly presented. Most importantly, this video shows the true foundation of our faith, that the accounts recorded in the four Gospels are the eye-witness testimony of those who experienced and participated in the events of the life of Jesus Christ, and the coming of the Kingdom of God, Our Salvation! Thank you so much, Logan! May God bless!
Fantastic work, Logan!
Thanks so much!
I remember this guy saying that the bible wasn't credible because there was no way it was eyewitness testimony and was just bashing you over it without explaining his evidence. I'm glad you put this out, you sure showed him buddy :). I have some questions that have to do with my own experiences with God and I want the advice of someone with more experience and knowledge. Could you help me?
I can try to answer your questions, but I can’t guarantee I’ll be able to
@@loganpeterjones there a way we can contact each other?
@@SaintlessRex Yeah! Do you have Instagram?
Yes I do but could discord work?
@@SaintlessRex Hmmm I don’t use discord that often, so I would probably forget to reply!
Definition of hearsay: the report of another person’s words as a witness.
Very good video but it’s caption not working because I sometimes not understand the words clearly so I always understand when I read , thanks
Great job, Logan! Keep working for the Kingdom, and God bless you ❤️
Thanks!
luke 1 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning"......... That is just an example of what was happening... luke was writing to his Roman friend, most excellent Theophilus, a nobleman or official... its just a letter to him, and you wouldnt write to your friend anonymously. Luke was a physician, and an historian, not even religious, wasn't a Jew as far as you can make out, so like the video says, thats a bad example if you are going to fake names for a Gospel, makes no sense to pick luke.. Lukes Gospel was just a case of his friend Theophilus, probably in rome or somewhere, getting in to this jesus movement, and wrote to luke to ask him what was going on,as he didnt want to make a fool of himself.. So luke wrote and told him, thats it... Atheist scholars do like to complicate things, which is really meant to cause confusion, and confusion seeds doubt, which is what they are after, an example of that is, they say Theophilus isnt a real name, it just means God lovers. so luke wasn't writing to a real person, but writing in general to all would be christians, Look in any baby naming book today, and your name will mean something, take my name, Stephen, Stephen is a popular name of Greek origin derived from the word Stephanos meaning “crown” or “garland.” so does that mean when people write to me, they're not writing to me, but writing to all people that like CROWNS OR FLOWERS.its cobblers.. Theophilus was real person, probably a low level official, which is why there isn't any record of him in history.. Recommended book, Cold case christianity... Written by an L. A. County homicide detective and former atheist, Cold-Case Christianity examines the claims of the New Testament using the skills and strategies of a hard-to-convince criminal investigator
dude ur camera work / presentation skills are on another level!! Good clear audio too! usually these two things are lacking in smaller channels, ur channel will b huge if u keep up this kind of polish!
Thanks so much!!!
This is absolutely masterful. Who else would dare to make such a video outside of an inerrantist perspective? Allowing fallibility in the gospels strengthens their historical value
How does anyone claim to know what was in the “original manuscripts” if we have no “original manuscripts” ?
Who were those “eyewitnesses” ?
Thanks for the work I really appreciate the video. If you were old enough to remember readers digest condensed books, you would realize that a condensation of a story is likely not the first book written. There are different opinions even among the church fathers, but I agree with some that the gospels with the genealogy‘s were written first mark is obviously condensing what Matthew wrote. Again just an opinion and I really appreciate the work you put into this video. Thanks so much.
Thanks for watching! And thanks for your comment. I actually do think that Mark was written first. I recently made a video about it in case you’re interested. I’m about to come out with another video soon on the order that the gospels were written.
@jwz2333 you are incorrect... Mark's gospel was the first one written and scholars agree on this. Matthew copied a minimum of 95% from Mark and Luke copied a lesser percentage. John is in there too, having copied Mark. I'm surprised you don't know this? Most people do. Also the Greek word translated as 'eyewitness' in 2 Peter 1: 16 translates as Seer...as of a cult. Just so you're informed.
Logon, where did you get your charts (manuscript list, church father citations of gospel titles, etc)?
I got them from a book called “The Case for Jesus,” by Brant Pitre. Another good resource is an article by Simon Gathercole called “The Alleged Anonymity of the Gospels.” That article gives a lot of information regarding the gospel titles.
Very good info!! 👌
Thank you! I’ll be coming out with another video in a couple days!
So why is the book of John so different than the others? Why are they all different? Because they were told by different people in different times
The fact that the 4 gospel have some diff variations just proves it’s actual authenticity. Each gospel is true and accurate. Based on their own versions of eyewitness accounts. If they wanted to deceive the reader, then one gospel wou have been sufficient.
This was a good summary of the apologetic arguments. Good job!
Against all the nay sayers, this is video gives succinct evidence for why the gospel accounts are primary eyewitness testimonies (as opposed to fabricated accounts).
It’s really good to see up and coming young apologists!
"Using my intelligence as an Evangelical...": now that appears to me to be a contradiction. When they vote for Trump I doubt their intelligence as well as their understanding of their holy book.
I’m not an evangelical, and I didn’t mention anything about politics in this video
I’m not an evangelical, and I didn’t mention anything about politics in this video
Subtitles please
Very good video.....
Very good that you pointed out one of the most effective evidences for eyewitness testimony - the inclusion of embarrassing factors that show the absence of cover-ups.
That is perhaps the most telling, convincing aspect.
I, too, believed this BS when I was a kid. I was a straight A student and everybody was shocked when they realized that I believed in God. "But he's so smart" they used to say, "how can he believe this crap" It's so embarrassing, you know?
That’s awesome. Maybe I should to to school there. I am at Liberty U right now snd they are giving me the runaround. Keep up the good work on these videos
Thanks! And that’s cool! My sister also went to Liberty.
Though when I went to Duke, they definitely operated under the perspective that the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses. To be honest, I have changed my perspective some, and I’m hoping to come out with some new videos soon about this topic
“But above all, remember to subscribe.” Lol love it!!
Want to add one more thing than in Hindi , Punjabi , Urdu some times people say we instead of I just as respect , like hame word means we but actually singular person use this too
I'd add the fact that no one of the Church Fathers said Mark is the first Gospel, they all agree in saying Matthew is the first one
I have a full video giving evidence that mark was written first. You should check it out
@@loganpeterjones Spadafora, Orchard (both exegets) and Garitte (historian) all date Matthew first, at least the aramaic version, the greek version is the one that came later
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj other Gospels aren't a biography too, by the way you're confusing the original Gospel with Matthew quotes collections
Several historians are of the belief that the first "gospel" was actually written by Matthew in Hebrew, and it was more the teachings of Jesus and less a lineral narrative, hence the numerous sermons he records.
Mark then wrote the first narrative version of the gospel in Greek based on the Peter's accounts, which would have had a wider spread as Greek was the common language throughout the empire. The thought is that when Matthew, at the encouragement of the church leaders created a Greek version of his original work, he used the structure of Mark to fill in the narrative skeleton around the teachings and sayings the he had recorded.
There is a good interview done by Wesley Huff with Dr. Stephen Boyce that covers this info.
Thankyou for the time and effort you put into presenting the evidence of the four gospels. You will always have people who will try to discredit the gospels because they do not believe them. I think,if you add the literary and archeaology evidence and cross reference outside sources of evidence for Christ the evidence becomes very compelling. People will dismiss Moses existence when clearly he did. Dismiss the fishermen of Galilee as illiterate when clearly they would have had some basic knowledge of education to use money or pay their taxes. Again l thankyou it was lovely to listen to you.
The Bhagavad Gita is way older than the bible and was written by Vyasa who is an incarnation of Vishnu. His disciples didn't write any of it. It's part of the Mahābhārata manuscript which is 15 times longer than the bible alone, not to mention it's only one of the two major Indian Sanskrit epics.
If the Bible was such an important message, you'd think the Christian god would've done a better job preserving the original manuscripts and authorship. Unless the Bible was written by Jesus himself, it just doesn't hold up with its anonymous authors, continuously amended over a span of 1500 years.
Christianity is a religion based around a person, not a book. I don’t believe in Christianity because of how old the Bible is, how many manuscripts we have, or how few errors it has. I believe in Christianity because of what the person, Jesus, has done.
@@loganpeterjones Actually, it's a character in a book. It's the writings you hold to be true, which leads you to accept the character of Jesus/Iēsous/Yeshua as real.
@@delzepp1794 Though he probably believed long before he read the book. Like most people are indoctrinated at a young age, taught to believe without evidence. Before they've even read the bible.
@@wonow7674 True
@@loganpeterjones The Mythbuster dude just returned. BLOCK HIM I SAY!! HE IS A WASTE OF TIME
No one claimed to be an eye witness or to be the author. They are stories told in the third person and borrow form grec-roman myths. So paul meet up with peter and james that does not mean they are the authors. Not to mention the gospels are written in greek and the apostles spoke in aramacic, and they could not read or write.
So you think that churches all over the mediterranean had no clue who wrote the Gospels, and coordinated a scheme to attribute authorship that every single person just haopened to be on board with, having no debate about it (despite having authorship debate about other books of the New Testament) and not a single christian fell behind on the collusion.. not one.. over hundreds and thousands of miles of separation, without the modern communication technology we have today, through the first two centuries and they pulled it off without a hitch, and you believe this without any manuscript evidence to back such an outlandish theory… you are the epitome of radical idealogue fundamentalist.
“doesn’t mean they’re the authors.”
- authors of what??
Authors of the Gospels.
❤❤❤❤❤
Thanks for the video but man the background music sucks and it’s too loud.
They weren't into subterfuge. Could be deadly.
I will agree that Luke does appear to come from eyewitness accounts or at least the authors interpretation of those accounts he gathered from eyewitnesses. However the other gospels do not have such supporting evidence as you point out they all (I would say most) have the names at the top of the manuscripts but never indicated they are the authors and even so it is we who assume that Matthew and John are the same matthew and John whom were disciples they made no such claim those are very common names amongst the Hebrews in that time Era we just believe they are the same men who walked with christ you've shown no evidence supporting that claim other then that that I can see. Also if they are all written by eyewitness who the conflict in the story content. Just reading the birth of christ, the resurrection of christ and the crucifixion story in the four accounts separately its hard to believe that if all were eyewitnesses they would come up with such vastly different narratives . And that's just scratching the surface on this topic . I encourage you to study deeper without a bias to one side or the other . Search for truth not a defense against a opposing theory and you'll be surprised what may be revealed. I was once young and full of fire like that too after many years of difficult study it's been humbling. You are a bright sharp young man but look at things objectively with a open mind instead of ammunition for a argument. Thanks God bless
Thanks for your thoughts! A few thoughts: 1. The title “Matthew” in the gospel of Matthew likely refers to the disciple Matthew since that gospel is the only one to record the call of a disciple named Matthew. As for John, some scholars have argued that the title refers to another John, John the elder, who was a disciple of Jesus, rather the John the son of Zebedee. I’m not sure what I think about that, but it wouldn’t pose a problem for me. I might make some videos on it in the future. 2. I see no problem with the idea that the gospels have contradictions even if they’re coming from eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses contradict each other all the time. And since Mark and Luke are admittedly not eyewitnesses, but rather the bearers of eyewitness material, I think it’s natural there would be contradictions. Furthermore, I don’t think the gospel of Matthew as we have it was written by Matthew, but rather that perhaps there was a source of Jesus’s teachings written by Matthew, which someone took and merged with the gospel of Mark. If so, it’s likely that the birth narrative in Matthew wasn’t coming from this Matthean source, and so the contradictions between Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives would only have a bearing on whether the sources behind their birth narratives are reliable
You use the Acts of the Apostles as evidence to support your viewpoint but you omit the fact that it states the fact that Matthew and John were illiterate who were unlikely to be able to write in Greek to such a standard as that used in their supposed gospels.
Correction. Acts says Peter and John were illiterate. As a tax collector, Matthew would have had some literacy. As for John, most people think that the fourth gospel was written last, perhaps in the 90s CE, which would give him some sixty years between the time that Acts records him as being illiterate and the time that he wrote his gospel. During these sixty years, it is conceivable that he learned to write, especially if he was so heavily engaged in evangelism.
Well done!
Just barely got on here but I'm glad to see you're still making content and I'm excited to watch it. Maybe we could get together on pop one again this weekend if not I still hope you enjoy the weekend.
Yeaaaah dude! We should definitely play some population one sometime!!!
The fact that we have no originals if any of the books of the bible indicates these are just stories, regardless of who wrote them. It would have been the smallest of miracles to have written the stories on clay tablets
Would you use the same logic with other books, like the historical works of Josephus? We don’t have any of the original manuscripts for his historical works, but we still trust that his books are reliable history. In fact, we have many times more manuscripts for the books of the Bible than we do for Josephus.
@@loganpeterjones Consistent logic, yes. The logic is this: if a book is created by an omnipotent being that wants its message to last, that being would, at a minimum, use the technology available at the time (clay tablets were one way) to insure that their communication was maintained in its original form for later generations. To do less than that indicates that this being is incompetent at best. Josephus never claimed to be anything like a God, so I do not expect that same forethought from him. The same logic leads to different expectations for different content creators. Furthermore, if the being found that its message was altered or misunderstood, it would bother to correct or clarify it. Josephus is long dead, so cannot be expected to update anything.
@@kellystone7501 in this video, I never claimed that the Bible was written by God. Your argument is unrelated to the argument in this video. Furthermore, the Bible itself never claims to be written by God.
@@loganpeterjones Are you saying it's just stories written by men? Not inspired or directed, nor any communication from God to men in it? If that's what your position is, then we agree. However, if God had any part in it, it would have been easy for God to let the writer know to commit the words to a more permanent type of record.
@@kellystone7501 i believe the Bible is an anthology of the writings of people who were in a covenant relationship with God. These writings represent their own experiences and understandings of this covenant. God didn’t guide them on exactly what to say, but the covenant itself was given by God. That’s my position.
Good stuff
Subtitles please 👍
AYYEEE
The Catholic Church was ahead of you but we commend the protestant effort.
Haha thanks!!! I am a Protestant, though I’m not sure how you knew I was
Thanks for this! I'm sure I'll be re-watching at some point. I've definitely heard the credibility of the writers come up in conversation before, so it's good to keep these facts in your back pocket
I’m glad you enjoyed it! 😁
There is more then sufficient evidence that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. If one doesn't believe so, I would suggest it comes from lack of study and ignorance of the evidence. If it is okay with you Logan I'd like to link a video which I have found a very good argument for eye-witness testimony; th-cam.com/video/r5Ylt1pBMm8/w-d-xo.html ...Very much worth watching. God Bless.
Fascinating🔥❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥😊
This guy couldn't survive a debate about the claims in this video.
Go on, I’m listening
I know that comment was pure arrogance and overconfidence. I'll come back to this later.
@@ericbess4477 okay!
Ironically, it is Eric’s comment that is arrogant and overconfident.
“This guy couldn’t survive a debate…”
I mean, this is textbook arrogance and over confidence!
Eyewitness ???????????????? LOL
Matthew 17
17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus.
*Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth*
Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? And that is what you believe.
So we had an eyewitness to a mythological character?
Nice Try
What was the bleeped word?
Butt
@@loganpeterjones thanks, I was hoping it was not something else
@@EnHacore1 yeah! I put subtitles up during that part just so I wouldn’t confuse people haha
Well done, Logan.
Mind blown 🤯
I bet it's a pretty safe bet you didn't learn any of this at Talbot :))
Why do you say that??
Talbot is a conservative school, and the professors did support the reliability of the gospels.
The most compelling evidence came from the opening sequence that was against you. You're fighting a losing battle trying to prove anything from the Bible, only those who want to believe will, those who have studied the Bible properly and are blessed with critical thinking will not.
I’ve studied the New Testament academically. I can assure you, there’s quite a lot that can be proven historically from the Bible
@@loganpeterjones Thanks, I agree. How much of what was reported to be said is verifiable?
It depends on which book of the Bible you’re talking about. For example, if you’re talking about the historical information in Galatians, then it has a high degree of historical reliability. If you’re talking about John, then most critical scholars would give it a low degree of historical reliability. However, the historicity of each of these books is debated by scholars. For example, there are some good scholars such as Richard bauckham who believe that John is historically reliable.
@loganpeterjones It is impossible to know what was said by anybody in the Bible and I'm sure you know that. Anyway, I'm sure you know about all the discrepancies in the Gospels as they are unavoidable.
@@dongee1664 1. It’s not impossible to know what anybody said in the Bible. No scholar would agree with that. In fact, we know quite a lot of what Paul said since we have his letters. We have quite a number of sayings of Jesus that scholars would agree are authentic. 2. I called Richard Bauckham a “good” scholar because he has strong credentials and is well-respected among critical scholars, not because I agree with him (which I’m not sure if I do). He is considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars. And no, I wouldn’t say other scholars I disagree with are “bad.” I was using those terms to refer to people’s credentials. 3. I agree that there are discrepancies in the Bible. I think some of them are avoidable and some aren’t. Depends on which discrepancy you’re referring to.
The audio is great your presentation including transitions I especially like the one with that board that you turn on at the beginning they're all great. The fact that you mentioned like it subscribe three times to get the best results great however I would recommend that you make sure all three of the instances of asking for a like And subscribe our audio because of a lot of people are just listening versus watching and listening and then for those that are watching making sure that it always has an instance of an overlay saying like And subscribe you can change it up animate it and so on but make sure there's three times and you have both a verbal and visual aspect.
Thanks for the helpful advice!!!
@@loganpeterjones
I'm glad you're able to read that I'm at work so I I'm using voice to text and I just realized that there are a lot of errors in my comment even though the message got through thankfully.
@@zeroexea hahaha yeah I get what you’re saying! Thanks again bro!
@@loganpeterjones Hi MAN. GREAT BIDEO. By the way, if the Mythbuster dude who was commenting his BS on your Dan Barker video comes by again, I recommend you just block him. He is really annoying and apparently just wants attention. He will never be convinced brother
@@diegofuentes6639 hahaha thanks for the advice! I don’t think he’s subscribed, so I doubt he’ll show up here 😂
This is such a farrago of lies, distortion, cherry picking and bad history. Like some baby-faced TH-camr can "prove" things that better minds haven't been able to.
Idk a lot of people are turned off by that intro
lol lol lol You lie because it suits you, perfectly
*Yay Logan,* ya posted a load of bullshit.
We don't need gospel bullshit on TH-cam.
You need to learn what the term 'evidence' means.
What you offer here are arguments and opinions. Arguments are not evidence, however well argued they may be and these points are not well argued. They are based solely upon conjecture and draw conclusions arrived at through your personal bias. They do not stand up to scrutiny and every one may be contested.
In order to be accepted, evidence must be indicative of only one position. If what is offered as evidence can be used to support more than one explanation, it is invalid, because there is no way to determine which explanation is correct.
Here is what I use to debunk the eyewitness nonsense
Matthew 17
17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus.
*Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth*
Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? And that is what you believe.
Yes archeologists have proven beyond a doubt that Exodus/Moses are myths made up in the 6th century.
@@fordprefect5304 I take your point, although the story relies upon the idea that Moses and Elijiah were real people and so, whilst it is unbelievable, it is at least internally consistent.
We might ask those who consider the gospels to be historical and written by eye-witnesses how the authors knew this story to be a fact if, as the text says, they were alone.