If the Gospels were written in the lifetime of the Disciples then people still alive would have disputed them if they were wrong. I hear this a lot, but I disagree to a good degree. I mean by your own dating Mark would have been written about what, 60AD? About 30 years after Jesus died? The average lifespan back then was about 40 years. So some witnesses could have still been alive for sure. But the Gospel of Mark has no post resurrection appearances, and is the shortest Gospel there is. I don't think anyone would have disputed that Jesus died by crucifixion, or that he lived. The miracles? Maybe? But by the time Matthew, Luke and especially John were written most would have already died. I know Paul says many were still alive, but he doesn't say who they were so I'm not exactly sure how you could have tracked them down to find out if what was written was accurate. He just says "500". The unfortunate reality is that the Gospels were written in a different language, decades after Jesus died, by people we don't know. Living in a different country. Most people in Israel at the time couldn't even read and write. So how exactly were they supposed to come out and dispute these accounts if they weren't in fact true? Given the fact of when they were written, where they were written, the language they were written in, and the fact that most people couldn't read and write? I just don't understand this argument to be honest.
Nick, thanks so much for your engagement. You ask some excellent questions which I'll try to address. The apostles were likely in their late teens to early 20's when they followed Jesus. So a 40-year life span at least gets us into the 50's, so 60AD isn't entirely out of the question. But even if we go with your timing and they're all dead by the time the Gospels were written down there are two supporting elements: one, the written Gospels were likely based on oral stories that had been shared since the time of Jesus. Those stories would have predated the written Gospels and therefore certainly have been around during the lives of the Apostles. And two, even if the first generation of church leaders were gone, those they directly taught certainly would have been alive when those stories and letters were written down. So I still think the "witness denial" could stand. And to your point about Paul not naming the 500, I think the argument is that you wouldn't have to go find them. As the oral stories and written letters/Gospels were shared, those folks would self-identify if they wanted to correct what was being shared. Christian Jews held no political power at that time, so there would be no reason to be afraid to stand up and speak against what they were saying. Yes, the Gospels were written in Greek, but Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. Plenty of folks in first century Palestine would have been able to read/speak it as a necessity of doing business in that time and place. And those who couldn't read or write, could easily have had it read to them in a community setting. Hopefully those ideas begin to address the questions you have. They're fair questions, and I truly appreciate you offering them in a sincere manner. -Dan
@@genesischurch150 Thanks for the response Dan, it's much appreciated. And I completely agree that the Gospels are based on oral stories repeated for decades by the early Christians before they were ever written down. That's part of the problem though, not part of the solution. It's likely the stories they may have told and heard repeated, changed dramatically from the time they first told them, to the time they were finally written down in another language and country. And I still go back to the first written Gospel, Mark, as the shortest with no post resurrection appearances. The Christology grows with each Gospel written until you get to John, with the highest Christology. John (who almost certainly is not the author. Acts tells us he was illiterate) has Jesus walking around claiming outright to be God in many places in that Gospel. Something the Synoptic authors just failed to mention? Didn't think was important? I don't get that. The answer seems obvious, and the apologetics seem to fall apart when you look into them with an open mind. Like why would Matthew, and eyewitness himself have to copy almost all of Marks Gospel? And then add to it. And why do the early church fathers say it was originally written in Hebrew? Is the one they're referring to even the one we now have? So many questions. And I don't think the idea that any of the 500 would "self identify" really hold much water for me. The Gospels weren't written in Israel. By the time they could have made their way there those likely would have all been dead. I've just heard to many apologists say things similar to you. That if the Gospels as written included things that didn't happen, all you had to do was go find one of these 500 to verify it. When the truth is, by the time the Gospels were even first written most would have been dead even if we knew who they were so we could go ask them. To expect them to come to you defeats the argument that I always here frankly. At best I think maybe Mark could have gotten back to Jerusalem while some may have still been alive. But Mark has the lowest Christology of all the Gospels. By the time you get to John, almost 70 years after Jesus died they all would have been gone. And yes, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, but the language in Jerusalem was Aramaic. It's what Jesus and his disciples would have spoke. And to say that plenty of people would have been able to speak Greek may or may not be true, to say that plenty of people would have been able to read Greek? No. A very small portion of indigenous people back then could have read. And an even smaller number would have been able to write. And we're talking mostly about fishermen here (except for possibly Luke) that were unlettered. The bottom line to me based on what we know makes this apologetic fall flat. It's takes assumptions piled on suppositions to proclaim the Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew Luke and John. And it seems more like trying to manufacture a scenario in support of what you want to be true, rather than following the evidence where it leads.
Wowie!! This is amazing! Transparent, vulnerable, real, forward thinking, such an amazing testament to the journey. From one journier to another - THANK YOU!! ♥️💕
Probably related to my life as a white Anglo-Saxon European male steeped in the doctrine of "manifest destiny" and believing that I was chosen by God to be rescued over and over again
I don't remember feeling like I had to prove my love for God - I mostly remember feeling blessed by God in spite of my shortcomings, not every day but on days where I felt particularly rescued in some way that my life needed at that point in time. I don't believe I felt worth of rescue, but I was flooded with the realizaiton that God loved me no matter what I did
People who have shared in Christ's suffering: Early Christians (before 300 A.D.), martyrs, Christians who worship in countries that are hostile to Christianity, i.e. China, North Korea, Egypt
Suffering makes you feel heavy, where you have lost something you value, where you feel lost overall, where you're in anguish. Where life turns to a black and white film, and it used to be in color.
This conversation gives me so much hope. I was devastated by her death and I can’t imagine how difficult it was for you. Thank you for articulating so beautifully the journey you are on, and a fresh way to look at hope.
amazing conversation - a raw and real conversation about the tension of worship and doubt - thank you for sharing this conversation - Rachel and Amanda continue to bring glimpses of New Creation - our hearts are with Rachel's family as we approach the one year anniversary of her death. Steve, you did a great job with the dialog. A picture of compassion and grace. Amanda's humility, grace, transparency, and wisdom honor the Creator.
