Do We Really Know What Jesus Said? 

So every 14 year old boy everywhere had the OT memorized?

@@mattr.1887 No, I didn't say that

​@@mattr.1887the ones that were good enough to were selected for further teaching by Rabbi and would go on to become Rabbi's themselves when they came of age

Jesus likely told his apostles and the apostles told others.

​@@samsmith4902 So at best you have the bible authors claiming that someone else claimed that Jesus claimed to have said something. You sure are a trusting person if you are confident with that.

@@somerandom3247not really. How many things do we know in history that are from people hundreds of years after the fact? After all everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from Plutarch who lived 400 years after Alexander.

@dannyc3774 ”Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in.“ ‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭15‬-‭16‬ ‭ That’s how, we have Peter and the other disciple as two eyewitnesses to the event between Jesus & Pilate.

We don't know for sure that they knew all of these conversations flawlessly verbatim.

It's from Matthew 15. The Pharisees kept a law that you must wash your hands before eating. They asked Jesus why his disciples don't do so. Jesus says "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." Jesus explains what he meant in the same chapter: "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

@@unsightedmetal6857well said!

You clearly didn't watch the video. - RF Admin

I did, my friend.

​@@mattr.1887 No you didn't because what you are saying has nothing to do with the video. You came here to scoff so it shows you started out with biased predisposition and therefore affirms that you weren't really listening and are guilty of what you claimed Craig was doing. You are projecting your own faulty thinking and insecurity, friendo.

Most Christians I know independently agree with Craig on this. There's no sin in that, not to mention it is the most common sense view, given the explanatory power, scope, etc. of science. Biblical infallibility doesn't have to mean exactly what you think it means.

@@anthonybond8466 There is no indication that anyone in the Bible would have accepted Craig’s view on the first 11 Chapters of Genesis.

@@anthonybond8466 *_> Most Christians I know independently agree with Craig on this_* First, this is an appeal to majority fallacy. Majority opinion doesn't decide truth or correctness. Secondly, they are certainly not "independent". There are no historical traces of Craig's views in the first ~1.8K years of Christian exegetical history, until the last ~200 or so years, with the secular push for evolutionary models. One very influential man was Charles Lyell, a lawyer turned "geologist", who pushed for the concept of uniforminarianism (i.e. everything must be explained using present processes; "present is the key to the past" rather than the other way around, etc.[1,2]), who was explicitly on record saying that he wanted to "free science from Moses". This man preceeded, and was very influential in the life and theory of, Charles Darwin. Lastly, said agreement is mainly due to eisegetical reasons, not exegetical ones. [1]: This, by implication, denies the possibility of the global world-wide flood, among other things. [2]: Interestingly, this concept _seems_ to have been anticipated by 2 Peter 3:4: "They will say, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, *all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.'* *_> There is no sin in that_* I didn't say there was, but how do you _know_ there isn't? On what basis do you so confidently assert that "there's no sin in" contradicting what God said he did? Also, you do realize that you have made no exegetical arguments from the Bible itself, right? Only assertions. I'm not here to change your mind; I'm only pointing this detail out. *_> not to mention it is the most common sense view, given the explanatory power, scope, etc. of science._* If you, Craig, and/or your Christian friends were to be _logically consistent_ with this line of thinking, instead of arbitrarily choosing from the salad bar, you'd also have to reject all the miracles mentioned in the Bible -including the resurrection of Jesus. After all, science also _assumes_ that miracles are not possible and _shows_ that dead people _don't_ come back to life. You need to get a better grasp of the limits of science and also notice the cognitive dissonance you're carrying around. On this point, I leave you with this: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are *against common sense* is the key to an understanding of the real *struggle between science[1] and the supernatural.* We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, *a commitment to materialism.* It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by *our **_a priori_** adherence to material causes* to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that *materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."* (italics original; bold my emphasis) -Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997) Don't you find it ironic that, while _you_ think your view is "common sense", the _influential scientists/academics_ that push the anti-Christian views you've now mixed your faith with, openly admit that their claims are "against common sense"? [1]: Do note that what Lewontin means by the word "science" is not actual science, and that should be clear based on everything else he claimed in the quote. It's a fallacy of equivocation. *_> Biblical infallibility doesn't have to mean exactly what you think it means_* No, apparently, it can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean at any particular point in time, based on what's most convenient for the individual. Obviously. Given that mentality, I'm not surprised you hold the position you do, sir. What I _am_ surprised about, though in a good way, is the fact that people as inconsistent as you, Craig, and your friends have not left the faith outright like so many before all of you (e.g. evangelist Charles Templeton). Good luck.

Just because something isn't literal, doesn't mean it isn't true. Also, at a practical level, you can't really unify early Genesis with the reality-based facts of earth and the universe. The example Craig uses is that of a certain species of plant that needs a full year in which to grow. Its growth can't take place in a day. Things like this is why Craig is lead to (reasonably) assume that Genesis takes place over, say, a vast epoch of time, during which things like the forming of earth's vast land masses can take place. To reiterate, the events in Genesis don't need to be literal in order to be true; the same can be said of the abstract axioms of mathematics.

@@code-dredd I am curious about examples of "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs". Best regards,

You definitely didn't watch the video. - RF Admin

Probably because he's actually read "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History" by Colin J. Hemer. - RF Admin

Because the purpose of the infancy naratives in Luje and Matthew were primarily to show linkage between the Jewishvscriptures andctheir gospels. They were not based on the apostolic witness like the rest of their gospels.

In what way?

This is not true. The "different" accounts of the same event have people focusing on different aspects/details/etc. They're complementary, not contradictory. The only way you can claim they're "different", and thus "contradictory" in any way, is if you already have an _a priori_ belief that this is the case, but this is just begging the question.

with God all things are possible (specifically including rich men entering the kingdom of heaven)

@@zaca353 So it must be possible for God to die.

@@tedgrant2God die? Er, yeah... how do you think anyone enters the kingdom of heaven? Jesus' death ;) Sorry, that's a bit facetious of me. The proper answer is: That's not how language works. The "all things" is governed by the context, which has to do with who can be saved 👍 P.s I'm certain WLC has a nice little video on what God - who can do anything - "can't do" (e.g., logical incoherent things)

Who said Craig is a rich man?

@@Easternromanfan Several websites state that his net worth is about $2 million. And just look at him. Nice clothes and a big smile. And his books are best sellers.

there is a letter, Jesus wrote 'i am very busy, my disciplines will perform a miracle after I am killed for sins''

The apostles were direct eyewitnesses. Reports from direct eyewitnesses is not "hearsay" and _is_ evidence -even in today's courts. For your sake, this is the one case where ignorance is not "bliss". But, you do you.

@@stephenkaake7016 Did he sign it yours sincerely or yours faithfully, Jesus Christ?

@@code-dredd Given that the Gospels are anonymous, bro, it’s hearsay. You do not appear to know your bible history, bro. Your ignorance can be fixed with a little education.

​@@horridhenry9920Whatever helps you sleep at night, "bro" 😂

Under that same standard, we could never trust anything in history. You really need to do better to produce a legitimate argument.

@@Johnny-mz9ot \\ Under that same standard, we could never trust anything in history. \\ Agreed. That is why I wrote, “Anything that any Historian writes may be true or maybe false. No one knows for certain”. That is a legitimate argument.

History alone, nevermind archaeology is evidence enuf. Should we have faith? Yes, but should we have blind faith? No, and that’s what it sounds like ur saying .

@@QueenQaffir Craig’s argument for knowing what Jesus said is not strong. Namely, because it must be accepted by faith that what Jesus said is true. The same goes for anything that was written thousands of years ago. How does anyone really know that what was written thousands of years ago really happened ? It really just comes back to blind faith. Archeology does not prove to me nor anyone else that Jesus walked on Water or turned water into wine.

​@Johnny-mz9ot For many historical persons, there are corroborating credible firsthand accounts. For this Jesus, there is _not one_ credible firsthand account.

Bart ehrman is intentionally dishonest. I wouldn’t listen to a word he says.

@jeffersonneto1378 Pick up a copy of Craig L. Blomberg’s book: “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel” - I am about halfway through it, it’s heavily researched and loaded with “criteria of authenticity” points, and evidences of Jesus’ words being “interlocked” with the Synoptics, and the historicity of the narrative. I highly recommend it.

What is a “convict Christian” ?

I would suggest = you look up "Inspiring Philosophy Mike Licona Did Mark Think Jesus is God ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wDjh47C6TiI.html", Also look up "Did Jesus Think He Was God? - Nazareth to Nicaea (Episode 7) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f1QijjSZ3HA.html" , and look up "Inspiring Philosophy The Gospels Teach Jesus is God! ru-vid.comryAOQIKlVo8". These all helped me a lot when having your same question.

There is a series of bible study by Mike Winger, going through all of Mark, wich is the earliest gospel. He shows how high the CHRISTology is. It's almost more radical than John when you get to know what the author tries to commmunicate, wich most modern readers, me included, miss at first glance

No, Dr. Craig is definitely not a Calvinist. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos you obviously dont know him personally or havent heard all of his discussions. I listened to him say word for word he believed in the reformed belief that God chooses who will go to heaven and hell . He is so confusing. He doe not teach the Gospel-he is paid to speak and write books and he is a calvinist just like spurgeon and voddie and macarthur and billy graham

@@TomCollinsRocks From his debate with Christopher Hitchens: "Well, I am not a Calvinist, for example. I think that certain tenets of Reformed Theology are incorrect. I would be more in the Wesleyan Camp myself. But these are differences among brethren. These are not differences on which we need to put one another in some sort of a cage. So within the Christian camp, there's a large diversity of perspectives. I'm sure there are views that I hold that are probably false, but I'm trying my best to get my theology straight, trying to do the best job. But I think all of us would recognize that none of us agree on every point of Christian doctrine, on every dot and tittle." - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos he talks in circles. I've listened to enough to know he teaches false doctrine

@@TomCollinsRocks What does he teach that is false? - RF Admin

Non-new testament-Post-apostolic writings of Jews, like Josephus, and others / Non-Christian scholars know those writings e.g. Bart Ehrman

All Josephus did was report on the beliefs of others. He wasn't even born until after jesus's supposed death.

​@@somerandom3247And there is good reason to conclude both mentions of Jesus in FJ's _Antiquities of the Jews_ were 2nd century fraudulent intrusions.

Test

@@ctt59 how is the writing of jews (those who practice Judaism) secular?

I have a idea, as I was trained by God for 6 months, Jesus was not real, but I am sure there is a greater mind, it can outwit even the smartest of skeptii

@@stephenkaake7016 And I am not quite so sure. Now what?

Actually, yes. There're plenty of surviving archeological artifacts. One particularly relevant here is James, the biological brother of Jesus[1]. You can find several articles about it, including, but not limited to: _"James...Brother of Jesus" Ossuary Is Rock Solid_ My advice: Don't parrot Dawkins' ignorant talking points. Even fellow atheists roasted him for claiming Jesus wasn't a real person in history. A lot more could be said here, but I digress. [1]: Brothers born _after_ Jesus. It may surprise you to know that Mary, being a _married_ woman, did _not_ stay a virgin her entire life, like Catholics seem to think.

@code-dredd Did you actually _research_ this James Ossuary? Yes or no.

My advice: Don't ever present me advice. I don't represent Dawkins, nor he I. Either discuss the matter with ME or stfu. Understand?