very good video. im surprised all these haters bring up excuses to challenge the word of God. weak excuses.. .. if only they would just believe. hell is eternal and unbearable. :(
Unfortunately there's no evidence that the NT *wasn't* altered since the *oldest* known manuscripts can only be traced back to a few centuries AD. This video is arguing one assumption against another which is ultimately self-defeating. Looking at the texts themselves, we see clear evidence that there were probably only two gospel writers and that they were removed from the events themselves.
@andy16666 It depends on what you mean by "altered." If you mean copyist errors, then we know what these are and we know the original text 99 percent of the time.
But some assume that the NT was altered to the point where there are texts that are very different from each other. But what we are talking about are single words and even letters that vary from copy to copy that do not alter the meaning of the text AT ALL.
You start from the premise that the gospels were written by Jews--but there is no evidence of that--all the earliest manuscripts are in Greek--none in Hebrew. All of these texts contain the same mistranslations that are in the Greek Septuagint version of the OT--why would Jewish writers use a that version of the OT when the original Hebrew text was readily available? Why are the NT authors so ingnorant of Jewish law and custom? It is vastly more likely the gospel writers were not Jews.
At 4:38, the video's time-line begins at 100 CE, which is still 60 years after the biblical Jesus would have died. In 100 CE, someone who might reliably recall events of 30 CE would be around 80 years old.
The earliest gospel Mark mentions the 70 CE destruction of the Jewish temple, leaving a 40-year gap. Why would one who experienced miracles wait 40 years to report them? Might a writer feel more free to embellish after a 40-year gap had seen the deaths of most surviving witnesses?
@cobrafarmer Not exactly. The Didach and 1 Clement were written between 70 to 96 AD. a date of 70 for the earliest Gospel is the extreme liberal view. The conservative view has (at least the Synoptic) Gospels written between 40 to 67 AD. Even the liberals admit Paul wrote his letters beginning around 50 AD. we know the Gospels in some form must have been written or preached PRIOR to Paul because he quotes and alludes to the Gospels dozens of times.
CHRISTIANS COME BACK TO ALLAH (THE ONLY ONE GOD) TO ISLAM.
THERE IS NOT GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER.
ALL THE PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS INCLUDING JESUS ARE ALLAHS PROPHETS AND ALLAH SENT THEM ALL TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH SO WORSHIPP HIM. HE CREATED THE SUN THE MOON THE MOUNTAINS THE WHOLE WORLD. FEAR ALLAH THE ONLY ONE GOD AND FIND THE TRUE RELIGION AND THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM. ISLAM ONLY MEANS SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF ALLAH. LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH
Ugh.. This is an apologist piece of trash only picking and choosing things to talk about to support Christianity... Not actually going into detail the myths that surround Jesus Christ!
Mark was written first in 70ad many historians agree on that, then Matthew, then Luke, then John. Jesus "died" between 30 - 33 ad, historians have dated Mark to be written 40 years after the crucifixion. This video doesn't refute that claim AT ALL.. It grabs quotes from after 100ad!
The guy says theres no major differences. But theres so many small ones, that it ends up being a big one. Not to mention, this is no way proves that the stories are historically valid. They were stories, written for the purpose of inspiring Jews, just like the stories of the old testament. Which btw, had no settled "canon" even when Jesus arrived on the scene. So basically, we have to trust that some men about 200 years later were wise, and honest enough to put the right books in? Hmmmmmmm.
@jaskever Firstly we believe in only ONE God, get it. God never had sex, get it. Jesus died for a reason, get it. By your book, God hates certain people, if you have half a brain you would realize, God loves ALL people. Qur'an 5:51 "Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other."
@jaskever Your lack of Biblical knowledge is showing, before you make such absurd comments you should first learn about what you know very little. I am assuming you are a muslim.
Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the Bible is reliable and consistent, apart from a few punctuation marks, past tense verbs and the word "light", the dead sea scrolls confirmed the scripture of the Holy Bible, anyone trying to debunk the Bible really is wasting their time or has lack of knowledge on the subject. The Doctrines are not compromised in either way.
What about atonement for original sin? What about torture and excecution. The bible condems every child. What about the focus on sin? The story of Lot. Judges 19-29. The book of numbers 31:18 Moses was told to slaughter the Midianites. Exodus Joshua 6:21 the destruction of Jerrico. THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF BOOK YOU WANT TO GIVE TO YOUR CHILDREN FOR MORALITY!!!!!!!
Most of this video is a "red herring" argument. The author tries to debunk the claim that the Gospels were written well after the crucifixion by attacking claims of copyist and translation errors. The two faults are unrelated. The part about references to NT writings by 2nd century Christians suggests they may have been written at -some- point in the 1st century, but isn't conclusive. There are alternatives. Much of the NT is also in the OT. "Mark" may also have quoted Ignatius for all we know
@ororc No, there is a reason why we know that Mark was mid first century and Ignatius was early second century. We use historical and literary context. You can only come to your point of view by ignoring the external evidences and looking at texts in isolation. There are volumes of extra-biblical testimony that show the early church knew who all the authors were and how different works were passed down. Most of the time the authors lived in the same cities in overlapping generations.
people should try to think like god and then they would understand why god is calling the just. According to the bible he intends to reveal (revelation) himself on "That Great Day". His day is more than just the realization of god's existence but an actual demonstration of his power. What a little bitch he would be if he catered to every little whiny person's demand for a miracle or face to look at. Would he convince you if the heaven's opened? NO! You made yourself, you go man-god, prove that!
I find it interesting that he says, "mainly misspellings and errors, copying of small words, prepositions and numbers and things like that..." But mainly does not mean entirely. So what ARE the few differences that are NOT misspellings and errors, copying of small words, prepositions and numbers and things like that...?
@QuestionYourMind There are many thousands of these "insignificant" copyist errors in the 30,000 manuscripts we have. But there are only a few hundred variants that are worth discussing and most of these are easily solvable. Some claim that the original NT can be reconstructed with surety to about 99.5 percent of its verses. Liberals would try claim less than this is sure, but no one claims anything less than 95 percent.
How stupid, Jesus was God, so according to you God was killed and for 2010 years we have no God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People who are weaker creatures than God could kill God, WOW!!!!!!! Or he is Son of God, so God has needs for sex and that with a human being, that is smart too !!!!!!!!!! You are sooooo WRONG...
and you call your self monotheists and in the other side you call Jesus God and there is another God which is his father, maybe Mary was a Goddess too!!!!!!!!! HE WAS JUST A PROPHET
The gospel of John stand in complete contradiction to Mathew, Mark and Luke.... That would seem to be a rather significant issue.... above and beyond the "minor typos" presented here....
@nwascorpio Please do point out some of these contradictions. I think this would be fascinating to see. Can you also include book, chapter and verse so everyone can see your arguments for themselves.
I doubt that the bible is written or inspired by god. I expect the word of god to give straightforward instructions how to lead a holy life and to display ONLY universal values. The bible does neither.
@lizazoon Yours is an argument from silence. Many ancient histories only mention the history of that nation.
However, there are Egyptian inscriptions such as the Meneptah Steele that do mention a battle between Israel. There is some speculation as to whether this refers to the Exodus in 1500 BC or a war some time later around 1200.
One line mentions Israel: Israel is laid waste, its seed is not. Here we have the earliest mention of Israel outside the Bible.
@lizazoon The Bible is inspired by God. I need more than 300 words to prove it. I will list a few examples of this proof. One is archeological accuracy. Look for Wyatt Museum on the web for your Exodus story and the proof. Second point will be covered on the next line.
@lizazoon Here is proof of Gods inspiration. Every persons name in the bible means something. If you take the meanings of the names and say these in order, you get the complete story of the Gospel in order. Man couldnt have devised such a plan and to this date, no other document has done the same. I will give one of many examples.
@lizazoon String together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. "The God-man is appointed, a mortal man of sorrow is born! The Glory of God shall come down and teach that His death shall bring the grieving comfort and rest." This theme continues to Matthew. Man could not have written this into the bible along with the 75 other hidden saying of Jesus.
@lizazoon From the Names after Noah to Tarah, if you strings those names in oprder you get this saying, "I will forgive my enemies, having compassion, forgiving those made from the dust a second time." "I will choose a circumcised people (i.e., Jews), even many peoples for myself (i.e., Gentiles)."
@lizazoon From the Names after Noah to Tarah, if you strings those names in oprder you get this saying, "I will forgive my enemies, having compassion, forgiving those made from the dust a second time." "I will choose a circumcised people (i.e., Jews), even many peoples for myself (i.e., Gentiles)."
@lizazoon , Hey I am Christian, but i understand where you are coming from. But at the same time you must understand that there is a reason why so many people call it a guide, a way of life, and stuff
it's not just a big history book, in it, are many MANY teachings, and instructions to lead a holy life, like in theselopians 4:3-4, he says to live a life without sexual immorality, and many times Jesus says to love one another, those are just 2 examples of the hundereds. Please give it a chance
@lizazoon Sure it does. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." The Testimony of John 3:8. Yahushua expects you to do the best you can with what you know. That is how you lead a holy life. :)
the main problem I have these days is not all the contradictions or bad things in the bible.......but how modern day findings/evidence/fossil record/etc. contradict what the bible says. We have a history that goes way back beyond what the bible claims, i.e. human migration out of Africa. This history shows how man evolved to have the ingenuity to create myth and superstition. "We" have also found evidence in cave drawings through out the world. So therefore, I have to say, the bible is BS...
TeamDarwin1809- I;m not trying to shove religion in your face, but i just want to make something clear, the bible is not a literal thing, example- it says the world was made in 7 days, now we all know this isn't true, but this is figurative, another example- Jesus says his followers will drink poison, handle snakes etc. and not die, He wasn't talking about physical harm, he was talking about spiritual, a lot of things are misinterpreted as being literal in the bible
The argument in this video is impossible to prove since the original monographs of the new testament do not exist.
Nothing from the hand of the original apostles currently exists, so how can anyone claim they know the difference between the current version and the original?
The best we can claim is that we have the earliest version of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy (and few hundred times over) of the original. How can you tell me you know anything about the original?
Most likely we have several third generation copies of fragements from the second century. Then there are about 100 existing fragments of third to fifth generation copies up until the 300s.
These early fragments match the existing complete manuscripts we have which were copied from the 300s onward.
Since papyrus copies could last over 100 years, so there were not hundreds of times removed from the originals -- but maybe three or four by the time of the complete Vellum manuscripts.
The notion of God cannot be supported by evidence or logic. I find it amusing that the same people who ask me to abandon logic and take God's existence on *faith* then turn around and try to use logic/evidence to prove something about the new testament.
The argument in this video is irrelevant since the original monographs of the new testament do not exist. What we have is copies of copies of copies and so on. This went on thousands of times and the result is nothing more than hearsay.
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of Gods own being (kat hypostasis), For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him".<<<THIS IS WHAR ARUIUS SAYS IN HIS POEM. he really did not believe in jesus deification
the division between the two groups of christianity was so great that it was starting to have an negative affect on the roman empire..thats way constantine called for a meeting of all the bishops in the empire. THE MAIN DISAGREEMENT WAS THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE ARIANS BELIEVED THAT JESUS WAS NOT GOD ...WHILE THE TRINITARIANS BELIEVED JESUS WAS GOD.
"like god"= not god .. of like substance but not the same substance...what else could this mean ...either arius is saying he's another totally different god altogether or not god at all.
Like I said, I have no reason to debate what Arianism was all about.
Arius was saying Jesus was God, not only a separate person from the Father, as the Trinitarians said, but also substantially and essentially a separate God.
Go to any encyclopedia and it will back up what I am saying.
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of Gods own being (kat hypostasis), For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him".
If by "God" you mean the "God the Father" -- then this is what Arius taught -- that Jesus was the subordinate Son of the Father.
Study what the Nicene Council was all about and you will get the picture.
They weren't voting on Christ's deity.
They were settling whether Christ was a ONCE begotten son of "like substance" (homo-i-ousios) with God -- or whether he is the ONE AND ONLY and ETERNALLY begotten Son of the Father of the "same substance" (homo-ousios).
The Arian controversy came about in part because the language had shifted from Greek to Latin in the early centuries and there were small differences between like sounding words in Latin and Greek that had great implications for theology.
The council was all about defining definitions between the Greek speaking eastern bishops and the western Latin speaking bishops.
In the end, only two Alexandrian bishops sided with the Arians.
what the two people in the video fail to tell everyone is that there were christians who did not believe in the trinity and who did not believe jesus as devine.and THEY also fail to tell everyone that there was a huge disagreement between christians by the 3rd century,between christians whobelieved in the divinity of jesus and the christians who did not believe in the trinity.THE anamosity between the two groupsgrew so bad that emperor constantine intervened and called a meeting between both
If a group did not believe in Jesus tha would that make them not christian?? i thought you had to be a followere of christ to be a christian. Its a bit like saying i'm a footballer but not beliving the sport of football exsists. i'm not trying to be rude i'm asking.
thats not true. the arians did not believe he was god. as a matter a fact the early christians sect the ebionites did not believe jesus as god ...and this sect existed in jerusalem at the time.
Why didn't Christ write his word. Why didn't he keep an army of scribes to continually record his word and biography. This is the Son of God, right? Something ain't right.
A rabbi's followers always made records of their teacher's words.
The Gospels say that many of Jesus' followers were tax-collectors -- a profession that needed writing skills. We have the "Gospel according to Matthew" because he was the foremost disciple who had writing skills -- "Matthew the tax collector."
Matthew took the accounts of scribes who followed Jesus and compiled them. It's thought that the words of Jesus were recorded first and then the biography was compiled around that.
I don't mean any disrespect, but I've never understood the claim that "the Bible is the Word of God", because it was written by men, observed by men. how does this make it an infallible document of Holy Divinity? another thing, the people who wrote the Bible's books were mystics with mystical experiences. how is it that modern Christianity calls any mystical experience as evil and from demons? if Moses existed now, people would call him a nut job. would you recognize Jesus today if you saw him?
Ironically, the prophet Moses himself gave the guidelines for recognizing prophets and the messiah.
He said a true prophets predictions would come to pass. The Old Testament prophets gave some highly detailed predictions about the time and manner of the coming of Jesus that were fulfilled to the letter. Jesus then gave some highly specific predictions about the time and manner of the destruction of the Temple and the Gospel spreading into the whole world.
@lizazoon Moses is mentioned in an Egyptian inscription. Artapanus, Eupolemus, Josephus, and Philo, a few gentile historians including Hecataeus of Abdera (quoted by Diodorus Siculus), Alexander Polyhistor, Manetho, Apion, Chaeremon of Alexandria, Tacitus and Porphyry make reference to him.
Moses also figures in several of Jesus' messages. Moses is mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure.
@jcr4runner "In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage. We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction. We know this because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin and there is not found in the language of the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. So we know that the Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together." - Robert Ingersoll
@lizazoon We know the Hebrews were never enslaved in 1500 BC because the Hebrew language of the Bible (c. 500 BC) doesn't contain a word of Egyptian (circa ?)
Really? This Ingersoll is your atheist intellectual champion?
First, the Egyptian language of Moses' day didn't have a phonetic alphabet.
Second, even if we knew how the words sounded, it's like saying that we know that the ancient Celts were never enslaved by the Romans because modern Gaelic doesn't contain a word of Italian.
@jcr4runner THE UNIVERSITY OF TEL AVIV IN TEL AVIV ISRAEL
Here is an article from USA Today by Matthew Kalman
It comes from Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv Israel. It quotes Professor Ze'ev Herzog The many Egyptian documents known to us do not make any reference to the sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt or the Events of the Exodus.
@lizazoon In the third century BC, the Egyptian historian Manetho wrote about an invasion of Egypt 1500 years earlier (c. 1700 BC the time of Joseph). These ruthless invaders, according to Manetho, enslaved many people. They established a capitol at the city of Avaris, on the Nile delta, from which they ruled Egypt for over a hundred years.
Who were these invaders? Manetho says they were from the east and names them "Hyksos", a Greek form of an Egyptian word he translates as "shepherd kings."
The fact that these predictions came to pass COULD BE a coincidence, but the fact that they are SO specific make it nothing short of astounding -- if it was a coincidence.
If you begin with the presupposition that "God is" then the appearance of the prophets and Jesus as representations of God's word is not hard to accept.
Nothing else in history is like this. Other "prophecies" are highly vague and generalized. The Bible is highly specific, applicable and verifiable.
People seriously need to let others believe whatever they want to. It really doesn't matter if someone is a christian or not. just let their god or belief judge themeselves.
Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,,,,,,,,,,This guy's think they Know it all as if they came back from being with God and recived the so call " True "...Wow !!!..
the original apostles would have used their original jewish names, not their romanized greek ones and they never would have used the greek word gospel.
it is FACT the names were added during the middle ages.
the earliest gospel, mark is believed to have been written around 69 ad with the temple destruction
like typical christians these people refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs are correct.
Jews at the time of Jesus had both a Greek name and an Aramaic (or Hebrew) name. The earliest Greek codices with these names are from the second century -- not the Middle Ages.
JEWS AT THE time of jesus did not have greek names and jesus never spoke greek and it was not the language used at the time. IF IT WAS the language used at the time then why was the old and new testaments translated into greek and latin after jesus death.
I don't believe the world was made in six days though some christians will and I don't critisize them, I think it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it seems as if it was put into story form so that humans could understand (there is more evidence throughout the Bible of verse writing as well as stories)can you imagine telling humans 2000yrs ago that the universe was caused by a big bang? No one would believe that in those times, no one would understand and no one would continue the story.
that makes a lot of scene, but some people just wont understand that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Then again I heard there is proof of Noah's ark, so I don't know.
Maybe the world wasn't made in six days- if a man wrote 2000yrs ago that the world was formed by a big bang would anyone believe him? I believe Genesis is a story to describe how the universe came into being, the most important thing is not the order but that God created everything, he designed the world. And also if you read the big bang theory the first thing that happened after it was light was released everywhere- strange that's what the Bible says too.
the original Mark ends with the women finding the two men at the tomb and not telling anyone about it.
in the lineages of jesus he is linked to david with Jeconiah, who was cursed and forbidden the throne along with his descendants, and Nathan, the son of David and bathsheba which would have made jesus ILLIGITIMATE.
Neither one of these is a fact for Gospel altering.
The ending of Mark was known and quoted by four church fathers in the second century many years prior to the still existing codices that do not contain it.
According to Biblical Law the curse of illegitimacy is broken after the tenth generation.
i dont beleive in gospel & the testiment are so uncovinience, because there have some old testiment and new testiment, ofcourse the real bible came from jew. if you do some research in Quran(it have everything)you find the anwser. we callit injil btw
There is no evidence that it was added. That's just a theory. The passage was quoted in the writings of Christians of the early second century. However, there are Greek manuscripts in the 4th century and later that don't have it.
St Augustine (5th century) wrote that it was part of scripture; it was omitted from a Greek manuscript archetype by heretics who thought it justified adultery.
It was probably present in other manuscripts because it is included in Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation.
Jerome's testimony (415 AD) "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."
Ok, so it may have been added around 400yrs after christ died, (most scholars say 500yrs) or as you suggest it may have been included earlier then removed, then put back.
How many more passages have been removed and are waiting to be put back into their rightful place? but you make a good point no one knows what has been omitted from the bible over the years, it's about as far from the inerrant word of god as it's possible to get, any ideas on the second question?
The passage is also cited in the third century in the Didascalia Apostolorum.
A fragment from one of the early church fathers, Papias, who lived from c. 75 to 150 AD, describes the story in detail and says it is found in the Gospel of John.
Other early sources have the pericope in Luke or the "Gospel to the Hebrews" -- possibly meaning Matthew. The question is whether this was part of another Gospel and then interpolated in John, not whether the story ought to be considered canonical.
If there is someone that can lead me to christ please comment because i found a passage in the bible that makes me want to follow your god 2 Kings 2 -22,24 I love the word of that great god it makes me full of love He is so loving
If you would rather believe (or disbelieve) in a "loving" God who never punishes sin, then follow that path and see where it will lead you.
If you want to believe in a loving God, who is also holy and just, who forgives the repentant and punishes the wicked, then look to the God of the Bible.
see Jer 33:3, then Ezekiel 16:63 & Ezekiel 36:36, Jer 17:10 & Rom 15:4, Isa 48:3, then Isa 48:1&10, & look Mat 22:29 & John 5:39 "search him"Joel 2:28 the promise of the holy spirit. John 14:16& John 16:12 & 2 Tim 1:7"Faith"Rom 8:24, Heb 11:1&6 faith that is express in love Gal 5:6. Remember God is invisible 1 Tim 1:17& Colossians 1:15. It is difficult to believe on things you don't see. But browse the passage Lamentations 3:25. To God be the glory! Hosanna! 1 Tim 1:15-16 & 2 Cor 12:9, Rev 1:3
What's with the sarcasm? Our God is as much a God of Love as He is a God of Justice. He does punish whoever He wishes to punish and have mercy on whoever He wishes to have mercy on. I pray you get to see that through the work of His Spirit.
Even if the NT were written in 50A.D., that would still be 17 years after Jesus died. Today's trained journalists can't even get the story right about events that occurred yesterday.
There was some type of Gospel memorized or written prior to 40 AD, then internal evidence shows the Temple to still be standing (pre-70 AD) when the written Gospels were finalized.
It's early enough to contain eywitness testimony.
If you can get four newspapers with four independent accounts, and the witnesses agree, then you can trust the testimony.
The four Gospels are VERY different in some places, but they never contradict each other and agree in the core essentials.
The Bible writers weren't journalists! But let's push your logic far enough: we shouldn't believe all the history books about the American revolution written in the 1900s, or better still, we shouldn't believe WW2 books being written today because they weren't written as at when they happened.
Check your facts well and you'll discover that the Bible is by far the most reliable historical document when you talk in terms of the existence of early manuscripts.
At 2:30 the narrator states that "The Jews recorded exact histories."
The problem is that point 3 "The gospel writers...the life of christ." The jews didn't believe that jesus was christ. So why would they write about him?
wow... sorry I just must say that you are full of B.S. I did not want to use the full spelling of the words for B.S. for the simple fact that you might take offense. I will give you that the bible is a nice view of history taking out the fantasy portions. But to bring it more into view. Look at the older religions and set them side by side with the bible and you will see that most are taken from older civilizations. It is there stories that adorn you book. It is not holy and it is not 100%truth
Each time an older manuscript of the Bible is discovered, many changes are required in the Bible to bring it in line with the ancient manuscripts. Mark 1:1,Acts of the Apostles 8:37. Ending of Mark Gospel.
In the newer translations the variants are noted, but most of the time they are not replaced. The older a manuscript is the closer it is to the source. However, it can't be universally proven that older manuscripts' variants are correct. For years, it s thought the Masoretic text of the Old Testament was less accurate than the Septuagint (LXX) because the LXX was much older. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1948 proved the reliability of the Masoretic text in most instances.
In any case, even if we went with the most liberal view on variants, the general meaning of the same passages in question doctrines of the New Testament stand on solid ground.
In fact, can you name a single manuscript variant that would affect even one Christian tenet of faith?
Sure, For example Trinity Verse, 1st John chapter 5, verse 7 used to say that there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But because this verse was discovered to be a later insertion, it has now been correctly removed from modern translations. Recommended Book: JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in
the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart Ehrman
The verse was in Jerome's Latin Bible and it was known to the church fathers as early as the second century.
It i true that it was not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, but it is not true that it is absent from all manuscripts. Textual critics generally think that the Greek manuscripts are most reliable.
In any case, even if it were not in the original autograph, the Trinity does not hang on one verse. No major Christian doctrine can be established by only one passage.
Bart Ehrman is somewhat of a provocateur. None of the points raised in his books are "hidden" or "unknown" -- These questions about variants have been known for centuries -- even going back to the time of the church fathers.
There is a reason why certain manuscripts were chosen over others. Most recently, in the last 100 years, textual critics have used a large cache of about 100 manuscripts that were discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. These are mainly from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. The church fathers favored the Byzantine text
The Alexandrian texts are older because they were unearthed in Egypt which is a desert climate. The Western and Byzantine texts were more valued by the early Christians, but the early manuscripts did not survive because of the climate.
There are scholars, such as Dan Wallace, who think that the Western and Byzantine texts -- as well as the quotations of verses from the NT by church fathers -- are undervalued in textual criticism.
Even so the differences between the texts are very small.
The other passages in question are the ending of Mark and the Adulterae Pericope. Both of these have arguments both for and against their inclusion, but no modern Bible version is without them.
He says the different variations of the NT are mainly small words, spelling, prepositions, and numbers. Well, what does mainly mean? If it was only what he said it was he would NOT have said mainly! Seems like he's hiding something!
For instance, one of the most common variations is a movable "nu" (the Greek "N"). It's the difference between saying "an historian" or "a historian."
Most variants are untranslatable Greek grammatical differences that are not necessarily mistakes, but stylistic changes that have the exact same meaning in English.
There are some variants that do alter the meaning of the text. But as we have said modern translations make note of these in marginal notes or footnotes. These are well known and do no damage to big meaning of the text. They are quite minor.
They could be fit all on one page.
It's important that by "inspired" and "inerrant" we do not mean word for word accuracy to the original or else how would we have a translation of any type?
People and their egos. Seriously. It's one thing to disbelieve in God, it's another to demean those who do - especially over such an easy "hit-and-run" forum like a youtube post. Get a life bud.
Polycarp is a second generation Christian writer and lacks apostolic authority. However, he provides important "bridge material" in his quotes and allusions of the New Testament that take us from the original autographs to several manuscript fragments that survive from the second century.
There are 2 significantly differrent endings for Mark's: one with an account of the evidence of the resurrection, one without. The Gospels were written at least 20 years after the events, of which Luke was certainly not a witness. But none of this denies the truth of the Gospels or of Jesus, the arguments put forward by the videos' presenters miss the point altogether. This must be the worst apology of Christiianity ever attempted. And I'm not watching anymore of it. Good luck !
really? this is pointless. the bible was written by alot of men. not just one. it is a lot of testimonies put into 1. some people say it was written by god. yes god gave these men the experience and they wrote it down. they wrote of what happened with jesus and everything else. these videos are pointless.
ok thanks for your opinion.....but if you want to make such a point then you need to refute the information in these videos with facts you have researched...otherwise your words are worthless
Product:but if you want to make such a point then you need to refute the information in these videos with facts you have researched...otherwise your words are worthless
The critics argue the opposite in each one of these instances in order to REFUTE the gospels.
But their claims are conjecture.
You are right in saying that just because the critics are wrong in their claims, it doesn't prove the Gospels' reliability.
However, since the New Testament has more manuscript evidence and has been shown to be historically accurate, we ought to trust it more than other ancient accounts.
Give me more that flimsy evidence that positively disproves the flying spagheti monster before you talk about disproving poorly documented historical facts.
Fact is, Christianity relys on faith BECAUSE there is no real proof any of it is real.
The flying spaghetti monster is an intentionally created imaginary creature.
When we talk about the God of the Bible, we are not talking about a being that someone just made up. We are speaking of a Being who is transcendent.
I doubt that any of the five typical philosophical proofs for God's existence I could offer would convince you, but there is a difference between the idea held by at least 95 percent of humanity that a transcendent Creator God could exist and an imaginary monster.
Lets be honest, some people just DONT want to believe in God, it doesnt matter if you COULD prove that he existed, if someone does not want to accept God all the evidence in the world would go into one ear and out the other. I spoke to an atheist who said even if CHRIST himiself appeared in the flesh and spoke to him and healed him, he would not believe in God, he would think of it as a psychological event and a weird coincidence. There's more than enough evidence, just too much ignorance.
Archetypes manifest in human life. Francis Bacon, who wrote Shakespeare, was born to the "virgin" Elizabeth and forced to prosecute his rebellious brother Essex. He also said that people deny truth out of an "innate and unnatural love of the lie."
The earliest known source of this statement is a polemical work by John Bale, Acta Romanorum Pontificum, which was translated from Latin into English as The Pageant of the Popes in 1574:
"For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."
The facts that are listed here prove nothing other then the bible was written long ago by people that thought the earth was flat and the sun and planets revolved around the earth. Only people from Kansas believe that!
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
The "flat world myth" was propagated by the skeptics of the Enlightenment.
The ancient people did not think the world was flat. In fact, Eristosthenes proved by a mathematical experiment the world was round many years before Christ.
Only stupid people believe atheist propaganda without first researching the well-documented facts.
very good video. im surprised all these haters bring up excuses to challenge the word of God. weak excuses.. .. if only they would just believe. hell is eternal and unbearable. :(
vjt989 11 months ago
Unfortunately there's no evidence that the NT *wasn't* altered since the *oldest* known manuscripts can only be traced back to a few centuries AD. This video is arguing one assumption against another which is ultimately self-defeating. Looking at the texts themselves, we see clear evidence that there were probably only two gospel writers and that they were removed from the events themselves.
andy16666 11 months ago
@andy16666 It depends on what you mean by "altered." If you mean copyist errors, then we know what these are and we know the original text 99 percent of the time.
But some assume that the NT was altered to the point where there are texts that are very different from each other. But what we are talking about are single words and even letters that vary from copy to copy that do not alter the meaning of the text AT ALL.
jcr4runner 11 months ago
i cant believe people really believe this god nonsense
Dirt2Purple 1 year ago
You start from the premise that the gospels were written by Jews--but there is no evidence of that--all the earliest manuscripts are in Greek--none in Hebrew. All of these texts contain the same mistranslations that are in the Greek Septuagint version of the OT--why would Jewish writers use a that version of the OT when the original Hebrew text was readily available? Why are the NT authors so ingnorant of Jewish law and custom? It is vastly more likely the gospel writers were not Jews.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
something that could have been added later is judas, he always appears at the end of sentences or even in separate paragraphs (like acts1)
let' just find the complete list of the twelves in all the books we can find three lists and they do not match
they could match only if we suppress judas from these lists
in 1 corinthians 15:5 we read that jesus appears to the twelve after resurection so thomas and judas were here too
jam63112 1 year ago
But they say nothing about how long after Jesus died that the gospels were written.
lautz73 1 year ago
At 4:38, the video's time-line begins at 100 CE, which is still 60 years after the biblical Jesus would have died. In 100 CE, someone who might reliably recall events of 30 CE would be around 80 years old.
The earliest gospel Mark mentions the 70 CE destruction of the Jewish temple, leaving a 40-year gap. Why would one who experienced miracles wait 40 years to report them? Might a writer feel more free to embellish after a 40-year gap had seen the deaths of most surviving witnesses?
cobrafarmer 1 year ago
@cobrafarmer Not exactly. The Didach and 1 Clement were written between 70 to 96 AD. a date of 70 for the earliest Gospel is the extreme liberal view. The conservative view has (at least the Synoptic) Gospels written between 40 to 67 AD. Even the liberals admit Paul wrote his letters beginning around 50 AD. we know the Gospels in some form must have been written or preached PRIOR to Paul because he quotes and alludes to the Gospels dozens of times.
jcr4runner 11 months ago
even the very elect will be decieved..that means these guys too.. esp..wen it comes to telling the story of the constelationa and the equinox
LoganVictorFrost 1 year ago
CHRISTIANS COME BACK TO ALLAH (THE ONLY ONE GOD) TO ISLAM.
THERE IS NOT GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER.
ALL THE PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS INCLUDING JESUS ARE ALLAHS PROPHETS AND ALLAH SENT THEM ALL TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH SO WORSHIPP HIM. HE CREATED THE SUN THE MOON THE MOUNTAINS THE WHOLE WORLD. FEAR ALLAH THE ONLY ONE GOD AND FIND THE TRUE RELIGION AND THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM. ISLAM ONLY MEANS SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF ALLAH. LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH
amar13371 1 year ago
Oh GOSH... I'm convinced..
Ugh.. This is an apologist piece of trash only picking and choosing things to talk about to support Christianity... Not actually going into detail the myths that surround Jesus Christ!
Mark was written first in 70ad many historians agree on that, then Matthew, then Luke, then John. Jesus "died" between 30 - 33 ad, historians have dated Mark to be written 40 years after the crucifixion. This video doesn't refute that claim AT ALL.. It grabs quotes from after 100ad!
jvilla1983 1 year ago
The guy says theres no major differences. But theres so many small ones, that it ends up being a big one. Not to mention, this is no way proves that the stories are historically valid. They were stories, written for the purpose of inspiring Jews, just like the stories of the old testament. Which btw, had no settled "canon" even when Jesus arrived on the scene. So basically, we have to trust that some men about 200 years later were wise, and honest enough to put the right books in? Hmmmmmmm.
earthsoulful 1 year ago
Changing numbers would not matter much in the new testament, Ok now i understand how the holy trinity works. Thanks for you very informative video
charlecc 1 year ago
Just another video trying to convince people the early bible writings are evidence of god. NOT>
spareaxe 1 year ago
@jaskever Firstly we believe in only ONE God, get it. God never had sex, get it. Jesus died for a reason, get it. By your book, God hates certain people, if you have half a brain you would realize, God loves ALL people. Qur'an 5:51 "Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other."
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
@jaskever Your lack of Biblical knowledge is showing, before you make such absurd comments you should first learn about what you know very little. I am assuming you are a muslim.
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the Bible is reliable and consistent, apart from a few punctuation marks, past tense verbs and the word "light", the dead sea scrolls confirmed the scripture of the Holy Bible, anyone trying to debunk the Bible really is wasting their time or has lack of knowledge on the subject. The Doctrines are not compromised in either way.
Peace
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
What about atonement for original sin? What about torture and excecution. The bible condems every child. What about the focus on sin? The story of Lot. Judges 19-29. The book of numbers 31:18 Moses was told to slaughter the Midianites. Exodus Joshua 6:21 the destruction of Jerrico. THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF BOOK YOU WANT TO GIVE TO YOUR CHILDREN FOR MORALITY!!!!!!!
kurtcochran 1 year ago
There is even a book called "the bible as history" and science has often proved events in the bible to be true. Just look it up.
2SIXimixedBABIES 1 year ago
Most of this video is a "red herring" argument. The author tries to debunk the claim that the Gospels were written well after the crucifixion by attacking claims of copyist and translation errors. The two faults are unrelated. The part about references to NT writings by 2nd century Christians suggests they may have been written at -some- point in the 1st century, but isn't conclusive. There are alternatives. Much of the NT is also in the OT. "Mark" may also have quoted Ignatius for all we know
ororc 1 year ago
@ororc No, there is a reason why we know that Mark was mid first century and Ignatius was early second century. We use historical and literary context. You can only come to your point of view by ignoring the external evidences and looking at texts in isolation. There are volumes of extra-biblical testimony that show the early church knew who all the authors were and how different works were passed down. Most of the time the authors lived in the same cities in overlapping generations.
jcr4runner 11 months ago
Why even bother defending 'faith'. One either believes or they don't.
kamaboko1 1 year ago
the bible teaches you how to live a great life period to me! first you gotta understand life in order to know this! @djdoctora704
doctoramuzikonline 1 year ago
people should try to think like god and then they would understand why god is calling the just. According to the bible he intends to reveal (revelation) himself on "That Great Day". His day is more than just the realization of god's existence but an actual demonstration of his power. What a little bitch he would be if he catered to every little whiny person's demand for a miracle or face to look at. Would he convince you if the heaven's opened? NO! You made yourself, you go man-god, prove that!
TheLaunchingPad 1 year ago
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
John 1:1
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
I find it interesting that he says, "mainly misspellings and errors, copying of small words, prepositions and numbers and things like that..." But mainly does not mean entirely. So what ARE the few differences that are NOT misspellings and errors, copying of small words, prepositions and numbers and things like that...?
QuestionYourMind 1 year ago
@QuestionYourMind There are many thousands of these "insignificant" copyist errors in the 30,000 manuscripts we have. But there are only a few hundred variants that are worth discussing and most of these are easily solvable. Some claim that the original NT can be reconstructed with surety to about 99.5 percent of its verses. Liberals would try claim less than this is sure, but no one claims anything less than 95 percent.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
How stupid, Jesus was God, so according to you God was killed and for 2010 years we have no God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People who are weaker creatures than God could kill God, WOW!!!!!!! Or he is Son of God, so God has needs for sex and that with a human being, that is smart too !!!!!!!!!! You are sooooo WRONG...
and you call your self monotheists and in the other side you call Jesus God and there is another God which is his father, maybe Mary was a Goddess too!!!!!!!!! HE WAS JUST A PROPHET
jaskever 1 year ago
The gospel of John stand in complete contradiction to Mathew, Mark and Luke.... That would seem to be a rather significant issue.... above and beyond the "minor typos" presented here....
nwascorpio 1 year ago
@nwascorpio I disagree. Name one.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner It appears that nwascorpio cannot name one.
piusvapor 1 year ago
@jcr4runner "I disagree. Name one."
so sad... indoctrination sucks.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@nwascorpio Please do point out some of these contradictions. I think this would be fascinating to see. Can you also include book, chapter and verse so everyone can see your arguments for themselves.
BratscheBoy 1 year ago
I doubt that the bible is written or inspired by god. I expect the word of god to give straightforward instructions how to lead a holy life and to display ONLY universal values. The bible does neither.
lizazoon 2 years ago
@lizazoon Yours is an argument from silence. Many ancient histories only mention the history of that nation.
However, there are Egyptian inscriptions such as the Meneptah Steele that do mention a battle between Israel. There is some speculation as to whether this refers to the Exodus in 1500 BC or a war some time later around 1200.
One line mentions Israel: Israel is laid waste, its seed is not. Here we have the earliest mention of Israel outside the Bible.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@lizazoon The Bible is inspired by God. I need more than 300 words to prove it. I will list a few examples of this proof. One is archeological accuracy. Look for Wyatt Museum on the web for your Exodus story and the proof. Second point will be covered on the next line.
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@lizazoon Here is proof of Gods inspiration. Every persons name in the bible means something. If you take the meanings of the names and say these in order, you get the complete story of the Gospel in order. Man couldnt have devised such a plan and to this date, no other document has done the same. I will give one of many examples.
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@durbinjeff the hebrew meaning?
dellclown 1 year ago
@lizazoon String together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. "The God-man is appointed, a mortal man of sorrow is born! The Glory of God shall come down and teach that His death shall bring the grieving comfort and rest." This theme continues to Matthew. Man could not have written this into the bible along with the 75 other hidden saying of Jesus.
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@durbinjeff
Adam's name means "The"?
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
@lizazoon From the Names after Noah to Tarah, if you strings those names in oprder you get this saying, "I will forgive my enemies, having compassion, forgiving those made from the dust a second time." "I will choose a circumcised people (i.e., Jews), even many peoples for myself (i.e., Gentiles)."
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@lizazoon From the Names after Noah to Tarah, if you strings those names in oprder you get this saying, "I will forgive my enemies, having compassion, forgiving those made from the dust a second time." "I will choose a circumcised people (i.e., Jews), even many peoples for myself (i.e., Gentiles)."
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@durbinjeff This is interesting, who told you the strung names spell out meaningful content? Is there any paper you could refer to?
superheltenroy 1 year ago
@lizazoon , Hey I am Christian, but i understand where you are coming from. But at the same time you must understand that there is a reason why so many people call it a guide, a way of life, and stuff
it's not just a big history book, in it, are many MANY teachings, and instructions to lead a holy life, like in theselopians 4:3-4, he says to live a life without sexual immorality, and many times Jesus says to love one another, those are just 2 examples of the hundereds. Please give it a chance
SuperAngel525 1 year ago
@lizazoon Sure it does. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." The Testimony of John 3:8. Yahushua expects you to do the best you can with what you know. That is how you lead a holy life. :)
EltonJThe 1 year ago
the main problem I have these days is not all the contradictions or bad things in the bible.......but how modern day findings/evidence/fossil record/etc. contradict what the bible says. We have a history that goes way back beyond what the bible claims, i.e. human migration out of Africa. This history shows how man evolved to have the ingenuity to create myth and superstition. "We" have also found evidence in cave drawings through out the world. So therefore, I have to say, the bible is BS...
TeamDarwin1809 2 years ago
TeamDarwin1809- I;m not trying to shove religion in your face, but i just want to make something clear, the bible is not a literal thing, example- it says the world was made in 7 days, now we all know this isn't true, but this is figurative, another example- Jesus says his followers will drink poison, handle snakes etc. and not die, He wasn't talking about physical harm, he was talking about spiritual, a lot of things are misinterpreted as being literal in the bible
MockingVenus 2 years ago
The argument in this video is impossible to prove since the original monographs of the new testament do not exist.
Nothing from the hand of the original apostles currently exists, so how can anyone claim they know the difference between the current version and the original?
The best we can claim is that we have the earliest version of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy (and few hundred times over) of the original. How can you tell me you know anything about the original?
phelly2 2 years ago
Most likely we have several third generation copies of fragements from the second century. Then there are about 100 existing fragments of third to fifth generation copies up until the 300s.
These early fragments match the existing complete manuscripts we have which were copied from the 300s onward.
Since papyrus copies could last over 100 years, so there were not hundreds of times removed from the originals -- but maybe three or four by the time of the complete Vellum manuscripts.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The notion of God cannot be supported by evidence or logic. I find it amusing that the same people who ask me to abandon logic and take God's existence on *faith* then turn around and try to use logic/evidence to prove something about the new testament.
The argument in this video is irrelevant since the original monographs of the new testament do not exist. What we have is copies of copies of copies and so on. This went on thousands of times and the result is nothing more than hearsay.
phelly2 2 years ago
What we have in the earliest fragments from the second century are likely copies of copies -- not "and so on."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of Gods own being (kat hypostasis), For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him".<<<THIS IS WHAR ARUIUS SAYS IN HIS POEM. he really did not believe in jesus deification
hen8167 2 years ago
the division between the two groups of christianity was so great that it was starting to have an negative affect on the roman empire..thats way constantine called for a meeting of all the bishops in the empire. THE MAIN DISAGREEMENT WAS THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE ARIANS BELIEVED THAT JESUS WAS NOT GOD ...WHILE THE TRINITARIANS BELIEVED JESUS WAS GOD.
hen8167 2 years ago
No, the Aryans believed Jesus was God -- they believed He was God like the Father of a like substance -- but not the same substance.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"like god"= not god .. of like substance but not the same substance...what else could this mean ...either arius is saying he's another totally different god altogether or not god at all.
hen8167 2 years ago
Like I said, I have no reason to debate what Arianism was all about.
Arius was saying Jesus was God, not only a separate person from the Father, as the Trinitarians said, but also substantially and essentially a separate God.
Go to any encyclopedia and it will back up what I am saying.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
ok how about the one of the earliest christian sects that existed in jerisalem ...the Ebionites. THEY believed jesus to be a prophet only.
hen8167 2 years ago
True.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of Gods own being (kat hypostasis), For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him".
THIS IS WHAT ARIUS SAYS IN HIS POEM.
hen8167 2 years ago
True.
If by "God" you mean the "God the Father" -- then this is what Arius taught -- that Jesus was the subordinate Son of the Father.
Study what the Nicene Council was all about and you will get the picture.
They weren't voting on Christ's deity.
They were settling whether Christ was a ONCE begotten son of "like substance" (homo-i-ousios) with God -- or whether he is the ONE AND ONLY and ETERNALLY begotten Son of the Father of the "same substance" (homo-ousios).
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Arian controversy came about in part because the language had shifted from Greek to Latin in the early centuries and there were small differences between like sounding words in Latin and Greek that had great implications for theology.
The council was all about defining definitions between the Greek speaking eastern bishops and the western Latin speaking bishops.
In the end, only two Alexandrian bishops sided with the Arians.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
what the two people in the video fail to tell everyone is that there were christians who did not believe in the trinity and who did not believe jesus as devine.and THEY also fail to tell everyone that there was a huge disagreement between christians by the 3rd century,between christians whobelieved in the divinity of jesus and the christians who did not believe in the trinity.THE anamosity between the two groupsgrew so bad that emperor constantine intervened and called a meeting between both
hen8167 2 years ago
If a group did not believe in Jesus tha would that make them not christian?? i thought you had to be a followere of christ to be a christian. Its a bit like saying i'm a footballer but not beliving the sport of football exsists. i'm not trying to be rude i'm asking.
jewlzorjay 2 years ago
The rift was between Arianism and Trinitarianism.
The Arians believed Jesus was God and was of LIKE substance as the Father.
The Trinitarians believed Jesus was God and was of the SAME substance as the Father.
Both groups believed in the Divinity of Jesus.
The Nicene Council sided with the Trinitarian view with only two out of over 300 bishops falling on the Arian side.
A similar controversy today would be comparing the Christians to Jehovah's Witnesses.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
thats not true. the arians did not believe he was god. as a matter a fact the early christians sect the ebionites did not believe jesus as god ...and this sect existed in jerusalem at the time.
hen8167 2 years ago
How can you state error so emphatically?
Just a brief bit of research on your part would be helpful.
You are correct about the Ebionites, but not the Arians.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Why didn't Christ write his word. Why didn't he keep an army of scribes to continually record his word and biography. This is the Son of God, right? Something ain't right.
GohModley 2 years ago
A rabbi's followers always made records of their teacher's words.
The Gospels say that many of Jesus' followers were tax-collectors -- a profession that needed writing skills. We have the "Gospel according to Matthew" because he was the foremost disciple who had writing skills -- "Matthew the tax collector."
Matthew took the accounts of scribes who followed Jesus and compiled them. It's thought that the words of Jesus were recorded first and then the biography was compiled around that.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
sounds reasonable. can you verify your claims with some literary or online references. i'd be interested to learn more.
GohModley 2 years ago
jesus never said that he had to die on the cross in order to save humanity or christians from damnation. if you notice others say that but not jesus.
hen8167 2 years ago
The whole Bible is the Word of God.
It does not matter if Jesus HIMSELF does not say something specifically. If it is the truth of scripture then God the Holy Spirit says it.
And in fact, Jesus DID say He must suffer on our behalf. Read Luke 9:21-26:
The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
Then Jesus said, "... whoever loses his life for My sake will save it."
Read Luke 9.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I don't mean any disrespect, but I've never understood the claim that "the Bible is the Word of God", because it was written by men, observed by men. how does this make it an infallible document of Holy Divinity? another thing, the people who wrote the Bible's books were mystics with mystical experiences. how is it that modern Christianity calls any mystical experience as evil and from demons? if Moses existed now, people would call him a nut job. would you recognize Jesus today if you saw him?
willyamisaac 2 years ago
Ironically, the prophet Moses himself gave the guidelines for recognizing prophets and the messiah.
He said a true prophets predictions would come to pass. The Old Testament prophets gave some highly detailed predictions about the time and manner of the coming of Jesus that were fulfilled to the letter. Jesus then gave some highly specific predictions about the time and manner of the destruction of the Temple and the Gospel spreading into the whole world.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
jcr4runner : Sorry, but here is not a single piece of evidence for the existence of Moses., nor Abraham.
lizazoon 2 years ago
@lizazoon Moses is mentioned in an Egyptian inscription. Artapanus, Eupolemus, Josephus, and Philo, a few gentile historians including Hecataeus of Abdera (quoted by Diodorus Siculus), Alexander Polyhistor, Manetho, Apion, Chaeremon of Alexandria, Tacitus and Porphyry make reference to him.
Moses also figures in several of Jesus' messages. Moses is mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure.
You wrote "not a single piece."
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner "In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage. We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction. We know this because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin and there is not found in the language of the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. So we know that the Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together." - Robert Ingersoll
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon We know the Hebrews were never enslaved in 1500 BC because the Hebrew language of the Bible (c. 500 BC) doesn't contain a word of Egyptian (circa ?)
Really? This Ingersoll is your atheist intellectual champion?
First, the Egyptian language of Moses' day didn't have a phonetic alphabet.
Second, even if we knew how the words sounded, it's like saying that we know that the ancient Celts were never enslaved by the Romans because modern Gaelic doesn't contain a word of Italian.
Dumb!
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner THE UNIVERSITY OF TEL AVIV IN TEL AVIV ISRAEL
Here is an article from USA Today by Matthew Kalman
It comes from Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv Israel. It quotes Professor Ze'ev Herzog The many Egyptian documents known to us do not make any reference to the sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt or the Events of the Exodus.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon In the third century BC, the Egyptian historian Manetho wrote about an invasion of Egypt 1500 years earlier (c. 1700 BC the time of Joseph). These ruthless invaders, according to Manetho, enslaved many people. They established a capitol at the city of Avaris, on the Nile delta, from which they ruled Egypt for over a hundred years.
Who were these invaders? Manetho says they were from the east and names them "Hyksos", a Greek form of an Egyptian word he translates as "shepherd kings."
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@lizazoon
Too bad you get your history from a newspaper, USA today is a poor source.
durbinjeff 1 year ago
There is only ONE true reference to Jesus by Moses:
Deuteronomy 13
rapartist43 2 years ago
The fact that these predictions came to pass COULD BE a coincidence, but the fact that they are SO specific make it nothing short of astounding -- if it was a coincidence.
If you begin with the presupposition that "God is" then the appearance of the prophets and Jesus as representations of God's word is not hard to accept.
Nothing else in history is like this. Other "prophecies" are highly vague and generalized. The Bible is highly specific, applicable and verifiable.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You know what that would cost?
OY VEY!
harpo103 2 years ago
People seriously need to let others believe whatever they want to. It really doesn't matter if someone is a christian or not. just let their god or belief judge themeselves.
zeroelliott4146 2 years ago
jcr4runner, your come backs are on FIRE! You tell em man!
Noobtron3000 2 years ago
Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,,,,,,,,,,This guy's think they Know it all as if they came back from being with God and recived the so call " True "...Wow !!!..
evjj0434 2 years ago
fact:
the original apostles would have used their original jewish names, not their romanized greek ones and they never would have used the greek word gospel.
it is FACT the names were added during the middle ages.
the earliest gospel, mark is believed to have been written around 69 ad with the temple destruction
like typical christians these people refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs are correct.
the world was not made in six days.
genesis has the sun being created AFTER LIGHT.
vlunney 2 years ago
This is complete nonsense.
Jews at the time of Jesus had both a Greek name and an Aramaic (or Hebrew) name. The earliest Greek codices with these names are from the second century -- not the Middle Ages.
Noting you write here is FACT, but conjecture.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
JEWS AT THE time of jesus did not have greek names and jesus never spoke greek and it was not the language used at the time. IF IT WAS the language used at the time then why was the old and new testaments translated into greek and latin after jesus death.
hen8167 2 years ago
How can you state your errors so emphatically?
Simon Peter is an example.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I don't believe the world was made in six days though some christians will and I don't critisize them, I think it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it seems as if it was put into story form so that humans could understand (there is more evidence throughout the Bible of verse writing as well as stories)can you imagine telling humans 2000yrs ago that the universe was caused by a big bang? No one would believe that in those times, no one would understand and no one would continue the story.
melanemelon 2 years ago 2
that makes a lot of scene, but some people just wont understand that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Then again I heard there is proof of Noah's ark, so I don't know.
NoslemProductions 2 years ago
Maybe the world wasn't made in six days- if a man wrote 2000yrs ago that the world was formed by a big bang would anyone believe him? I believe Genesis is a story to describe how the universe came into being, the most important thing is not the order but that God created everything, he designed the world. And also if you read the big bang theory the first thing that happened after it was light was released everywhere- strange that's what the Bible says too.
melanemelon 2 years ago
Wow, you are just full of facts.
GhostDog65 2 years ago
facts for gospel altering:
the original Mark ends with the women finding the two men at the tomb and not telling anyone about it.
in the lineages of jesus he is linked to david with Jeconiah, who was cursed and forbidden the throne along with his descendants, and Nathan, the son of David and bathsheba which would have made jesus ILLIGITIMATE.
vlunney 2 years ago
Neither one of these is a fact for Gospel altering.
The ending of Mark was known and quoted by four church fathers in the second century many years prior to the still existing codices that do not contain it.
According to Biblical Law the curse of illegitimacy is broken after the tenth generation.
Why do you continue to repeat this?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
If the bible was written in China, by literate intelligent chinese, then the bible may hold some validity, unfortunately it wasn't
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago
Can we apply the same standard to your comment?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
What exactly is the symbolism of the pictures on 1:12?!!
Anyone?
hrysoulam 2 years ago
It is from the Book of Kells, it is the 4 saints,
berea919 2 years ago
i dont beleive in gospel & the testiment are so uncovinience, because there have some old testiment and new testiment, ofcourse the real bible came from jew. if you do some research in Quran(it have everything)you find the anwser. we callit injil btw
sayadaus93 2 years ago
Two quick points, when was the "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" bit added to the bible?
Is your "god" omniscient or omnipotent?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
There is no evidence that it was added. That's just a theory. The passage was quoted in the writings of Christians of the early second century. However, there are Greek manuscripts in the 4th century and later that don't have it.
St Augustine (5th century) wrote that it was part of scripture; it was omitted from a Greek manuscript archetype by heretics who thought it justified adultery.
It was probably present in other manuscripts because it is included in Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Jerome's testimony (415 AD) "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Ok, so it may have been added around 400yrs after christ died, (most scholars say 500yrs) or as you suggest it may have been included earlier then removed, then put back.
How many more passages have been removed and are waiting to be put back into their rightful place? but you make a good point no one knows what has been omitted from the bible over the years, it's about as far from the inerrant word of god as it's possible to get, any ideas on the second question?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
The passage is also cited in the third century in the Didascalia Apostolorum.
A fragment from one of the early church fathers, Papias, who lived from c. 75 to 150 AD, describes the story in detail and says it is found in the Gospel of John.
Other early sources have the pericope in Luke or the "Gospel to the Hebrews" -- possibly meaning Matthew. The question is whether this was part of another Gospel and then interpolated in John, not whether the story ought to be considered canonical.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
hosanna our god.
goddoesexisting 2 years ago
If there is someone that can lead me to christ please comment because i found a passage in the bible that makes me want to follow your god 2 Kings 2 -22,24 I love the word of that great god it makes me full of love He is so loving
npf2135 2 years ago
If you would rather believe (or disbelieve) in a "loving" God who never punishes sin, then follow that path and see where it will lead you.
If you want to believe in a loving God, who is also holy and just, who forgives the repentant and punishes the wicked, then look to the God of the Bible.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
see Jer 33:3, then Ezekiel 16:63 & Ezekiel 36:36, Jer 17:10 & Rom 15:4, Isa 48:3, then Isa 48:1&10, & look Mat 22:29 & John 5:39 "search him"Joel 2:28 the promise of the holy spirit. John 14:16& John 16:12 & 2 Tim 1:7"Faith"Rom 8:24, Heb 11:1&6 faith that is express in love Gal 5:6. Remember God is invisible 1 Tim 1:17& Colossians 1:15. It is difficult to believe on things you don't see. But browse the passage Lamentations 3:25. To God be the glory! Hosanna! 1 Tim 1:15-16 & 2 Cor 12:9, Rev 1:3
chitzz7 2 years ago
read what happened to the town of jericho.
espyd21c 2 years ago
What's with the sarcasm? Our God is as much a God of Love as He is a God of Justice. He does punish whoever He wishes to punish and have mercy on whoever He wishes to have mercy on. I pray you get to see that through the work of His Spirit.
sampamog 2 years ago
Even if the NT were written in 50A.D., that would still be 17 years after Jesus died. Today's trained journalists can't even get the story right about events that occurred yesterday.
ad8fingers 2 years ago
There was some type of Gospel memorized or written prior to 40 AD, then internal evidence shows the Temple to still be standing (pre-70 AD) when the written Gospels were finalized.
It's early enough to contain eywitness testimony.
If you can get four newspapers with four independent accounts, and the witnesses agree, then you can trust the testimony.
The four Gospels are VERY different in some places, but they never contradict each other and agree in the core essentials.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Bible writers weren't journalists! But let's push your logic far enough: we shouldn't believe all the history books about the American revolution written in the 1900s, or better still, we shouldn't believe WW2 books being written today because they weren't written as at when they happened.
Check your facts well and you'll discover that the Bible is by far the most reliable historical document when you talk in terms of the existence of early manuscripts.
sampamog 2 years ago
At 2:30 the narrator states that "The Jews recorded exact histories."
The problem is that point 3 "The gospel writers...the life of christ." The jews didn't believe that jesus was christ. So why would they write about him?
kingmike40 2 years ago
Because most of the early Christians were Jews.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The stories in the bible has been stolen from Egypt.
TheTruthIsInAfrica 2 years ago 2
wow... sorry I just must say that you are full of B.S. I did not want to use the full spelling of the words for B.S. for the simple fact that you might take offense. I will give you that the bible is a nice view of history taking out the fantasy portions. But to bring it more into view. Look at the older religions and set them side by side with the bible and you will see that most are taken from older civilizations. It is there stories that adorn you book. It is not holy and it is not 100%truth
oblufire 2 years ago
Each time an older manuscript of the Bible is discovered, many changes are required in the Bible to bring it in line with the ancient manuscripts. Mark 1:1,Acts of the Apostles 8:37. Ending of Mark Gospel.
KiwiRulez 2 years ago
In the newer translations the variants are noted, but most of the time they are not replaced. The older a manuscript is the closer it is to the source. However, it can't be universally proven that older manuscripts' variants are correct. For years, it s thought the Masoretic text of the Old Testament was less accurate than the Septuagint (LXX) because the LXX was much older. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1948 proved the reliability of the Masoretic text in most instances.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
In any case, even if we went with the most liberal view on variants, the general meaning of the same passages in question doctrines of the New Testament stand on solid ground.
In fact, can you name a single manuscript variant that would affect even one Christian tenet of faith?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Sure, For example Trinity Verse, 1st John chapter 5, verse 7 used to say that there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But because this verse was discovered to be a later insertion, it has now been correctly removed from modern translations. Recommended Book: JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in
the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart Ehrman
KiwiRulez 2 years ago
Good example!
The verse was in Jerome's Latin Bible and it was known to the church fathers as early as the second century.
It i true that it was not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, but it is not true that it is absent from all manuscripts. Textual critics generally think that the Greek manuscripts are most reliable.
In any case, even if it were not in the original autograph, the Trinity does not hang on one verse. No major Christian doctrine can be established by only one passage.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Bart Ehrman is somewhat of a provocateur. None of the points raised in his books are "hidden" or "unknown" -- These questions about variants have been known for centuries -- even going back to the time of the church fathers.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
There is a reason why certain manuscripts were chosen over others. Most recently, in the last 100 years, textual critics have used a large cache of about 100 manuscripts that were discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. These are mainly from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. The church fathers favored the Byzantine text
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Alexandrian texts are older because they were unearthed in Egypt which is a desert climate. The Western and Byzantine texts were more valued by the early Christians, but the early manuscripts did not survive because of the climate.
There are scholars, such as Dan Wallace, who think that the Western and Byzantine texts -- as well as the quotations of verses from the NT by church fathers -- are undervalued in textual criticism.
Even so the differences between the texts are very small.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The other passages in question are the ending of Mark and the Adulterae Pericope. Both of these have arguments both for and against their inclusion, but no modern Bible version is without them.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
He says the different variations of the NT are mainly small words, spelling, prepositions, and numbers. Well, what does mainly mean? If it was only what he said it was he would NOT have said mainly! Seems like he's hiding something!
99minerkc 2 years ago
For instance, one of the most common variations is a movable "nu" (the Greek "N"). It's the difference between saying "an historian" or "a historian."
Most variants are untranslatable Greek grammatical differences that are not necessarily mistakes, but stylistic changes that have the exact same meaning in English.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Interesting comments!
99minerkc 2 years ago
There are some variants that do alter the meaning of the text. But as we have said modern translations make note of these in marginal notes or footnotes. These are well known and do no damage to big meaning of the text. They are quite minor.
They could be fit all on one page.
It's important that by "inspired" and "inerrant" we do not mean word for word accuracy to the original or else how would we have a translation of any type?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The fool says in his heart there is no God
draconusrex33 2 years ago
You mean in his mind, don't you?
99minerkc 2 years ago
Origen was excommunicated by the early Christians because he became heretic and an Antichrist.
Metania01 2 years ago
Peoplen and their invisble friends. Really pathetic. It's 2009...
SKrizal 3 years ago
People and their egos. Seriously. It's one thing to disbelieve in God, it's another to demean those who do - especially over such an easy "hit-and-run" forum like a youtube post. Get a life bud.
NoMereRanger303 3 years ago
Why isn't Polycarp included in the bible but Revelations is?
numberonesurvivor75 3 years ago
Polycarp is a second generation Christian writer and lacks apostolic authority. However, he provides important "bridge material" in his quotes and allusions of the New Testament that take us from the original autographs to several manuscript fragments that survive from the second century.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
There are 2 significantly differrent endings for Mark's: one with an account of the evidence of the resurrection, one without. The Gospels were written at least 20 years after the events, of which Luke was certainly not a witness. But none of this denies the truth of the Gospels or of Jesus, the arguments put forward by the videos' presenters miss the point altogether. This must be the worst apology of Christiianity ever attempted. And I'm not watching anymore of it. Good luck !
kidcalabria 3 years ago
really? this is pointless. the bible was written by alot of men. not just one. it is a lot of testimonies put into 1. some people say it was written by god. yes god gave these men the experience and they wrote it down. they wrote of what happened with jesus and everything else. these videos are pointless.
slipknotrocks421 3 years ago
i agree with you some what.
slipknotrocks421 3 years ago
ok thanks for your opinion.....but if you want to make such a point then you need to refute the information in these videos with facts you have researched...otherwise your words are worthless
Product1999 3 years ago
Product:but if you want to make such a point then you need to refute the information in these videos with facts you have researched...otherwise your words are worthless
Same for you my friend.
Philos2006 3 years ago
This is all b*****it. I'll paraphrase some examples -
1-Bible was written by Jews. Jews are good historians. Threrfore the Bible is historically accurate
2-Because the bible mentions a handfull of the most powerful regional leaders of around the time, therefore the rest is accurate
3-Because the testiments were written in the first century, the austor must therefore be the namesake of the gospels
4-Because something is copied faithfully, the origional must be valid
5-Gnostics never existed
sagarat 3 years ago
You are attacking straw men.
The critics argue the opposite in each one of these instances in order to REFUTE the gospels.
But their claims are conjecture.
You are right in saying that just because the critics are wrong in their claims, it doesn't prove the Gospels' reliability.
However, since the New Testament has more manuscript evidence and has been shown to be historically accurate, we ought to trust it more than other ancient accounts.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Whether Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead is a matter of faith.
It ought to be very easy to disprove since it seems so far-fetched.
But the critics' arguments against the historicity of the New Testament over several centuries are amazingly flimsy. It is based on pure conjecture.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Give me more that flimsy evidence that positively disproves the flying spagheti monster before you talk about disproving poorly documented historical facts.
Fact is, Christianity relys on faith BECAUSE there is no real proof any of it is real.
sagarat 3 years ago
The flying spaghetti monster is an intentionally created imaginary creature.
When we talk about the God of the Bible, we are not talking about a being that someone just made up. We are speaking of a Being who is transcendent.
I doubt that any of the five typical philosophical proofs for God's existence I could offer would convince you, but there is a difference between the idea held by at least 95 percent of humanity that a transcendent Creator God could exist and an imaginary monster.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
I put it tp you that GOD is an intentially created immaginary creature, that was just made up.
I have not heard of the "Proofs" of GOD, but I would imagine that they are all conjecture.
Also, a widely held untruth is still an untruth, no matter how hard people try to believe in it.
sagarat 3 years ago
Lets be honest, some people just DONT want to believe in God, it doesnt matter if you COULD prove that he existed, if someone does not want to accept God all the evidence in the world would go into one ear and out the other. I spoke to an atheist who said even if CHRIST himiself appeared in the flesh and spoke to him and healed him, he would not believe in God, he would think of it as a psychological event and a weird coincidence. There's more than enough evidence, just too much ignorance.
henbenhena 3 years ago
couldn't of said it better myself
Product1999 3 years ago
henbenhena: You said it: "There is too much ignorance"from the part of believers, who don`t demand evidence for what they believe.
Philos2006 3 years ago 2
how do we know that all the fact in american history are accurate...you use faith with those facts as with any other
Product1999 3 years ago
Faith ,we are saved by faith,Jesus amazingly never wrote a single word during his time as a preacher which was the amazing thing.
edavisdavis 3 years ago
Most books in the Bible ere written by scribes who were followers of the people who gave the message.
The average Jew could read, but didn't have training as a scribe. It's not so unusual that Jesus as a rabbi was not also a scribe.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Archetypes manifest in human life. Francis Bacon, who wrote Shakespeare, was born to the "virgin" Elizabeth and forced to prosecute his rebellious brother Essex. He also said that people deny truth out of an "innate and unnatural love of the lie."
BurtRenoldsMoustache 3 years ago
Shakespeare deniers are on the same level as Jesus deniers.
Few credible scholars doubt Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and no credible scholar thinks Jesus was not a historical person.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Study to show yourself apporoved or study and what Youtube
SamuelHerbertBerryJr 3 years ago
"This myth of jesus has served us well" ~Pope Leo X
nexus2xl 3 years ago
The earliest known source of this statement is a polemical work by John Bale, Acta Romanorum Pontificum, which was translated from Latin into English as The Pageant of the Popes in 1574:
"For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."
It is pure polemics, the pope never said it!
jcr4runner 3 years ago
The facts that are listed here prove nothing other then the bible was written long ago by people that thought the earth was flat and the sun and planets revolved around the earth. Only people from Kansas believe that!
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
rekounas 3 years ago
The "flat world myth" was propagated by the skeptics of the Enlightenment.
The ancient people did not think the world was flat. In fact, Eristosthenes proved by a mathematical experiment the world was round many years before Christ.
Only stupid people believe atheist propaganda without first researching the well-documented facts.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Hey, i'm just wondering about this so why do a lot of the people who wrote about Jesus have circles around their heads in their pictures?
mediahellgod 3 years ago