Are the gospels too late to be good history?

[paltalkx]

30 years is not really long.

can you remember what you had for dinner Mr Evangelist?

[garith21]

The proper critique is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, 2nd or 3rd hand testimony is what the gospels are, and even if they were 1st hand contemporary it still wouldn't be sufficient. As there are people we can interview today that espouse alien abductions, have legends about themselves or others, claim miracles that we don't believe, so why should a 2000 year old 2nd hand story claiming miracles be any more convincing?

[stevenweir76]

You people know that even if these books were written in 27AD, which they weren't, I still wouldn't believe it. Try to get this through your thick skulls, conjecture or hypothesis or philosophy or sophistry or apologetics is not evidence! If God is all powerful and wants us to know he exists, then why doesn't he just speak up. He supposedly talked to Moses and Abraham, why not anyone else? Doesn't something like going to hell warrant a parent stepping in to give a little help? This is pure BS.

[DannyAbdillah]

@stevenweir76 He will, in the Day of Ressurection. and He was not just talk to Abraham and Moses, but also to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Eber, Saleh, Lot, Jethro, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Muhammad. Why He create Hell if He want all humans really know Him and want all humans never live in Hell?

[stevenweir76]

@DannyAbdillah - And you know this how?

[Shazoolo]

Great video resource by a excellent teacher. Thanks for uploading.

[derhammerman]

I have no doubt that some of what was written is true. The historically verifiable parts would be true. However, just because it states that someone rose from the dead doesn't make it true. People don't rise from the dead.

[johnnyaplseed2121]

@derhammerman He wasn't just a person.

[AceofDlamonds]

amazing how stubborn people keep saying how the Gospels are "300 or so" years after the alleged dates

LOL

[koroigetsuga]

originally christianity was never even meant to be a textual religion, hence why you don't see any writtings in early christianity. how as christianity further disintegrated into all these countless little religions in the 2nd/3rd century the gospels were created as apologetic tracts to finalize the jesus story and refute the contradicting doctrines. and ofcourse the fable of them being eye-witness testimonies was fabricated to give them authority.

[koroigetsuga]

Actually John is 150 years post Jesus

[spitball301]

actually, it isnt

[koroigetsuga]

yes it is

[hamongog2015]

@koroigetsuga

You are inaccurate. It is the first known COPY of the book of John that is 150 years old (Chester Beatty Papyri). (And technically, there is a copy of John known as the John Rylands copy that is 40 years after the fact.) Historically, it is standard practise for historians to reference historical figures s/a Caesar and Aristotle using copys that are 1000 - 1400 years old. The first known n.t. bible copies are between 0-150 years old.

[koroigetsuga]

again John was written between 90 to 120 CE. You can't go younger than 90CE.

what this author does not mention is that our earliest manuscripts come centuries after they were written. The earliest gospel mark was written at best 40CE

why did it take so long for the gospels to get their story straight if they were really eye-witness testimonies? that they were written decades later testifies to how the gospels are really apologetic tracts designed to finalized the jesus story

[mistermucky17]

Habermas give false facts all the time. His dates for the gospels are waaaaaay to early, and just comparing them with Roman histories doesn't make them 'excellent sources'. That's a ludicrous claim.

[raoskaos]

No you don't. This is a bold lie. Stop lying.

[werterr3]

that's soo wrong... ceasar and others are not gods or worshiped like jesus.

strong claims need strong proofs

[braino2000]

Very interesting peice of info! I'll have to look into that more myself.

[braino2000]

This is true, and almost not true enough. Luke and Mark may have actually been written in AD 50's and even liberal scholars are starting to accept that John could very well have been written in the 80's or late 70's. Pauls letters began their composition in the 40's and acts was written before AD 64 or whenever paul died.