Independent Sources for the Life of Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Follow Reasonable Faith on Instagram: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@reasonablefai...
If you know how the game of telephone works, then you will believe nothing that was written down after being told by word of mouth for decades before any of it was written down.
Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,...
"Many" can hardly mean one or two or even three.
Yes. I think wlc is right on many things but on this one is is mistaken
The first and second century writings of the Apostolic Bishops, some who were ordained by St.Paul and St.Peter, are authoritative.
Not to me. I'll decide which writings are credible or not.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Can I ask what your criteria are? Genuine question
This is why I always say that it comes right back to faith. You must believe that what the Gospel writers and their sources say and wrote is true. There are no live eyewitnesses. You just have to accept by faith that what is written is true.
By that standard, anything could be true.
Surely you mean no living eyewitnesses. Yes? As in currently alive? There were certainly eyewitnesses then.
Faith is not blind. Hebrews 11:1
@@chrisp9500Who wrote Hebrews?
@@maurice637 Tyndale said it was Paul. I tend to agree.
@@chrisp9500No it wasn’t Paul. Nobody knows who wrote it. For a short time the church tried to pass it off as being written by Paul but now most will admit that we have no idea. It’s been lost to time.
The Bible is the Old Testament and New Testament. Old Testament is from before the time of Jesus. The jews who don't believe in Jesus does only have the Old Testament, so Old Testament cannot have been corrupted for the sake of Jesus and for the sake of New Testament because the jews who don't believe in Jesus have the same Old Testament as we that is from the time before Jesus. Moses and the Prophets and Psalms are in Old Testament.
Luke 24: 44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father ...
"that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” The jews that not believe in Jesus do also have these Scriptures, so it cannot have been corrupted for the sake of Jesus and New Testament. Is Jesus falsely made up so that He fits into it? No, it makes more sense that Scriptures were prepared for Jesus and that God prepared the coming of Jesus.
John 7: 15 The Jews then were astonished, saying, “How has this man become learned, having never been educated?” 16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.
19 “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” 20 The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?”
I do not agree on luke depending on mark
Have you read Luke? Have you read Mark? What’s there not to agree on? 50% of Luke is Mark almost word for word
@@maurice637
Eye witnesses stories have this. Ask any detective.
The "independent" sources are the early church leaders who gathered at the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century and SELECTED the testimonials claimed of Jesus' disciples to be included in the New Testament. There were OTHER testimonials such as the Gospel of Mary [probably the closest disciple of Jesus] and the Gospel of Thomas among others that were purposely excluded for reasons determined that would not be beneficial to establishing the christian church. Since various gospels were NOT included for church reasons, why would any rational person believe that the gospels that were included in the NT are completely reliable for understanding Jesus' ministry and teachings? That's laughable. 🤣 Christians today believe for just one or two reasons... their fear of death AND/OR their gullibility.
None of this is accurate.
Prove it.
@@msmd3295the council didn't choose the books that are in the New Testament.
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkxxDpTyGHd5FSQ2crvqvBkdR15xGgN1fhM?si=1xcOEOLKv8HJa-ZS
Veritas is a religious promotional organization. So I don’t consider them an “authoritative” organization because of their Vested interest in promoting Christianity.
Ask yourself… how DID the books of the NT as we know it find their way into the NT? Someone HAD to hand select them. And they were selected according to the message the early church wanted to convey. Not that any of them were in fact “authoritative” , after all the early Christian beliefs for 400 years was a diverse, loosely connected groups spread over the Middle East each with their own important texts, principles, traditions, etc. That’s why a few of the disciples AFTER Jesus wrote to those various “factions” claiming Jesus’ teachings meant one thing or another in order to instill some consistency in what was believed about Jesus’ message. Up until then each set had their own interpretations of the message.
The NT as it is currently known did NOT come together as a unified “gospel” until Constantine converted and unified the NT and at that council it was in fact the leaders of the various sects that purposely selected the texts to be included in the unified gospel. And it wasn’t until Constantine (in the 4th century) that then imposed that NT upon the Roman Empire.
That was 300 years AFTER the resurrection. As an example, America hasn’t even been around for that many years after its formal formation and we’re STILL arguing over whether it was formed as a “Christian” nation. And the whimsical belief you’ve chosen to follow is even now forcing Christian beliefs upon the rest of the country. So, either you’re naive about the human predisposition to embellish, exaggerate, and even lie about the past in order to wrestle away from human minds power and wealth.
If this is what convinced you to become a Christian, might I suggest a revelation? 1 Corinthians 13:11. The ONLY reason anyone should believe in the supernatural is because they fear death. Even though there is a plethora of evidence that for EVERYTHING death awaits. And it takes a mature rational human being to face that challenge and STILL manage to live an honorable and lawful life.
@@msmd3295 your argument is a non -starter. That's like saying because you're an atheist I don't consider anything you say to be authoritative. 😉 Claims may be valid or invalid irrespective of who makes them.
Also, your 400 A.D. theory is simply wrong. But even if it were true that the New Testament Canon were hand picked around that time, it's still closer to the events than much of ancient history that we don't even question. Much of ancient history, Alexander the great, Buddha, Homer for example, all have much later records than the New Testament but are unquestioned. Why?
If you reject the New Testament, you'll have to forget everything you know about history. Or anything before your grandparent's generation. Didn't see it? Didn't happen. See the dilemma? They didn't have UA-cam back then. Polaroids? What's that?
Lastly, scholars recognize the Canon from much earlier. See the following:
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkxGAAsicHi1f5foO4l1iFOy4d433479hUr?si=TdueiNLG8nHb7V__
Did i miss something? All he listed here were biblical sorces....
Low-bar Bill strikes again.
Yes. You missed something. He discusses the sources the gospel writers used. This isn’t just crap Bill made up, BTW
You missed meaning of the title. It say "independent sources", so sources that are not dependent on each other for information. The Bible is not 1 book; it is a bunch of books with different authors and different sources.
For example, if Phillips saw the life of Jesus and wrote what saw, and Thomas saw the life of Jesus and wrote what he saw; then both accounts would be very similar because they record acts of the same person, but they would be 2 independent sources. If we discovered these two hypothetical writing in reality tomorrow and could authenticate them as to time, person, and place; then they would make their way into the Bible and would begin to be circulated with it even though they are independent of the other books in it.
So no independent evidence whatsoever. Right.
Mark was a companion of Peter. Peter probably did not know how to read or write, remember he was a poor fisherman. Mark wrote Peter’s story of Jesus. That is pretty close for me.
The same is true for Luke. Paul challenged Luke to go to Jerusalem and meet with the disciples and others who knew Jesus. Luke did that. Read the opening chapter of Luke’s gospel and he will explain that.
So the Gospels are definitely reliable.
@@rickintexas1584 The gospels were all written anonymously in an around the 1st century CE, most at at least 30 years after any alleged lifetime some as much as 100 years after any alleged lifetime. Characters were attributed to them in approximately the 4th century CE. Nobody knows who wrote them. Using the religious text of a religion as evidence of that religion is not evidence. All you have shown is that Christianity exists and yes I acknowledge you believe that.
@@pwillis1589 nope. The Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple, therefore before 72 AD. The Christian creed (Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will come again) can be dated to less than 5 years from the Cross. The Gospels were meant to support the creed and the fledgling church.
@@rickintexas1584 The overwhelming scholarly opinion is Mark dates to 70 CE, Matthew and Luke to 90 AD and John 110 AD. None are eyewitness accounts and all are written in Greek. And of course we are only talking about fragments of the texts. Complete texts date much later.
@@pwillis1589 nope. Had they been written after 70 AD they certainly would have mentioned the destruction of the temple.
My point about the creed being established within 5 years of the cross is more important than the date of the Gospels.
First😊
Matthew 20:16
@@A.J.Collins😂😂
@@A.J.Collins Thank you for writing one of my favorite UA-cam comments!
There are no independent SOURCES demonstrating the historicity of Jesus.
Are you asking for extra biblical sources for Christ as truly being an actual historical person of whom supernatural miracles and wise teachings, his death and resurrection are accredited to Him? Yeah. There’s about a dozen of those.
@@cherokeegypsy2617 Begin with _one_ such source.
@@cherokeegypsy2617 Begin with _one_ such source.
You don't believe that Jesus even lived? You're with a very, very, small minority of scholars on that one.
Atheist Bart Erhman claims 15 independent sources for His death by crucifixion, including sources outside the Bible.
@@chrisp9500 You guys talking about sources outside the Bible. Can you show me the research papers so I can look it up by myself