I'm almost 50 and I have the first hand testimony of my great-grandmother born in late 1870s wake of the civil devastation and what it was like growing up in that environment. Point is this type of textual criticism over such a 150 years can and would be known between some people in a similar way. never let anyone tell you a century old bio or text is to late to be correct .
It's also perfectly normal and accepted to have as best surviving sources for "secular" history, e.g. details of Alexander's conquests or of the 1st century Roman Emperors historians writing a century or more after the events, based on lost intermediates, hearsay, whatever. While there is of course also textual criticism applied to these texts, rarely seem to be drawn conclusions as "antirealist" as in the case of the gospels.
@@bartolo498 That's true but there is a massive amount of contemporary evidence produced during his lifetime that corroborates Alexanders existence, coins we can hold with his name and head on them, statues of him, contemporary accounts from Macedonia to India, the reality of, at the time, the world's largest empire, contemporary accounts of the dynasties formed among his generals after his death as the empire broke up, various evidence confirming the timing of Greek influence in all the countries he conquered... Many streams of strong evidence all fitting together to show that Alexander was real, that he conquered a big chunk of the world and that it all fell apart when he died and still, no historian would claim that every word of contemporary and later accounts written about him was true or that he was the son of a God & born of a virgin or other miraculous stories people insisted, and believed, about him were true.. None of that corroborating evidence is available for Jesus yet the large majority of accounts the New Testament authors provide and their interpretation of his life & purpose, none of them written during his lifetime, all insist that he was a supernatural being. I'm not saying the Gospels are right or wrong but they're very different in terms of evidence for each.
No responsible historian would say that but there's also a massive amount of corroborating evidence, both contemporary and historical, that allows us to confirm a great deal of the Civil War and it's aftermath which allows us to be certain it actually happened. Much of that contemporary evidence we can hold & read today. Unfortunately, that's not the case with Jesus. We have nothing written during his life time and no contemporary records. While accounts written many years after an even certainly, "can" be accurate, unless we can confirm them with other evidence, can't know if they actually are factual. Unfortunately, all we have as evidence for Jesus' existence are written accounts, all written years after his death. That's in regards to historical facts, The New Testament authors refer to many supernatural elements in the Gospels and letters and we have absolutely no way to confirm those. If your Great Grandmother told you that Lee's horse took off and flew him to his home in Virginia after surrendering at Appomattox, I suspect you would treat that differently than her first hand, non-supernatural stories about Reconstruction. She would have had to have heard that rather than seen it herself so how do we confirm where she heard it and can we find a large number of 1st hand accounts of the event, including something from Lee himself, paintings or photos of Lee flying off, accounts of his miraculous speed in returning to Virginia, things like that, and do we have any solid evidence of flying horses anywhere else? Anyway, the point is that there really is a great deal of evidence needed to confirm accounts, especially 2000 year old accounts with many supernatural elements from a culture which viewed the supernatural as being as common as television and airplanes are to us today.
I marathoned all your videos and this is an excellent body of work! RU-vid needs more content providers like you. Your research is excellent and your very well spoke Please make more content please please
I hope to get notifications for a new video one day soon 🙏 Many other channels just repeat content without carrying out their own research. Godspeed 🕯️
It may seem odd, but I am an agnostic-atheist, and I love Christ and the Church tradition. I love the concept of God, as it thwarts away almost perfectly the internal poison of nihilism. I came to this attitude after reading Tolstoy's 'Confession' and Dostoevsky's response to nihilism itself.
That was part of the reason I left behind atheism and became Christian. The beauty of the theology, art, and culture always connected with me deeply. To me, the logical conclusion of an atheist world view is nihilism. I figured if I'm going to live a meaningless life in a universe with no purpose that leads to utter non-existence, I might as well live it filled with the beauty of Christ.
That's not odd at all. You're simply objectively looking at truth. These are hard truths but nonetheless profound that you see them. For all the atrocities committed in the name of religion there is infinitely more good that has been done. We humans tend to focus on only the negative things hence the distorted view of Christianity a lot of people have. Christianity is the only religion to really delve deeply into human nature also so there is quite a philosophical appeal. All in all objectively speaking if a person is objective that is then you would have to conclude religion and especially Christianity has led us to and always will lead us to a better world then nihilism or the absence of a moral hierarchy. For if you get rid of God all you have is a subjective opinion of what is right and wrong. You cannot escape this truth. Therefore we know it's better that civilization has at its pinnacle a source of morality. A finger pointing the way. There's so much beauty in Christianity. And of those philosophies that have to do with human nature to me there is the evidence for divine inspiration. It's absurd to think humans could have come up with such concepts especially in ancient times. Many people fail to realize that ancient people dealt with an everyday reality that we couldn't dream of having to endure. That is anyone from a modern first world country. So for such goodness to have arisen out of it all simply appears as though something knew civilization was going to succeed and/or if it were going to succeed needed greatly some help.
@@owlobsidian6965 You should live for truth, not just what feels good. Life is not meaningless without a god, you just have to make your own meaning. Look at all the animals which enjoy going about their day without falling into nihilism.
@mouthpiece200 "make your own meaning." This would be as untruthful as making an imaginary deity. It would also be an example of choosing what feels good (making meaning) over what is actual (accepting there is no meaning.) If there is no objective meaning to life, then the only reality is nihilism. And I don't believe we have any insight into the philosophical leanings of animals.
Brother, keep up this work. In a day like ours, there’s no more worthwhile endeavor to continue to shine light in darkeness and show the beauty and Historicity of Christianity to the world.
a couple days ago I was just wondering who could've written Hebrews, given that the author of the book tells a lot about what perspective the book should be taken in. and today, I find this video!
Church father and Church tradions exclusively claim Paul wrote Hebrews. So Paul wrote Hebrews and i will belive that more then any modern so called “schoolar” or abdool who try to claim otherwise
Superb research. After liberal theology greatly weakened my faith, by the grace of God I came under the influence of solid Christian orthodoxy (in the original meaning of the word and not the ethnic denominational sense) and apologetics. This also involves immersing myself in the Word of God daily. The faith of my youth returned but is now fortified with greater certainty and revelation of truth. I will add this video to my resources as well. God bless and reward you for your diligence.
Salve! I just found your channel today, and your videos are quite edifying. I have a particular interest in Patristics and hope that you will continue.
God Bless you for your work. You are very diligent & thorough. Christians have so much more grand to stand on than they realize, so work like this is extremely helpful in that regard.
Thank you for standing up for the truth. Over a decade ago, my professor told me that if I dared to argue the traditional position - rather than the two-document or four-document hypothesis - he would fail me. Disgusting.
The largest atheist theologians and scholars on the planet know Jesus was a real man and the scriptures were written by his direct followers. Praise Jesus. He is our savior. He is a wonderful and loving messiah.
Brother! I just stumbled across your channel and I love it! The content that’s there is great, but seems to be the same 4 or 5 videos posted over and over again. Make more videos!
Exceptional summary of the Gospels based on the evidence. This really gives perspective on the Gospels and when they were written. I haven't found another video as useful as this one in regards to the New Testament. Well done :3
at about 14:51 You're playing on a slippery distinction between "anonymous" and "pseudonymous." You've already conceded that the contemporaneous Gnostic materials were not written by the people whose names the documents bear. Now it is beholden to show that the canonical texts _were_ written by the people whose names they bear.
Yes indeed. It becomes even more dubious, when the Gospels are not written in the 1st person (hearsay) and are based on stories collected and written down decades after the fact. Historians can't confirm _"ancient miracle claims"_ (breaking of the laws of the natural world), based entirely on "personal testimony" alone. *(claims common to all religions)*
The pseudonymity objection is partly addressed by the different sources that converge on the canonical four names and the fact that the extant Gnostic materials (which we don't have, most of the non-canonical texts are decades if not centuries later than the canonical texts) are spuriously attributed to much more famous characters than Mark and Luke (and Matthew, relatively), why do it if not because they are known? When you are faking authority you go as big as you can... a Syrian friend of Paul and a bilingual protectee of Peter definitely would not cut it.
@@stfclm "The pseudonymity objection is partly addressed by the different sources that converge on the canonical four names" I agree with you there. It is certainly evidence and should be considered, but I don't think it's dispositive. A tradition can coalesce and condense without actually being true, like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Or it can be true, and reflect memory that just isn't documented elsewhere. "most of the non-canonical texts are decades if not centuries later than the canonical texts) are spuriously attributed to much more famous characters than Mark and Luke..." The Nag Hammadi texts are as old as our earliest complete New Testament texts. (Although we have what appear to be tiny fragments of the NT that are much earlier.) A good number are attributed, psuedonymously, IMO, to Peter or Thomas or James or Mary, and fit your objection precisely. (Adam is probably the most extreme example!) But many have no authorship declared - they're truly anonymous. And of those not attributed to big name apostles there are several, and no one would say Eugnosis, Derdekeas, Norea, Marsanes, Allogenes, or Hypsiphrone were chosen for their authority, except perhaps within the insular Gnostic community, which is a possibility.
Great informative video!!! You debunked the argument that the 4 gospels are anonymous with abundant proofs through the quotations of the early church fathers presented on the screen for all to see !! It is amazing that the names of authors are written in the manuscripts !!! You brought this to broad daylight!! I think you should bring this issue with an English translation of those names in the manuscripts side by side if not done already!! Load of thanks for your hard work and commitment!!!
@All About Britain In fact it does not matter who God chose to write his Word or used for his purpose ! In the book of the Acts God used Stephen and Philip to perform great miracles who were deacons not apostles ! In the old testament God used Farmers, shepherd, kings , labourer, Woodcutter ..,, God will always confirm His Word is various ways !!
@@chuckharding6405 Islam does not have copies of manuscripts but late narratives with erasures and written over and later narratives additions Whole sentences rewritten and so on Paul letters prior to the gospels have his name written!
It start as oral message from Jesus to His illiterate disciples so where the name of those who interacts with these disciples ?. Without their names it is all anynomous.
I think it is incorrect to refer to something like "Papyrus 52" as a manuscript of the Gospel of John. It's a manuscript - printing would have to wait for a bit over a thousand years - but fairly it's a manuscript of a dozen words or so with a haunting resemblance to what would be known as the Gospel of John in a couple of hundred years. You might assume that it came from the Gospel of John, and I don't even think that's an entirely unreasonable assumption, but all one can honestly say is that a few words were found that were later (known to be, found, incorporated, added, applied, or always from the origin there) in the Gospel of John. One should restrain oneself from making the inferences one would like to see; although it's perfectly acceptable scholarship to point out that this verse seems to be part of what would later be known as the Gospel of John. Caution and care for detail are important here.
Just one small correction: double g in greek is traditionally pronounced "ng", and the letter gamma is pronounced with a hard g sound or a, so the word εὐαγγέλιον would be pronounced "E-waɲ-ghé-lion" or "E-βaɲ-ghé-lion", were this beta letter is a sound similar to Spanish intervocalic b.
Do you have any idea how many people deliberately sent out confusing information about the scriptures? MANY😢 The devil will never stop attacking the Word that defeated him.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING…All the oldest surviving manuscripts we have were written AFTER author names were attached. We know they originally HAD to be anonymous because the earliest church fathers NEVER mentioned names.
Paul's letters are clearly Paul's, because he talks about himself in them (altho some are known to be forgeries). But the gospels are just stories, with no personal information or first-person perspective (with minor exceptions) and include scenes not witnessed by any disciple. They were obviously not written by the people portrayed in them. But since they are _named for_ people portrayed in them, they are certainly falsely attributed. Moreover, the only reason to give a gospel a title with “according to…” is if there are multiple gospels floating around, and you have to clarify which is which. This means their current titles cannot have been their original titles.
On the synoptics , they don't have author names or dates of writing. They don't name their sources either. Mathew speaks in 3rd person all the time. I think they intentionally want to be anonymous. John comes too late in the game. To me, the internal evidence may be more important that any external one. Yes, That created an authority problem afterwards, so it seems to me names had to be attached. Paul doesn't seem to know them, they are quoted as we know them quite late in 2nd century so ...I'm still not convinced.
Other Greco-Roman biographies of the period don't have author names or dates of writing, but are not considered to be anonymous. And even in passages where the author is present, it was common for biographers to use third person narration - since the author isn't the focus. And it's not true that the gospel authors don't name their sources, just that they don't do so in the same way a modern text would. Consider Mark 15:21 "And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. " In the other synoptics "of Cyrene" is sufficient to identify which Simon this is, so why does Mark mention Alexander and Rufus other than to point out his source for this incident. As for Paul, he quotes Luke's gospel as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. And both 1 Clement and the Didache (both 1st century documents) seem to be familiar with some of the synoptics (the Didache mostly quotes Matthew, but also quotes Mark and Luke) and treat them as authoritative. That they don't name the authors doesn't tell us that they didn't know who the authors were. And for them to accept genuinely anonymous writings as such would be at odds with every other early Christian writing that is relevant to the question of NT authorship and canon.
OH NO! The gospels don’t follow my 21st century views on biographies and follow those widely seen in other scholarly accepted biographical works in that culture and time period!
@@endygonewild2899 ridiculous straw man comment. fact is, nobody knows who wrote any of the gospels period. they don't say who wrote them, they are written in the third person, and none of them identify any sources, much less reliable sources. they are complete fiction, and not even good fiction. Compared to virgil, ovid and horace the gospels are pulp fiction.
@@scambammer6102his comments still stands man that was so weak. And what are the exact reasons why you think the gospels are anonymous fiction? They’re in third person? The dude made fun of the other dude for inserting his 21st century opinion of how to identify a biography, and what do you do? You go right back at it, inserting your 21st century opinion of how to identify a biography. You’re like a dog who goes back to its vomit
"They don't have author names" !?! Didn't he spend a good time going through manuscripts showing that in all cases where it was rather complete, they ALL have author names attached? We have no single verifiable anonymous manuscript of any of the gospels. So what do you mean by saying "they don't have author names" in the wake of these facts? They don't emphasize themselves: the book isn't about the author...it's about Jesus of Nazareth. But the actual manuscripts, as far as we know, ALL have author ascriptions if they have the pages in tact. Also Paul's description of the Last Supper is the same as Luke's implying some sort of quoting.
The things written in the Gospels were thought before they were published. The Church existed before the New Testament. The Gospels weren't published in book stores, but directly deposited by actual persons with actual recipients at actual churches. Those churches wouldn't forget whose Books they were first to receive. Titles weren't needed, just the tradition of the Church as to whom it received each Book from. The manner of original delivery cannot be called anonymous. The Letter to the Hebrews was not a single man's Epistle, but a Letter of the Council of Jerusalem. The Circumcision were the old guard, the Priesthood of those of the Covenant of Circumcision. Many of these became Christians and needed to kmow what things they ought to continue as before and which things not. Various persons like Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps Luke and Clement were there. One might have heard Paul give a discourse then incorporated it into the Letter in his own style if Greek. The Epistle mentions "we", not "I", as at a council. Even though Papias speaks of hearing the LORD'S Words from the living Presbyter John and Aristion, John outlived the other Apostles. He also mentions the Apostles as "the Presbyters". First he heard from John in person, but after his death asked others what John further told them, as well as the other Apostles. Here "Presbyter" is used in the most general and basic way, as denoting one with priestly Authority, these ones preceding all other Catholic Presbyters, as the Presbyters par excellence and ultimate elders of the Faith, as opposed to mere Prysbyters that are not also Bishops or Apostles. John may have lived into the early second century. Many seemed to think he lived to about one hundred. The Diatessaron was established very early in Syria, and this reflects on a necessary susbstantial time of the Gospels' preexistence, long enough to account for all early translations outside of Syria too.
We can't trust history passed down by Church or State. The problem is there are no monuments of Jesus Christ for 300 years after the bogus documents we have. The closer we get to Jesus Time, the less we see. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, weighing in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones, would-be dictators suggesting we must all travel together, as if we all prefer leadership with one foot in fantasyland.
Even religious Christian scholars know the gospels were anonymous and that the church put those names to them, and they weren't written by eye witnesses. 30 to 40 years after the time they describe. Are you sure you're not allowing your desires and theology to over ride your logical thinking?
How is that a reasonable claim? Did you watch the video? And even if they were written 30-40 years after the fact, this was well within the lifetime of the apostles - as well as the fact the Gospels were spread orally and preached. There are thousands of manuscripts as well. They have been shown to be reliable countless times. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are their authors.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secret text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim [ line of ismail ]
To me it seems to a summary of the early oral teachings of the disciples authenticated by them. Group effort, holy spirit guided. It literally can't be one person but their accounts are in there.
Jesus> Disciple/direct Eye witness> Mr. X> Mr. Y > Mr.Z > Gosple Author (Mr.J + Mr. M + Mr. Mt + Mr. L)> Present Day bible. It is still anynomous to me.
Quick question but off topic, at what point did the laity begin raising their hands during the Our Father? It is said that it was a continuance of a position that the jews had used in their services. Some say it was in the early church but stopped due to the many who were martyred who had their hands bowned together which led to the church changing their hands to that position.
An author never starts their document with "According to me". This "According", or the equivalent greek "Kata" was added later by people who thought: ohhh this gospel must have been written by Mark, thus they added "Kata Marc"! They were anonymous.
Solid apologetic work here. Very well done. I would add this; why would the Gospels be anonymous when they mention so many names of eyewitnesses connected to the many miracles Jesus performed? This is a GLARING inconsistency in the Gospel anonymity theory. The mention of names throughout the canonical Gospels is SIGNIFICANT and is one of many evidences which prove their authenticity; i.e. the reason the Gospel writers mention so many names is because any person reading the Gospels around the time they were written, who was living or traveling to the Galilee or Judea could go look these people up and verify the Gospel account of the miracles Jesus performed. It would make no sense for the writer to mention all of these names and then himself remain anonymous. Conversely, the lack of any names mentioned in the later gnostic gospels are one of many reasons they are clearly forgeries.
The oldest Catholic forgery is a dialogue with Tryphon . And the addition is divided into multiple layers. When the earliest parts of the book were written, the Gospels did not exist
In the book known as John the only mention of John is the Baptist. The name of Lazarus pops up 11 times then like the name of Shaul , becomes a different name , Disciple . That word is used 16 times . Look to John 11:35-36 for the disciple Jesus loved . See John 12:9 and 18:15 . 11:25 tells us of one who also loves the Messiah . And then 21:20 and 22 reminds us again of the one Jesus loved . And then 21:23 -24 😊
However you seem to anonymous. Unless I have missed you identify somewhere In the videos or titles. Please identify yourself along with a bio. Thanks great talk!!!
Can you speak to the idea of Markan priority versus Mathean priority. Do you believe in an Aramaic proto Matthew being a source of Greek Matthew and Mark? I tend to go give weight to ancient authority which unanimously say Matthew wrote first.
Each gospel very likely comes directly from the script (bag) of any student of that group. Or it come come from the lesson plans of the teacher. I don't recall finding any errors although some variations are more difficult that others. God was good to me in preparing me with certain knowledge. I think I recall that jordan without the article refer to a "going down." As I now live in a house much lower in elevation than all those near about, I can easily understand the stream behind my house on its pond have been on the old maps. It rises and falls but never totally disappears as it travels toward a notable river. John the Baptist is not always baptizing at the same location. "The" Jordan is the Jordan River, but jordan make be the descending banks of the Kidron or other. Jairus' daughter is raised on her 12th birthday--very interesting. These lessons of the gospels should be studied for growing faith in the students. It may well be that the disciples bore the name of the grace. There are far more amazing coincidences.
What are the surviving ARAMAIC versions of the GOSPELS? Are not those the oldest versions than the Greeks? And why is their translations not the same as Greek, or modern translations?
You have no idea what Celsus' thoughts were on the anonymity of the gospels- we don't have his original writings . Just because "contra Celsus" doesn't mention anything, doesn't mean Celsus didn't : )
I know the "handed down" new testament has Jesus saying if you have seen him you have seen the father. But he also said there is no way to the father but thru him. Sooo Jesus is only the son of GOD. But he is not GOD. Nor do i believe he sayed that "ye are gods" thats blasphemy and probably put in there by roman writers, but not the words of Jesus. Also the gospel has Jesus saying there will always be poor. That too is contrary to Deuteronomy: where it is precisely stated that it is the money changers: bankers, taxcollectors, treasury's, priority to make sure their citizens never fall into poverty. This is the Biblical principle for ALL REAL Christian nations. Sooo why soo much homelessness?
Hello, Writting myself a novel set in the eastern roman Empire, 3rd century AD, I'd love to submit a few questions to you by e-mail if ever this was possible. Regards Zachary
This is such a beautiful response. Thank you and God bless you. I'm currently in the midst of studies in the new and Old testament manuscripts. Or what's often referred to as first and second testament. From recrnt great scholarly works too books that i recommend including scribes and scripture by John Meade and Petter Gurry. Peter j Williams can we trust the gospels? Those are lighter books which I think are great places to start especially if your Protestant but Catholic scholars as well as Orthodox scholars have tremendous works out there.
Origin of the manuscripts: Egypt: P46, P52, P66, P4, P1, P62, Codex Sinaiticus, Bodmer Papyri, Codex Schoyen 2650 unknown: Codex Vaticanus Italy: Codex Vercellensis mentioned persions with connections to Africa: Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria I see a pattern.
The grace of John, includes an awakening to certain aspects of other languages. The eye to see and ears to understand obviously can be seen in why an uneducated person like myself would see and hear the words that were written on the covers of each codex.
You have done a good job of researching and noting your sources. However, your conclusion is far from being definitive. To say that anonymous manuscripts do not exist does not mean that they have never existed. Even a couple of the manuscripts you show in the video are missing text to indicate the author. One example that is so deteriorated you even admit it cannot be read but you ASSUME it is Matthew. Even though you went as far back as possible to the earliest sources. But that is far from conclusive. As you pointed out in citing Papias most of his writings are lost. Other sources quoted by Church fathers as to date no examples are known to exist. Nonetheless, I admire your scholarship I just disagree with your conclusions.
"To say that anonymous manuscripts do not exist does not mean that they have never existed." But you could say the same thing about unicorns or dragons. The author of the video is building a case from evidence.
@@bob-rogers Your statement is known as a false equivalency. It is as trite as it is foolish. Such statements are made by small-minded people such as internet trolls who are unable to make a well-reasoned counterargument.
A Jesuit trained Catholic priest told me the first thing the Devil's Advocate, the guy who tries hard to discredit visions and saints, looks for is correctness. Next is consistency. This is true of the best criminal trial lawyers. The idiosyncratic and inconsistent Gospels are their own best advocate.
Word of mouth and through generations did the word spread, and no where did Jesus teach nor did any of His disciples say follow a book, follow man, no He said, follow Me! Books are for worldly study, wonder filled stories but the truth that is God can only be found in one place, and it ain’t no book!
Matthew is the more difficult title to understand. "In the beginning was the word and the word was WITH GOD. Matthew is the "with God" portion of grace. את is not translated on OT, but is a person of what we commonly call the trinity. An alpha and omega. מאת translated is "with God." Mark, luke and john are clearly transliterated, but מאת seems to be met'theou. John is ענה which appears only once in scripture (as I recall.) This is clearly translated as "the beginning of the response." The yowd prefix gives the gospel of John it's accurate title. The four words mark, Matthew, luke and john appear together in Solomon's passage on the way of life. This way is showed to us in the design of the tabernacle courts. Our goal is to obey the charge given to us all--seek my face. His face would be covered by the wings of the cherubim...when the messiah comes and is crowned king of kings and Lord of Lords. The path is on the plane until one enters the third court. God is a spirit and cannot be seen. Elijah and Moses stood in a cleft of rock on the same mountain. They were mysteriously translated to see the Messiah at his transfiguration. The meaning of "John" is rather that having reached this place on our journey, we can hear his voice. The voice is one "breathed" in our ear. By definition, I would say it is the still small voice. God speaks in light . This is his language. There a a life that was born in us, but quickened when this faith is embraced. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has experienced this. I think, though, that teaching on the way of life is severely lacking. Mark is the position most distant in the kingdom, but here we are "established." Matthew is a second beginning--God with us. Luke is the "latter" part and the third beginning. Each had an increasing ability to see and hear the things of God, but luke is very much a quickening of the mind. John is meant to be hidden. I'm not really comfortable discussing it. If you are willing to submit yourself to the way, you will arrive there.
*No way to confirm =* _Faith in the words & writings of men, that claim to speak for God/Jesus._ Show me the original gospels, not the ones that show up centuries after the death of Jesus. (what we have today) None of the gospels are written in the "1st person" and they don't claim to be eyewitness accounts. (hearsay written down decades after the events) Historians can't "confirm" _"fantastic ancient miracle claims"_ on mere _"personal testimony"_ alone. (same for all religions)
@@hippios Really ? *Not Remotely The Same ;* Weather or not I accept any of the rest of history, is irrelevant to the safety of my eternal soul. Only religion/Christianity demands that I believe or risk denial of salvation, (heaven), or even worse. _(annihilation or eternal torture)_
@@moodyrick8503 the substance of the faith objectively does not affect the validity of the historical manuscripts. You are blurring the line between archaeology and theology. We can have a debate about theology any day, but you cannot use that to set ridiculously high requirements for archaeological evidence. Thats just hypocrisy, and you know it
Papias' description of the writings of Mark and Matthew doesn't match the current Gospels - Mark's is described by Papias as not being in chronological order and there is no good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Papias goes on to add that many people interpreted and translated Matthew, so that explains why it Matthew seems to be written originally in Greek rather than Hebrew.
@@scambammer6102 what are u talking about? Based on papias writings we know that many have translated Matthew, which is why we have the Greek documents instead of Hebrew since Christianity was mostly a greek speaking religion (or at least now it was).
I still have doubt about the gospel of Thomas, afterall it's merely a collection of Jesus sayings... some Quotes are unheard from the other gospel... but it doesn't means they are made up... it's proven now that Thomas went even as far as china preaching and it's quite possible that collection of saying of jesus collected from him would be made. I think that some of the saying where the origin of the notrwim gnostic heresie as they made interpretation of some obscure saying ... like the one were Jesus say " blessed is the lion that the man would eat because that lion would become a man and woe to the man that a lion that lion would eat because that lion would become a man" that's an obscure line out of context... but could be interpreted completly differently when taking into account the simbolism of the Lion within Jews tradition... as lion of Judah for the blessed one, but as one of the beast of Daniel for the cursed one... but the gnostic were greak and mostly ignorant of the Jewish tradition and they made up interpreation based on greak and coptic interpretations interweaving other mythology into it... that's how they just twisted everythings... but it doesn't mean the gospel of Mathieu was a forgery. The same can be said about the proto-evengelium of James. who was the brother of Jesus, because he was the disciple that Jesus loved as John call him... the attribution of that title to himself in John gospel is erroneous... James was said to be the Brother of Jesus Because of what he told to him at his crucifixion... as narated by John gospel who never even mention himself in it... when Jesus get the 2 first disciple after his baptism, John omit any mention of himself... so why would he had than later started mentionning himself by that title... So Marie would had been given into custody to James the Just not John.. until his martyrdom in the time of the destruction of the temple... it would then make sense that he would have writen down a narration of the proto evangelion of Maria, which many aspect coincide with Jewish text of the mishna, specially clarifying who was that priest killed by Bet shamay and the zealot in the temple... James claim it was Zachariah father of John the baptist... all those coincidence make it more likelly to be a judeochristian original and prolly coming from James first patriarch of Jerusalem.
BTW who cannot love The Gospel of Peter's Talking Cross? which spoke the Truth. even an Atheist values true sentiments. Gospel of Peter was removed due to it being the 5th wind? hardly. It was removed because some guy in Syria wrote a letter to the Bishop about it, and the latter thought it was too "gnostic" (I guess a little more than Gospel of John - which has its gnostiscim, esp when Jesus post resurrection folks see him but none recognize him). so GoJ is not gnostic enough to remove from the cannon, but GoP is! what he have that survives - reading the Gospel of Peter, its no more gnostic than Gospel of John,.........but Bishop of Syria 1800 yrs ago dissagreed and killed that gospel off from history. oh well. wht else has been killed off due to dogmatic mindsets over the millinia, to never be found today.
Those who like to claim that an analyses of the vocabulary, style, and methodology of the Letter to the Hebrews clearly show the letter to be from anyone but Saint Paul because of huge dissimilarity between this letter and all other works attributed to Saint Paul are, it seems, willful in the way they ignore the following: (1) TLTTH was addressed to Jews who did not follow Christ, the other material to Christians. It is normal to frame your arguments to match the mental framework of your audience. (2) Likewise, there was an important difference between the objective in writing TLTTH and the epistles to Christians: in TLTTH Paul was trying to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah in whom they already believed, in the letters to Christians St. Paul was trying to school Christian believers in how to live in accordance with their new faith. Of course the differences in style, vocabulary, etc. are noticeable - very noticeable.
Paul was preaching to the converted. They needed encouragement, because they were being persecuted and murdered by "jews" / ieuds / ieudomites / edomites, "the enemies of God and all mankind."
