Did the Gospels Evolve?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Is the New Testament reliable or is it based on dated copies and filled with errors. This video addresses this claims and introduces one to the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.
Sources:
www.tektonics.o...
The Resurrection of the Son of God - NT Wright
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Im 41yo and have always believed in jesus christ but my faith was lukewarm. Recently ive felt a spark in my heart to understand and to know jesus. Ive been reading the bible and studying the gospel something ive never done before. Videos like this from my brothers and sister in christ have helped that spark turn into a fire. For the first time in my life i feel like im begining to know the Lord my savior and its changed my life. Thank you for the work youre doing in jesus name. Its working
Let's go stay strong brethren
* Advocate (1 John 2:1)
* Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
* Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
* Amen (Rev. 3:14)
* Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
* Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
* Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
* Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
* Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
* Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
* Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
* Bread of God (John 6:33)
* Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
* Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
* Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
* Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
* Christ (1 John 2:22)
* Creator (John 1:3)
* Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
* Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
* Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6)
* Gate (John 10:9)
* Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
* Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
* Faith and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
* First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
* Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
* God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
* Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
* Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
* Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
* Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
* Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
* High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
* Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
* Holy One (Acts 3:14)
* Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
* Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
* Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
* I Am (John 8:58)
* Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
* King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
* King of Israel (John 1:49)
* King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
* King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
* King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
* Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
* Lamb of God (John 1:29)
* Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
* Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
* Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
* Light of the World (John 8:12)
* Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
* Living One (Rev. 1:18)
* Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
* Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
* Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
* Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
* Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
* LORD [YHWH] our Righteousness (Jer. 23:6)
* Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
* Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
* Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
* Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
* Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
* Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
* Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
* Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
* Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
* Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
* Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
* Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
* Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
* Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
* Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
* Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6)
* Prophet (Acts 3:22)
* Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
* Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
* Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
* Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
* Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
* Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
* Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
* Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
* Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
* Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
* Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
* Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
* Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
* The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
* The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
* True Bread (John 6:32)
* True Light (John 1:9)
* True Vine (John 15:1)
* Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
* Way (John 14:6)
* Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
* Wonderful Counselor (Isa. 9:6)
* Word (John 1:1)
* Word of God (Rev. 19:13)
Dude, I was literally thinking about how to debunk this argument when all of a sudden the notification for your video popped up.
Thanks for saving me the trouble!
You should read Wood's paper, it was one of the most concise things I've read in my life debunking this nonsense development theory (also, IP based his video mostly off of Wood's paper): www.tektonics.org/guest/barkblund.html
MHM EEKK Alright, thank you!
I don't see how I based an argument from someone else? I just pointed out that at the time I was deciding to attempt to refute this theory, I got the notification for this video.
Also I don't really see what difference it would make if I made IP make this video for my curiosity, because the refutation would already be made.
@@d_fendr6222 You just take what the nigga says as gospel, it's not. Read the damn text for yourself. Why would Paul talk about a Celestial body if it was a physical resurrection on Earth? Nigga cappin', just stop.
@Bellicose Ataraxia This from the person whom blood sacrifice makes happy.
Dan Barker's theory actually converted me to atheism at one point. I was convinced by a video by 43 alley. Thanks for refuting it!! This video is amazing edited, and crafted to completely obliterate that argument. Great Job!
Wow, I'm glad to hear I could help clear this up for you.
Sage Seraphim you're not an atheist now, right?
MrMapleBar No. I converted to Christianity about a year ago. After reading On Guard and watching IP's videos.
Whatisreal For me it was the resurrection argument and the leibnizian cosmological argument. I also experienced God for myself so that helped a lot. After I converted I studied the Modal Ontological Argument for a while. The introspective argument is great too. Mainly the first two arguments converted me, but after that other arguments have strengthened my faith a lot.
Whatisreal Well, I thought it basically showed the resurrection was extremely improbable so I couldn't reasonably believe Christianity.
I'm more settled in my faith than perhaps any other time in my life, and I'm no longer rooming with skeptics as I was while still in school. So Christian apologetics is a generally less relevant topic to my life. Nevertheless, your videos always cover such interesting subjects, the research appears top-notch, you're persuasive yet fair and even-handed, and the presentation is excellent. I always stop to carefully watch your newest uploads.
Please keep it up. I hope this stays a lifelong passion for you, IP. My generation (Millenials) really needs this kind of material to grapple with.
That is great to hear!
IP how do you manage to keep the stamina to keep fighting the hordes of keyboard Atheist idiots? What motivates you bro? Having circular arguments with Atheists gets tired and annoying real fast, mainly because all they have to do is APPEAR as if they know everything. I'm glad people like you are around. :)
+Kos Juludo
I agree some keyboard crusaders out there can get annoying, but it's counter-productive and unkind to label them "idiots." I know plenty of intelligent atheists (albeit I think they're wrong).
Basically it is this: www.inspiringphilosophy.org/testimonials/
+InspiringPhilosophy Have you ever come across an objection that has made you doubt Christianity? (It could be an objection you later refuted)
Just when I thought IP couldn't get any better, he releases this beauty. Good job IP!
Thanks, still more to come :)
Now it's time to tackle the objection that the early church fathers never quote the gospels, or any of the writings that mention Jesus (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger), so they supposedly couldn't have existed in the time, even though they were searching for evidence for Christianity.
That is an actual objection???
+InspiringPhilosophy Yeah, it's an actual objection. A stupid one too.
Still, skeptics love to use it as an argument, what's your take on it? And how can I answer skeptics who propose this?
Anjelus
Ironic that these people think they are "free thinkers", yet if materialism is true, then we are just robots and can't think FREELY.
Both you and Dr Wood are my favourites. So glad you mentioned him.
mine too!
You should have so many more subscribers!!!! God bless!
atam mardes You are very confused.
atam mardes so you take the Bible literally😂😂😂 I thought it was common knowledge that the serpent was actually Satan. And also you don’t believe in miracles or metaphors apparently. There’s even miracles today like with near death experiences and some other instances.
atam mardes Zeus and Osiris didn’t exist as actual people, but of course I believe in Moses and Jesus, but first we kind of need books to prove the existence of an actual person like for example Alexander the Great. So I guess I’m just going to list history books so here we go Josephus, Lucian, Mara bar-Serapion, Pliny, seutonius, Tacitus, and The Talmud all mention Jesus and his miracles and I don’t think you can debunk all of them.
Oh and also I heard that they found the rock that Moses hit with his staff to make water come out of it, if you care about the truth then look that up since you’re the one asking for evidence.
Wait, Dan Barker of FFRF was a former minister right?? No wonder he’s an atheist now with such bad theology! I used to be a big fan of his back in the day & listened to Free Thought Radio religiously. I used to take “comfort” in finding former ministers & preachers who became atheists, because they clearly knew Christianity better than I did. But they didn’t. Their theology was not sound & bad theology makes atheists. I became an atheist after learning about penal substitutionary atonement.
Only in the last few month have I returned to Christ by the grace of the Orthodox Church. IP, your videos also help deepen my faith by debunking the atheist is arguments that I had internalized for nearly 2 decades! Thank you for your sound arguments & my the Lord bless you ☦️🙏🏼
Dr. Craig Blomberg even suggests that parts of Mark's gospel could have been written earlier than 40 AD! Very cool, thanks for the upload!
Also, Paul's resurrection appearance was objective as it states the others around him heard the voice calling out to Paul. They didn't see Jesus as Paul did, but the event itself was objective.
Isnt it clear that Paul changed his writing style depending on his audience? Paul had different things to say to the Hebrews than he had to say to the Romans. He customized the message to his audience like any good teacher would.
''the argument was given by skeptic Dan Barker''... oh, here we go again... topnotch scholarship
To be fair, many skeptical scholars present it as well. His presentation was just the most popular.
I'm gonna assume it's the hyper-skeptic scholars, like Ehrman (although I heard he's recanted some of his claims, but I'm not sure) or some like him (if it's not then my bad). In any case, I'd love to see them use same skeptical methodology when reading other ancient works. We'd end up burning half of the books on history of antiquity
annoyingdude76 Right!...they're shootin' themselves in the foot.
Of course it was developed if it wasn't then the Bible would be true and skeptics can't let that happen.
You mean brainwashed gullible religious zealots can't let it happen?
You mean the corrupt church establishment that developed it to suit their agenda of power and wealth through political control and control of the masses through fear and guilt?
Titanium Quarrion hey dont give away the suprize just yet we have to lwt thwm know about Santa Claus first
Dr Knight - There are metric shit tons of theological, historical, archaeological, geological, anthropological, astronomical, biological and etymological evidence proving the Bible is a work of fiction meanwhile there is zero evidence proving it's validity as either literal historical truth or the word of God. It was carefully collated and edited to meet the agenda of the church. It is full or corruptions, contradictions and fictions. Pure BS.
.
If you want proof go find it. Clearly you don't or you would have found it by now. While I am at it you are the one claiming great floods, millions of animals on a boat, men living in whales, creation out of thin air in a week and forbidden fruit are the literal historic truth when it laughably fais in the face of science and objective historical/theological research so the burden of proof is on you. I won't hold my breath.
Titanium Quarrion couldn't have said it better myself
Dr Knight - Typical example of an apologists circular argument. Thanks for proving my point. Run along drone.
Nobody can put you down whilst believing that Jesus is Lord. They are condemning themselves. In the centre of the Bible go to chapter 594 + 594 = 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man" Amen.
According to Luke 13:24-25 and numerous other rBible passages, God condemns people, not the other way around.
@@michaelflores9220 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
John 3:16-21 NIV
They condemned themselves by not believing in the light. Romans chapter 1 also explains this as well
I had never heard of the development theory. Thank you for opening my understanding to it. Now I am prepared should someone approached me with this sacrilegious suggestion.
Shabir Ali uses the development theory in his debates on the resurrection.
@@rodlim02
I don't think he would dare to use this theory about the miracles and life of Muhammad!
Hey, what program do you use to create your slides? Powerpoint, Keynote or are you using a video editor like Adobe Premier to make your slides? Thanks.
Apple Final Cut.
Fascinating. I never heard of this argument before. Thank you for addressing it.
For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires.
Hebrews 4:12 NLT
That background Jam lol 👌 great video IP
Love your videos dude! Keep them coming!
well done, God bless
The wonderful thing about the Gospels are how each Apostle witnessed different things in terms of number. Some saw two of the miracles; others saw 4; still others saw just 3. It's democratic in some sense because they even huddled together to compare notes and discuss church matters and doctrinal issues.
Excellent video. Also the fact that the Gospels contain undesigned coincidences is yet more evidence of the "aspect model".
Yeeah, the aspect theory makes much more sense
Inspiring Philosophy, I've noticed that you have recently organized your playlists. Thank you for doing this. Just so you know in The Philosophy of Christianity playlist you have a privated video. The sixth one.
Thanks for letting me know, I fixed it and updated the playlist.
InspiringPhilosophy Your welcome! Thanks for responding to comments on your videos. Most apologist TH-cam channels don't even allow comments. Thank you.
I use to be all about Barker I was a card carrying member of FFRF, but Dawkins helped me realize that Jesus existed and that most of what I was mocking of God, the Bible, and Christians wete caricatures, strawmans, and satire and it left we with a deeper grasp of Spinoza's "Deus, sive Natura" and beyond that Jesus is the manifestation of That.
Yo bro.. keep it up.. I really love what you are doing.. much love from the Philippines. God bless you😁
Love your work. Stay blessed!
is the gospel writer in the painting at 0:42 wearing a modern polo
VanLightning900 they got that Holy Drip
@@kneo12 LOOL
I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the THEOLOGY concerning Jesus developed, but that's pretty non-controversial. Heck, it kept on developing all through the early church and into the Middle Ages. That the STORY of Jesus developed, though, in the way Barker wants to make it seem is clearly nonsense. Honestly, I don't see how someone who claims to have been a decently learned Christian minister for 19 years could take the positions that Barker does with any sense of veracity towards those positions themselves.
(Full disclosure, I'm not saying that something like a high Christology developed over centuries as I'm not Dan Brown. I'm just saying that understanding the specifics of the whole of the teachings of Christ pretty certainly developed over that time. Frankly, that's to be expected concerning someone so intriguing and controversial.)
I think it is safer to say that the discussion about the teachings/claims developed over time. We see hints of discussion and the followers trying to get their heads around things Jesus said and did. This is what went on, not a development of words and actions he did, i.e., "Jesus once flew from temple to Galilee to bring bread to his mother." This type of embellishment did not take place.
That's pretty much what I meant. So, yeah, I agree.
I've been following this channel for ages. Anyway, I'm still an agnostic. Yes, I've read Strobel, Lane Craig, I have an honours degree in Philosophy (one of my fave modules was Philosophy of Religion). Yet I constantly find myself not buying all of this. Anyway, I'll keep you posted.
Let me know if you have any questions.
What do you think of Eucharistic miracles
Mix logic with the Holy Spirit and you end up with reality. That is in Christ Jesus.
Book of Mark shows a resurrected Jesus. Don't follow the corrupt Alexandrian texts.
stevie6621 had you yet the opportunity to see James White's address of that issue?
Oh as if the Eastern Orthodox filled Constantinople is any better?
How did Barker get a degree in theology?
By attending the classes 😂
Somebody's been watching their Jordan Peterson.
It feels so good having all these intellectuals sprouting into the mainstream lately. We are living in the golden age.
what did Jordan Peterson said about this? can you give a source please.
Also: Paul spoke as if the gospels were already considered scripture.
Do the people that make these theories even read the Bible?
Great job as always!
Cherry picking is all that skeptics do. They don't intend to read the complete Holy Bible and understand in GODLY SPIRIT, but will always have doubt as Thomas had. Jesus Christ has always been saying about "doubts" and about "people of little faith". I don't understand why some people with high degrees always seem to challenge our LORD GOD ALMIGHTY YEHOVAH / YAHWEH of HIS Omnipresent, Omnipotence & Omniscience,..................rather instead humbly submitting themselves to HIM to live through eternity.
GOD BLESS YOU
This is actually so good...
I Love you bro. Michael... ✝️❤️ God bless you
The reason why the story seems to "develop" from Paul's (supposed) earliest account, and the Gospels (supposedly later) is this: Paul did not know Yeshua like the Gospel writers did. He wasn't as close to him in life, and apparently knew not Yeshua. He was told about him by the Apostles, who did know him.
the business insider should watch this video..
(I added to it.)
There was not development. Teh writers are sincere people. The explanation: They are writting:
a) from memory decades after and
b) according to what they believed was more needed.
c) and freely using thier own choice of words.
This means that one writer had either forgotten some detail/information or felt it was not necessary at the time and another writer (having read the previous accounts) added what he remembered and felt would be good to add. It's alomost like having 5 reporters hearing about or seeing one event, and at the end given one notebook to write down what they saw; each one would consider the previous acount/s and add details or remove parts rom their account. E.g. John read the previous gospels and felt he would write his gopsel with a different purpose, emphasizing other aspects of Jesus Christ.
The above may seem to someone as a story being developed, but not to one who a) clearly sees the honesty of the writers or/and b) has experienced the supernatural relaity of Jesus in His life.
outofthebox7 In this modern day of "fake news" I can see where some wouldn't give the benefit of honesty to ancient writers.
I think one major factor might be how cheap it is to get news out today.
According to IP in another video, That one gospel could have been easily half a month wage ($500? $1500? In today's standard) . In a literal sense, the cost to write lies are too high.
Great video!
I can’t find this Dan barker theory anywhere and you didn’t link to anything where he talks about it
Interesting, I was wondering about this topic.
Thanks!
Well explained from the Apologist point of view. The Development theory really is quite weak. However, "Christian scholarship" should be treated with a pinch of salt as the dates of the gospels differ depending on who you read. Indeed, a generation ago, the book "Redating The New Testament" called them all out and showed that it could easily be argued that the whole NT was completed by AD 70.
I notice that they're still assuming Mark was the first Gospel. Traditionally, the first Gospels were rhe ones with genealogies. Mark was put together from the two of them, and he included personal notes from Peter.
Great topic!
Really love your videos, they've been a great help
Richard Carrier needs to see this
Very well researched as well, IP!
Guys who uses these theories should notice that in first century of their style writing different events may be radically variant from original, but that does not make it fictional or story development, because we have early source, which gives advices how to write history. We also have to remember that not every eye witness is same kind of witness than others telling on the same event, of we are talking about crime happening.
Love your videos. What program are you using to animate and add effects to your text?
Final Cut and After effects.
This is like trying to refute that men didn’t walk on the moon. People seriously believe it never happened. This is the type of mentality we’re dealing with
Thanks for this amazing video!!
thanks for the video man...i was wondering whether you were ever thinking of tackling the "God allows slavery" issue
pete lawrence Hey look at Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster. If it bothers you a lot, stay in contact. I'm planning on summarising his passages on slavery for my blog.
Yes, I'll get to that when I start going through the old testament.
or see JP Holding's book ''Scripture and Slavery''. He takes apart the usual internet atheist cliches
+pete Lawrence Well first off ask them why slavery is wrong in the first place, in which if they say because it is evil, then they are saying there is something good, which points to a morlal law... which points to a moral law giver AKA God.
Slavery back then wasn't what happened with America stealing Africans, slaves back then were basically indentured servants who served temporarily, they would sell themselves usually if they didn't have enough money to buy food, and other things.
They were also allowed to leave their service if their masters wounded them. (Exodus 21:26)
InspiringPhilosophy how about the jesus was complicit in genocide argument?
IP, thankyou. God bless
Just an off-topic question; What would make you an atheist? What evidence would it require for you to think that there is no God? Is there a way to falsificate your beliefs?
Yes, offer better explanations for the argument in natural theology and with the resurrection argument.
@InspiringPhilosophy
What would you say about this famous skeptic argument:
Atheists like Lawrence Krauss argue that the universe is pretty dead, and not really predictable, so they argue that the universe wasn't made for us because God either doesn't exist, or he didn't love us enough.
D_fend R I don't think the vast outer rim of the Universe was made for us.
Mark does have a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus...
... despite so many apologists' too easily surrendering away Mark's longer ending.
Verses 9-20 should be received as inspired text. Even IF those verses were written by a different author (perhaps a man named Andrew wrote 16:9-20), so what? Where's the rule that a bible book cannot have more than one author. In fact, we HAVE other books with more than one penman. Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians and others...
So I ask the vs9-20 rejecter again: where is the rule that Mark had to have one penman? Why not two or three? In the book itself we read, chapter 6 verse 7, ... He called unto him the twelve, and he began to send them forth by two and two.
I believe two of Christ's apostles contributed to "Mark." Their names are Peter & Andrew. There are textual reasons for believing this.
It is interesting Tim O'Neill still holds to the development view. He's great on almost everything else though.
Doesn't the inconsistencies of the numbers of people at the tomb support a legend growing overtime? I don't follow. How does potentially alluding to a miracle found in a different book confirm a miracle?
And what about the theory of development of Jesus' teaching? Some say that in Synoptic Gospels main focus of what Jesus preached was Kingdom of God, and in John - Jesus Himself.
That is also a lot of cherry picking.
John is also (probably) the only Gospel not written in the 1st Century. The earliest copy of John (albeit fragmentary) has been dated to AD 140, roughly. Make of that what you will.
Nevertheless, the Synoptics and Epistles are amazingly well-sourced!
Anyone who hhonestly jsut sits down and reads The gospels knows the story changed over time.
Good arguments and points, well made. Of course, the other side of the coin is not to assume old writings are accurate or unbiased just because they have survived for a long time. However, it all has to go into the mix, and everyone then has their own picture of what actually happened and how is came to be recorded and passed down to modern times.
The skeptics assume that the resurrection appearances Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15 i.e. "Paul's vision," is the same as mentioned in Acts! This is not explicitly stated in the text. It is an inference, but not demanded by the text. Perhaps Paul is talking about a different event when he says, "...and last of all, he appeared to me." They assert it was a mere vision and not physical...smh. I ask what's the basis for this assertion? It may not be the best way to understand Paul here.
Was his name Dan Brown or Dan Barker?
What kind of church do you attend IP?
Just a non-denominational. The name of the church was never important to me, doctrine is.
InspiringPhilosophy That's true.
i always compare it to some kind of bus trip. if you ask the people to write about the trip you get different stories but the same core message
8:55 no, this is you cherry picking, there is 0 biblical evidence the four gospels are meant to be read as one story with events shoehorned in in random order. If you read Mark first, you get the impression Jesus ascended from a dinner table. When you read Luke you get the impression he ascended immediately after his first appearance, not 40 days later as in Acts. Read Dan barker's Easter Challenge for more details.
Matthew and Luke have the most in common and likely have a common source. Changes in stories don't need all versions to be interdependent.
Awesome!
Even in The NABRE Bible (The versions used in the US for Catechism classes and which is the one not The US Council of catholic Bishop's website they admit Matthew was not likely actually by Matthew, etc.
Write on Richard Carrier’s book which calls out literary forms in the gospels that resembles and copies other mythologies of that time like Greek and Roman myths.
IP...there is a rather silly objection that skeptics throughout that perhaps can be addressed at some point. The say that the scripture cannot be taken seriously when it mentions "talking snakes, and zombies (Matt 27:52-53). In my view, both these objections or more accurately, lame objections, are based on faulty interpretations.
It is assuming miracles cannot happen, which we deal with here: th-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/w-d-xo.html
I have been trying to come up with a solution to what one atheist said to me a few weeks ago. He told me that the cosmological argument, along with all the others was simply an argument from ignorance fallacy. He asked me why and how those things point to God, and said that we just may not have the answer yet.
I would also like to understand how we can go from the god of deism to the God of Christianity.
An argument from ignorance would be saying God exists because no one can prove him false.
Second, I go to Christianity from deism via the resurrection argument.
Hello IP. I've seen that you made a series on the reliability of the New Testament. If you have the time, would you be up for making a series on the reliability of the Old Testament as well?
I plan to, yes. I can only go so fast due to lack of ministry funds though.
I see. I'll see if I can help you financially with your ministry, if not I'll try to contact some Christian friends of mine/ people that I know, who are Christian, so that they can perhaps help you financially. After all, despite me being a Muslim in name, I'd like to know as much as possible from other religions, before I can say that I really am a Muslim.
+InspiringPhilosophy Once you do start it, you should have your first video on Noah's Ark, something I have been struggling to find answers for, and it is pretty confusing.
Like there are those that think the flood was global, but also those who think the flood was only local, there are verses which contradict a global and local flood (Psalms 104:9 and 2 Peter 3:6)
There are also those who think that the story of Noah's flood isn't meant to be taken literally.
So I would ask that when you do it, could you deal with the flood, unless you are someone that doesn't take the flood account as a literal event.
The TH-cam account “Easter Bunny” used to be “Telly tubby” has many screenshots of IP deleting comments. I can post the screenshot where he deleted his comment on this video. I also bet IP will not reply to this and explain himself
imgur.com/a/mUahn
That guy is a massive troll who has dozens of sock accounts. I know who he is and his real name. He took another online apologist to court over frivolous charges, lost, but caused the apologist to deal with legal fees and ate up his time. Whenever the nut shows up here and I figure out it is him, I immediately block him. That is all.
InspiringPhilosophy oh! I apologize IP. I had no idea. Best to you
No worries.
So I obviously realize these aren’t CONTRADICTIONS, but;
1) Each gospel adds more people
2) Most of what John says Jesus said is different then the other gospels.
Why?
Because John is filling in gaps, he even implies that at the end.
John was probably the last book written along with the Revelation and the Epistles of John. All by the same author it seems.
FF Bruce has a good book on the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John.
There's a book you should consider called "The Case Against The Case for Christ".
3:33 wasn't there no belief in a physical/bodily resurrection at the time??
Dan is saying that everything past the gospels as Jesus "Appearing unto" people, he'ss aid if someone said someone "Appeared unto me' he'd think they were talking about a haunted house. Also ,Corinthians 15 mentions Jesus "raise din the spirit", does'nt it?
I’m super late to this video, but I’m really confused doesn’t the Corinthian creed pre date Marks gospel giving that scholars date it in the 30’s?
Dan Baker was wrong.
10:40
IP's refutation here is just silly. The argument is simply that if in one gospel the apostles are told unequivocally NOT to leave Jerusalem, and in another they are told to go to Galilee to see Jesus, then this is an unreconcilable contradiction within the gospels. Inspiring Philosophy has simply invented out of thin air a text critical theorem that says that chronologically sequential accounts should only progress from more factual to more fanciful, an idea that has no logical basis that I can see. Using this fanciful hypothesis to criticize obvious contradictions is useless.
Inspiring Philosophy You should do a video on Richard Carrier and the points he raises about history and science debunking the Bible and about his take on Jesus
Agreed! If you haven't already seen it, I recommend David Marshall's material on Carrier at Christ The Tao blog
IP, what is your opinion on reincarnation and past-life memories?And do you plan to make apologetics videos down the line adressing these beliefs?
Yes, a lot of that has been debunked.
What about, say, Dorothy Eady?:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Eady
She is very obscure, but there are still books about her being sold that mislead people.
I think it would be a good thing to have you adress her case in the videos you plan to make, as it is regarded by many to be the best reincarnation case of modern times.
You should absolutely read the entire wiki article, as it contains plenty of strange and even paranormal material about her, such as her being an actual believer in ancient egyptian religion who used egyptian waters to inexplicably perform spells that healed people and could even charm snakes and was regarded as a witch by some,you could research and try to refute, as there are people who believe in reincarnation and are skeptical of Christianity due to her.
And considering there is virtually no material on the Internet tackling her case head on, and mostly sympathetic material, your videos would be a good starter for public and widely available refutation of her.
has she published peer-reviewed studies.
Well, she hasn't published any studies.But she did surprise scholars with her extensive knowledge, wrote a book and even appeared in a documentary The Lost Pharaoh.
So, will you include a refutation of her story in your vid or...?
Not only the resurrection of all Christians but the resurrection of all people. That all things be them in heaven or on earth or under the earth, apocatastasis
When is the next Quantum Video? @inspiringphilosophy
I don't know, I am currently gearing up to do a series on objective morality and the moral argument. Perhaps after that.
excellent.
Why do you think Mark gospel was first. No proof exists. However the early church fathers say Matthew was written first. Sacred Tradition handed down through the apostles and early church supports Matthew as being first. There is even ancient fragments of Matthew gospel
Uh Paul isn’t the beginning of Jesus accounts. Mark was written first, then Matthew, Luke, then John. Then the acts and Paul’s letters. You can see development from reading mark first and read them in order of age. Goes from jesus family thinking he was mad and didn’t know why he was acting like he was to Jesus stating he is the Christ in John. By the time Paul writes, Jesus has changed his mind again on many teachings and made it even more anti-jewish. So there is most definitely a development. The Septuagint is a counterfeit as well. The original was destroyed when Anthony set the library on fire and on top of that it was only the first 5 books. The one today is a remake and super high in translational errors. Especially in the Old Testament translations. In mark, the original has no resurrection account. Just that the body was gone. Then they added a whole story about meeting him in the road.
I noticed there are a lot less comments on religious issues then on scientific or philosophical things.
Paul only ever mentions revelations as a source for his belief, to assume something else is to add to his 'gospel'. Many people having the same revelation is how they could tout it as truth because of the consistency. You're simply adding to the text. The Gospels being reliable is a separate issue to what Paul was talking about. Yes, Jesus was resurrected but he doesn't say it's a physical resurrection on Earth, but a resurrection through revelation which means it most likely took place in the Heavens, because when you have polemics to argue against and historical background, then it gets hard to push a revelation narrative. But we don't see Paul argue about any history of any physical appearance of Christ. Also, appeared to is an 'odd' word to use when speaking about someone physical in your sight. Paul only ever makes the distinction that Jesus appeared to others as he appeared to Paul. Also, Paul talks about the gospel he received is that which the other Apostles have received, it doesn't say taught, it says received which is a common idiom for revelation. If Paul was talking about a Physical resurrection then why did he talk about death being the last enemy destroyed, that would leave everyone on Earth. Paul also talks about dying daily, is this a physical death? No. So you can't put that on the context where he speaks figuratively or allegorically about death and say oh but the resurrection, that's physical. If he dies daily and there is no resurrection of the dead in the way he's talking about then there is no atonement for sin and he is dead. Which is what that means. He also says the dead are raised up (which is an idiom for ascension to Heaven) then he asks "what body do they come?" If this was a physical resurrection, then he wouldn't ask that because he would have believed God can bring back your body, but if the Heavens are physical to him like Earth is (or rather it is other worlds) then you can have a body in Heaven. He wouldn't have brought up celestial bodies if it was the case that it was a resurrection on Earth (the terrestrial body). He also says 'The Lord from Heaven' making a distinction between the Earthly body and the one Jesus has which is a Heavenly body. This even obvious in English, perhaps they mistranslated the word in the Greek on purpose.
'It means a physical return to life." Even though the text contradicts that. Please, stop cappin'
"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand." Paul says it's a gospel, but it's not a gospel...to you. Even though the text contradicts that.
It’s not only about the resurrection, though. In Mark, Jesus is a carpenter, not of a virgin birth and human. In Matthew, he becomes the son of a carpenter and in Luke, he is no longer anything but the son of god. John reverts the trend from a human becoming more than a creature into outright god himself.
Also Paul’s first letters predate Mark’s gospel: none of the authors were orthographic writers and there are only copies of copies.
Does "development" only entail additive features? If I'm a writer who started off using many words to describe things but over time developed a minimalist approach that eschews flowery language in favor of terse monosyllabic utterances, then my writing style didn't develop or evolve because the direction of change went from complex to simple? Yeah, I don't think so. Develop, evolve, change, add things in, take things out...The bottom line is the Gospels contradict each other, and the character of Jesus evolves from being a righteous man in Mark, to being God in John. I am a real person. I was born in Palo Alto at Stanford University hospital at 1:16 in the afternoon of the 26th of December in 1959. If somebody reported that I was born in the early 60's in San Francisco, that would not be correct. This is a fact that doesn't change according to what audience is being addressed. At my Dad's funeral, my aunt, my mom, and my oldest cousin were conspicuously absent. If somebody reported that my youngest cousin and my uncle were absent, that would be a false account.
According to the Christian world view, is not the visitation of Jesus on the flat disc of earth the most important event in the history of the entire universe, save that of creation? And his birth was heralded by a bright star hovering in the Eastern sky. And 3 astrologers from Persia came looking for him and found him. Yet the Gospels don't agree whether his birth place was in Nazareth or Bethlehem. What day was he born? Which month? What year? The Gospel writers are able to recite Jesus's words as he prays in the Garden of Gethsemane and all the disciples have fallen asleep (who was there to write down what he was saying?), yet something as straightforward as where and when he was born alludes everyone.
The Gospel writers weren't writing history, they were composing religious text. They were fabricating a story that is an imaginary fulfillment of OT prophesy. At this point, does it even matter whether Jesus was a real person, or a fictitious God/Man? Jesus assured his disciples he would be returning before their generation ended. Well, needless to say, that didn't quite happen. The Book of Deuteronomy instructs that when someone who purports to be a prophet makes a prediction that does not come to pass, that prophet is discredited in the eyes of God and should be ignored (deut 18:1-22). Obeying God's word is not always easy and fun, it's simply the right thing to do.
That's not true and even Bart Ehrman now admits Jesus is divine in Mark. Jesus calls himself Son of Man which is a divine echo to Daniel 7: Mark 14:62.
Also: th-cam.com/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/w-d-xo.html
Unlike John, Mark never calls Jesus "God", or claims that Jesus existed prior to his earthly life; unlike Matthew and Luke, the author does not mention a virgin birth, and apparently believes that Jesus had a normal human parentage and birth; unlike Matthew and Luke, he makes no attempt to trace Jesus' ancestry back to King David or Adam with a genealogy.
Furthermore, Mark's despairing death of Jesus was changed to a more victorious one in subsequent gospels. ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?") is repeated in Matthew, but manages to make clear that Jesus's death is the beginning of the resurrection of Israel; Luke has a still more positive picture, replacing Mark's (and Matthew's) cry of despair with one of submission to God's will ("Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"); while John, ("It is finished") , has Jesus dying without apparent suffering in fulfillment of the divine plan.
Mark (13:32) Jesus designates himself "Son of God", though the author of Mark does not explicitly state what he means by "Son of God", nor when this sonship is conferred. It is as likely that the Hellenistic understanding of that term as it applied to Hercules and Plato are as viable as the Jewish understanding or any of several other understandings presented throughout the New Testament.
The title "christos" is also used in Mark, and all this is getting so damned convoluted that an entire branch of scholarship - "Christology" - was formed to try to sort it all out. A myriad of issues like this are discussed among scholars and lay people with no clear answers in support of the historicity of the Bible emerging. In the good ol' days a person could be tortured, relieved of his property, and burnt alive for merely hinting that the inerrant word of God is chalk full of errors, contradictions, ambiguities, textual corruption, etc. Well, now, thanks to the Age of Reason, biblical scholarship by non-adherents, huge advancements in knowledge of the natural world brought about by the scientific method, the liberation and social advancement of women, the medium of the internet for exchange of knowledge and research, the primacy that Christianity once enjoyed is slipping away at a rapidly increasing tempo. The dyke is about to give way and crumble, and the diehards are akin to a Dutch boy putting his fingers in the fissures thinking this might save the family farm from the onslaught of the water, or in this context a civilized and informed public.
This is not to say that Biblical writings are devoid of purpose and meaning. Certainly there is literary profundity and spiritual quest . But trying to propose a universal message of eternal salvation and damnation is overplaying your hand, and I would suggest is and will continue to be the discreditation of Christianity.
So you are just plagiarizing from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
great job!
Yes, Mark does, in Mart 14:62, "And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Only YHWH rides on the clouds in the Bible. YHWH is the "I AM" See John 8:58, and the title "Son of Man" is a divine figure from Daniel 7.
So we have pre-existence and divinity in Mark. Plus, there are other places I can draw from in Mark.
Mark's death is not tragic if it ends with an empty tomb and a report Jesus has resurrected. Wikipedia (not you, because you plagiarized a non-credited source) is cherry picking Mark.
No, Son of God was a title for the Messiah in Jewish literature. Read the Talmud or the Mishnah, for crying out loud.
Hi, I am a starting apologist, and I need help with something I encountered recently. I found this book on the internet called: Beyond Belief: Two thosand years of bad faith in the Christian world. The book was written by James Macdonald, an apparent British mathematician, etymologist, historian, theologian and non-fiction writer. The book gives some arguments to why many things in the Gospels where fabricated by the catholic Church, and that Christianity expanded due to the influence of Paul, and not Christ. I need help with this. Thank you!
You should invest in this book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony www.amazon.com/dp/0802874312/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_fabc_u2A7FbBBYGG5F?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
---------------------------
That book is basically proving that the gospels were indeed eyewitness accounts and not legends. Using a modern science we use to know what is historical reliable. Plus it will help you reform a lot of your accounts for the Bible in a better way. You will be able to give the gospel in a more thoughtful way. And especially to the resurrection of Christ.
Definitely invest in that book. I know it costs a pretty penny. But it will be worth it in you apologetics journey because it will help you show the reliability of the Gospel
@@tinanikkillz8570 Thank you, my friend. I will be sure to look into it, and possibly purchase it. God bless.
@@nasasjanitor994 yes you definitely should. Do you already have an apologetic home library of information? And if you do mind I as what books do you have?
@River Scott go on don’t stop
@River Scott why you stop? Keep going
James was the first book of the NT. At least a few years after the resurrection