Response to LovingDoubt on the Gospels

LovingDoubt has responded. My response here:

1. On historicity vs. inspiration. With the Gospels, inerrancy just means historically accurate in everything. I see no reason to believe otherwise. I accept the decision of the Church that the New Testament is inspired, and if there are one or two errors (I don't accept this) so it goes, it doesn't affect the main message. But again, that's only hypothetical.

2. On contradiction. You stated it's only speculation. Indeed this is true. But if there is a possible resolution (and it was rather plausible, not a stretch at all), then it is no longer a contradiction.

3. On dating of Mark. I don't remember if I actually argued for an early date in that particular video, but a general case can be made from the fact that Matthew predates 60 AD (see my videos on Matthew), and Mark predates Greek Matthew.

4. On dates relating to historicity. If we assume for the sake of arguments the standard dates (Mark-70, Matthew and Luke-80, John-90), then it still is probable that they were accurate. Historians today derive much of their information about Alexander the Great from Plutarch, who wrote centuries after the event. Historians derive most of their secular information about Muhammad from over 100 years after the event. Why then, should we dismiss 40-60 years after the event as too late?

5. On authorship. Disagreement does not negate the strength of the traditional position. I presented arguments for my position of traditional authorship, thus it is now the burden of the Skeptic to refute those arguments. To this date, they lay unrefuted. Knowledge is justified true belief. I have a belief (traditionalist authorship) that I feel as justified (through evidence), therefore I count it as knowledge. Your statement that "nobody knows remains false.

6. On the birth narratives. While Mary is still alive, the timegap is rendered irrelevant, so I place the time where the gap begins at Jesus' death, though Mary definitely lived longer than that. Church tradition holds that Mary oversaw numerous churches, it is inconceivable that she did not know the apostles, so that's how they got their information.

The virgin birth was as important as the other miracles. It wasn't particularly special.

7. On Jesus lying. If we find that the resurrection and numerous other miracles were historical, and His claims to be God are historical, by historical methods, and I have done both in my videos, then it is fairly easy to conclude that Jesus was not a liar.

8. On eyewitness copying. Only Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Matthew wrote proto-Matthew first, the Markan material in there was placed in by a later editor. John did not use synoptic material. Mark and Luke were both non-eyewitnesses.

9. On the apocryphals. It is true that texts were chosen that conformed to the view of the Church. This is because Christ entrusted His gospel to the apostles, who preached it and then passed on the gospel to their successors, the bishops. The bishops were to keep the faith pure, and they judged which books conformed to Apostolic Tradition and which didn't. But it is possible to disqualify all apocryphal books based on date and authorship alone.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• gospels

[SuperMarco7]

@EddieTheFishReturns nope! there is no way to prove anything only strong evidence like evolution and so on. so yeah ppl will always find a reason. lol im just saying my opinion u dont have to get offend by every theist comment on the internet. u have what u believe so live for it and find purpose other then commenting on theist post.

[yiotos]

Its not that I think Christian religion bad...but the bible has been translated much times and re-wrote much too. How do we know its all translated properly?

[FYiPassiton]

'And a little child shall lead them..."

A child prodigy, that is, an erudite young scholar.

Keep up the excellent work, Kabane. Expect great things from you in the future.

Just 1 more question. Sumpin's bothering me.

Do you ever take off that hat indoors?

Has your forehead ever been exposed to sunlight? You're too young for that to be a 'comb-over'. Or is that a 'Beatle-cut'? Jus joshin u. I got a thousand of these. Don't forget to tip the waiters.

[SuperMarco7]

clap clap clap :D good job but the only thing i can say is that ppl are always going to find a reason not to believe.

[followerofjesus1984]

@followerofjesus1984 so i conclude the date 60-1 for acts, which means luke was written in mid - late 50's

[followerofjesus1984]

hey brother there possible way dating luke, ------ his second book acts had to have been written around 60-1, cause it speaks of important events, we know historically that paul, james, and peter were killed between 62-67, and acts had not recorded any of this deaths

and it acts was essentailly based around jerusalem and the temple which were destroyed between 66-70, and in the beginning of act the write talk about the first book he wrote to theophilus

[fruitikay]

Dude, nice video.

[SonnyDelight55]

I've read Plutarch's life of Alexander the Great. Its a good work.

[graceinmay]

wonderful video! well-spoken, reasonable, and carefull cited. God bless you, and your ministry!

[LordToast]

I assume that these comments are in response to Kabane's wacky religious views.