the rest is good stuff but it starts a bit lame though: dawn by definition = rising of the sun and its quite plausible for one person to call dawn dark (compared day) and another light (compared to night). Also not all the people who went to the grave needed to be mentioned by everyone...that doesnt show contradiction it just shows omission. But it gets better. the contradictions are there for all to see.
Brilliantly non factuals comments on Bible, very dissapointed, as non believers who normally questions the bible will present more factuals findings or historical findings or phycical proofs or scientific research or rational analysis. Perhaps you could check again with your fellow scientist sor historians or scolars or the best would be the closest church in your suburb.
Wow. This is the least responsible handling of any historical text or story I've ever heard. This is clearly for people who haven't studied their Bible. How silly to suppose you could throw Christianity on its ear with a YouTube clip! Have fun with that.
The fact that the gospels disagree on irrelevant details only proves that the authors were not in conspiracy. There are too many similarities to make the case that the authors had either independently dreamed this or made it up. That fact that you cite Mark past 16:9 also shows you know very little about the Bible as a historical text. This video was a rather pitiful attempt at whatever it was trying to do.
That the Markian ending is a later interpolation is irrelevant in this context as it is not a "modern" or even a post-Nicean interpolation, it was probably added by members of a relatively early Christian community, probably members of the Pauline community. Though the gospel author didn't write it, that it has persevered more or less without internal redaction since perhaps the mid-2nd century indicates that it is a reliable description of what many early Christiand believed about Jesus.
That's an interesting position to hold, considering that only the most conservative, fundamentalist biblical scholars believe that the ending can be traced to some time between 100-300 AD. You also do very little to actually come to a conclusion about what these minor discrepancies could lead us to.
Concluding what the minor discrepancies lead to is outside the interest of this video. I concur with the "conservative, fundamentalist biblical scholars" on this one because it is what they want and I do not want to be accused of biasing my Biblical studies in favor of non-believers. What I report here is nothing more than what the Bible, as we have it today, says. Draw your own conclusions, it isn't my burden to do that for you.
This is rather frustrating because if what you say is actually the case, that you only report what the Bible says and let the viewer make their own conclusions, then you are being quite misleading. I'd be surprised if anyone who watched this video did not get the impression that you are trying to say that the Bible is unreliable as historical text, whereas the evidence you prevent actually supplies an argument to the contrary.
Furthermore, you are inconsistent in your view of the Bible. Obviously in this case, you will concur with the most fundamentalist of biblical scholars. However, when it comes to other issues, such as the authorship of Mark at 45AD, the common authorship of John, 1-3 John, and Revelation, and the reliability of the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, I'd be very surprised if you're still siding with the same people.
The opinion that the longer Markan ending is consistent with the beliefs of the early Markan community is not controversial. The belief that Mark was authored in 45 AD is pure fringe garbage. Even most members of the JS say that the Markan ending is from the 2nd century, and all of them agree that it is pre-Niceaen.
And if you don't like the conclusions that follow from this video, you can blame the Bible, not me, because I have no analysis in the video, just regurgitation of what the book says
The conclusions from the information you present is actually in favor of the authenticity of the gospels. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious from your tone that you are trying to imply otherwise.
According to you, the fact that the gospels disagree on minor details shows that the writers did not conspire, and this fact tends to enhance the books' validity.
But what if, on the contrary, the gospels had been in complete agreement on every single minute detail? Would you then be arguing that this internal inerrancy suggests collusion among the writers, and thus casts doubt on the gospels' validity? Of course not! You'd be arguing that it proves the gospels' "divine" origin... (cont.)
... Christians have rigged the system. No matter WHAT evidence emerges, they can find a way to make it support their views. This is just your typical apologetic gymnastics, utterly lacking in intellectual integrity.
From a theological standpoint, non-contradicting accounts would do this, yes.
However, from a historical standpoint, this would certainly suggest that it's just as probable that they made this up.
More importantly, what's really important, is that these independent accounts do not disagree on the big issues - the fact that Jesus died and rose again. To my knowledge, no such text disagrees with this claim until after the second century.
And why is that? Obviously the three synoptics rely on the Q source for about half of their writing, but there is still substantial independently obtained information in each gospel. John is, of course, completely independent of the other three gospels. Also, Paul's writings affirm most of the events from Jesus' betrayal onward, including his burial, resurrection, and reappearances. His writing is dated around 52 AD.
The only thing I see when I line up the synoptics in their chronological order (not their order in the bible) is some obvious legendary embellishment as we move from Mark to Matthew to Luke.
Paul's writings, although appearing after the gospels in the Bible, are actually earlier. I find it interesting you way you worded your last post: "Paul's writings affirm most of the events from Jesus' betrayal onward." And what about Jesus' life before that point in time? What is most glaring... (cont.)
...to me are the OMISSIONS. Paul apparently knew nothing about where or when Jesus lived, his virgin birth, any of his miracles, his trial. No mention of John the Baptist or Judas. Paul doesn't even seem to realize that Jesus was an ethical teacher.
Paul wrote at least 20 years before the author of Mark did, yet it seems he knew none of the significant details of Jesus' life. Apologists have offered some pretty creative explanations, but they strike me as desperate.
The events from the betrayal onward are what's really important, as Paul confirms in 1 Cor. 15. He calls the resurrection to central point by which Christianity rises or falls. The rest of his life, while interesting and important, does not form the core of Christian doctrine.
Now, I don't know what apologists you've heard, but there's a pretty easy explanation. Paul was writing to churches about theology based on the saving act of the resurrection. The Gospel authors were trying to give (cont)
an account of Jesus' life. If you look at any of the epistles of the NT (which is what Paul wrote), they all contain very few (if any) details of Jesus' life, especially before the cross, even those which were written after 70 CE, which is 'supposedly' when legend started to spread. So while I find the lack of details a bit interesting, it does not say much about legendary development for Paul to have not mentioned details of Jesus' life before the cross.
I find it inconceivable that Paul would not have mentioned any of Jesus' healings and other miracles; in 1st century Judea, such powers were what gave the numerous itinerant messiahs of the time their "street cred."
Even if you're right about Paul's motivations for omitting the details of Jesus' life and ministry, that still doesn't negate the obvious embellishment that one observes from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John. We even see such mythological "ad-libbing" when it comes to the... (cont.)
...resurrection itself: Paul's version is quite simple; Mark adds slightly more detail; Matthew's version includes the virgin birth, angels, earthquakes, the rolling boulder, and post-resurrection appearances, etc.; Luke tacks on an actual bodily ascension; and John's book is chock-full of fantastical occurrences--he even claims that if all of these additional events had been put to paper, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all of the books!
You think it's actually credible to confidently announce the word 'OR' as a challenge to the internal incoherancy of the Bible?!!
kalifire 10 months ago
This is great! Thanks. I was looking for a Christian answering the Challenge but this is even better. peace.
csnowutube 10 months ago
the rest is good stuff but it starts a bit lame though: dawn by definition = rising of the sun and its quite plausible for one person to call dawn dark (compared day) and another light (compared to night). Also not all the people who went to the grave needed to be mentioned by everyone...that doesnt show contradiction it just shows omission. But it gets better. the contradictions are there for all to see.
lyndaek99 1 year ago
Brilliantly non factuals comments on Bible, very dissapointed, as non believers who normally questions the bible will present more factuals findings or historical findings or phycical proofs or scientific research or rational analysis. Perhaps you could check again with your fellow scientist sor historians or scolars or the best would be the closest church in your suburb.
nursahidw 2 years ago
Wow. This is the least responsible handling of any historical text or story I've ever heard. This is clearly for people who haven't studied their Bible. How silly to suppose you could throw Christianity on its ear with a YouTube clip! Have fun with that.
Dosswerks 3 years ago
Well, I guess that beats actually explaining in what places a mistake has been made.
WhatTheBibleSays 2 years ago
The infallible word of God? LOL
Celticking36 3 years ago
Hilarious
freethought23 3 years ago
The comments-to-views ratio on this video is very promising.
WhatTheBibleSays 3 years ago
The fact that the gospels disagree on irrelevant details only proves that the authors were not in conspiracy. There are too many similarities to make the case that the authors had either independently dreamed this or made it up. That fact that you cite Mark past 16:9 also shows you know very little about the Bible as a historical text. This video was a rather pitiful attempt at whatever it was trying to do.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
That the Markian ending is a later interpolation is irrelevant in this context as it is not a "modern" or even a post-Nicean interpolation, it was probably added by members of a relatively early Christian community, probably members of the Pauline community. Though the gospel author didn't write it, that it has persevered more or less without internal redaction since perhaps the mid-2nd century indicates that it is a reliable description of what many early Christiand believed about Jesus.
WhatTheBibleSays 3 years ago
That's an interesting position to hold, considering that only the most conservative, fundamentalist biblical scholars believe that the ending can be traced to some time between 100-300 AD. You also do very little to actually come to a conclusion about what these minor discrepancies could lead us to.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
Concluding what the minor discrepancies lead to is outside the interest of this video. I concur with the "conservative, fundamentalist biblical scholars" on this one because it is what they want and I do not want to be accused of biasing my Biblical studies in favor of non-believers. What I report here is nothing more than what the Bible, as we have it today, says. Draw your own conclusions, it isn't my burden to do that for you.
WhatTheBibleSays 3 years ago
This is rather frustrating because if what you say is actually the case, that you only report what the Bible says and let the viewer make their own conclusions, then you are being quite misleading. I'd be surprised if anyone who watched this video did not get the impression that you are trying to say that the Bible is unreliable as historical text, whereas the evidence you prevent actually supplies an argument to the contrary.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
Furthermore, you are inconsistent in your view of the Bible. Obviously in this case, you will concur with the most fundamentalist of biblical scholars. However, when it comes to other issues, such as the authorship of Mark at 45AD, the common authorship of John, 1-3 John, and Revelation, and the reliability of the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, I'd be very surprised if you're still siding with the same people.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
The opinion that the longer Markan ending is consistent with the beliefs of the early Markan community is not controversial. The belief that Mark was authored in 45 AD is pure fringe garbage. Even most members of the JS say that the Markan ending is from the 2nd century, and all of them agree that it is pre-Niceaen.
And if you don't like the conclusions that follow from this video, you can blame the Bible, not me, because I have no analysis in the video, just regurgitation of what the book says
WhatTheBibleSays 3 years ago
The conclusions from the information you present is actually in favor of the authenticity of the gospels. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious from your tone that you are trying to imply otherwise.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
According to you, the fact that the gospels disagree on minor details shows that the writers did not conspire, and this fact tends to enhance the books' validity.
But what if, on the contrary, the gospels had been in complete agreement on every single minute detail? Would you then be arguing that this internal inerrancy suggests collusion among the writers, and thus casts doubt on the gospels' validity? Of course not! You'd be arguing that it proves the gospels' "divine" origin... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
(cont.)
... Christians have rigged the system. No matter WHAT evidence emerges, they can find a way to make it support their views. This is just your typical apologetic gymnastics, utterly lacking in intellectual integrity.
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
From a theological standpoint, non-contradicting accounts would do this, yes.
However, from a historical standpoint, this would certainly suggest that it's just as probable that they made this up.
More importantly, what's really important, is that these independent accounts do not disagree on the big issues - the fact that Jesus died and rose again. To my knowledge, no such text disagrees with this claim until after the second century.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
The gospels agree on major plot points, yes. But they cannot be viewed as "independent accounts"...
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
And why is that? Obviously the three synoptics rely on the Q source for about half of their writing, but there is still substantial independently obtained information in each gospel. John is, of course, completely independent of the other three gospels. Also, Paul's writings affirm most of the events from Jesus' betrayal onward, including his burial, resurrection, and reappearances. His writing is dated around 52 AD.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
The only thing I see when I line up the synoptics in their chronological order (not their order in the bible) is some obvious legendary embellishment as we move from Mark to Matthew to Luke.
Paul's writings, although appearing after the gospels in the Bible, are actually earlier. I find it interesting you way you worded your last post: "Paul's writings affirm most of the events from Jesus' betrayal onward." And what about Jesus' life before that point in time? What is most glaring... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
...to me are the OMISSIONS. Paul apparently knew nothing about where or when Jesus lived, his virgin birth, any of his miracles, his trial. No mention of John the Baptist or Judas. Paul doesn't even seem to realize that Jesus was an ethical teacher.
Paul wrote at least 20 years before the author of Mark did, yet it seems he knew none of the significant details of Jesus' life. Apologists have offered some pretty creative explanations, but they strike me as desperate.
Legendary embellishment.
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
The events from the betrayal onward are what's really important, as Paul confirms in 1 Cor. 15. He calls the resurrection to central point by which Christianity rises or falls. The rest of his life, while interesting and important, does not form the core of Christian doctrine.
Now, I don't know what apologists you've heard, but there's a pretty easy explanation. Paul was writing to churches about theology based on the saving act of the resurrection. The Gospel authors were trying to give (cont)
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
an account of Jesus' life. If you look at any of the epistles of the NT (which is what Paul wrote), they all contain very few (if any) details of Jesus' life, especially before the cross, even those which were written after 70 CE, which is 'supposedly' when legend started to spread. So while I find the lack of details a bit interesting, it does not say much about legendary development for Paul to have not mentioned details of Jesus' life before the cross.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
I find it inconceivable that Paul would not have mentioned any of Jesus' healings and other miracles; in 1st century Judea, such powers were what gave the numerous itinerant messiahs of the time their "street cred."
Even if you're right about Paul's motivations for omitting the details of Jesus' life and ministry, that still doesn't negate the obvious embellishment that one observes from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John. We even see such mythological "ad-libbing" when it comes to the... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
...resurrection itself: Paul's version is quite simple; Mark adds slightly more detail; Matthew's version includes the virgin birth, angels, earthquakes, the rolling boulder, and post-resurrection appearances, etc.; Luke tacks on an actual bodily ascension; and John's book is chock-full of fantastical occurrences--he even claims that if all of these additional events had been put to paper, the world itself would not be big enough to contain all of the books!
Legendary embellishment.
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
Please omit "virgin birth" in the second part of my posting--I meant to restrict myself to resurrection-related phenomena. :)
ClumsyRoot 3 years ago
Maybe Jesus has the power to clone himself!
Wintermute01001 3 years ago