2 min in already know this is going to be a lecture on denial. Imagine how Peter was dictating verbatim passages of "Matthew" to "Mark" and then decided to change "Jesus *did* not do many miracles..." To "He *could not* do many miracles". And removes the crowd of people at Jesus' baptism because less witnesses is always better apparently. He also tells Mark to include more spitting miracles, and get rid of this yammering sermon on the mount, YAHN. add at least 3 more scenes where the disciples look like idiots and get rid of this post -resurrection narrative...just write that the woman ran away scared and said nothing to anyone! Peter is one scary editor.
Your mistake is you are using critical reasoning coupled with a close reading of the text. You should instead listen to what church fathers living more than a hundred years after these books were written thought
@@osr4152 do have any reason to think they knew better? Biblical Criticism doesn't discount Church fathers we just don't take them as gospel. Cross-examine your Witnesses
@@michaelcallahan4180 I was being sarcastic. I agree with your comment. My point is that critically examining the text is better than blindly trusting a church Father who probably knew as little about the composition of these texts as we do.
@@osr4152 what's funny is some people would sincerely say what u said in these types of comment sections which are usually swimming with old apologetics, where give away line of "reasoning and close reading of texts.." is maligned as presumptuous and wallowing in minutia when obviously Papias a near contemporary, already told us Peter dictated the gospel to Mark!
As noted by some researchers Matthew as a tax collector would have known shorthand and probably wrote - using his tax collector's notebook - either as Jesus spoke or shortly afterward.
The solutions are clear, man of God.
Not if you read the critical scholars on this subject.
I already like your detailed explanation
It wasn't detailed at all
Thank you enjoyed
2 min in already know this is going to be a lecture on denial. Imagine how Peter was dictating verbatim passages of "Matthew" to "Mark" and then decided to change "Jesus *did* not do many miracles..." To "He *could not* do many miracles". And removes the crowd of people at Jesus' baptism because less witnesses is always better apparently. He also tells Mark to include more spitting miracles, and get rid of this yammering sermon on the mount, YAHN. add at least 3 more scenes where the disciples look like idiots and get rid of this post -resurrection narrative...just write that the woman ran away scared and said nothing to anyone!
Peter is one scary editor.
Your mistake is you are using critical reasoning coupled with a close reading of the text. You should instead listen to what church fathers living more than a hundred years after these books were written thought
@@osr4152 do have any reason to think they knew better? Biblical Criticism doesn't discount Church fathers we just don't take them as gospel. Cross-examine your Witnesses
@@michaelcallahan4180 I was being sarcastic. I agree with your comment. My point is that critically examining the text is better than blindly trusting a church Father who probably knew as little about the composition of these texts as we do.
@@osr4152 lol well then..khmm anyway
@@osr4152 what's funny is some people would sincerely say what u said in these types of comment sections which are usually swimming with old apologetics, where give away line of "reasoning and close reading of texts.." is maligned as presumptuous and wallowing in minutia when obviously Papias a near contemporary, already told us Peter dictated the gospel to Mark!
As noted by some researchers Matthew as a tax collector would have known shorthand and probably wrote - using his tax collector's notebook - either as Jesus spoke or shortly afterward.
Buy Ehrman and Goodacre for starters. This guy won't so this is for people who viewed this joke of a video