Your logic is flawed as you're begging the question as to the "core story" of the gospels being historical or legendary in its content. Because you beg this fundamental question, you think your comparison of them to the tales of King Arthur is an apt illustration that Nazareth is also legendary, when it really isn't.
I doubt that if the human species is to live on for 2,000 mores years that there will be any substantial archealogical evidence for a town between Ursa, IL and Lima, IL called Marcelline existing during our time. My point is the lack of archealogical evidence isn't always indicative that such a location did exist at that time. Nazareth was a very insignificant place during Jesus' time. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth
Btw, the writers of the 4 gospels didn't claim to get their material by translating golden tablets of "Reformed Egyptian" with a seer stone. The gospel writers, evident within the text, were writing to convey the events in Jesus' ministry which they saw to be of great importance to who Jesus was and what his message was. They wrote in the common language of the day, common Greek.
But the core story isn't fiction. The gospels weren't written in such a way as to convey a fictional story about a fictional story. The literary forms in which they are written most closely match the genre of ancient biography. You're simply begging the question that the core story is fiction before you even begin to address the texts in question. That's sloppy historical method on your part.
A.N. Sherwin-White, a noted Greco-Roman Historian, has said that it takes 2 generations for legendary elements to completely erase the core historical truth in an ancient work. Given the dating of the Gospels accepted by most Scholars and the commentary of A.N. Sherwin-White, I would say that the case for the historicity of Jesus is fairly strong.
If you were to treat other ancient historical documents in the same way, we would be in a heap of historical fiction rising to neck level.
[There is no evidence of Jesus.]
Not so, in 1 Corinthians 15 (the letter of which is generally regarded as genuinely Pauline and dated to the 50's A.D.), scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Paul is quoting an early Christian tradition that can be traced back to within 2-3 years of the Crucifixion.
@calomie jesus did exist, he was crucified, old testament scriptures were fullfilled by him, lie all you want, there are 10000000 lies about jesus not existing or getting married to mary or went to france or china blabla, you can't deny his 12 aposles preaching him or dying for him. :) Da Vinci Code is just a book and is debunked by the bible and if you google debunked.
@calomie no, time is short, haven't you realized world disasters are increasing? this is the beginning of sorrows as jesus said(Matthew 24:8 ), you've been duped by satan and the rapture by at our door step. if you don't believe there are many signs we're close to the rapture here's one, your country will be partially flooded,israel will atack iran. Australia will be hit by an tsunami.
darkaus, I'm a Christian. I realize the Davinci Code is rubbish. Again, it's hard to tell if you're just playing with me or if you're being serious, because either way you're sounding bat-crap crazy.
[There is little evidence for the existence of Jesus.]
Just a side note: I'm not even forced to treat the New Testament as inspired or inerrant to accept its testimony of the existence of Nazareth. Also, the New Testament is not one book. It is a collection of writings written by various different authors in the 1st Century. Their mentioning of Nazereth shouldn't so be so easily dismissed because there are no little outside testimony of the events or places they describe.
[there is no evidence that shows that the town of Nazareth exsisted during the first century but plenty of evidence to show it didn't!]
1.) You're out of touch. Besides, all 4 Gospels, which are all dated by the vast majority of Scholars within the first Century, mentions Nazareth as Jesus' birth place.
2.) We shouldn't expect Nazareth to be mentioned so much in the ancient world because it was a lowly town of a lowly Roman province.
jesus offered himself on the cross and defeated death so we could have enternal life through him! because god is love jesus is the tree of life ,the uncreated light,and we were created not as robots but with free will,to accept that light that is given to us,and live a life of faith,and be christ like through the grace of the holy spirit amen!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OK first there is no proof outside the bible that mose exsisted or jesus for that matter!! None of the gospel writers knew the fictional charactor of jesus.
ALl the gosels were written well after the claims of jesus decades at the earliest late. All second or third hand stories at best. The bible cant be used to prove itself. Please give links to all your scientific research for your claims.
OK you cant because you cant prove what didnt really happen.
Not all is proved through the scientific method, and thinking so is indeed self-contradictory; you implied credibility of proof based on the evidence of scientific research. however, historically speaking the bible is by the far one of the most sound pieces of human history and holds validity on various accounts of historical frameworks,leaders,wars,ect...many of which were written centuries before other documents from later various historians were found and validated as authentic. fail.
Who do you think the gospels were written by?? Who do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were, ...you are in serious error and obviously NOT thinking at all.
You totally had me until the whole 'Your now a Christian, find other Christians and spread the word to others'
Thats EXACTLY what the jehovah witness people were telling me, minus the Christian kinda odd coincidence..
goten360 1 year ago
@atkimanchristmas
didn't* exist
calomie 1 year ago
@atkimanchristmas
Your logic is flawed as you're begging the question as to the "core story" of the gospels being historical or legendary in its content. Because you beg this fundamental question, you think your comparison of them to the tales of King Arthur is an apt illustration that Nazareth is also legendary, when it really isn't.
calomie 1 year ago
@atkimanchristmas
They were written within one generation of Jesus.
I doubt that if the human species is to live on for 2,000 mores years that there will be any substantial archealogical evidence for a town between Ursa, IL and Lima, IL called Marcelline existing during our time. My point is the lack of archealogical evidence isn't always indicative that such a location did exist at that time. Nazareth was a very insignificant place during Jesus' time. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth
calomie 1 year ago
@atkimanchristmas
Btw, the writers of the 4 gospels didn't claim to get their material by translating golden tablets of "Reformed Egyptian" with a seer stone. The gospel writers, evident within the text, were writing to convey the events in Jesus' ministry which they saw to be of great importance to who Jesus was and what his message was. They wrote in the common language of the day, common Greek.
calomie 1 year ago
@atkimanchristmas
But the core story isn't fiction. The gospels weren't written in such a way as to convey a fictional story about a fictional story. The literary forms in which they are written most closely match the genre of ancient biography. You're simply begging the question that the core story is fiction before you even begin to address the texts in question. That's sloppy historical method on your part.
calomie 1 year ago
Whose been saying he made up the whole thing?
Joachim Jermias was the first to demonstrate
that at1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul was quoting and old Christian tradition that can be dated to within 2-3 years within the Curiscifixion.
calomie 2 years ago
A.N. Sherwin-White, a noted Greco-Roman Historian, has said that it takes 2 generations for legendary elements to completely erase the core historical truth in an ancient work. Given the dating of the Gospels accepted by most Scholars and the commentary of A.N. Sherwin-White, I would say that the case for the historicity of Jesus is fairly strong.
calomie 2 years ago
If you were to treat other ancient historical documents in the same way, we would be in a heap of historical fiction rising to neck level.
[There is no evidence of Jesus.]
Not so, in 1 Corinthians 15 (the letter of which is generally regarded as genuinely Pauline and dated to the 50's A.D.), scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Paul is quoting an early Christian tradition that can be traced back to within 2-3 years of the Crucifixion.
calomie 2 years ago
@calomie jesus did exist, he was crucified, old testament scriptures were fullfilled by him, lie all you want, there are 10000000 lies about jesus not existing or getting married to mary or went to france or china blabla, you can't deny his 12 aposles preaching him or dying for him. :) Da Vinci Code is just a book and is debunked by the bible and if you google debunked.
darkaus32 4 months ago
Unless you're being sarcastic, I think we agree?
calomie 4 months ago
@calomie no, time is short, haven't you realized world disasters are increasing? this is the beginning of sorrows as jesus said(Matthew 24:8 ), you've been duped by satan and the rapture by at our door step. if you don't believe there are many signs we're close to the rapture here's one, your country will be partially flooded,israel will atack iran. Australia will be hit by an tsunami.
darkaus32 4 months ago
@darkaus32
darkaus, I'm a Christian. I realize the Davinci Code is rubbish. Again, it's hard to tell if you're just playing with me or if you're being serious, because either way you're sounding bat-crap crazy.
calomie 4 months ago
@calomie Sorry, i only glanced at your first comment the sentence which is between brackets, my reply's are god honest truth.
darkaus32 4 months ago
[There is little evidence for the existence of Jesus.]
Just a side note: I'm not even forced to treat the New Testament as inspired or inerrant to accept its testimony of the existence of Nazareth. Also, the New Testament is not one book. It is a collection of writings written by various different authors in the 1st Century. Their mentioning of Nazereth shouldn't so be so easily dismissed because there are no little outside testimony of the events or places they describe.
calomie 2 years ago
[there is no evidence that shows that the town of Nazareth exsisted during the first century but plenty of evidence to show it didn't!]
1.) You're out of touch. Besides, all 4 Gospels, which are all dated by the vast majority of Scholars within the first Century, mentions Nazareth as Jesus' birth place.
2.) We shouldn't expect Nazareth to be mentioned so much in the ancient world because it was a lowly town of a lowly Roman province.
calomie 2 years ago
Matt 7:6 and Proverbs 1:7 and Prov 23:9
Don't waste your valuable time adrockmca
TheTaminski 2 years ago
Two of the 4 gospels don't even have anything to say about Jesus' birth.
calomie 2 years ago
Two of the 4 gospels do have something to say about Jesus' birth.
DJAnihilist 2 years ago
Sorry, but I've forgotten what my point was in saying this.
calomie 2 years ago
thats why they wern tincluded, theres a reason why they wernt...they were false descriptions/accounts
joedodd123 2 years ago
Like I said, I don't remember what my point was...:D oops
calomie 2 years ago
jesus offered himself on the cross and defeated death so we could have enternal life through him! because god is love jesus is the tree of life ,the uncreated light,and we were created not as robots but with free will,to accept that light that is given to us,and live a life of faith,and be christ like through the grace of the holy spirit amen!
gstatha 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fairy tales for adults, go read some books
jorsher123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK first there is no proof outside the bible that mose exsisted or jesus for that matter!! None of the gospel writers knew the fictional charactor of jesus.
ALl the gosels were written well after the claims of jesus decades at the earliest late. All second or third hand stories at best. The bible cant be used to prove itself. Please give links to all your scientific research for your claims.
OK you cant because you cant prove what didnt really happen.
Lespauls92 3 years ago
Not all is proved through the scientific method, and thinking so is indeed self-contradictory; you implied credibility of proof based on the evidence of scientific research. however, historically speaking the bible is by the far one of the most sound pieces of human history and holds validity on various accounts of historical frameworks,leaders,wars,ect...many of which were written centuries before other documents from later various historians were found and validated as authentic. fail.
adrockmca 2 years ago
Who do you think the gospels were written by?? Who do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were, ...you are in serious error and obviously NOT thinking at all.
TheTaminski 2 years ago
One of the Best Videos yet.. Praise God Brother..Nice workkk..God Bless...
branavendra00 3 years ago
Amazing video. I LOVE the invitation to come to Jesus at the end. THIS is how we should be preaching, haha. Well done.
Vagrant916 3 years ago
Great presentation; sound track makes it riveting. Would make a good forward to friends and family. A+
HighPlainsWoman 3 years ago