One of the best in the field of biblical truth. Every anti-theist should read and take professor Blomberg seriously. He has been a blessing to those of us who are always open to truth.
I'm watching this to challenge my knowledge. I'm a lapsed, formerly very happy "new convert" Eastern/Roman Catholic. Off topic: there is a lot of good stuff in the bible for secular people as well. The good book is the UA-cam of the former millennium.
@@dfpolitowski2 "You'll find TRUTH in protestant churCHES" 😂😂😂😂 There's two things in common between protestant sects: Sola Scriptura and contradiction with the neighboring sect. As far as I know there's only one Bible. And by the way... the Holy Spirit is not a liar, right? Something is very, very wrong, don't you think?
@@leonardobarbieri1292 No a lot has to do with the kind of Church you attend and weather or not the bible is preached or not. Truth is disseminated or held back. You must sit under good preaching.
@@dfpolitowski2 Traditional forms of Christianity are not about preaching, but about rites, priesthood and sacraments. To think that salvation is in your knowledge is gnosticism. As the apostle James said, "even demons believe that there is only one God". And I don't see any fruits on protestant preaching, since the whole idea is built on harmful thoughts - such as the Sola Fide "dogma".
@@richp860 Thank you for the reply. I believe that God not only inspired the scriptures but also preserved them. Relying on man's probability methods to try and reconstruct the author's words, and relying on man's ability for perfectly copy them every time, and believing there was no intentional reconstruction by biased theologians makes me think that without God's supernatural intervention in this process from start to finish we really don't have "what God said". I believe the Bible is the word of God because he watches over his word to protect and preserve it. That means God's word is perfect truth. The Bible does not just contain his word, it is his word. This is not meant to be contentious. Thanks again for your reply.
@@cvanhaelst4189 to discount the very human means by which God used to construct Scripture is a mistake. God’s use of history means that we can investigate historically. God’s use of poetry and song means that we can analyze those portions literarily. The Bible didn’t descend from heaven in a bonded leather jacket ready for your consumption. There’s no divine commentary that expounds every ambiguous passage perfectly-it takes work.
@@richp860 History better supports divine intervention than guessing about what happened by naturalistic processes. No one but God was there throughout all history and is the only one who really knows. Take the supernatural out of life and you take God out of it.
Maybe Mathew Mark and Luke are so much alike because they are describing the same events? Maybe they are different because they are different authors moved by the Holy Spirit of God to present Jesus as a Jewish King in Mathew, a suffering servant in Mark and the Son of man in Luke. John is a heavenly Gospel so his overlaps less. I don't know I trust the Word of the living God over the random speculations of men.
It’s not random speculation that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke copied word for word from Mark. Those are the best attested facts that we know about the gospels.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 So you say make a case for it. The whole Q hypothesis is mostly conjecture accepted uncritically and promulgated as historical fact. From what I read I believe Matthew was first and written in Hebrew then translated to Greek. Luke clearly used multiple sources and stated explicitly that he did. Again they are describing events they witnessed first hand in the case of John and Matthew. We know this isn't the case with Luke as he attests himself and we have no first hand I witness account from Mark and he would have likely been very young even if he had been. So what actually makes sense is that the reason Mark has things in common is Matthew was his source just like Luke. Eusebius "And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13)." Historian Eusebius says Peter was Mark's source...
@@ramigilneas9274 Eusebius quoting Clement of Alexandria. "Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.
@@ramigilneas9274 Irenaus "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
@@jamesbowman7963 Eusebius is also the guy who most likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum in the writings of Josephus... our only source for the existence of the town Arimathea and our main if not only source for the traditional authorship of the gospels because the writings of those earlier church fathers only survived as "citations" in the writings of Eusebius. So maybe Eusebius simply made stuff up... like many other early church fathers.😉
also, for many historical figures we have no physical evidence for them, but we have historical evidence, and no historians question whether they exist
What u call historical evidence are mere text claims which are copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts by unknown authors. The Christian claims the existence of a living physical JC, then they go on to claim he was divine?!@@RingoFirearms All to alleviate a sin committed in a Sumerian fable about a bare naked lady taking dietary advice from a chatty snake! Absurd...
like evolution: blind, unguided, purposeless and piecemeal...yet it leads to structures encoding information, translating it, performing error correction, etc, etc it takes strong faith to believe such a narrative is rational
@@chrismessier7094 "A species is either of the two elements of the Eucharist after they have been consecrated". That is not something I've ever reproduced or tested, but it could be right. How can we tell ?
@@tedgrant2 simply restating the original argument: evolution claims that a *blind, unguided, purposeless and piecemeal process* has led to the existence of structures _encoding information, translating it, performing error correction, etc, etc_ If this doesn't point someone to intelligent design, then rationality is not the only factor involved. Light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
Around the 8 minute mark I threw up in my mouth a little bit and turned the video off. By the way that the comments were moving, Iactually thought this guy might have had some point to make about the field. That was embarassing.
@@edwardsibley Presumably he's upset that Blomberg is speaking as if Mark is known to be a real person from the book of Acts, rather than first asking whether the book of Acts is fiction. This mindset -- false until proven true -- is I think called by Pope Benedict XVI the "hermeneutic of suspicion". Given how much suffering and ungranted petitionary prayers there are in the world, perhaps something should be said to help free such people from such a mindset.
What I love on the internet is how any random and loser guy knows more about a particular subject than the experts who have studied the subject their entire lives. The internet should be banned for idiots. Don't you think, Michael Jackson?
Oh god it hurts. This guy almost says three fallacies a sentence. He's clearly never been interested in the topics of logic and epistemology. Or historical method.
One of the best in the field of biblical truth. Every anti-theist should read and take professor Blomberg seriously. He has been a blessing to those of us who are always open to truth.
Dd S, Nothing like someone challenging your presuppositions to bring out the trolls
Dd S, And as usual, the normal trollism, which is making fun of someone’s name, Name-calling etc.
Dd S bro you’ve produced no arguments and done what most people do and attack the disagreement and produce no argument
Blomberg is one of the best. Read his books. You will get educated.
Are you really open to the truth if it opposes your belief?
Jesus is Lord no matter what opinion we may have and I love him because he is so real to me amen
I'm watching this to challenge my knowledge. I'm a lapsed, formerly very happy "new convert" Eastern/Roman Catholic. Off topic: there is a lot of good stuff in the bible for secular people as well. The good book is the UA-cam of the former millennium.
Yeah, you made a mistake on that one. You will find truth in most protestant evangelical churches, But keep seeking, God has to lead you.
@@dfpolitowski2 "You'll find TRUTH in protestant churCHES" 😂😂😂😂
There's two things in common between protestant sects: Sola Scriptura and contradiction with the neighboring sect.
As far as I know there's only one Bible. And by the way... the Holy Spirit is not a liar, right?
Something is very, very wrong, don't you think?
@@leonardobarbieri1292 No a lot has to do with the kind of Church you attend and weather or not the bible is preached or not. Truth is disseminated or held back. You must sit under good preaching.
@@dfpolitowski2 Traditional forms of Christianity are not about preaching, but about rites, priesthood and sacraments. To think that salvation is in your knowledge is gnosticism. As the apostle James said, "even demons believe that there is only one God".
And I don't see any fruits on protestant preaching, since the whole idea is built on harmful thoughts - such as the Sola Fide "dogma".
I wonder was any of it inspired by God not just man's ideas? You wouldn't know that from the presentation.
He’s approaching it from the perspective of an historian.
@@richp860 Thank you for the reply. I believe that God not only inspired the scriptures but also preserved them. Relying on man's probability methods to try and reconstruct the author's words, and relying on man's ability for perfectly copy them every time, and believing there was no intentional reconstruction by biased theologians makes me think that without God's supernatural intervention in this process from start to finish we really don't have "what God said". I believe the Bible is the word of God because he watches over his word to protect and preserve it. That means God's word is perfect truth. The Bible does not just contain his word, it is his word. This is not meant to be contentious. Thanks again for your reply.
@@cvanhaelst4189 to discount the very human means by which God used to construct Scripture is a mistake. God’s use of history means that we can investigate historically. God’s use of poetry and song means that we can analyze those portions literarily. The Bible didn’t descend from heaven in a bonded leather jacket ready for your consumption. There’s no divine commentary that expounds every ambiguous passage perfectly-it takes work.
@@richp860 History better supports divine intervention than guessing about what happened by naturalistic processes. No one but God was there throughout all history and is the only one who really knows. Take the supernatural out of life and you take God out of it.
@@cvanhaelst4189 there’s no tension. You’re imagining one.
Maybe Mathew Mark and Luke are so much alike because they are describing the same events? Maybe they are different because they are different authors moved by the Holy Spirit of God to present Jesus as a Jewish King in Mathew, a suffering servant in Mark and the Son of man in Luke. John is a heavenly Gospel so his overlaps less. I don't know I trust the Word of the living God over the random speculations of men.
It’s not random speculation that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke copied word for word from Mark.
Those are the best attested facts that we know about the gospels.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 So you say make a case for it. The whole Q hypothesis is mostly conjecture accepted uncritically and promulgated as historical fact. From what I read I believe Matthew was first and written in Hebrew then translated to Greek. Luke clearly used multiple sources and stated explicitly that he did. Again they are describing events they witnessed first hand in the case of John and Matthew. We know this isn't the case with Luke as he attests himself and we have no first hand I witness account from Mark and he would have likely been very young even if he had been. So what actually makes sense is that the reason Mark has things in common is Matthew was his source just like Luke.
Eusebius "And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13)."
Historian Eusebius says Peter was Mark's source...
@@ramigilneas9274 Eusebius quoting Clement of Alexandria. "Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.
@@ramigilneas9274 Irenaus "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
@@jamesbowman7963
Eusebius is also the guy who most likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum in the writings of Josephus... our only source for the existence of the town Arimathea and our main if not only source for the traditional authorship of the gospels because the writings of those earlier church fathers only survived as "citations" in the writings of Eusebius.
So maybe Eusebius simply made stuff up... like many other early church fathers.😉
Do you have any physical evidence for a physical JC?
also, for many historical figures we have no physical evidence for them, but we have historical evidence, and no historians question whether they exist
What u call historical evidence are mere text claims which are copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts by unknown authors. The Christian claims the existence of a living physical JC, then they go on to claim he was divine?!@@RingoFirearms All to alleviate a sin committed in a Sumerian fable about a bare naked lady taking dietary advice from a chatty snake! Absurd...
The personal testimonials of people whose lives have been transformed by simply believing.
Believing without knowledge is still ignorance.@@Matt-cj5us
@@RingoFirearms Odysseus was probably a real person, but that doesn't mean the myths about his journey really happened.
It is completely rational to believe everything you've been told, apparently.
like evolution: blind, unguided, purposeless and piecemeal...yet it leads to structures encoding information, translating it, performing error correction, etc, etc
it takes strong faith to believe such a narrative is rational
@@chrismessier7094
You're right.
It also takes a strong faith to believe my car will start in the morning.
@@tedgrant2 but the car can demonstrably run, empirically, verifiably, repeatedly. ool and macro evolution, not so
@@chrismessier7094
"A species is either of the two elements of the Eucharist after they have been consecrated".
That is not something I've ever reproduced or tested, but it could be right.
How can we tell ?
@@tedgrant2 simply restating the original argument: evolution claims that a *blind, unguided, purposeless and piecemeal process* has led to the existence of structures _encoding information, translating it, performing error correction, etc, etc_
If this doesn't point someone to intelligent design, then rationality is not the only factor involved.
Light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
I know that God is right-handed.
I also know that Olive Oyl is the girlfriend of Popeye.
And that Batman wears his underpants on the outside.
boring
Around the 8 minute mark I threw up in my mouth a little bit and turned the video off. By the way that the comments were moving, Iactually thought this guy might have had some point to make about the field. That was embarassing.
Why don't you be specific instead of just bloviating?
@@edwardsibley Presumably he's upset that Blomberg is speaking as if Mark is known to be a real person from the book of Acts, rather than first asking whether the book of Acts is fiction. This mindset -- false until proven true -- is I think called by Pope Benedict XVI the "hermeneutic of suspicion". Given how much suffering and ungranted petitionary prayers there are in the world, perhaps something should be said to help free such people from such a mindset.
What I love on the internet is how any random and loser guy knows more about a particular subject than the experts who have studied the subject their entire lives.
The internet should be banned for idiots. Don't you think, Michael Jackson?
THIS SPEAKER IS NOT SUITABLE FOR "PRIME TIME",,,,,,,,MAYBE A CLASS OF 10-15 NO MORE !
Oh god it hurts. This guy almost says three fallacies a sentence. He's clearly never been interested in the topics of logic and epistemology. Or historical method.
If you fault his logic why not give a logical rebuttal with well reasoned discourse. I don't think saying I threw up in my mouth qualifies?
Your sin makes you miserable. Good evidence right there.