Lecture - Dr Peter Williams - New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Yesica1993]

Fascinating information, some of which I'd not heard or thought about before!

[jerico641]

These guys work SO hard trying to prove logically that their god exists, and you have to wonder why they need to do that. Why wouldn't their god just wave his hand and make us all believe, or at least provide concrete evidence? He apparently has to have these crazy people waste their lives in laboring to prove his existence. Ridiculous.

[TheSnarkyApologist]

@jerico641

"Why wouldn't their god just wave his hand and make us all believe"

(free will! God doesn't twist arms) or at least provide concrete evidence?

(He did and THAT is continuously rejected. Jesus said people WON'T believe even if the dead are raised. He was right)

He apparently has to have these crazy people waste their lives in laboring to prove his existence.

(1 Peter 3:15 Always be ready to provide an answer. We enjoy glorifying God.)

Ridiculous.

(1 Cor 2:14)

Blessings!

[jerico641]

@TheSnarkyApologist

Yeah, Jesus was right, alright. No one in his right mind would believe that the dead rise up from graves (except in zombie movies). So, it's free will, then, huh? He's there, but he just allows us to do as we please. The invisible and the nonexistent bear a striking resemblance to each other. And you think that these evangelicals are providing answers?? If a person doesn't believe, and your god won't show him, what good are answers from people going to do?

[Yesica1993]

@jerico641 Because of people such as yourself - who, even when evidence is presented, STILL choose to ignore it.

[jerico641]

@Yesica1993

What evidence? I haven't seen any my whole life (for ANY gods).

[TheSnarkyApologist]

@jerico641

Romans 1:10

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

You can kick this to the curb as well. We simply put it on a tee for you, where you whack it is up to you my friend.

[jerico641]

@TheSnarkyApologist

I think I'll try to slice it into the woods...here we go again with the bible quotations; did it ever occur to you that simply because something is written in a book, doesn't automatically mean it's true? And what you write there at the end is pretty telling too; you assumed I could easily kick all this nonsense to the curb, because, I believe, somewhere inside you know it's all fantasy. Oh, and I love the part of the verse describing "invisible" qualities; that's great...

[TheSnarkyApologist]

@jerico641 FORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol... ; )

[jerico641]

@TheSnarkyApologist

Thank you

[Yesica1993]

@jerico641 Did you even bother to watch the video?

[jerico641]

@Yesica1993

Most of it, until my ears started to bleed from the stupid. Then I had to turn it off.

[optimusimperat]

Just like the parable of Lazarus: "If you do not listen to Moses and the prophets then neither will you believe even if someone were to rise from the dead."

God wants to be found. But you have to seek Him out. You can neither prove or disprove Him explicitly. You can only axiomatically accept Him based on the overwhelming depth of evidence thrown at you.

[BrandenTolle1]

wow. almost like it was designed from the beginning, so we would be without excuse or something. weird.

[TheSnarkyApologist]

@BrandenTolle1

hahahahaha...... "without excuse OR SOMETHING" hahahahaha....lol..."WEIRD"...­.lol...that made my day!!! ; )

[LifeIsSoAwesome]

This is an excellent presentation, but in my opinion it only reinforces one's trust in the Gospels if they already believe, rather than being a convincing argument intended for unbelievers. As a Christian, I believe that "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God", and not through argument, but I worry that others might watch this and think "man, those liberals won't be able to answer THIS!"

[fleetwd1]

@LifeIsSoAwesome I do not see Peter as thinking he is giving irrefutable proof to those who disagree.

He says at 35:19-47 "So my conclusion is NOT that I can PROVE the Gospels are TRUE on THIS BASIS. My conclusion is rather, The Gospels have the sort of pattern of names we would expect them to have if they are reporting what real people said and did.

The pattern would be too complex for an ancient forger to provide."

How God chooses to speak to those whom He desires is really up to Him.

[fleetwd1]

@LifeIsSoAwesome Furthermore at 51:20-53 Peter says, "Can I prove it? No I can't!" There is an answer to all of this. Someone can push back and say. "there is a weak point to your argument here, here and here." "I am not going to deny that."

[LifeIsSoAwesome]

@fleetwd1 That's exactly it! It wasn't meant to be irrefutable proof, but people can still misunderstand it as irrefutable proof, which could be dangerous.

It really is a good presentation, the whole way through.

[fleetwd1]

@LifeIsSoAwesome I stand by what I wrote. You implied Peter was somehow thinking he was giving irrefutable evidence to unbelievers and that the message would only confirm what believers already believe and would not convince unbelievers.

God can and will use whatever means he wishes to reach whomever He wills.

He is not bound by your agenda.

[LifeIsSoAwesome]

@fleetwd1 Any such implication was my mistake. I agree with everything you've said up until this point, and I apologize for any ambiguity or unclear statement that suggested that I thought that Peter thought he was giving irrefutable evidence to unbelievers. I have no agenda, nor do I want to limit God's sovereignty in saving whom he wills.

Again, sorry.

[fleetwd1]

@LifeIsSoAwesome Accepted. I thought you were much older or I would not have been as critical myself. Peace

[alexanderbrooksify]

@LifeIsSoAwesome I do not disagree. However, arguments showing the strength of the Christian position can be used to impact the heart. That is how my girlfriend came to Christ from Atheism--logical arguments, like the ones used by Dr. Williams, given by people obeying 1 Peter 3:15, which commands us to have evidence for our hope.

I have told Dr. Williams' argument to a many agnostic and Atheistic friends, who have been intrigued by it.

[jcchurch]

There's an interesting bit of information about the frequency of names in the Gospels+Acts and other works of the time, which does lead me to conclude that the stories originated from the region which they describe. He does not look at discrepancies of the Gospels. A common discrepancy within the Gospels is local geography in the events outside of Jerusalem. The later Gospel writers did their best to correct the mistakes of earlier writers. This is evidence against eyewitness testimony.

[DarkMatterArchive]

@MrAdversusHaereses, indeed! Remember when we argued about this, CT? I guess you're forcing my hand, huh?

[aramar616]

Also, though the description says that Dr. Williams will focus on the idea of the gospels copying one another (verbatim section, Q doc, etc...), this is not brought up at all except as a minor point (in the questions, I think), and he doesn't discuss it, but merely outlines the common theory and says that he doesn't really accept it.

As that seems like a very significant point, I was disappointed. As an earlier commenter mentioned, the later gospels could be more akin to fan-fiction.

[fleetwd1]

@aramar616 The section of the description you refer to was written by The Lanier Theological Library beforehand. I included it thinking it would be helpful. Sorry if it confused the issue for you.

In the QA he says that he is fiercely agnostic in relation to the Q source. This means he fiercely does not know.

Sorry for your disapointment.

[aramar616]

He seems to have this view that either the gospels are completely true or completely false--either they are perfectly truthful and exact accounts, or complete fabrications from the next country over. He misses a middle ground, where there writers are writing not dispassionately about things that happened, but writing with an agenda. Also the potential for human error, gullibility, and elaboration of stories for effect.

For there are demonstrable fabrications, errors, and inauthentic insertions

[fleetwd1]

@aramar616 I think his intent is to show how the recent (2002) evidence of an algorithm seems to support that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. 

[rguyshipe]

@aramar616 He started off by quoting C.S. Lewis: Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. He then went on to say that the other "L" that has been added more recently is Legend. The point of this new evidence is that "Legend" is a harder position to take because of the strong evidence that the accounts are from eyewitnesses. And back to C.S. Lewis, because of what Jesus said, you can't call him a prophet or teacher when his claim was that he was God.

[aramar616]

@rguyshipe If anything, he's not dismissing the "Legend" interpretation, but rather refining it; suggesting that perhaps a real person or some real events existed to base the events of the gospel on, rather than the entire thing being a fabrication.

[matrixlone]

Thanks.

[fleetwd1]

@matrixlone I appreciate your interest and support.

[JesusOrMuhammad]

very good presentation and points

[fleetwd1]

@JesusOrMuhammad Yes Peter does present well. He also seems open to those who may chose to disagree.

[preali]

If I take the book "The legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving, I would find the names and frequency of names correct, I would have all sorts of information about the 17th century America, but is there a headless horseman riding around in the dark? Maybe, but maybe not. People like to believe in extraordinary things because it gives meaning to their lives and they can be part of something bigger. Miracles are attributed to Buddha, Mohammed, Lao Tse, Zoroaster, Mithras etc.

[DigitalDecadence]

@preali The information you have about 17th century America would be true and correct, would it not? However that's a single account, introducing an unlikely character, the Headless Horseman, which is not verified in any way from any other sources. So then I would agree with you and say it's probably unlikely such a character exists - especially given the other disparities between it and verified historical accounts.

[gskowal]

Sorry but this is one weak argument ... It's known that anybody writing following the gospel of Mark could have read it and rewrite it in their own way. Scholars actually agree that gospels of Luke and Matthew are basically based on Mark. If I rewrite Harry Potter obviously I will copy the names correctly!!! And then someone takes my rewrite and creates their own rewrite of my rewrite and obviously they will copy the names correctly as well.

[DigitalDecadence]

@gskowal "If I rewrite Harry Potter obviously I will copy the names correctly!" You can't have it both ways. Either, they were copied correctly, or, they were copied incorrectly. You can't have names copied correctly, but details copied incorrectly, especially when the names are the harder to remember from the oral accounts. In addition your account must synchronise with other accounts - listen to what he says at 38:50 about gospels supporting each other.

[fleetwd1]

@MrAdversusHaereses Thanks for your enthusiasm. The Lanier Theological Library, a free service in Houston TX, is due all credit. I am in gratitude they allow me to post their videos here on YouTube for others to see. There are more, and more will be coming. Thanks again for sharing. Tell your friends.

[tedhtunes]

Wait - am I missing something here? The Dead Sea Scrolls, they don't have the NT, do they? So how do they apply to the info on NT? While I would not lean on this alone (or probably not this, personally) to defend my faith - I don't know where you are going with linking DS scrolls to NT - they only point to the Messiah (prophecies in OT), they don't write of the Messiah historically (NT). Or am I misunderstanding your argument Damon?

[TestAmenT12341]

This is a very powerful argument and very creative. He knows what hes talking about! Thanks for uploading!

[fleetwd1]

@TestAmenT12341 you are more than welcome. the real credit goes to Mark Lanier who invites a variety of lecturers to come speak at his new Theological Library. I am thankful for his support of my sharing them on the YouTube format.

[damon132]

This is a very falacious arguement and while creative, is easily. To name only two falacies, the writer definitely had access to other writings from the community the were writing about even if they were in other locations, 2. He is doesn't even mention the time factor. The name statistics he cites span 200 years, the Dead Sea scrolls are that old. The pattern he tries to establish require that it be contemporaneous which the scrolls are not. 3. The guy is doing what all apologists do,

[DigitalDecadence]

@damon132 What fallacies are 1, 2, 3? You say it's fallacious, and then don't name any specific fallacies.

[dunklaw]

"simon the leper" appears to be a textual error from the Aramaic - should read "simon the potter"

[TheGenuineChristian]

We should add another one next to Legend: "God's Representative."

[fleetwd1]

@TheGenuineChristian I think that thought is covered under "Lord"