There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[@iamfiefo]

Dan is using Landscape mode for his video? Blasphemy!

[@alexmcd378]

Oh hey, you're right! I didn't notice 😅

[@MichaelDeHaven]

I was setting here saying something is wrong. I was thinking blurry camera, but I had my glasses off. 😂

[@sinlatenightsins9657]

I can't see what cool shirt he's wearing

[@bristolrovers27]

Is this the real Dan, no t-shirt and in landscape ? Looks iffy 😂

[@bryana8357]

Framing looks like it was done in post- it's the mark of the beast!!!

[@sheilamunyer]

I have been trying to tell this to believers for a long time. Thank you!

[@pineapplepenumbra]

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. However, what my girlfriend advised me was to plant seeds, have no ego about it and hopefully, long after the religious have forgotten you, those questions will finally spark them into thinking for themselves and deconstructing. Few people, though, appreciate just how awful, powerful and insidious brainwashing is. It should be illegal to bring children up in any religious/cult belief system.

[@jasonsanders3930]

Obviously they’re not believers lol

[@fordprefect5304]

@@jasonsanders3930 Obviously you believe in fairy tales and lack the intelligence to accept reality

[@fordprefect5304]

@@jasonsanders3930 Wow you never stop whining

[@barryoldern1605]

@@pineapplepenumbra like atheism or political ones

[@mgeuleinstsear]

Learning this, it was hard for me to believe in Jesus‘ teachings anymore. We argue so much about what Jesus said, when we don’t really know what he said and did 😵‍💫 This, and seeing that the whole Atonement/suffering doesn’t really make sense, made me leave Christianity.

[@MarcillaSmith]

Blessed are those who do not see, and yet have faith.

[@monteirolobato6830]

I think for those who do not already believe, that they might reflect on what the central beliefs of Jesus' messages would mean for them and the world. I'm not talking about the stuff that always gets so many people tied up in a bunch, but the idea that one should love one's neighbour and be forgiving, to put aside greed and lying, to embrace a simple life, etc. (That makes it all sounds easy, but we know how hard it is to lead even part of this ideal. But we try. Trying and not being discouraged. That's a lot like faith.)

[@mgeuleinstsear]

@@MarcillaSmith No, I don't believe that God expects us to just blindly have faith in some man that we don't even know. There have been too many men and women who have mislead people in the name of religion. I can imagine that He is okay with me using my own God-given reasoning, looking at data, evaluating what I know, etc. Any decent human being would have done the same as Jesus supposedly did. Especially when one knows that the suffering only lasts a few days and you can save all humankind (including your family), be resurrected after three days and receive all of God's glory. Who would turn down that deal?!? Humans have suffered through torture or sicknesses for way longer periods of time than what Jesus supposedly did. The whole Atonement thing also reminds me too much of ancient cultures who sacrificed perfect animals to appease the Gods. Jesus' atonement seems like a remainder of that, but with a Near Eastern influence to it. Also, science makes it difficult to believe in an Adam and Eve who lived in some garden and sinned, thus making an atonement necessary. Also, the whole Adam and Eve story sounds more like a creation myth to try to explain where humans came from. Without Adam and Eve's fall, there is no need for an atonement. I grew up Christian and it was difficult to give up my faith in a Christ, especially since I grew up in Europe where the whole culture is based on Christianity. If there is a God, I believe that He created me perfectly and with everything I need in order to return to Him. It is within me and does not rely on some man that lived 2000 years ago, whose words weren't even written down when he lived.

[@servantJerubbaalgodSlayer]

@@mgeuleinstsearWhen you encounter God for yourself, it is very personal and supersedes every argument to the contrary that others present to you. That’s what happened to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus in *Acts 2.* Not trying to convince you, just adding to the conversation. ✌🏼✌🏿✌🏽✌🏾✌️🇨🇦

[@DianaCHewitt]

It's a leap of faith. It's not based in reason or evidence. That is why I cannot be a Christian and find the tradition very alienating. Faith is a rejection of epistemology.

[@scienceexplains302]

Papias made a couple claims that I take seriously and it is why I am skeptical about everything else he wrote. Papias described his own methodology as repeating what people claimed if they claimed it came from the Lord. He delighted only in those who taught the “truth”, which implies that he thought he knew the truth already and filtered out testimony that didn’t match what he already believed.

[@austridge31]

And we all know. That anyone who describes themselves as a truth seeker; is generally looking for anything but the truth. Rather, the truth as they would like it to be...

[@ElusiveEel]

so nothing has changed in thousands of years

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

I find it very odd that this guy was going around performing miracles and yet there is almost nothing written about him besides what is in the Bible.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

Well there are things written about him other than in the Bible

[@ChukwuemekaNnadi-ss5sf]

Read the introduction to Luke

[@egalitarian-rex]

See Dan’s video from 8 months ago titled; What non-biblical records of Jesus do we have? Dan discusses all the known references outside the Bible and indeed there is almost nothing.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

@@egalitarian-rex Peer reviewed, authoritative historians agree that Jesus existed. It's cool basing your argument on a clout chasing KZbinr called Dan

[@egalitarian-rex]

@@innocentodinkemere4597 Dan agrees that Jesus existed. I agree that Jesus existed. I agree with the original comment above that there are precious few references to the historical Jesus outside the Bible. Dan fulfills my definition of a Biblical scholar and he made a video wherein he discusses those few references, but does not trash them or discredit them. Quite the contrary, he states why, as a well educated Biblical scholar he finds they are legitimate references independent of the Bible. Establishing the relative rarity of a thing is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist. This really didn’t call for a rebuttal from either one of us. We apparently disagree about something meaningful to you. I can live with that.

[@mikekolokowsky]

Why would Peter need a translator if he was gifted with the “speaking in tongues” thing from the Holy Spirit’s fire?

[@dbaargosy4062]

@@mikekolokowsky tongues of fire silly like bright lihgt glinting upon sharp two edged sword or the tips of such toungues catch hold like a spear made pruninghook however there is no witch, and With Hod The One There Is No Which

[@dbaargosy4062]

internet is a social service

[@smeatonlighthouse4384]

When the Holy Spirit came down in power at Pentecost, the speaking in tongues was for all the foreigners who were present, who heard the apostles speaking in their own dialect and language. There was no need for translation. What passes for spiritual gifts since is the Holy Spirit conveying a message in an unknown tongue. It needed a translation or the tongues were to stop. They are unnecessary now as the Bible is complete and the Holy Spirit does not need to give messages for translation now. Quite often the tongues are not from the Spirit but from Satan and are very unreliable.

[@ClarkVangilder]

Have you considered including a bibliography so that we can go look up those citations?

[@faithlessfather]

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

[@ClarkVangilder]

@@faithlessfather wow … ThanX!

[@faithlessfather]

@@ClarkVangilder It took me awhile to get all those! Enjoy! I have a list of messiahs before Jesus as well

[@faithlessfather]

let me know if you want to see the actual video of NT Wright saying he doesnt know who wrote the Gospels and that no one else does

[@ClarkVangilder]

@@faithlessfather this clip? kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKTddZmferehns0si=A5WQ-4-3E2RQDbRq

[@zombiefireman]

Dan, I'm a new subscriber and I must say delighted with what I'm seeing here. These short 5-10 minute point-by-point videos are perfect for isolating the signal from the noise. Keep it up!

[@DrBeroSP]

Thanks!

[@rkn2800]

How disappointing it is to be led to think that the Bible is one single text, where all the references to god, angels, the heavens, all agree with each other from Genesis to Revelations, thus making the whole text ʻtrue’ and ʻthe word of God’. Then to find out that much of the Bible was written by people who are not those we thought they were. But what if we did understand all this information correctly to begin with? What would religion look like then? Certainly nothing like it is now. Maybe more like philosophical think tanks.

[@chameleonx9253]

If we understood all the information in the Bible "correctly," we would see it as a bunch of fables, folklore, poetry, and mythologized pseudo-history written to establish a sociopolitical narrative rather than give an accurate account of past events.

[@chameleonx9253]

If we understood all the information in the Bible "correctly," we would see it as a bunch of fables, folklore, poetry, and mythologized pseudo-history written to establish a sociopolitical narrative rather than give an accurate account of past events.

[@rkn2800]

@@chameleonx9253 Agreed.

[@jgmrichter]

@@chameleonx9253 ... said no-one who actually studied fable, folklore, mythology or ancient history, ever. Anyone who dismisses the tangled web of narratives that shaped literally every human culture that has ever existed as "just a bunch of" anything merely reveals they are just as naively and unreflexively immersed in their own construct of reality as any of those past cultures.

[@pherble]

The more I learn the more easily reconcile that the Bible is a compendium of histories, social norms and laws, traditions and myths of peoples. Especially when other texts like apocrypha and other writings from other nations are considered. That is much more comforting to me as it aligns to human experience rather than forcing a schizophrenic description of divine agency.

[@midbamarail]

This one is going to stir things up. :)

[@waitstill7091]

If it does, it means Christianity can be better defined as a cult!

[@lde-m8688]

**grabs popcorn to watch the apologists**

[@benroberts2222]

Yep it activated the mythicists, I didn't expect that tbh

[@hairiestwizard]

​@@benroberts2222all 5 of the mythicists lol

[@danielsnyder2288]

Naw, this is old news, well known by anyone who has actually read the Bible and done any study

[@denzilbelgium]

Super helpful and insightful as always Dan. You're a Godsend. Ha!

[@davidlafleche1142]

Yes, the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

[@RD-jc2eu]

@@davidlafleche1142 Find proof -- IN THE GOSPELS themselves -- of a claim to eyewitness account (other than the single one that Dan referenced). You can't do it, so you'd rather just spew mindless drivel at your keyboard, then post it as if you done something to be proud of.

[@austridge31]

​@@davidlafleche1142You should probably actually watch the video...

[@magnesium3273]

@@austridge31 they are eye witness, they are just few. don't be discouraged by the conclusions of biblical scholars. scholarship is limited by the available evidence and the methods used, which may not capture the full truth of historical events. Many documents have been lost or were never recorded, so scholars’ conclusions are based on incomplete information. i encourage engaging with scholarly work but advises not to base one’s faith solely on scholarly conclusions, as these can change over time. and besides you can google this but "almost all scholars of antiquity believe that Jesus was a real person". there's still loads of undeniable evidence

[@austridge31]

@@magnesium3273 If scholars are unable to find this extra evidences were lost or not recorded. How do you know what they said??

[@marcvanleeuwen5986]

I take some issue with classifying Paul among the disciples of Jesus (3:34). Paul considered himself to be an apostle (one who is sent off) which is already a doubtful claim, as there is no indication of anybody except himself (and maybe his vision or whatever it was) ever sending him off. But for "disciple" the case seems clear cut: during Jesus's lifetime Paul was nowhere on the scene, so he was in particular not among his disciples.

[@torreyintahoe]

True

[@dooleyfussle8634]

He wasn't one of the disciples but he is generally considered to be the only verifiable "eyewitness" to Jesus' ministry, albeit from a negative perspective. After some form of conversion reaction, he joined a first generation group ( in Damascus) pursuing Jesus' goals and was eventually granted "apostleship" by the leaders of the Jerusalem group, including James the brother of Jesus. This led to his ministry to the Gentiles and his letters which are generally recognized as the only verifiable source of an eyewitness account of Jesus and his ministry.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@dooleyfussle8634 He hallucinated about Jesus 20 years after Jesus’ death. That’s not being an eyewitness.

[@dooleyfussle8634]

@torreyintahoe well, my general impression was that his "vision" was within 10 years of the crucifixion (time enough for a "Yeshua cult" to arise in Damascus) but that he had been actively harassing Yeshua and his followers since just before or shortly after the crucifixion. He was rumored to have been present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr. If you take "eyewitness" to mean actual eyes on the man, then no, probably not. But if it means someone who lived at the same time and was witness to many of the same events and partook of the same cultural milieau, then yes, Saulus was an "eyewitness".

[@marcvanleeuwen5986]

@@dooleyfussle8634 My comment was only about the terms "disciple" and "apostle" as applied to Paul, not about "eye witness". But (embarking on a tangent here) if you are referring to its usage in the title of the video, that is in the context of "eye witness account", and whatever _account about Jesus_ we have by Paul (which is very, very little) it is certainly not an eye witness account.

[@Nudnik1]

Verify Fact: there is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found in historical record anywhere outside of the new testament from that era. Pliny the elder the main Roman historian from that era make not one mention of Jesus or miracles bringing back the dead a god man healing blind etc etc. No Roman ,No Greek, Egyptian,Persian ,Asian historical record exists.. Josephus and Tactius were born After Jesus died and wrote decades later . One must pause... Excellent channel Thank you 👍

[@tchristianphoto]

This shouldn't be surprising. There's no historical mention of most people from that era. Even the Romans in charge of Judaea (Pilate, Herod) are barely mentioned in the historical record. Besides, Jesus was small potatoes until his cult started flourishing decades after his death. He was only one of a few known Jewish apocalyptic preachers of that time.

[@alexmcd378]

@@tchristianphoto i think you're underestimating the historical record of Roman times. Not saying you're wrong about Jesus not being worth mentioning at the time. Although I do think we would have found something about the dead walking the streets if that part in Matthew had actually happened

[@shaunigothictv1003]

There were many other similar spiritual belief systems which involved celestial deities taking on human form. And all of them PRE DATE Christianity. I am simply requesting the specific data that proves that the Christian version of these beliefs is the only true rendition. The specific data i am requesting would need to be completely independent of the data for a historical Jesus which is an entirely separate argument altogether.

[@alexmcd378]

@@shaunigothictv1003 cut and paste is uncouth ;)

[@shaunigothictv1003]

@@alexmcd378 I am just trying to get answers so sorry for my method. I feel like people are just trying to make fun of me by saying the I am dum and stupid and that I don't deserve answers. I think we should all be seekers of the truth. At least tell me why I was lied to about the so called "greatest story ever told". Maybe I was not the smartest guy around. But I feel like I deserve answers.

[@GreatBigBore]

The best evidence I find in the Gospels for the historical Jesus is that he doesn’t act like a fictional character, but like a real charismatic cult leader: he demands ultimate loyalty, promises infinite reward for those who make great sacrifices for himself, yells at his disciples all the time for their inadequacies, is exceptionally mean to some of them (Peter), is totally incapable of self-reflection, and is weirdly inconsistent (like telling the disciples to bring swords to Gethsemane, then pronouncing a curse on the disciple who actually uses a sword)

[@alexmcd378]

Hitchens actually convinced me that Jesus existed in some form. If there wasn't a real person, just have them be born in Bethlehem. The census nonsense kind of implies forcing a real person from Nazareth into a prophecy about Bethlehem.

[@hairiestwizard]

What do you mean? He's the standard apocalyptic prophet figure

[@davidlewis3072]

that's not evidence however...the evidence currently leads to there no being any eye witnesses and I say currently because if another scroll is found that is dated to the time of Jesus than history will change to reflect that

[@chefchaudard3580]

Do you know any non fictional character that performed miracles and resurrected?😊 Jokes apart: in the Gospels, the apostles are as dumb as a rock. They live with the Jesus guy, and should be familiar with His ideas and teachings, but he has to explain each and every parable for them to understand, even if there are perfectly clear. There are several literary devices like this in the Gospels, which purpose is to convince people to believe in the god of the Jews, not some biography.

[@chefchaudard3580]

I must add I am not a mythicist, I think there was an historical Jesus, and some things in the gospels may be true.

[@kylestephens4133]

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life...that which we have seen and heard we declare to you..."

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@kylestephens4133]

@@epicofgilgamesh9964 "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world?" "Professing to be wise they became fools."

[@James-qo7uz]

@@kylestephens4133what a great head in the sand rebuttal, bravo. Why not refute what “all” he brought up instead of just quoting some circular logic scripture.

[@James-qo7uz]

@@epicofgilgamesh9964wow, what a long list of citations to loop up.

[@Luixxxd1]

@@James-qo7uz there is no point in arguing with someone who have convinced themselves that "rationale" is usperior to divinity, all one can do is cite the words of the giants whose shoulders we are standing on, whilst the rationalist spits down in hubris

[@faithlessfather]

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

All known manuscripts of Matthew have "According to Matthew" at the top of the manuscript. Saying they are anonymous is reading a bias into the data. John says nine times in the first three verses of 1 John that they physically touched Jesus, heard Him, handled Him. Peter says that they did not invent "cleverly devised fables" but "were eyewitnesses of His majesty." Try again.

[@faithlessfather]

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else” (N.T. Wright, John Ankerberg Show, 2001, Faithless Father has the video, lmk if you want it). Augustine’s Manichaean opponent Faustus argued that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles or companions of the apostles (Contra Faust., 32.2.). “Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250). “None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE.“ - Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor (no good citation unfortunately. sorry). “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Henry Dodwell, Dissertations upon Irenaeus, 1689). Speaking of Justin Martyr the early church father, Dr. Giles claims, “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him - do not occur once in all his writings” (John Allen Giles, Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age, Authorship, and Authenticity of the New Testament, p. 71). “The argument of this book -that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus- runs counter to almost all recent scholarship” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.240). “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, 2019). “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings” (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1744). “No gospel identifies its author. The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew” stem from the late 2d cent. and represent an educated estimate of the authorship by church scholars of that period who were putting together traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. To this a caution must be added: The ancient concept of authorship was often less rigorous than our own, at times amounting to identifying only the authority behind a work (however distant) rather than the writer…. Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5). “I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development” (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, p. 14). “The titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship…. The headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol I, p.117, vol VI, pp. 655, 656).

[@curious968]

"According to Matthew" was a late addition. Raymond Brown, a pretty conservative source and quoted by just about every scholar, says we don't know.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

"The superscription is found on all known manuscriptions of this [Matthew] gospel. The title must date at least from the time when the gospels were brought together as one collection. . . . Ropes, Guthrie, and others accept that these titles may reasonably be dated as early as AD 125. But it is obvious that they were not then affixed to the gospels at random. They express the views of the church held before AD 125. Stonehouse observes 'Since half of these names are not of apostles, there is confirmation of the view that the Church for a considerable time prior to AD 125, and perhaps as early as the time of the individual publication, these very persons were associated with the Gospels as their authors.'" Hiebert, D. Edmund, Introduction to the New Testament, (Gabriel Publishing, Waynesboro, GA, 2003, reprint of Moody edition, 1981), 1.47-48 Thus the early attestation of the church fathers, and again, all existing manuscripts bearing the title, and no church father disagreeing with the naming, that the traditional naming of the gospels is as solid as can be attested today.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

"The gospel's identifying superscription, "The Gospel According to Matthew", is the oldest known witness concerning its authorship. . . . The title is not a part of the original document but was early added by a scribe for purposes of identification. The superscription is found on all known manuscripts of this gospel and agrees with the testimony of the Church Fathers. the title must date at least from the time when the gospels were brought together as one collection. . . . Ropes, Guthrie, and others accept that these titles may reasonably be dated as early as AD 125. But it is obvious that they were not then affixed to the gospels at random. They expressed the views of the church held before AD 125. Stonehouse observes 'Since half of these names are not of apostles, there is confirmation of the view that the church for a considerable time prior to AD 125, and perhaps as early as the fime of the individual publication, these very persons were associated with the Gospels as their authors' " Hiebert, D. Edmund, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Gabriel Publishing, Waynesboro, GA, 2003, reprint of Moody edition, 1981) 1.47-48 Thus all known copies of Matthew contain the traditional title, no early church father disagreed, and the traditional authorships are as firm an attestation as any.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

This was added far later. We know where the text of the actual Gospel starts because of the way greek authors of such books laid them out. The Peter you are quoting also is NOT Peter the apostle as this book is pseudographic. You are literally using the Bible to justify the Bible. Try again.

[@Conspiritualitymusic]

If the four gospels within the Bible were not written by the authors that they are named after, does that not make them Pseudepigrapha?

[@benjamintrevino325]

Believers don't believe in God. They believe what some human or humans told them to believe about God.

[@Bojan12]

No that is not true for all of us. I believe what I have seen

[@Ex_christian]

@@Bojan12and what have you seen? When I was in the Christian cult, I saw judgmental, hateful people who could only lie for their make believe! There is NO HATE like Christian love!

[@poleviatia5372]

That's called spreading the gospel. Everything you know comes from someone else. No one is forcing anyone to believe.

[@aarongnanam]

​@@Ex_christian Just bcoz christians hated you doesn't mean that God hates you. If my wife loves me then I will love my wife even if the rest of her family hates me. You need to know which is the important love.

[@Ex_christian]

@@aarongnanam which god? The Malevolent war god of Abraham who committed Genocide, allows Murder, Rape, Incest, etc. all in his name? Seems like an evil god to me that the Christian Cult follows.

[@MrWylis]

Love your videos, Dan.

[@xxsqf]

im a Muslim and learning about religions . your vids have helped a lot thx

[@Checkeroute]

You need to learn from Muslim scholars about other religions - Why would you expect any truth from these people?

[@xxsqf]

@@Checkeroute nowl what I meant was I'm learning about Christianity from him

[@Checkeroute]

@@xxsqf Yes, I understood your statement that's why I suggested learning about other religions (Christianity included) from Muslim scholars. For instance, Christians will argue Christianity is a monotheistic ideology when in fact it is polytheism as they associate the Holy Spirit (jabril) and Jesus with God as His partners In Lordship. (Shirk)

[@xxsqf]

@@Checkeroute ya but this guy isn't Christian but is a scoler

[@Luixxxd1]

@@Checkeroute lol "If you want to know about the people we hate, listen to us, not to them" This is what a cult looks like, not saying Islam is a cult, but the way it's structured is cultish behaviour

[@gtkona1608]

The letters of Paul tell us that within two years or so of Jesus' death, there was an early church that proclaimed that Jesus was the son of God, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. It would have been extremely difficult to propose such a theology to people who could have easily disproven such a claim.

[@Seticzech]

No. 😀

[@curious968]

Are you familiar with Elvis sightings? Or claims that (say) King Arthur or Merlin are sleeping in some hidden chamber, ready to come back at some need? These kinds of accounts are not unique to Jesus and they can end up with a very extended lifetime, depending.

[@downshift4503]

Paul doesn't talk about Jesus life or ministry though. He also says he got the information from revelation and scripture.

[@ufpride83]

Paul wrote all of his letters and claims to people who lived hundreds of miles away from where his claims are said to have happened. To say these claims could be “easily disproven” by people who lived hundreds of miles away in a time where newspapers, books, internet, telephones, etc etc etc did not exist shows you have absolutely zero clue how the ancient world worked. To say these claims could be “easily disproven” is so unbelievably laughable. To believe that humans are motivated to put any effort into proving or disproving the claims they hear and choose to believe is even more laughable.

[@S0L12D3]

@@curious968that’s a fair argument

[@PoeLemic]

This is one of the most thought-provoking videos (to me) that you have really made. It helps answer many questions that I wondered about. I can't believe no one else has recorded on this.

[@stevemccorkel5004]

Please don’t just listen to one person to make very important decisions. These arguments - and that’s what they are - have been addressed for a long time already (even I - not a ‘Bible scholar’ - can punch holes in this. Keep searching.

[@danielhughes441]

I love this channel! Thank you for your scholarly work! Through it, you help make the world more rational and safer for those who would otherwise be deemed to hell by bigot who use their faith to oppress and demean.

[@mcake1234]

Thank you Dan for this post. I've been trying to explain this to the multitudes for I don't know how long. Cheers.

[@umopepisdnlla]

Really interesting and surprising! Could you provide links to some references that could be used to investigate further?

[@Josh-cd4pt]

I know your question is for Dan, but all the points made are covered in one of Bart Ehrman’s books if you’re interested. I think it was “Jesus Before the Gospels”

[@timandmonica]

And if you're looking for starting at the beginning, try The Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch (2021.)

[@alanx4121]

Ehrman of course who is not atheïst. he's popular among Muslims.

[@Josh-cd4pt]

@@alanx4121 relevance?

[@stephenlitten1789]

@@alanx4121 Yeah nah. He's an atheist.

[@jnobi77]

This is so beautiful. Ive never been this excited about discussing the Bible until now.

[@alanx4121]

A relief for the conscience

[@jnobi77]

@@Mike-bc2wq saying a biblical scholar knows nothing about the Bible is a declaration of ignorance.

[@stultusvenator3233]

@@Mike-bc2wq Actually, he knows a great deal, are you so afraid of the Facts and Truth. The fact you even need professional liars (apologists) goes to it all being untrue, if it were in anyway real they would not be needed. Apologists don't engage Scholars they get owned and exposed.

[@Mike-bc2wq]

@@stultusvenator3233 far as I’m concerned, you don’t exist either blasphemer and if you don’t exist, neither does your comment

[@danielgeroe1166]

@@Mike-bc2wq How very grown up of you.

[@josephatthecoop]

Late question, but I'm curious about your description of the putative gospel of Peter as "spurious" and "heretical" (4:24). I'm assuming it was deemed so by the proponents of the Gospel of Mark, but orthodoxy, like history, is written by the victors. Could you say more about what you mean when you describe it this way?

[@icypirate11]

I wish I can give this video more than one "thumbs up". I never heard the reasoning behind the traditional authorship of the NT gospels. I knew they were anonymous but now I know why these authors were most likely assigned.

[@MusicalRaichu]

Wow thanks for that. I've heard bits and pieces of it, but it's helpful bringing the pieces together. Could the "sayings gospel" by Matthew have been not Matthew's gospel per se but the unknown source for material in Matthew's gospel that's not in Mark's gospel?

[@alexmcd378]

I think it's the genre difference. A sayings gospel is different from what the synoptic gospels are. Also there are indicators that show if a document has been translated or not. Puns for example. But I'm not expert enough to know which apply to Matthew.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@alexmcd378 according to someone (maybe dale martin?) matthew's gospel was cleverly constructed. sayings gospels weren't as popular, so the author used mark to structure it like a narrative, but spliced in content from a sayings source, incorporating them into the narrative.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@MusicalRaichu As did Luke, apparently from the same source. They each also add some narrative elements as well - most obviously different birth/childhood stories. Not sure about the "popular" part, it could also just have been "Mark left all this stuff out, I'll fix it!" Mark of course also used a lot of "sayings", so it's not completely different.

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

There is the hypothesized Q sayings gospel from which Matthew and Luke may have borrowed. Note that those two gospels are very similar to one another and yet quite different from Mark and John. Maybe Dan will do a video on Q some day.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@DavidAlastairHayden what i'm getting at is that maybe Q is what papias was referring to.

[@karlinstutzman2546]

Mr. Dan, could you please provide evidence for all the various claims you make? If these people didn’t write the Gospels, could you make a case for who you think wrote the Gospels? Or are you not interested in making a case for your claims? Maybe you just like to attack the Bible

[@mooshei8165]

No one knows who wrote the gospel. It’s written decades later. It’s a historical fact’

[@Djerunk]

Thats REALLY not how criticizing claims work. Criticism of a claim doesn't require a proceeding counterclaim to have validity. It isnt Dan's job to find out who actually wrote the gospels. He just needs to put forth enough evidence for it to be the case that the gospels were not authored by who they were named after.

[@joe5959]

​@@Djerunkand he failed to do that.

[@Rhewin]

My favorite Papias claim is the one that Judas’ body swelled up so big he couldn’t walk down a street, and that it burst when a chariot ran it over. Classy stuff.

[@mytwocents7481]

4:52 "that disciple [Matthew] has a more prominent role in that gospel as well." In the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew has the same limited role that he has in Mark. Jesus calls him and that's it. Anyone have any idea what Dan is talking about?

[@guitarjoe7394]

You don't have to be Billy Graham to know that Peter and Paul met Jesus and wrote NT books. Christ makes a PERSONAL APPEARANCE at the beginning of Revelation. I'm not even trying and your arguement has been destroyed

[@downshift4503]

You don't have to be Billy Graham either to know that Paul said he saw Jesus in visions and said he got his information from revelation and the scriptures. It is contested in scholarship that Peter wrote the epistles bearing his name. Revelation has the author seeing Jesus and all sorts of monsters too - in visions.

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

I was under the impression that Acts and Luke shared an author (even if that author was not Luke). What's the current state of the literature on this?

[@curious968]

I have heard no dissent, liberal or conservative on that aspect of it. I forget the details, but there's good understanding that Acts is simply a continuation of the gospel. The question as far as the gospel of Luke goes is not did one guy write it, but rather, where did the source material come from? The "synoptic gospels" is a nice, scholarly name for "they write very similarly in a lot of places; very, very similarly in lots of places." And then include their own stuff. The whole Q hypothesis exists because there are long stretches where the similarities between the three are too striking to be ignored. This leads to the conclusion that they are not end to end original works, but each relied on other, older source material. Q is one such hypothesized piece of it. But even if there was no Q, something like it must have existed. Nobody claims that they miraculously came up with the same words and phrases. They are just there to be found if you study in Greek and not English translations.

[@Bluesruse]

@@curious968 Something like Q _might_ have existed, but surely it is not a must. All you need is Luke having both Mark and Matthew to explain Q without needing Q.

[@curious968]

@@Bluesruse Sure, it is possible, but how likely is that alternative? Books had to be hand copied in those days. The Christian sect was small in the first century and far from united. Some single common source seems the most likely, but unless we belatedly find one, we can only make "this seems more plausible than that " arguments.

[@Bluesruse]

@@curious968 Well, it doesn't involve hypothetical sources we don't have, so it's inherently more probable in that regard, in my opinion. And, it makes your argument about hand copying documents and Christianity being relatively small work exactly against the Q argument. With the Q hypothesis, you have two authors juggling multiple sources, whereas the Mark->Matthew->Luke hypothesis, you only need 1 author (Luke) juggling multiple sources, and all of which we actually have. Not that Mark and Matthew couldn't have had multiple sources, evidently they did, since Mark is doing that Greek epics syncretism thing, and Matthew mixing a good amount of Jewishness along with some geographic corrections in the mix. But, I digress. Since Luke is already juggling Josephus in the mix, using multiple sources is exactly what we would expect, especially when he himself in the texts acknowledges multiple people writing these types of gospels already. If someone like Luke had access to Josephus, and Mark, is it more likely that he had access to our Matthew as well, or a hypothetical gospel that we don't have, while also NOT having access to Matthew, AND that also both Mark and Matthew should supposedly have had as well?

[@yourenotthere]

Luke and Acts both begin as letters to someone called "Theophilus". Given that this translates to "one who loves God", it could be a real person, or just his way of saying, "dear reader". In Acts, he says "In my former book, Theophilus...", so the plain reading is that the 2 books have the same author.

[@laramonroe3363]

Eye witness? Or first person?

[@adamnichols2421]

Can you site your sources?

[@RD-jc2eu]

Yeah... pretty much every serious Biblical scholar specializing in the early New Testament period.

[@I-AmTheLiquor]

@@RD-jc2euHaha, love the response. *chef’s kiss* 👌🏼🤌🏼

[@Jaymiranz]

He can’t and he won’t dude is a Mormon. They have no problem lying and deceiving people

[@xravenx24fe]

@@RD-jc2eu So...why does everyone always just say that and never actually give us anything? Like who? Where and when did their arguments and evidences come from? Just saying "the scholars say" is worthless and unhelpful, can you even list more than 5 critical scholars off the top of your head? Do you have the expertise or authority to claim that at all? Do you guys just larp around here "muh scholarly consensus" lol "well duh everyone knows blah blah" or what? Does any critical thinking go on?

[@robinharwood5044]

Cite.

[@johndaily543]

So: The letters from Peter and John don't exist. Accounts from Josephus, who specifically mentions James, the brother of Jesus "who was called Christ," didn't exist. Tacitus (who mentions Nero’s persecution of Christians) didn't exist. Pliny the Younger: who, while not mentioning the apostles directly, provided context for the environment in which early Christians and the apostles operated, didn't exist. The Gnostic Texts, which are often attributed to apostolic figures (and while many are thought to be not authentic, some likely are) didn't exist. Got it, thanks.

[@TerryJLaRue]

Dan, you talk in terms of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" when I'm sure you know that the correct chronological order is Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Mark was the first and fairly bare bones. The earliest version of Mark did not have a resurrection account. The Matthew and Luke writers then took Mark and copied most of it, adding what they thought they needed to satisfy theological and political concerns of the time. Matthew and Luke added birth narratives, which are wildly different from one another.

[@kathy1154]

Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Fragment 6 "Mark having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered... for he neither heard the LORD, or accompanied him" "Matthew put together the Oracles... in the Hebrew language" The Muratorian Canon Fragment I "Luke... when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to belief. Yet he himself had not seen the LORD in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events" "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and overseers, who had been urging him [to write]." The Jews essentially did what they always did, kill someone for not following commandments. End of story. Beyond that, it's all fiction. All made up by Paul. Paul authored the majority of the NT, trying to convince people that Jesus was the Mosiach, and the Jews somehow got it wrong. The Jews got it right! If you read the first Bible (the Marcion Bible), there were no witnesses of Jesus being resurrected. It literally ends at an "angel" told Mary that Jesus had risen from the grave. The Marcion Bible is accepted by many (not all) scholars as the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark. Whether or not Marcion or Mark came first, or (more likely)both had a common precursor, is irrelevant. Mark was the first Gospel written... 40 years after the death of Jesus. The original account in Mark (Codex Sinaiticus) is virtually identical to Marcion's account, as well as the account in the Ethiopian NT. Mary went to the tomb, an angel told her that Christ had risen... THE END. The witnesses were added into later versions.. KJV. Then, Mary and the disciples were the only witnesses, AND none of them even recognized "Jesus"... he manifested in a different form. (Mark 16:12). Matthew was written two decades after Mark... Matthew 28:17 when they (11 disciples), they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Mary doesn't see Jesus, in the book of Matthew, just the 11 disciples). Luke was the next gospel after Matthew, then John. The accounts get embellished, as time goes by. Jesus eats ("proof" he physically resurrected, and the disciples didn't see a ghost/spirit), (doubting) Thomas touches his wounds (the gaslighting of the non believers). Paul goes on to say there were 500 witnesses. The resurrection is the foundation of Paul's religion, literally. I Corinthians 15:12-15 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; And if Christ not be raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised the Christ. 15:19 If for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. Christians are followers of Paul and his gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounters. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings. In his own words. Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man; 1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST. Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season. (Jesus, healed the blind, love your enemies, turn the other cheek. Matthew 7:18-19 beware of false prophets... YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. 24:45 For many will come in my name, saying "I am the messiah" and they will lead many astray. 24:23-26 if ANYONE says to you "look, here is the Messiah"... DO NOT BELIEVE IT.... For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, producing great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the very elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you "look here, he is in the wilderness" do not go out. If they say "look, he is in the inner rooms, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. John 16:10 I go to my father, and ye see me NO MORE. 16:28 I leave the world, and go to the father. 17:4 I have finished the work, which thou gavest me to do. 14:19 a little while, and the world seeth me NO MORE 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world 14:2 I go to prepare a place for you) Acts 9:3 suddenly there shined... a light from heaven 9:5 I am Jesus, whom thou prosecutest 9:9 and he was three days without sight. Acts 23:11 the LORD stood by him and said "Be of good cheer, Paul: as thou hast testified of me... And if you beLIEve Paul's encounter with Jesus, you have to subscribe to 'Jesus' causing Paul to go blind... the guy who healed blind people, and taught people to love their enemies, and turn the other cheek. Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead🤔 20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him. 20:12 and they brought the young man alive.(WOW, a convenient "accidental" death, and resurrection "miracle" at the hands of Paul) (Ye shall know them by their fruit) Acts 18:12-18 Paul's false teachings get questioned in a Synagogue, the gentiles (Greek), that accompany Paul, beat up the head of the Synagogue. Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day, Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. 1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law. 9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some. 20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL. Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY. The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis. PAUL'S GOSPEL CANNIBALISM FOR IMMORTALITY John 6:53 Jesus said.. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. CHILD SACRIFICE FOR IMMORTALITY John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness. JESUS S(L)AVES I Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh I Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...

[@robinharwood5044]

@@kathy1154 “but not in order “. Whereas the current Gospel of Mark is an orderly narrative.

[@Sgregory22]

Why do you say that Matthew and Luke added things to satisfy a political/theological agenda? Whats your reasoning exactly?

[@baraskparas9559]

True scholarship, congratulations.

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

If the average Christian knew the nuts and bolts of how the bible as we know it today came into being I think they would be genuinely shocked. One might expect a book inspired by an all-powerful and perfect being to be produced over a short period of time by one or only a handful of authors. But what we find instead is many manuscripts written by dozens of people over the course of many centuries and passed down first by word of mouth and then by hand-written texts until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. It screams human-made. I recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman for a deep dive into this.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

Once we accept the anonymity of authorship, and that they were not eyewitnesses, we are free to wonder how and where the authors obtained their information. Presumably, from third-hand, oral stories. This would explain the variations and contradictions between the gospels. But if we cannot be sure of the accuracy of the gospels, can we be sure of any of the story? Probably not. It seems likely that a real person named Yeshua or Yehoshua existed and was an itinerant Jewish preacher/prophet, who urged a return to older values, with a little Hellenic apocalypticism thrown in, but everything supernatural and mystical must be seriously doubted.

[@vixendoe6943]

That is how I view Jesus, as a prophet or rabbi. In the Gospels Jesus says that through faith, his followers would be able to perform greater miracles and wonders than what Jesus himself had performed. He didn't see himself as particularly special and alluded to the fact that we all are divine, we just have to learn to tap into it and use it.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@vixendoe6943 We must all be free to believe whatever we feel is right. Of course, believing something does not make it true. My observation is that since Jesus there have been many millions of people with absolute faith, some even prepared to die for it, and yet not one of them has had power to perform greater miracles.and wonders. But if, as you believe, the man was just a prophet or rabbi, why would he have such power or be able to pass it on? Nonetheless, if you beliieve it and you live a good life because of it, the facts don't really matter.

[@vixendoe6943]

@@theoutspokenhumanist People have pointed out that many of his so called miracles and wonders are things that a Buddhist monk can learn to do. There is a Buddhist monastery that claims to have a manuscript written by Jesus while Jesus was taking instruction there. If this is true, then Jesus was trying to teach his followers that exact thing, that they could be able to do great things. Beyond what the Romans and Pharisees were telling them they could.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@vixendoe6943 People claim all sorts of things but that doesn't mean they are real. Has any Buddhist monk ever been recorded actually perfroming miracles? Ask yourself why no-one has ever seen this Jesus manuscript or why there is zero evidence of him ever leaving the area covered in the bible. This is precisely the problem with religious belief. Once we allow ourselves to be convinced of things that have not and cannot be demonstrated to be fact, we open our minds to believing any old nonsense. Because we want to believe. The main difference between science and religion is that scientific claims can be demonstrated and experiments can be repeated with the same results. No religious claim has ever been demonstrated to be a fact. Which is why belief is so necessary and so highly prized within all religions. Because that's all religions have. You are free to believe whatever you feel is best but please try to employ critical thinking and seek evidence for the things you are told and do not just accept the word of others or words in a book.

[@robinharwood5044]

From a bloke he met in the pub.

[@Debbie-y8h]

Matthew and John were his disciplines and walked with him until his death. The books Matthew and John (T) wrote about his life and ministry.

[@lukeyznaga7627]

How come pastors of churches, who also went to seminary and studied the Bible and church history, don't tell their congregation about these truths they learned that other Bible scholars know? Is it about money?

[@robinharwood5044]

There are two types of pastors. The ignorant, and the liars. The ignorant don’t know. The liars know but don’t tell because they don’t want to make the congregation doubt.

[@lylew7]

My feel is that most pastors are like "para-professionals" working on the front lines. They get enough training in their traditions' systematic theology to work with the lay people and teach and instruct them in their theology using the Bible, and not so much about the current scholarship in any way that would challenge the doctrine they're committed to upholding. These pastors are far from being scholars (who would be "the professionals"), and sure they go to seminary -maybe- which are most often denominationally affiliated, and I don't think these pastors get enough education to do anything other than defend their doctrines and immunize against what their tradition virws as heresy. They don't have the skills of scholars, and the teachers in seminaries are iam guessing probably PhDs more often than not, but they are PhD's committed to their systematic, and only work within/from that framework. It's seems most true scholars that function without (or with less) doctrinal/dogmatic bias and willing to challenge established norms/status quo, are NOT tightly affiliated with a particular traditions seminaries, or committed to a set belief system, and their work is often viewed with suspicion by those who are committed to a specific tradition, fearing it will undermine their treasured interpretations and the faiths of their congregants. But eh, that's just my take. I could be wrong.

[@lukeyznaga7627]

@@lylew7 no you are correct. but you are being too nice. they also don't want to lose their career, so they "rationalize" a lot and deny a lot to themselves. But you are mostly correct.

[@lylew7]

​@lukeyznaga7627 yeah if you've committed to a set belief system, you have to.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

The huge elephant in the room that you don’t address is that attribution of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors is universally agreed upon in historical records with no exceptions. In other words, lets assume that Matthew Mark Luke and John didn’t actually author the Gospels, and the church was unsure about who did.. that would mean churches all over the Mediterranean, using these Gospels in their worship, collaborated and coordinated this effort without anybody falling behind on the scheme.. think about that: would not you expect to find writings or at least some manuscripts that would attribute other authors to these Gospels as they debated over it? (because the early church DID debate all kinds of theological matters) and yet there is none. The church was not silent at all about their debates over authorship of other books in the new testament that they were unsure about, so it’s not like they exhibited any motive to hide such a scheme, and someone was always willing to argue the case.. yet on traditional authorship there is literally NO data to show this happened. I’m not saying its technically logically impossible that ancient mediterranean churches could collaborate such a conspiratorial scheme without a hitch, over miles and miles of distance, without modern technology and do it better than we could today with all our technology.. but it is asking people to go a bridge too far in considering this a plausible explanation.

[@kennethogorman5436]

There is no such thing of what you just stated in your dissertation. The gospel authors are unknown and that’s what the allergens agree on no one knows who wrote the gospels, and there are no original copies of the manuscripts in error. Only Greek copies exist.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

@@kennethogorman5436”there is no such thing”.. yea that’s my point..there is no historical data showing conpeting authorship for the four gospels.. you need historical data like that to make the kind of claim dan is making… and he hasnone. he is excercising dogma overdata

[@Adamborries]

What is your opinion of, or response to, Bauckham's claims in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006 / 2017)?

[@JopJio]

There is a reason why the vast majority of scholars dont believe the NT is based in eyewitness accounts. Bauckham is an apologist

[@theol64]

Nothing. They can't bother themselves to read outside their disdainful bias.

[@peterevensen]

I came here to all the same thing! Also in John’s gospel: John 19:34-35 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe. And from his first letter: 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-

[@thomasmiddlebrook9541]

The hard thing about this medium is the lack of qualifiers. The "state of the field" covers a multitude of exceptions. Which field? Where? Which pre-understandings? It's not that many of Dan's points aren't supportable; in this case it's true that many quotes from Jesus come to us through a community or through an editor. But neither of those require us to conclude that an eye-witness account isn't still being offered. And then, then there are those with arguments (left unaddressed) like Bauckham's. It's a bit sensationalized. Again, a rough medium. The most unappealing thing is that the primary audience here seems to be those who would like ammunition to attack claims by those with a high-view of Scripture. Sure, load up on "consensus". But, it's a poor way to help people know how to read and think well for themselves. (I guess evangelicals getting all hot under the collar is another big part of the viewership. Which must bring Dan some odd pleasure.)

[@thomasmiddlebrook9541]

A bit dated, but here's another piece on eye-witness evidence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYSZcmiHaLOUlac

[@alanb8884]

So Matthew gets a promotion because James died?

[@Adamborries]

@@MrMortal_Ra , where? This idea seems the least plausible of the points in this video.

[@rami3283]

@@AdamborriesI thought so also, though I am on the side the the gospels were indeed eyewitness accounts I have to say Dan’s logic on why certain apostles received authorship made sense except for the last Dan seems to just shrug that one off without giving reasons as to why like he did on the other 3

[@StandOnTruth2010]

There are certainly people who make the case the gospels were annonymous until the second century, but I believe Dan significantly overstates his case here for a number of reasons. 1.) Lukes prologue implies the author must have been known to directly address the gospel to someone and that is not mentioned here. And since all copies of the gospel of luke that have a title section preserved have the gospel of luke as its title and all external evidence confirms that...why not just grant that Luke wrote Luke even if you want to say the other three gospels are annonymous. 2.) If authorship was annonymous or unclear we would see church fathers discussing who the author is (or who they will "assign" the author be since they have to update all their diversely circulated manuscripts in conjunction at the exact same time so they match) just like with Hebrews? If we assume the church fathers were so desperate to have names, why do they seem content on trying to figure out who wrote Hebrews? Theres no reason to assume the same people who were uncertain of Hebrews authorship (even though they vouched it was authentic) and were okay with that would all of a sudden be desperate to add names to all of the gospels in the second century. Lastly, who would make the decision on the 4 names? And how would that be carried out consistently across all manuscripts across the mediterranean and asia minor? 3.) Dan states Irenaus is the "first" to mention the 4 gospel names in the late second century. This point is huge red flag because there are many attestations prior to this (albeit not always from church fathers but still indirect confirmations of gospel authorship). John the Elder, Papias, Gospel of Thomas, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Acts of John, Apollinaris, Heggesippus, Theophilus of Antioch, and the Muritorian Fragment all predate Irenaus on confirming authorship for at least one of the 4 gospels. (Muritorian Fragment may not be before Irenaus but it could be. They are both right around the same time). This is a lot of consistent external evidence to overcome. I didnt mention Justin Martyr but he halfway counts too because he mentions the gospel of "peters memoirs" in the mid second century and refers to the gospel giving James and John the names sons of thunder (Mark is thr only gospel in which this story is present). So Justin Martyr could probably be included on this list too. 4.) Dan makes some neat educated guesses at how church fathers could have hypothetically assigned authorship in the second century. However, these internal gueses lack consistency in approach and create a double standard. Example 1: Dan uses Papias' testimony that Matthew had put together a list of Jesus' sayings to hypothesize that church fathers would have picked his name to give credibility to the gospel since people might be aware that Matthew had written information anout Jesus already and that might boost the gospels legitimacy. However this seems odd because Papias confirms Mark and Johns gospel (never mentions Lukes gospel) which would indicate that the gospel names would have already had to have been added by the time of Papias. So on one hand they are already named and confirmed by Papias and on the other hand church fathers use his claim that Matthew had a sayings gospel to later add the name of Matthew and try to capitalize on that boost in credibility. The timing seems off because this naming process would have to be a coordinated group effort taking place synchronously in order to get the unanimous archeological and external evidence for the 4 gospels we see today. Dan seems to try and sidestep Papias' validation of the Gospel authorships by bringing up the fact that Eusebius hated Papias and thought he was stupid (true) but Dan was a little slippery in that he didnt mention that the source of Eusebius' disputes with Papias largely centered around eschatalogical interpretations. That has nothing to do with the mans reliability about gospel authorship and we have writings from Papias himself that state how careful he was to test that things came from the apostles before he accepted it. So why throw out Papias so quickly in this video like he cant count and jump all the way to Ireneus while skipping over all the other sources I listed above? Example 2: There seems to be a double standard that the church fathers felt "pressured" to add names in the second century to keep up with the Gnostics and other heretical groups that were using this strategy to gain credibility. The Gnostics just made up any name they chose for their works in the second century because they knew everyone was dead already. If this practice was so effective and threatned the church fathers, why wouldnt they mirror it instead of thining, "Hey, Paul didnt write a gospel so we'll just say its Luke so we still cover Pauls camp." Well Luke didnt write a gospel either and people would have known that too according to this theory so it how does naming the Gospel Luke help anything? Just name it Gospel according to Paul since neither of them wrote a Gospel and tell your congregation it was lost and now its been found. Example 3: Dan mentions the church fathers wouldnt have named a gospel after Peter because there was already a Gospel of Peter so it could cause confusion. So they settled with Mark as a backup option since it was known he was with Peter even in the new testament. This doesnt make sense because Papias attests to Mark being the author and peters interpreter before the Gospel of Peter existed in the middle of the second century. So how does that work? All in all you can hypothesize the gospels were annonymous and go with that, but I felt this video did a disservice to the other viewpoint by intentionally leaving some of these details out and overstating his case at other times. Still love Dans videos because of his tone and demeanor. 🙂

[@nilojose7976]

Hello. I read your comment. Thank you for adding these details.

[@ansibarius4633]

Even if there were, the more sensible thing for a judge to do would be to dismiss them as unreliable if the stories they tell go blatantly against the laws of physics / nature or are otherwise extremely implausible, no matter if the narrative is religious or secular in character.

[@NewhamMatt]

Only one question I don't see addressed here, Dan: Part way through the Book of Acts, the language shifts from third person to first person. Is there weight to the claim that this latter part of Acts was written by an eyewitness to those events, and is it reasonable to suggest that Luke would circumstantially fit with that?

[@kathy1154]

Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Fragment 6 "Mark having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered... for he neither heard the LORD, or accompanied him" "Matthew put together the Oracles... in the Hebrew language" The Muratorian Canon Fragment I "Luke... when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to belief. Yet he himself had not seen the LORD in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events" "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and overseers, who had been urging him [to write]." The Jews essentially did what they always did, kill someone for not following commandments. End of story. Beyond that, it's all fiction. All made up by Paul. Paul authored the majority of the NT, trying to convince people that Jesus was the Mosiach, and the Jews somehow got it wrong. The Jews got it right! If you read the first Bible (the Marcion Bible), there were no witnesses of Jesus being resurrected. It literally ends at an "angel" told Mary that Jesus had risen from the grave. The Marcion Bible is accepted by many (not all) scholars as the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark. Whether or not Marcion or Mark came first, or (more likely)both had a common precursor, is irrelevant. Mark was the first Gospel written... 40 years after the death of Jesus. The original account in Mark (Codex Sinaiticus) is virtually identical to Marcion's account, as well as the account in the Ethiopian NT. Mary went to the tomb, an angel told her that Christ had risen... THE END. The witnesses were added into later versions.. KJV. Then, Mary and the disciples were the only witnesses, AND none of them even recognized "Jesus"... he manifested in a different form. (Mark 16:12). Matthew was written two decades after Mark... Matthew 28:17 when they (11 disciples), they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Mary doesn't see Jesus, in the book of Matthew, just the 11 disciples). Luke was the next gospel after Matthew, then John. The accounts get embellished, as time goes by. Jesus eats ("proof" he physically resurrected, and the disciples didn't see a ghost/spirit), (doubting) Thomas touches his wounds (the gaslighting of the non believers). Paul goes on to say there were 500 witnesses. The resurrection is the foundation of Paul's religion, literally. I Corinthians 15:12-15 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; And if Christ not be raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised the Christ. 15:19 If for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. Christians are followers of Paul and his gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounters. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings. In his own words. Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man; 1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST. Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season. (Jesus, healed the blind, love your enemies, turn the other cheek. Matthew 7:18-19 beware of false prophets... YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. 24:45 For many will come in my name, saying "I am the messiah" and they will lead many astray. 24:23-26 if ANYONE says to you "look, here is the Messiah"... DO NOT BELIEVE IT.... For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, producing great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the very elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you "look here, he is in the wilderness" do not go out. If they say "look, he is in the inner rooms, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. John 16:10 I go to my father, and ye see me NO MORE. 16:28 I leave the world, and go to the father. 17:4 I have finished the work, which thou gavest me to do. 14:19 a little while, and the world seeth me NO MORE 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world 14:2 I go to prepare a place for you) Acts 9:3 suddenly there shined... a light from heaven 9:5 I am Jesus, whom thou prosecutest 9:9 and he was three days without sight. Acts 23:11 the LORD stood by him and said "Be of good cheer, Paul: as thou hast testified of me... And if you beLIEve Paul's encounter with Jesus, you have to subscribe to 'Jesus' causing Paul to go blind... the guy who healed blind people, and taught people to love their enemies, and turn the other cheek. Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead🤔 20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him. 20:12 and they brought the young man alive.(WOW, a convenient "accidental" death, and resurrection "miracle" at the hands of Paul) (Ye shall know them by their fruit) Acts 18:12-18 Paul's false teachings get questioned in a Synagogue, the gentiles (Greek), that accompany Paul, beat up the head of the Synagogue. Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day, Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. 1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law. 9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some. 20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL. Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY. The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis. PAUL'S GOSPEL CANNIBALISM FOR IMMORTALITY John 6:53 Jesus said.. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. CHILD SACRIFICE FOR IMMORTALITY John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness. JESUS S(L)AVES I Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh I Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...

[@curious011]

@@kathy1154 apologetics are crap. can you debunk what Dan says or not?

[@VincentSapone]

@@curious011Dan’s view on Papias and Mark is a minor view. He correctly labels Papias 2nd century but he writes ca. 105 so it’s probably within 30 years of when he dates GMark. And he just poisons the well about Papias and doesn’t explain why Eusebius calls him a man of small intellect. His treatment of this issue is largely superficial.

[@RD-jc2eu]

@@curious011 The person you're responding is not disagreeing with Dan. They aren't even really responding to what Dan is saying at all. They are posting an (off-topic) reply to @NewhamMatt that doesn't really answer his question, but instead is relating an (over?)abundance of reasons for their own belief that the entire NT is a fictional creation of Paul.

[@RD-jc2eu]

@@VincentSapone What Dan relates here is NOT a minority viewpoint. And he doesn't "poison the well" about Papias any more than the current consensus of Biblical scholarship in regard to the reliability of Papias. (And it doesn't really matter "when" Papias wrote if little to nothing he wrote is treated as reliable.)

[@tussk.]

But 500 people saw him! Whaddya mean, name one?

[@curious011]

name any of the 500

[@tussk.]

Eric.@@curious011

[@dp1381]

For any Christians watching this, do not be dismayed. Biblical scholarship, like any type of scholarship is confined to very limited and specific parameters of what can be considered plausible, proven, or disproven. It’s like trying to apply the scientific method to the events of antiquity; it isn’t occurring before our eyes, so trusting our eyes, we can only be so sure. All the scholars have to go by are the documents that happened to survive to today. But not everything was recorded, much was conveyed word-of-mouth, and many documents have been lost and destroyed. Just because scholars come to one conclusion or cast doubt on another has very little to do with the actual truth. I’m not saying we should not engage with the scholarly literature. I just won’t hang my faith on the ever-shifting conclusions of the scholars or experts in this field or any other.

[@XRamenmaX]

Do you hang your face on the ever-shifting and oft conflicting face of apologetics then?

[@matt66716]

@@XRamenmaX apologetics is simply defending the bible just because you disagree doesn’t change anything

[@oftin_wong]

The truth is subjective when it comes to religions.

[@coozing2116]

The simple fact of the matter is that no document can be infallible. The oldest scriptures we have access to are manuscripts which were copies of copies. There are hundreds of thousands of discrepancies between the oldest copies of the different manuscripts(most very minor, but some largely altering meaning and narrative). Then through translation, not all of the meaning/nuance of the source text (if you know more than one language, you know what I mean). Then different canons have been developed through the centuries with different interpretations of different groupings of these manuscripts and translations. There’s no reason that looking into the scholarship should take away your Christian faith, but the modern Bible is a man-made document no matter how God-inspired the original manuscripts may or may not have been. Being skeptical about the legitimacy of its contents could even be seen as an act of putting more of your faith in God directly rather than in this imperfect document.

[@LeoVital]

“Don’t mind the fact that if you study the Bible the same way you’d study any other historical source, most of your dogmas just crumble to dust. Don’t mind the man behind the curtain. Just keep believing”. Would be funny if it wasn’t so pitiful.

[@adrianpettifer2036]

But surely, Mark is the source behind Matthew and Luke, who expand on his text but often contradict it (e.g. "legion").

[@allanp3065]

So, Matthew wrote the Q source?

[@KGchannel01]

Ha, I wondered if that is what he might have been referring to

[@Zeett09]

Sounds like the Captain Tuttle episode of MASH.

[@alanb8884]

Berliner Politechnich approved this.

[@ftt7429]

You might say that together we all made up Tuttle.

[@PoeLemic]

@@alanb8884 Yes, that's a great medical school, where only the best OD surgeons come from.

[@kennethogorman5436]

You’re just a typical Christian that can’t look at facts and accept them. No one knows who wrote the gospels and just about all theologians have come to the agreement on that.

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

Wait? 1 Corinthians 15:8 _...and last of all he appeared to me also..._ That's Paul claiming Jesus appeared to him.

[@beerman1957]

There is no way to verify that Paul saw him. And no way to confirm Paul wrote this.

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@beerman1957 Somebody wrote 1 Corinthians 15:8. That somebody claimed Jesus appeared to him. That is fact. The only question remaining; is the claim reliable? It's not. Paul (or whoever) wrote 1 Corinthians was a narcissistic extremist who lied to make himself look important. That's my view.

[@Quizosophy_official1]

@@SergeantSkeptic686 Hey Sergeant. One thing critical scholars agree on (both conservative and liberal) is the reliability of Paul's letters (including Bart Ehrman). To throw a frivolous claim like (or whoever) and make the claims about his character exposes the fact that you have not done your research. I can only encourage you to check it out for yourself before you make ignorant claims. There is nothing wrong with being a Skeptic, unless, of course, you are a cynic.

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@Quizosophy_official1 Define what you mean _the reliability of Paul's letters._ The only thing reliable about Paul's letters is he wrote them. That somebody wrote something does not make that thing true. Or even worthwhile. Paul's letters are the written exaggerations of a narcissist overwhelmed by self promotion.

[@DrWolves]

​@SergeantSkeptic686 also, keep in mind that claiming Jesus "appeared" to him or before him does not need to be a physical appearance. As here in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul emphasises it was the "risen" Jesus that appeared to him.

[@OCgardening]

Has there been any comparisons done with parables and stories recorded in the Jewish records from early Rabbis

[@WYHIWYG242]

Anytime I want to find flaws in the bible, I'll come to this channel. what is the mission of this channel again?

[@Cocoon68]

Data over dogma

[@ldr540]

@@Cocoon68 😂 Good one

[@cloudstreets1396]

The gospels were written and preached during a time when people that may have been alive at the time of Jesus may still have lived or at least people whose parents were alive. How come there are no writings of disciples preaching of a man that never existed?

[@downshift4503]

It's not clear there were potential eyewitnesses of the area / period to challenge the gospels, whether the events took place or not.

[@murphcallahan5892]

Dan, I'm a new subscriber. Re: the topic of this video, have you read Brant Pitre's "The Case for Jesus," chapters 2 and 3? Chapter 2's title: "Were the Gospels Anonymous?" And Chapter 3's title: "The Titles of the Gospels." I'm not going to run through Brant's argument here. Just letting you know he makes a case for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the genuine authors of their respective gospels.

[@Bgtrfvcde]

That is only an assumption. God should be a little more definitive.

[@murphcallahan5892]

@@Bgtrfvcde You should read Pitre's relevant chapters before you say his findings are an assumption.

[@michaelbell3181]

I've been telling them this!

[@magnesium3273]

don't be discouraged by the conclusions of biblical scholars. scholarship is limited by the available evidence and the methods used, which may not capture the full truth of historical events. Many documents have been lost or were never recorded, so scholars’ conclusions are based on incomplete information. i encourage engaging with scholarly work but advises not to base one’s faith solely on scholarly conclusions, as these can change over time. and besides you can google this but "almost all scholars of antiquity believe that Jesus was a real person". there's still loads of undeniable evidence

[@JopJio]

Its a hard pill to swollow but its a fact.

[@magnesium3273]

don't be discouraged by the conclusions of biblical scholars. scholarship is limited by the available evidence and the methods used, which may not capture the full truth of historical events. Many documents have been lost or were never recorded, so scholars’ conclusions are based on incomplete information. i encourage engaging with scholarly work but advises not to base one’s faith solely on scholarly conclusions, as these can change over time. and besides you can google this but "almost all scholars of antiquity believe that Jesus was a real person". there's still loads of undeniable evidence

[@TimBarr-e8p]

Faith, Hope and Love, but the Greatest of these is Love...

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Absolutely.

[@BillyJack-vr5cp]

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." (1 John 1)

[@theGentlemanCaller73]

Historian John Crossan makes the argument that a miracle worker among the Jews wouldn't have excited Roman authorities. The only surprising thing is that he was found among the lower or middle class. Not to mention Jerusalem was some 2,500 miles away. They had more important things to worry about than a peasant miracle worker. Even though they Gospels aren't eyewitnesses doesn't necessarily preclude reliability or accuracy. Their purpose isn't historical biography as we think of it today. Are there errors or inconsistencies? Of course there are. It's fine. Don't worry about it. Appreciate the Gospels for what they are and accept that fallible human beings wrote them.

[@Lucas-gm3bv]

But what are they, then, if not random fiction? Would you imagine the Harry Potter books to be true if they were written 1700 years ago and had centuries of historical academics writing their tangential notes about them, and entire schools of thought based on the prophetess Rowling?? What makes Harry any more or less real than Jesus?

[@thomasdalton1508]

There is no suggestion in the gospels or traditional Christian teachings that Rome cared in the slightest about Jesus. The claim is that he was executed by the Roman governor, who was very close to goings on in his province. That's why the Romans appointed governors.

[@Spiritof_76]

And accept that there is no evidence for supernatural events or deities, but readers can cherry pick the positive messages of the "good book" and try to be decent people.

[@sreed6220]

Dan a scholar of the Bible and Religion, asserts there is no eyewitness account of Dan McClellan. Dan never kept a first-person journal of his life and only a third-person app called KZbin asserts that he exists. Thank you Dan for getting a PhD as a Biblical Scholar for nothing on nothing.

[@DebKC-bj9jo]

I so enjoy the analysis in McClellan's videos. And I find this one particularly interesting. I'm curious though what others think about Mark 15. It references Simon of Cyrene, the 'father of Alexander and Rufus'. It seems that the author is clearly distinguishing this man as the father of two men that his intended audience would know, meaning that at least this one event may be based on eyewitness testimony. What other reason would the author have to do this? Thank you for any feedback.

[@caodesignworks2407]

It explains the character and it's connection to other characters. We do this kind of thing on the daily when explaining people we known to other people who may not know. Or like in any other book where a person or place or thing is discussed just assuming the reader knows. We don't know the intent, to my knowledge. There's nothing to say that people of the time didn't get the reference or would have understood who those people were

[@DebKC-bj9jo]

@@caodesignworks2407 Thank you, that's my point. It seems that the author is explaining why this particular eyewitness (who is probably deceased at the time of the writing) is relevant to his audience, by referencing his sons who are widely known in his community. Possibly current members did not remember Simon, but WERE familiar with his sons. If accurate, it doesn't take much of a leap to imagine that 'Mark' was able to interview Simon personally.

[@JopJio]

@@DebKC-bj9jo not necessarily. Just like Acts mentions Gamaliel. But at the time Acts was written no one could investigate the claim anymore because Gamaliel was long gone and his audience had nothing to do with Pharisees. Paul also never mentions him and the Talmud never mentions Paul. And many say that Paul wasn't even a Pharisee. So at the end of the day is a neutral mentioning, which can't help us. The sons or Simon could also just have been persons of the past and Mark heard about them. Maybe the Simon was famous and that's why his sons were mentioned. But it doesn't mean that this Simon knew Mark and vice versa. Just like with Gamaliel, it could just be the author made it up and just wanted to drop a name

[@DebKC-bj9jo]

@@JopJio I really appreciate your response. With respect, when Mark was circulated, I can only imagine that there were several individuals still alive able to refute this information, if it were false. Although I understand there is no way to know if that actually occurred (a challenge to the narrative). I just consider this little nugget a very odd addition, if it's not true. The author is giving his audience a point of reference that he apparently considered would be widely understood. I also find it very telling that the author of the Gospel of John, actually found it necessary to correct Mark. His reference seems almost petty in nature. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.

[@JopJio]

@@DebKC-bj9jo I am still not sure about the gospel authors name dropping. Just like the beloved disciple. To me he never existed. If He existed, it would contradict the synoptics, since no apostle talked to Jesus at the cross in the synoptics. The same goes for Simon of Cyrene, he would contradict GJohn. And he could have been added for the metaphor of someone taking the cross and follows Jesus. Alexander And Rufus also have a special meaning And could have been Just a metaphor, but I don't remember the meaning anymore. Maybe it really happened that a Simon carried Jesus cross, who was famous in Jerusalem. Just like Gamaliel was famous. And to distinguish this simon from others it was important to mention his children. So it wouldn't be necessary for the gospel authors to know them personally, for them to drop a name of a famous person who wasnt already around anymore. 40 years from Jesus to Mark is enough time. Some even say Mark was written in the 80s or later, especially even if Mark was written in 70Ad, the gospel would haven spread 10 to 20 years later. So even if Simon really existed and carried his cross. It doesn't mean the author knew him personally or talked to him. i think the author of John didn't know about the tradtion of Simon or they were already people claiming that it was Simon who died instead of Jesus and therefore he ignored it.

[@JohnnyQuest86]

Can you make a video about the validity and account of the gospel of Judas??? Thanks Dan.

[@PageTurnerFlow]

Irenaeus (180 ad), affirmed the authorship of the Gospels. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. providing a direct line of transmission John 19:35: “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”

[@Alexandros74738]

How do we know that Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp and that Polycarp was a disciple of John? And does Irenaeus claim that his attribution of authorship comes from Polycarp?

[@PageTurnerFlow]

@@Alexandros74738 Irenaeus himself stated he was a disciple of Polycarp “Against Heresies” (Book 3, Chapter 3)., Irenaeus confirmed Polycarp to have been a disciple of John the Apostle by Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” (Book 4, Chapter 14). Irenaeus attributed the Gospels’ authorship to their traditional authors based on this line

[@Alexandros74738]

@@PageTurnerFlow All Irenaeus says about his relation to Polycarp is that he saw him in his early youth while Polycarp was an old man. It doesn’t follow from that one remark that he was a disciple of him, and I think Irenaeus would say more than this if he really was a disciple of Polycarp. Your citation from Eusebius is just a direct quotation from book 3 chapter 3 of against heresies, so nothing different. All Irenaeus says regarding who taught Polycarp was that he was instructed by unnamed “apostles”, not specifically John. And you haven’t answered how you know that the traditional authorship Irenaeus mentions comes from Polycarp. Does Irenaeus say that Polycarp taught him the traditional authors?

[@charles952]

People shouldn't listen to this Pharisee. Hes gonna lead you to hell. Mathew 10:33 whoever denies me before men, my father will deny him who is in heaven.

[@Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic]

So is 'beloved disciple' a historical term agreed upon by the state of the field, a formal title used in common parlance, your theology creeping in, or my mistake?

[@curious968]

"Beloved disciple" comes from John itself. The actual name, "John" is not there, but "the disciple that Jesus loved" is there.

[@Paul020253]

If you do a very careful study of the accounts of Jesus' Crucifixion in the four gospels and look at which women are there, you will conclude that Jesus and John the beloved disciple are cousins. Wenham in his book "Easter Enigma" makes this point (and goes into detail about his thinking on the matter), interestingly the Orthodox Church has had for two thousand years the same tradition that John was the cousin of Jesus. Wenham only confirmed that the Tradition of the Church was based in Actual Fact

[@poisontango]

I'd love to know more about how we arrive at the "state of the field," as Dan refers to it at the beginning of the video, and how someone familiarizes themself with the state of the field. I have a vague understanding (scholars review the data, publish, peer review, visit and revisit and build upon questions, meta analysis monitors the body of research, etc.), but I'd love a more in-depth explanation of the process from someone like Dan who's entrenched in it and part of the process.

[@I-AmTheLiquor]

Well, scholars do publish their works either in peer review directly related to the University they work in or from, or they cite their work in books that they then have published and then reviewed by fellow academics/scholars within their specialized field of study, of which they discuss their agreements and disagreements with at conventions or in their respective Universities.

[@leedza]

So what about the accounts in Luke. The opening part of his letter infers that he was writing an account based on previous writings based on eyewitness accounts. Also Acts of Apostles which claimed to be a follow up to the Gospel of Luke gives us internal evidence on when the book was finished possibly while Paul was awaiting trial to be executed. Given that issue of martyrdom was not a problem for the author, omitting the death of Paul would seem odd. Also on the issue of an orderly account. Luke starts off by saying this an orderly account implying one of the Gospels is not in order that's probably Mark.

[@thomasdalton1508]

Exactly, it claims to be based on an eyewitness account. It doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account. That's the whole point.

[@leedza]

@@thomasdalton1508 however, if you look at the source text, its mainly Mark and Matthew. Thus, the first 2 gospels are the eyewitness accounts.

[@thomasdalton1508]

@@leedza Neither Mark nor Matthew makes any claim to be an eyewitness account. Perhaps Q did, we have no way to know (I understand the consensus is that Matthew and Luke are both based on a non-surviving text rather than one being based on the other). The claim in Luke 1:2 is very general. It doesn't claim that his writing is based directly on eyewitness testimony. It seems to be describing something handed down from person to person, the first of whom were eyewitnesses. It doesn't say anything about relying on written sources (although it is clear that he did).

[@leedza]

@@thomasdalton1508 another way to look at it is that the texts that made Q, Mark, Matthew (or whatever was in existence) were in circulation. However, possibly Luke corroborated the stories with people who witnessed the events. If Acts was written in the life of the apostles then the eye witnesseses would still be alive at the time Luke was written.

[@thomasdalton1508]

@@leedza Luke talks about an investigation, which could certainly have included speaking to eyewitnesses. Or corresponding with them by letter. Or speaking to other people that had spoken to eyewitnesses. Or reading existing texts (which he obviously did, whether that is what he was referring to as an investigation or not). There is really no way to know.

[@hglundahl]

1:21 Why would it have to have been "added later"? An obvious possibility is, for the Crucifixion and the Resurrection + accounts, he borrowed the pen to people who could illico insert the "we" passages. Simply because these were very important.

[@azurejester]

I'm optimistic more early manuscripts will turn up to answer some of the questions

[@markchristiansen9611]

Scholars believe the stories were initailly passed by oral tradition only.

[@jonhunter6936]

The manuscript base we have is exceptional at the moment, its unlikely we will get significantly more completely early texts bridging what is already a very small gap between writing and first copies compared to other ancient manuscripts. However I believe the issue is the hyper skepticism critical scholars treat the manuscript(s) with if equally applied to all ancient manuscripts would leave us with no ancient documents we would trust. Dans views seem plausible but have no external evidence to support them and are merely constructs that can be argued in the ambiguity created by hyper skepticism, and the demand for levels of evidence which is unreasonable for any ancient document.

[@ancientflames]

😂

[@azurejester]

@@ancientflames 🤙

[@PoeLemic]

@@azurejester Yep, God will probably bless us with another child chasing his goat into another cavern, loaded with all the texts we're missing, out in that Great Desert somewhere.

[@IamGrimVR]

1:31 Book 3, Chapter 11 of Against Heresies "But that this John was truly a disciple of the Lord, and that he was the very person who leaned upon His breast, I do not deny. For he remained with Him until the end, [that is,] until the Passion. And I state, that he did himself give this account, and these things do I again find in all the copies of his Gospel."

[@curious011]

That has already been discussed on this channel.

[@derek_davidson]

And that's ok. That's where Faith comes in

[@alexmcd378]

That's a position I respect. I never understood lying about evidence when faith was such a key point to begin with.

[@davidlewis3072]

and the definition of faith that I read is "faith is believing in something in the face of no direct evidence"

[@starfishsystems]

And it's where faith goes back out again, as a failed epistemology.

[@-gearsgarage-]

Faith, a way to ignore the facts

[@JopJio]

So you have faith in church fathers like Ireneues who misread Papias, who didn't even mention Acts, GLuke or GJohn and who refutes GMat and Acts by saying Judas died in a different way and who didn't even say he knew any of the apostles. He mentioned two John's, one is John the elder and one is John the apostle. He never said he knew any of them personally. And he describes GMat and GMark in a way which doesnt fit to our todays gospels. On top of that Clement of Alexandria says the same Mark wrote a secret gospel in Alexandria which is lost. If the apostles wrote gospels or any accounts there are lost and were only followed by Jewish Christian sects like the Nazarenes or Ebionites.

[@ScriptureResearchCentre]

I Peter 1:8-9 (Working Translation) Although you have not seen him, you love him. Believing on him whom you do not currently see, you are very glad with inexpressible and glorious joy, receiving in return the end [outcome] of your believing, that is, the salvation [deliverance] of your souls.

[@jkm9332]

Good job giving us one side of the argument. yet again.

[@princegobi5992]

One side? He’s giving Bible scholarship, when do apologists ever give both sides?

[@jkm9332]

@@princegobi5992 There are Bible scholars who disagree with him on pretty much everything he says in every video and yet he fails to mention it.

[@fordprefect5304]

@@jkm9332 They are called apologists Or in the real world "Bold faced Liars"

[@jkm9332]

@@fordprefect5304 Neh.

[@fordprefect5304]

@@jkm9332 wah wah wah

[@Paul020253]

Not sure who Don McClellan is but he is not a "scholar of the Bible and religion", that is for sure. Neither is what he says "state of the field"-it is closer to the Teachings of Bart Ehrman, who turned his back on his faith and became an Anti-Christian Apologist. The Gospels were written down as record of The Apostolic Preaching during the Second Half of the First Century as the Apostles died off. This whole area is one that any first term Theological Student could explain that. If the Gospels do not reflect eye-witness accounts, where did the writers get them from?

[@garytorresani8846]

If you have not taken a course in Jewish Christian and Greco Roman thought of the centuries before and up to the nicean period, please do so. I have under a number of Christian historian scholars, not theologians. But be warned that history is a cruel teacher and that some of your core beliefs would go by the wayside. There were lots of writers using the names of the apostles to gain recognition for their writings. The anti women Timothy letters are 2nd cent and were not written by Paul. The Greek is 2nd cent. The same issue with 2nd Peter. There are others in the canon that are suspect. Yes, it’s hard to change perspectives when you’ve believe doctrine and dogma all your life. Just so you know, I love Jesus and God in the deepest parts of my heart, but left religion long ago because of conservative politics and doctrine which I found not to be what he actually taught in context of the culture and time.

[@curious011]

you know he IS a bible scholar. we know all about his credentials. sounds like you are just pushing your own beliefs on us. the scholarship is all against you on this.

[@garytorresani8846]

@@curious011 not my opinion, but that of historical scholars I’ve studied under. They were Bible historians, I am not.

[@Paul020253]

@@garytorresani8846 thank you for your suggestion. Sadly it is a,little too late, I have done the research you suggest. FWIW I am currently looking in my private study at Second Temple Judaism. Everything I have studied so far has lead me to where I am and nothing so far has tempted me away from my theologically conservative views, quite the reverse. Perhaps you should send me a copy of your CV and I could, perhaps, review it for you and suggest some areas you might like to consider, but as you say, beware , you may change your long held views!!

[@Paul020253]

@@curious011 a,little harsh don't you think? I know his credentials, I know mine, you know his, you don't know mine. I listen to his conclusions and challenge him. That my friend is the joy of academia. Just out of curiosity what are your academic qualifications? You do have some I take it?

[@saidnourri5570]

Bible contradiction : Matthew 4:1 Jesus was tempted James 1:13 God cannot be tempted John 1:29 Jesus was seen John 4:12 No man has ever seen God Acts 2:22 Jesus was and is a man sent by god Numbers 23:19 God is not human Hebrews 5:89 Jesus had to grow and learn Isaiah 40:28 God doesn't need to learn Corinthians 15: 3-4 Jesus Died Timothy 1:17 God cannot Die Hebrew 5:7 Jesus needed salvation Luke 1:37 God doesn't need Salvation John 4:6 Jesus grow weary Isaiah 40:28 God cannot grow weary Mark 4:38 Jesus Slept Psalm 121: 2-4 God Doesn't Sleep John 5:19 Jesus is not all powerful Isaiah 45: 5-7 God is All powerful Mark 13:32 Jesus wasn't all knowing Isaiah 46:9 God is all knowing

[@CycloneSteve75]

Most of these are differentiating between God and Jesus. Two separate beings....e.g. Jesus can get tired because he is human. God cannot because he isn't human. See the difference?

[@DLB1858]

Obviously you have a problem with actually comprehending what you read

[@CycloneSteve75]

@@DLB1858 not in the slightest

[@saidnourri5570]

@@CycloneSteve75 so jesus isn't a God

[@CycloneSteve75]

@saidnourri5570 yes he is God

[@jonathanandcaleb4200]

Blud did not read John chapter 3:11

[@David-j8v5p]

Supposedly the writer of the book of Matthew writes that the ("parables,") which Jesus spoke were from a prophet but Asaph wasn't considered a prophet but a musician

[@sparrowthesissy2186]

Could you discuss the contradiction between the Mary of Luke's gospel being told of Jesus's role by an angel, versus the "a prophet has no honor in his own home" sections where Mary rejects Jesus and apparently hasn't witnessed miracles because the people there didn't have faith enough for him to charge up his mana and perform them? Do you think Mary's rejection is such an embarrassing admission by the authors that we should lend it weight, historically? Or do scholars think these scenes are part of a later layer(s) of anti-Judean polemics that lump in even his family with all the people to blame for the losses to Rome? Thank you Dan, as usual, for all your work.

[@timothythompson4036]

What Dan is saying is false. Both the Gospel of John and Paul contain first hand accounts. The Roman historian Josephus wrote of accounts of Jesus life and resurrection. This guy Dan is not a serious scholar. The facts he is stating are wrong.

[@benstillman5080]

Could you cite a passage in John's gospel that would suggest it's a "first hand account"? Could you cite a passage in Paul's writings that would suggest Dan's specification of an "eyewitness account to Jesus"? Given that Josephus was born after Jesus died, I'm not sure of what relevance he is to the discussion of "eyewitness accounts". If you want to make the case he makes references to Jesus, could you cite Josephus' sources for these?

[@pepepena1937]

@@benstillman5080Simon Greenleaf someone that knew more than this guy and Bart TOGETHER believed the Gospel presented excellent witnesses to veracity of the story

[@benstillman5080]

@@pepepena1937 This isn’t answering the questions I asked. Anyone can name scholars/academics/intellectuals that agree with their position. I’m asking OP where, just by reading the texts themselves, he is forming a belief about eyewitness accounts.

[@pepepena1937]

@@benstillman5080 at least 11 of his disciples for starters were eyewitnesses by of the resurrected Christ

[@pepepena1937]

@@benstillman5080 none more famous than Thomas

[@rickmiller8893]

... There are also no eyewitnesses in just about ALL of ancient history... Yet they put it in history books anyway based on a Greek writer who didn't live 50 years later but HUNDREDS of years later.

[@braddersfam1754]

Very true, Plato, Alexander the Great, Pythagoras, Homer, Confucius to name a few

[@howlrichard1028]

The difference is that nobody claims moral authority over others based on the existence of those figures.

[@Agryphos]

​@@howlrichard1028also no one claims they're infallible, or needs them to be eyewitnesses to give rhetorical weight to miracle claims

[@digitaljanus]

@@braddersfam1754 I mean, it helps that they just found Alexander's father's tomb.

[@StevenWaling]

The bible makes no claim to infallibility. That came 100's of years after it was wrtten. ​@@Agryphos

[@mikesflies5005]

Did you forget the letter by John that states “we saw with our own eyes?”

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

An interesting point raises a question. Why does John's Gospel use third person and John's Epistles use first person? Because they were written by different people.

[@mikesflies5005]

@@SergeantSkeptic686 that’s your opinion. Doesn’t take away the fact that the author of 1 John was an eye witness

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@mikesflies5005 No, it is not a fact the author of 1 John was an eyewitness. It is a fact the author of 1 John depicted himself as an eyewitness. People lie all the time. There is every reason to believe this too is a lie. If you're interested in the evidence it's a lie, I've dropped a few vids on about that evidence. You can see view them anytime you want.

[@stultusvenator3233]

Sorry, Majority of scholars believe that the gospels, that being the four canonical gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, do not in fact present contemporary eyewitness accounts but rather that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses. We have no gospel written by "John" in fact no complete text until the 3rd to 4th Century.

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

He deals with that early in the video!

[@jeffbingham2953]

Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

[@tripletrollface]

What are the arguments for calling the Gospel of Peter heretical?

[@Bluesruse]

Also, there's a very good reason for this: There was no eyewitness account to report.

[@andrewclough660]

We still can't get a decent carpenter in Australia in 2024!

[@Myname-w5v]

Jon is the Lords faithful and true witness.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

And no one named Jon claims to have written a gospel.

[@Djenka-w2i]

​@@user-gk9lg5sp4ythan I guess Athenasius Polycarp Irenius Igntius Tertullian Justin martyr Clement of Rome Clement of Alexandria Papius Alexander of Alexandria Hosea of Cordoba ... That are all from unbroken chain of transmission of the exact same knowladge of the discipes and that all verified the Gospels and Acts are all nobodies. And we should listen to yappings of this egg shaped idiot, am I right?

[@lorypak3049]

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand

[@samael5782]

Funny, that this is exactly what the first Christians thought. ;)

[@alexmcd378]

It's been at hand for 2000 years. I think we're good

[@BDB2004]

@@samael5782so you like to disrespect Christians?

[@samael5782]

@@BDB2004 What makes you think that?

[@BDB2004]

@@samael5782 because of what you said

[@zenosAnalytic]

Is there a good book which explains the argument for John as "beloved disciple" instead of Mary Magdalene?

[@OmyKon]

Did Jesus say to write a Bible? No. But he did say he came to establish a Church and to go and preach. So it would be the Church first then any writings of it. So I don’t see it as being a big deal unless you are Bible only Christian.

[@alonzoharristhemuslimcoper]

Source: Trust me bro

[@thegreatdestroyer6506]

Yeah. Not like he's got a Phd in Biblical scholarship, has written books and cites many other books written by other acclaimed scholars in many of his other videos. Keep believing in your fairytale.

[@RD-jc2eu]

Source: Pretty much every serious Biblical scholar who specializes in the early New Testament period.

[@alonzoharristhemuslimcoper]

@@thegreatdestroyer6506 Having phd in biblical scholarship does not necessarily mean all he says is true , keep believing in random explosion chance reality ☺️❤️

[@alonzoharristhemuslimcoper]

@@RD-jc2eu Source: "serious' according to me

[@sentirongsen2324]

They think Phd in bible answers everything😂 The title of the claim has enough nonsense already

[@rainbowkrampus]

It's like the gospels are fiction and weren't intended as biographies at all...

[@rosepetal-ov7vl]

@@MrMortal_Rafalse.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

​@@MrMortal_RaThere were many other similar spiritual belief systems which involved celestial deities taking on human form. And all of them PRE DATE Christianity. I am simply requesting the specific data that proves that the Christian version of these beliefs is the only true rendition. The specific data i am requesting would need to be completely independent of the data for a historical Jesus which is an entirely separate argument altogether.

[@MsFitz134]

Technically, yes, they weren't intended as biographies, they were intended as gospels. It's a different literary genre. Doesn't mean they're entirely fictional, but it also means they aren't entirely non-fiction either. They were meant to teach about the type of person that Jesus was or the type of things that he taught, rather than to be a historical record of his life events.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

@@MsFitz134 Ok that's cool. But like I said to moralra, the specific data people are asking for is missing so I think that's the reason alot of people question the wacky claims made in the Bible. But I agree with you, it's part truth part fiction.

[@fordprefect5304]

@@MrMortal_Ra Matthew 17 17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus. *Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth* Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE* Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua. Those are real historical facts supported by evidence.

[@mdelaney9008]

Really got that denial thing going.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

Believers? Yes they do.

[@Patriot218S]

1st Corinthians 15:4-8, “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

[@hglundahl]

3:26 What if it follows from the logic of St. Irenaeus, as best as he could, simply transmitted a correct tradition? Fr. Jean Colson has argued, he mixed up the Beloved with the Son of Zebedee, since he left Asia Minor at 16. We have no indication he mixed anything else up.