Unveiling The Verifiable Message Of Jesus | The Historical Tell | Episode 5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2024
- In the 5th and final episode of our documentary, we address the implications of accepting the reliability of the Gospels.
To access the full, unedited interviews with all of the scholars featured in this documentary, become a supporter here: / 95286759
To purchase Luuk Van De Weghe's book "The Historical Tell," visit his website: www.luukvandeweghe.com/
To access all of the videos in this documentary series: • The Historical Tell Do...
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I’m glad someone is finally debunking mythvision nonsense. I seen the life drain from his eyes once Bart Ehrman said the Gospels were biographies. Derek likes to be in the fringe and place click bait titles to get views. He literally said if someone raised his dead grandmother from the grave he still wouldn’t necessarily believe. He and his challenge need more push back. Great job from this series Capturing Christianity. Always does incredible work.
Well said
Erik from Testify spends some time reviewing Mythvision videos.
What would have you believing in God less?
He started being mythicist and ended believing in a historical Jesus, so you must give credit to the guy of changing his mind after being presented with overwhelming evidence.
I was a big fan of mythvision before and Derek is a really nice guy who speaks he’s mind but he’s an hardcore atheist who rejects anything supernatural he’s even rejected life after death saying that all NDE are tricks of the mind, even skeptic medical professionals who don’t have any religion background such as Dr Sam Parnia Jeffrey Long Bruce Grayson and many other who spend decades investigating NDE they confirm it’s Real as it gets..mythvision rejects all this.
Paul Barnett. Based. Underrated scholar.
Please do more like this !!!!!
"... because ... this story ... was true." So telling!
Just amazing, I enjoyed and learned so much from these 5 episodes. The evidence for the resurrection really is extremely vast
I really enjoyed the series! Wish this last episode were longer, but if I need to, I will definitely read that book!
@Capuring Christianity Well done. 🤝❤️. 🖐🏴
Thanks
Amazing series! Thanks, team!
Good content. Just a suggestion maybe you could do one that focuses on Jesus' earthy ministry and how the things He did align with Biblical Old Testament Prophecies
This was an amazing series! Thank you!
This series was excellent. Definitely do more is this!
Great series! Thank you Cameron. I'll definitely be getting Luuk's book.
Great serie, really appreciate it! Greetings from Poland, we lack in such channels like yours.
SO BEAUTIFUL!
What an awesome series bro. Frfr I loved it. Keep it going with these.
Excellent video!
please keep going fam
I really liked this series! I would love it if you could maybe do something similar again in the near future for the Old Testament as well, perhaps events such as the Exodus!
For the Exodus, I recommend InspiringPhilisophy's series.
Great video. I also like Dr. Craig Evans it would cool if you could have him on, too.
Just dropping in for a little comedy.
I wish we had more surviving works from Polycarp.
I liked these videos, I would love to do something similar on other topics such as the Dogmas or perhaps vairous saints and the miracles thye performed in life and death.
I really enjoyed this series all the way up to this 5th and final part. Literary device theories do nothing but harm the case for the historical reliability of the gospels. You did well to include Lydia McGrew earlier in the documentary and I'd recommend anyone reading this read her "The Mirror or the Mask".
Oh, brother. Please
0:20 A physician in those days was a cross between a first year first aid student and a tribal witch doctor..you would not want them to write you a script..amen
What evidence do you have for this claim?
Jesus told me he was returning soon and would be ready for battle
I once heard the idea that Lule was most likely a ship doctor . A doctor that worked on a ship . Perhaps even on a roman milatary ship . Possibly a.roman milatary ship doctor . His knowldge of sea navigation seems to confirm this
Hi Cameron. Congratulations on your final episode of "The Historical Tell" series. It was a good summing up. I'd just like to make a few quick comments.
1. There isn't any scholarly consensus that the Gospels are fan fiction as Derek Lambert of Mythvision suggests, so in attacking his view, you are in no way undermining the current scholarly view of the Gospels.
2. Despite the fact that Matthew and Luke follow Mark closely, there are instances where they diverge significantly (especially Luke). One of these instances relates to the Resurrection of Jesus. William Lane Craig argues that because Luke was borrowing from Mark, he couldn't have been contradicting Mark. That would only follow if Luke viewed Mark's Gospel as inspired and infallible. However, there's no evidence that he did. In Mark 16:7, Jesus says to the women at the tomb: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." However, in Luke 24:49, on Easter Sunday, in Jerusalem, Jesus tells the eleven apostles, "But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (a reference to Pentecost, which is described in Acts 2). That's a clear-cut contradiction. Luke is not skipping over the Galilean appearances, as Craig suggests; rather, he's deliberately leaving no room for them. And to those readers who would suggest that Luke was using an accepted literary device in omitting the Galilean appearances, let them show me a parallel in the works of a pagan historian. There isn't one.
3. You and Dr. Van de Weghe claim that Mark portrays Jesus as God. Really? Mark 1:1 calls Jesus "the Son of God" (although some manuscripts omit that phrase), but "Son of God" does not necessarily mean "God the Son." The Emperors of Rome called themselves "Son of God." In Mark 1:11, a voice from heaven says to Jesus, "You are my beloved Son," but nowhere does Mark say that Jesus was God's Son from all eternity. In Mark 2:5, Jesus says to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” However, the inference that people drew was not that Jesus was God (since only God can forgive sins), but that God must have delegated to a man (Jesus) the power to forgive sins. Matthew 9:8 (which narrates the same miraculous healing of the paralytic) even says as much: "When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Moreover, in Mark 2:10, Jesus merely declares that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." That's not universal authority; it's limited to this world. And in Mark 10:18, Jesus says to the rich young man, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." The obvious implication is that Jesus is not God. Indeed, in Mark's Gospel, the term "God" is used exclusively of the Father. In Mark 13:32, concerning the Last Day, Jesus says, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It's no use suggesting that Jesus knew the date of the Last Day in His Divine consciousness but not in His human consciousness. Mark knows nothing of the later Christian dogma that Jesus possessed two consciousnesses or intellects: a Divine Mind with unlimited knowledge and a human mind with limited knowledge. To ascribe such a view to him is an anachronism. Finally, in Mark 14:62, Jesus declares Himself to be the Son of the Blessed, and adds that "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Here, he's depicting Himself as God's right-hand man, and suggesting that He'll one day be second only to God Himself - a view that the Jewish priests found blasphemous. Philippians 2:9 goes further and says that since His death on the cross, "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name." As Bart Ehrman pints out, what that means is that Jesus has been promoted from humanity to Divinity, not that He always was God. That's a pretty high Christology, but it's not Nicene.
4. What about Luke? Luke does indeed call Jesus "Lord," but see my remarks above on Philippians 2. There's no suggestion that Luke views Jesus as pre-existent. Indeed, in some manuscripts, Luke 3:22 (which describes Jesus' baptism) has God declaring to Jesus, "You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you." Ehrman thinks this was the original reading. If he's right, then Luke's view of Jesus was unorthodox by today's standards. Even if he's wrong, there's still Luke 1:35, where the angel Gabriel says to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-the Son of God." That is, Jesus is Son of God from His conception - a different view from John, who depicts Jesus as the Word of God from the beginning.
5. Dr. Luuk Van de Weghe cites the evidence from names as an argument for Luke's historical reliability. I've discussed this in a previous comment, so I won't rehash my views here. I will, however, say that while only certain people were allowed to access records of Senate proceedings, there was nothing to stop the author of Luke's Gospel (and Acts) from going to a public library, where he could have freely accessed the historical information that he mentions in his narratives. Finally, I should not that Dr. Van de Weghe provides no evidence that Luke was a physician, as he asserts.
I shall stop there, and lay down my pen. Thank you for hearing me out, and best wishes for the future.
Take care,
Vincent Torley
One can easily be held hostage by the idea that things left out of a reported account, but included in another, is a contradiction.
However, Lucian and others in classical antiquity considered it appropriate for writers to abbreviate and leave things out.
For example, Lucian writes for budding historians in his book “How to Write History” that:
“… you should pass quickly over the trivial and unnecessary, and develop the significant points at adequate length.”
“Much must be omitted. After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don't put salt fish and porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, simply because they are ready too! You forget the cheaper articles altogether.” (56)
Jesus could have given the commission to stay in Jerusalem, in anticipation of Pentecost, after Peter went fishing to get some rest and relaxation. In other words, there could be an ellipses (i.e. a gap in time) between Luke 24:43 and verse 44 and also between verse 44 and 45.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111: I'm sorry, but the Scriptural reference you give (Luke 20:35-36) has nothing to do with the Resurrection of Jesus. In any case, Luke 24:12, Luke 24:29 and Luke 24:36 ("That very day," "as it was evening," "while they were talking") make it quite clear that the appearance of Jesus to His apostles took place on Easter Sunday. When He appeared, Jesus told the Eleven to stay in Jerusalem. There's just no room for an appearance in Galilee. Bart Ehrman (who knows Greek very well, unlike myself) came to the same conclusion: Luke contradicts Matthew and Mark on this point. This isn't telescoping or ellipsis; it's exclusion. I don't know of any ancient historian who does what Luke does.
Lucian talks about skipping over events, which is fine, but he doesn't mention leaving no room for those events to happen. That's what Luke does.
@@apologeticsa-zasiteforseek3374Thanks for pointing out my error. I wrote down incorrect passages and fixed the passages that could have time gaps.
For centuries some of the finest linguists and Greek scholars have interpreted the gospels in a harmonious manner.
One of the principles in the field of hermeneutics, that was common prior to the rise of negative criticism, is to not work with a hermeneutic of suspicion and presumption of error.
This charitable attitude is common for interpreting documents as a whole. For example:
“[It is] fundamental to a true interpretation of the Scripture, viz., that the parts of a document, law, or instrument are to be construed with reference to the significance of the whole.” (Dean Abbot, Commentary on Matthew, Interpretation, p. 31.)
“Where a transaction is carried out by means of several documents so that together they form part of a single whole, these documents are read together as one.... [They are to be so read] that, that construction is to be preferred which will render them consistent.” (Interpretation of Documents, Sir Roland Burrows, p. 49, Lutter-worth & Co., London, 1946.)
"Moreover, in Mark 2:10, Jesus merely declares that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." That's not universal authority; it's limited to this world."
Which is the only world that there is, so what's your point?
"And in Mark 10:18, Jesus says to the rich young man, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." The obvious implication is that Jesus is not God."
It might be an implication, but it's not a certainty.
"Here, he's depicting Himself as God's right-hand man,..."
Which doesn't rule out that He is also one of the three persons of the trinity.
"...and suggesting that He'll one day be second only to God Himself..."
Not really. The suggestion _could_ be that, or it equally could be that He'll be sitting there because He _already is_ God the Son.
Good points, but the real audience for apologetics is people who already believe so the most important feature is confidence. Just like the gospels really.
Thank you for doing this historical deep dive for us! God Bless You. A thankful Catholic.
Was Matthew a source for Mark and Luke? That seems very plausible to me, He was the only one of the three to travel with Jesus as an apostle, It doesn't seem crediale that they were an information source for him.A good subject for future evaluation?
Why did Matthew consult with Mark if Mark got his info from Peter (an eyewitness), and Matthew was also an eyewitness? Or, did I not understand the context?
Nobody knows. I personally like to think that its the other way around. Matthew did not copy from Mark. Mark took some notes that Matthew had written. Then John Mark and Peter threw something together and just included the notes from Matthew.
@@br.mI mean, taking “some notes” is one thing, but if literally 90% of Mark is contained in Matthew that makes Mark one of the biggest plagiarists, and least original writers of all time. “Peter” would have added almost nothing from his experience in this case.
The early dating of Mark is given to be MOST charitable to the gospel writers, not less.
@@EricTheYounger Fine. Thats great. Let's pretend you are right.
So Peter was clearly a bit challenged, always being rebuked, probably not very literate.
Suppose Matthew on the other hand was very literate. Suppose Matthew was able to write out several copies of his account.
Suppose Peter ended up with one of these copies in Rome. Where he enlisted John Mark to help with the composing of the Gospel According to Mark, as we know it.
Peter would have had little reason to add much else. Especially if they wanted to establish a valid book. Which could then be copied and put in to circulation early.
While Matthew took more time to continue working on elaborating his own account.
Peace.
@@EricTheYounger
Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and claiming it's your own work . No gospel author does that .
They use earlier sources and stick to the sources as close as possible . Tha
@br.m Have you ever actually read through both Mark and Matthew? Mark and Matthew clearly had two different objectives with their Gospels. Mark was just trying to get the stories he learned from Peter recorded. Matthew had an entirely different objective. Matthew wanted to make the case that Jesus must be the Jewish Messiah. So he took the details of the already recorded stories from Peter and added clarifying details of his own. This shows that not only were the stories that Peter told Mark true stories, but that Matthew was also personally familiar with these stories. That's called corroborative evidence.
Luke wrote his work to fulfill Theophilus (a person, probably the 41 high priest) request to write an orderly account. Luke wrote this while Paul was in Caesarea in chains. Luke wrote Jesus to be anti-sicarii
My argument will probably be forgotten in a sea of other comments on the internet, but I really think I hit a home run with this one.
Here are some ways "Luke" contradicts Mark's original story or deliberately rewrites the sequence of events. A lot of people like to claim he depicted things accurately in his gospel and Acts.
When did the women buy/prepare the spices? Mark 16:1 says they bought them "when the Sabbath was over" while Luke 23:54-56 and Lk. 24:1 say this:
"It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. 24:1 - On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."
When did the Sanhedrin trial take place?
Mk. 14:17 says "when evening came" then narrates his arrest and trial occurring the same night.
Luke 22:66 says it happened "when day came."
Now onto Luke's delay of the Parousia and changing of Jesus' message. The earliest Christian sources (Paul, Mark, Matthew) seem to expect an imminent eschatology - 1 Thess 4:15-17, 1 Cor 10:11, 1 Cor 15:51-52, Mk. 9:1, 13:30, 14:62. Also take a look at 2 Thess 2, 2 Peter 3, John 21:22-23 and you have a cumulative case that the earliest followers expected an imminent apocalypse but had to explain it away when it didn't happen. All the evidence points in the same direction.
Luke's later redaction makes it immediately apparent he's trying to subdue the original imminent apocalyptic message of Jesus (because it didn't come true). In other words, the author of Luke literally changes what the original message of Jesus was and presents a false view of history.
First of all, notice how Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” has been omitted from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Luke’s gospel. The reference to the time has come, the kingdom being “near” and repenting is missing from the recasting of this saying in Lk. 4:43.
Mk. 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
Lk. 9:27 "But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
By omitting "come with power" Luke alters the meaning of the prediction of a witnessed cosmic event to something more ambiguous that is open to alternative interpretations.
Luke also has to explain the delay by adding to the verse 19:11 that the parable was told because some "thought that the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately." Hmmm. I wonder where that idea came from?
Luke 21:8 adds the warning "And he said, “Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them" which is an addition to Mark 13:5-6 that does not have the warning of some claiming "the time is near!" This contradicts Jesus' own words from Mark 1:15!
Lk. 21:9 adds the comment that “the end will not come right away” which seems like a correction to the view that some did think it would come right away.
Lk. 21:19 rewrites and omits “endures to the end” from Mk. 13:13.
Lk. 21:23-24 omits “shortening the days” from Mk. 13:19-20.
Lk. 21:31 omits “at the very gates” from Mk. 13:29.
Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 in Lk. 22.69. Mark says "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" to the High Priest while Luke alters this to "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God."
So the prediction of literally seeing the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven in the near future has been replaced by a statement about the present state of Jesus.
*there's ZERO Biblical contradictions*
if there were, they had already been "debunked" some hundred years ago, and of course, some of them were being scholarly "debunked" -- NON-STOP
sadly, the great majority of the so-called "contradictions" or "discrepancies" fall into what we call "misinterpretation" (whether deliberately or not), and some were considered plainly as -- CONSPIRACY THEORY
astonishingly, the Bible ("The Word of God") has remained standing "untouched & unperturbed" & will continue to stand on forever & ever and for eternity
--> longer than your life and even your children's children (mark my words)
Biblical inerrancy is not a requirement for Biblical validity. It doesn't bother me at all that some of the details got mixed up along the way. They are still telling the exact same story about a literal, historical event. 🤷♂️
@@turkeybobjr When you have one version of Jesus' sayings predicting an imminent apocalypse then have another one presenting a version where all of the imminent sayings are written out, then someone is obviously fudging with the facts!
@biblecontradictiongenerator
2 Peter 3:1-10 (ESV)
1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
@@turkeybobjr Yes, I mention the pseudopigraphal 2 Peter in my original post. This, along with 2 Thess 2, John 21:22-23 and Lk. 19:11 are all later apologetic attempts to cover up the fact that Jesus' imminent predictions never came true.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. galatians 2:16
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. isaiah 64:6
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. romans:3:28
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. romans 4:5
you do the law out of love not out of loose salvation you are SEALED
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,”
ephesians 1:13
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.ephisians1:13-14
see that? you were sealed!!! with the holy spirit of promise till redemption , wanna say you can unseal loose that sealness? isn't that blasphemy againts the holy spirit .im not sure here
I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
galatians 2:21
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
how can you have peace , if you're worried 24/7 did i do right oo noo i fall short , did i maintained the law properly? the bible does say if you sin once you are guilty of all , please guys im not saying do what ever you want , because we are a new creations , the law is there to show you what is sin , but is your faith that he died for you that saves you ,not how well you keep up the law , as romans 4:5 says even if you dont keep the law do the deeds you are still saved, you will suffer loss but you will be saved , remember the greater in the kingdom of god and less ? remember his kingdom comes on earth , guys even iF an angel says something else like you can loose your salvation thats a LIE bible warn us about this an angel !! not some false preacher but an ANGEL! so please dont think that as a christian you must do this do that or you gonna loose your salvation , but once you believe that christ died for your sins and rose on the third day , you are sealed with the holy spirit of god until the day of redemption. many churches put people under law. is the faith that saves us , our good deeds will be rewarded in heaven , people who preach a work based salvation , in the end they gonna hear depart from me i never knew you. Soo that means law is done away we can go kill do this do that? ,No!!!! you get a MORALITY from god you dont do that , and even if you do something bad he chastise you make you feel guilty (Hebrews 12:5-6), but its the FAITH not the LAW what saves you , so lets say you steal something cuz you neede the money or you watch some dirty movie or had sex outside marriage and die right at that second you go to hell? see how stupid that is? you are sealed he died for your sins , past future present , but still you pray for your sins to be forgiven cuz they affect you while on earth , dont listen to me or any1 else saying you can loose your salvation or doubt it , listen to the bible .
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. mathew 7:21
and what is the will of father? TO believe "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life.” (John 6:40)"
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. john 6:47 YOU HAVE EVERlasting life by faith
How is Lydia McGrew not blowing a gasket right now?
next topic: *"the dead sea scrolls"*
1.) If Witchraft is true, does that automatically mean the Judeo-Christian God is real?
2.) Is it true that witchcraft,
black magic/white magic,occult supernatural abilities,spiritism,
the effects of withcraft,
witchbook spells working are just mind/brain powers? Like something in Quantum Mechanics or just has NOT been yet discovered by science
3.) If you are a Christian and someone does a witchraft on you, and it DIDNT affected you. Does that automatocally mean that the Judeo-Christian God is real? Or its just an psychological thing or brain power?
4.) Is brain/mind power scientific?
5.) Can the human mind do great things? Like if you think that theres something bad thats going to happen at someone and you really believed that its really going to happen at them and it did happen is that even possible by human mind or brain power?
6.) Is it scientifically true that when you have a brain/mind power anything and everything is possible?
7.) Is it possible for science to ressurect the dead people?
no they aren't reliable
Basic question, why you call jesus is son of god, but not daughter of god?
Cameron, you need to focus more on Gethsemene, the "trial", and the crucifixion.
You can't understand the cross if you don't appreciate that Jesus was deserted by his closest friends and supporters; ridiculed by the religious know-it-alls; insulted or just laughed at by the fickle public while he slowly suffocated; gambled over by the police.
Whenever you finally accept that the empty tomb was a late invention; and you realize your trust in apologists was naive; and you feel like you're letting down your community; and that they might not have much more patience for you; and it can even feel like you've lost everything sometimes; just remember that you haven't actually sacrificed much and you still have lots to be grateful for.
It will help you to keep on being a nice bloke and to learn more empathy for the people you never understood.
@mythvison is such a joke bro
The Son of Man is the most exalted figure in the whole Old Testament. I disagree with that statement.
Ezekiel is called the Son of Man. So that shuts down the whole idea. This is also why nobody cares that Jesus is calling himself son of man. The only time it is made clear what Jesus is really claiming, is when he gets specific. When Jesus is before the high priest and Jesus elaborates, and makes it clear he is not just a son of man, he is the Son of Man from the Daniel prophecy.
That is when he makes it known what he is claiming. Who he is. That is why at that moment the priest tears his garment.
When I hear this I think about David Wood's " Scuby doo and the case of the silly septic " because nonbelievers will make up excuses not to believe.
At 4:54, the guy says “in Mark You are informed Jesus is the son of God”. Correction, Jesus is informed he is the son of God.
“11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” And God is pleased with Jesus.
Clearly at the time of Mark, Jesus being God wasn’t a thing. But clearly to later adapters of Marks fiction, they could rightly tell, If Jesus is God, this conversation with himself would be problematic. So later authors dealt with this early fiction of Jesus in different ways. In Matthew, it became an announcement. John completely avoids the scene.
God calling Jesus "His Son" doesn't mean He wasn't His Son before God said it. Just like when my mother called me "my daughter" doesn't mean I wasn't her daughter before she said it! And it was God the Father who spoke to God His Son, both had the exact same "Divine God Nature", so yes Jesus is God.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty It’s not about him being his son that is the point. It’s about god having to inform him. “You are my son” I don’t tell my daughters when they get all As. “You are my daughters and I am proud of you”. Secondly, why the hell is God talking to himself and patting himself on the back for being awesome? Is this self affirmation?! 😂
"Correction, Jesus is informed he is the son of God."
The Father directs His comment to the Son, but in public, so He's actually telling everyone present. And by Mark recording this, he's also telling us.
"It’s about god *having* to inform him."
Evidence please, for the word I've bolded.
"Secondly, why ... is God talking to himself ... ?"
First, because God is three persons in one, so He's actually talking to another person (of the trinity). Second, as I said above, it's a public statement, so He's also talking to all those present.
@@PJRayment Did Jesus know he was the son of God before is his baptism? If Yes, the evidence from Mark.
I see no public being able to hear what God was directing Jesus via the spirit. Also, the spirit then sends him to the wilderness. You are taking what you know from the other gospels an adding to Mark.
Yeah, so FYI the trinity is stupid to all who aren't Trinity believing persons. No other trinity exists so, for me, when two beings are conversing, it implies two different beings. But when you say they are the same being, but in two persons, then there would be no reason for a conversation. They would have the same understanding.
Matthew copies much of Mark word for word. But purposefully turns the conversation into an announcement. "7 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” John completely avoids the scene all together.
@@JezuesChavez
"Did Jesus know he was the son of God before is his baptism?"
I believe that He did.
"If Yes, the evidence from Mark."
Is that an incomplete sentence? It is not coherent.
"You are taking what you know from the other gospels an adding to Mark."
So? We need to look at _all_ the evidence, not just bits of it in isolation.
"Yeah, so FYI the trinity is stupid to all who aren't Trinity believing persons."
And a round earth is stupid to all who aren't believers in that. And evolution is stupid to all those who aren't believers in that. What's your point?
"No other trinity exists..."
So therefore it can't? That's illogical.
"...for me, when two beings are conversing, it implies two different beings."
That's _your_ problem.
"But when you say they are the same being, but in two persons, then there would be no reason for a conversation."
What's your evidence for thinking that there would be no reason for a conversation? Do you think that if you can't think of a reason, then one can't exist? That's illogical. And given that I've already given a reason, that implies that you're closed to any alternative view.
"Matthew copies much of Mark word for word."
Allegedly. And yet...
"But purposefully turns the conversation into an announcement."
... you immediately contradict yourself.
"John completely avoids the scene all together."
So what? Are you trying to add irrelevancies to sound impressive because your argument doesn't hold water?
Markan priority is such a dogma. I can guarantee than WLC has never once delved into the Greek as to why Luke used Mark. You know why? The parallels have vastly different Greek. Smh lol
This entire video parrots markan priority multiple times. That’s the problem with most modern NT scholarship. So much hinges on markan priority; but there are some vast problems with this view.
@@rebelresourceDo you agree that the sheer amount of shared verbatim Greek likely implies copying?
Markan priority is not dogma. It's supported my multiple lines of evidence.
Both Mark 1 and Matthew 3 open up with a citation attributed to Isaiah. However, Mark goofs up by including a verse from Malachi 3:1. Matthew correctly has just the Isaiah passage. Now, does it make more sense for Mark to be copying Matthew (who has the correct text) but end up writing down the wrong thing since he includes a verse from Malachi? Or does it make more sense for Matthew to copy Mark and drop the incorrect passage from Malachi?
Mark 1:28 says news about Jesus spread over the whole region of Galilee. Matthew 4:24 says news about him spread all over Syria. So Mark was reading Matthew but demotes his popularity?
In Mark 2:26, the wrong high priest is mentioned. Abiathar was not the high priest, Ahimelech was - 1 Sam 21:1-7. Matthew 12:3 does not have the name Abiathar. So Mark copied Matthew's verse but added the wrong name? Or Matthew copied Mark's verse and omits the wrong name?
Mark 6:14 calls Herod a "king." Matthew 14:1 and Luke 9:7 correctly call Herod a tetrarch. The shared Greek of these passages is undeniable and it obviously makes more sense that Matthew and Luke were correcting Mark's error.
I'm suddenly convinced to deny the word of a man with two PhDs in relevant fields and to accept the word of 'Mageknightwizard9889' in a UA-cam comment section!
Thank God you deigned to comment here!
I am NT student. I highly respect WLC - he is an excellent philosopher. But the shadow of Markan priority is long. It is a long held dogma, and I would put $100 cash down that WLC has accepted the theories but has never looked into the greek and synoptic parallels. For example, one of the greatest NT scholars wrote about how much verbal identity Luke had with Mark - it wasn't until computers that they found dozens of errors.
Scholars have recognized Luke’s version and account of the events of Jesus’ last hours derived from a more primitive, non-Markan source (Flusser, Dodd, etc). Luke does not know of a nighttime interrogation, which seemingly derived from Mark’s pen due to a desire to “fill the empty space” in the narrative. Moreover, Luke has no knowledge of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin, which did not exist during the days of Jesus. Herod the Great, when he became king, apparently disbanded the body of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem due to their opposition to him, particularly at a previous trial of his. It was reestablished either by Agrippa I (AD 41-44) or, more likely, after the death of Agrippa I when Rome brought all of Agrippa’s kingdom under the oversight of the procurators. Luke-Acts preserves this historical nuance. In the narratives prior to the time of Agrippa I, the term “Sanhedrin” refers to the “council chamber,” the Chamber of Hewn Stone (לשכת הגזית; m. Pe’ah 2:6; m. Sanhedrin 11:2; m. Middot 5:4; y. Sanhedrin 19c; b. Yoma 25a), where the Jewish council met (in and around the Temple Mount).[4] After the death of Agrippa I, Luke used the term “Sanhedrin” to refer to the council itself. The appearance in Mark and Matthew of the full Sanhedrin is anachronistic, reflecting the later situation. John also does not know of Jesus standing before a session of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
Luke lacks any formal temple destruction prediction like we find in Mark. Other Jews contemporaneous to Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple. This had to deal with the corruption of the priestly aristocracy, since it had such well known corruption other Jews spoke ills of it. So this means you can't really use those prophecies for dating because it's ignoring historical evidence and/or presuming naturalism. BUT... other Jews spoke JUST like Jesus did in Luke 21 about the Temple PRE-destruction. It would not be unlikely for Jesus to speak of coming destruction due to his view of the corruption in the Temple - and we have other Jews speaking ill's of the Temple as well. Luke’s temple destruction prophecy is not an evolution of mark or Matthew's narrative, it is reflective of the Babylonian exile (armies) and lacks a parenthetical statement.
Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God who died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and on the third day he rose from the grave. Every person who truly believes the GOSPEL has been Born Again - they have EVERLASTING life. God knows if we are genuine believers. As Christians we have a heart's desire to live a life that is pleasing to God - there is NO excuse for sin. It's very important to remember that we can't earn our salvation in any way. Let's never forget that the precious BLOOD of Jesus Christ cleans us from ALL sin which means there is NOTHING that can be added to improve the FINISHED redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Church must earnestly contend for the faith and passionately preach the GOSPEL as instructed by Jesus Christ - WORSHIP HIS MAJESTY - please read John 3:16.
No one knows who wrote the nonsese!!!!!
Shut up and get a life In Christ
The (anonymous) author of Luke/Acts viewed Noah's flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings and Conquest as real history. Nope. Those stories are myths, as well as most of the characters in them. Also, the Luke author was supposedly a Greek/Jewish physician. But such doctors practiced Hiipocratic medicine; which never blamed illness on demon possession, yet the Luke author does several times.
"Those stories are myths, as well as most of the characters in them."
Evidence please. Especially given that we have massive geological evidence for the flood.
"But such doctors practiced Hiipocratic medicine; which never blamed illness on demon possession, yet the Luke author does several times."
It's illogical to claim that something "never" happened when we have a claimed example of it happening, and then use that certainty to dismiss the contrary example. That's a circular argument.
So Luke is a great historian? Then riddle me this: Why is that in Luke 3:1 he writes, "In the fifteenth year or reign of Tiberius when Pontius Pilate...and Lysanias tetrach of Abilene..."?
Lysanias, tetrach of Abiline was put to death by Marc Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra in 33BC, some 60 (SIXTY) years before Jesus even began his ministry. The reference for this is Josephus in his Antiquities. There are also coins dating to 40BC with his image on it. Tiberius became the emperor in AD 14; Lysanias was long dead. NOW try to sell me on Luke being this meticulous Historian!!!
Yessss! That one always cracks me up. It's impossible to rationally explain that away!
@@monkkeygawd I'm hoping some apologist will pull something out of their ass like, "It was his son" Pathetic.
@@vinnyrac
Tertulian (being a Roman) would have used a Roman calendar system of dating reigns of emperors. So, the part year of AD 14 would have been considered Tiberius' accession, and AD 15 would have been year 1, and so on. Hence the Lord would have been revealed in AD 26. It would have referred to his baptism in the year that John began baptising, and by the time Jesus came out of his wilderness temptation, the beginning his ministry would have been early AD 27.
So Tertulian's system fits well with an AD 30 crucifixion. There is a growing consensus among Bible scholars that this date fits the facts better than the other popular option of AD 33. Also, the Tertulian schema, does not contradict the gospel of Luke as first appears. Yes, Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of his adoptive father, Augustus in AD 14. However, it is a well-known fact that he had become co-regent with his ailing father two years earlier in AD 12. In that year, he was made supreme military commander over Caesar's armies and provinces. Ancient coins from Antioch dated AD 12 display the head of Tiberius and documents attest to his reign being fully in force from that time. Thus, his inauguration in AD 14 as emperor was only a formalisation of a reign that had begun two years earlier.
Therefore, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (as Luke put it) would make Jesus' baptism AD 26, just the same as Tertulian's conclusion, albeit by a different method of getting there. Neither Luke or Tertulian were mistaken!
@@vinnyrac
It was thought Luke was in error in mentioning ‘Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene’ (Luke 3.1) as there was no record of such a person-until an inscription was found near Damascus which speaks of “Freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch” dated to the right period.
@@davidstrelec2000 Lysanias died at the hands of Marc Antony in 33 BCE. That's Before the Common era. Not C.E. Luke made a mistake because the author of Luke was neither a witness, a companion of Paul nor did he interview anyone. Like all the gospels they were written far away from Judea in both time and place by individuals who only had a cursory understanding of Jewish laws, history and customs.
Would a real god leave such a mess behind..very doubful..amen
How do you figure
There is no mess, these are historically robust documents, documents of such quality dont exist regarding many historical figures and events, and yet no one denies them. Trying to sleaze away from taking a position about Jesus by complaining about the texts is a modern invention.
So you know better than God... that you dônt think exists,, hmmm
Interesting, but not at all convincing.
Mr. Craig said Luke merely "skipped over" the Galilean appearances. Um, sorry but no. The author of Luke's gospel was a dishonest redactor who erased the Galilean appearance tradition.
We know from the evidence for Markan priority that Luke copied Mark. In other words, when Luke was composing his gospel, he had a copy of Mark in front of him. We can tell Luke is deliberately altering the tradition because he changes the angels prediction at the tomb.
Here's what the angel says at the tomb in Mark and Matthew:
Mark 16:7
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, *‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him, just as he told you.”
Matthew 28:7
Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and *is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction. At the exact same part in the story, Luke has the (now 2) angels say this:
Luke 24:6-8
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.
Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a *remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.* This is in order to setup all the appearances happening in or around Jerusalem. Further supporting the hypothesis that Luke intentionally rewrote the story is that he also removes the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from the prediction of Peter's denial - Mk. 14:28 cf. Mt. 26:32. The phrase *"But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”* has been omitted from Luke 22:31-34, 60-62.
In fact, Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee because he has the disciples "stay in the city" (Jerusalem) until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4. According to the previous context in Lk. 24, this command was given the same night of the resurrection.
Huge swing and a miss, you obviously didn’t watch the video 😬
@@rickydettmer2003 The gospels are anonymous and the names added to them are merely church tradition. Change my mind.
@@rickydettmer2003 Actually it was Mr. Craig's sleight of hand that missed. Luke doesn't "skip over" the Galilean appearances. He literally *changes what Mark says happened* as the redaction examples above show. Luke *erases* the Galilean appearance tradition altogether and leaves no room for any Galilean appearances because the command to stay in Jerusalem is given the same night as the Resurrection in Lk. 24:49.
No. No sir and for the future you should try to refrain from talking about "we" thee is no we. There is you and there is me. the only "we" is we disagree and you are wrong.
Your explanation of what Luke did doesn't seem to me to be the only plausible explanation. Another plausibility is that he removed the reference to Galilee and added that the angel said something about Jesus predicting his death and resurrection. He didn't change one into the other. The two are unrelated to each other but could very well both have happened. Just because Luke removed one text and inserted another does not at all mean that he "changed" one text into another. The difference is subtle, but the ramifications are large. Luke didn't seem to have changed the text in Mark, he seems to have gotten rid of it and replaced it by something that's unrelated to the original text. The only things that are the same is Galilee and the location of the text. The reference to Galilee could easily have been coincidental.
Misrepresention misunderstanding, misinterpretation of scripture. No one can say you're not a Protestant / Anglican.
No magical skywizards exist