Oh Yes i enjoyed it i love deep study not based on assumptions or influence. 😊
@nickash3000
Жыл бұрын
Thanks! I am hoping more people will examine the evidence for themselves.
@loafofbreade
Жыл бұрын
Great video as always Nick!
@nickash3000
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@keano1457
Жыл бұрын
2 weeks ago nick ash appared in my kitchen and put a slice of cheese in my fridge. well, it wasnt 2 weeks ago, it was yesterday. and it wasnt nick ash, it was me. and i didnt put it there, i ate it. thats how i see how much those gospels work with each other.
@nickash3000
Жыл бұрын
I can’t wait to see how the apologists will harmonize these accounts.
@Tyneo4231
8 ай бұрын
Been looking for this fir a while!
@nickash3000
6 ай бұрын
I hope it met your expectations!
@ts8960
2 ай бұрын
Thx for this research
@ct8888
6 ай бұрын
Great presentation but you forgot on luke and acts ascension accounts luke has him ascending the first day after appearing to the disciples after hes resurrected and in acts he ascends after spending forty days teaching the disciples after his resurrection
@nickash3000
6 ай бұрын
Yes! This one is especially strange because Luke and Acts are attributed to the same author. Apologists will argue that there’s a time skip somewhere in Luke 24 (for instance, between verses 49 and 50), but of course the text does not suggest this at all. You’re right: I could have included this in my presentation.
@sabin1166
8 ай бұрын
In other words, everyone can interpret them according to one's beliefs.
@nickash3000
6 ай бұрын
Is that what you took from my presentation? I mean, yes, that is true to an extent, but some interpretations require you to stretch the meaning of the text.
@ts8960
2 ай бұрын
The four Gospels provide different accounts of the inscription placed on the cross during the crucifixion of Jesus: Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews." Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews." John 19:19: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
@ts8960
2 ай бұрын
which voice AI did u use
@eddiehathcock-cw9nv
11 ай бұрын
Luke and the acts of the apostles are one book . Written by one man . These books were separated in the mid 1500 I believe. . But originally Luke and acts are one long book written to a man in order to explain the position of the assembly through an account of everything understood by Luke
@nickash3000
11 ай бұрын
I think they were always seen as distinct volumes, since the opening verse of Acts says, “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do…” However, I agree that the books were meant to form a single narrative.
@eddiehathcock-cw9nv
11 ай бұрын
@@nickash3000 ok
@koppite9600
11 ай бұрын
If they contradict, it still doesn't class Christianity as false, or the resurrection as a lie. What's important is the tradition flowing from the disciples and till today. The tradition says Christ rose from the dead.
@nickash3000
11 ай бұрын
Ancient traditions can be important to a believing community, and to a person’s identity as a member of that community, but those traditions don’t have much value as evidence of what really happened. Contemporaneous accounts could (at least, in principle) provide us with real first-hand testimony. Later generations could only pass down what they were told; they can’t corroborate. So how does tradition help us here?
@koppite9600
11 ай бұрын
@@nickash3000 I don't get your point very well. The evidence is overwhelming given the time it's covering. Isn't it suspicious to continue to ask for more when it is doing better than other histories from its time? From the nature of the new testament, it is (evidently) self proving. 4 gospels and many Pauline letters to see. Plus the church fathers of that time.
@nickash3000
11 ай бұрын
What evidence are you referring to? How can the books of the Bible be “self-proving,” and what do you mean by saying it is “doing better than other histories”? I am looking at the Gospels, and trying to discover whether they make a coherent, consistent claim. The Church Fathers come along in later centuries; they can’t corroborate the claims of the Gospels.
@koppite9600
11 ай бұрын
@@nickash3000 The gospels are different books trying to explain Jesus. They can be used to corroborate each other. Add Paul's letters which were before the gospels. Church fathers wrote as early as the 1st century. They can be relied upon. Clement for example, he was 3rd Pope. We have Polycarp, student of St John the disciple, Ignatius of Antioch.. lived with the very first church and he wrote. Christian history is very rich.
@nickash3000
11 ай бұрын
The Gospels are not the testimony of apostles; they’re the end result of decades of storytelling, decades in which the stories continually developed and changed. The Gospels can’t corroborate each other, since they’re not independent sources: the writers copied from one another, and drew from the same oral tradition. This notion of a direct line from the apostles to the church fathers seems to have elements of legend too. For instance, Polycarp himself never claims to have known John the Apostle; Irenaeus starts to make this claim after Polycarp’s death. As for St. Paul, check out Parts II and III in this series for some of my further thoughts.
@ShamanicSavant
Жыл бұрын
I'm sure you'll remove this comment, so this is for your own understanding. The first 3 or "synoptic" gospels represent the reincarnation cycle and all religions preceding Christianity. Each ends in ascension and each is followed by yet another gospel. The details differ slightly but the underlying pattern is exactly the same. The gospel of John is different in the same way Christianity differs from all previous religions, it ends not in ascension, but resurrection. Instead of being followed by yet another gospel, it's followed by the Acts of resurrection and eventually the raising of the dead. What most people never realize is that WE are the dead being raised to Life by destroying the false reality and death cult we "live" in. Your church won't tell you that, but the Bible does if you know how to interpret it properly. The Bible is about YOU and what you're going thru in this world. The world created in Genesis isn't Life, it's a false reality disguising death as Life, aka the "death cult" ruled by Satan, or Saturn. It's your own intellect that convinces you this world is real, and it does it by suppressing your intuition... Cain killing Abel. I call it a false reality with a real purpose, and the purpose is to create diversity out of unity thru division. It's where our individuality comes from, and Genesis tells you how it's created within your own imagination. The underlying structure the universe and all it contains is built upon is musical, and follows well known laws of harmony and musical principles. The 7 days of creation are the diatonic scale in the key of C major. It's the only key where the 7 whole tones and 5 semi tones are grouped together separately... Heaven and Hell, God and Man, our subjective and objective states of consciousness. I don't want to get too detailed because what really matters is knowing this is all about YOU and what you're going thru here. The bible is a "bibliography" a collection of books about the same subject. In order to understand it, you need to know the subject... YOU. If you try to interpret it any other way, you'll always be guessing at what it really means. You have to see it thru intuition, the same intuition being suppressed by your intellect. You can absolutely prove this to yourself WITHIN you, and that's the ONLY way because your entire external reality is a lie. Your intellect or "Satan" is the deceiver, your intuition or "Christ" is the redeemer. "Scripture" is a method of hiding the truth in plain sight, it is concealed to our intellect and revealed by our intuition. Our intuition doesn't come back until the Gospel of John. John following Jesus is your own intellect deferring to the vastly superior intelligence of intuition. Collectively we are going thru the book of Revelations right now. All this draconian cult BS is our collective intellect attempting to keep our intuition suppressed because your intuition will expose the truth. Our death cult leaders or the "Synagogue of Satan" are profiting greatly from a cult that keeps them in power, and they're losing control of the cult. The reason they're losing control is because our intuition is welling up from within us. They can try to stomp it down from the outside, but they won't be successful because our intuition is an infinitely superior intelligence and will subjugate our intellect when they meet in our Heart. This is what's happening in Revelations, and it will utterly destroy this false reality pretending to be Life to reveal the real Life we've never known in this world. Best of luck in the trying times ahead, and peace be with you :)
@nickash3000
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@craigsmith1443
Жыл бұрын
This is a clear example of the reason that Karl Popper told his readers not to do confirmation research: if you have a position to 'prove,' you will 'prove' it even if you have to make arguments up or leave facts out. For example, Paul was writing about 20 years after Jesus died (about AD 55), and he quoted material that was older than his writing, so the gospels may have been compiled at the end of the first century, but as Nick points out without realizing the importance of what he says, there was information circulating before Luke wrote his account. Did the 'writer' not actually witness the events? So? _Band of Brothers_ was not published by an eyewitness, either, but it's good history, for eyewitnesses contributed their information to the account. So with Paul, for whom people who had witnessed Jesus were yet alive. And JOhn's 'contradiction' in John 21 is not so. You've never written in the third person? Then you've never written a lab report. 'The disciples of Jesus did not speak Greek' but Aramaic says Nick, without reference to the fact that all the Roman world, including Judea, spoke Greek and that 'illiterate fisherman' (does he know that all the disciples were 'illiterate,' including Jews for whom reading the Torah was essential and universally taught?) spoke Greek. John, in fact, is written in quite simple Greek with many Aramaisms in it, as an Aramaic-speaking native would do in Greek As a Second Language (and surely you're not going to say that nobody without a university education can speak more than one language?). About 'who visited the tomb,' I refer you to _Wittgenstien's Poker_ by Edmonds and Eidinow, in which they show that eyewitnesses to an argument between Wittgenstein and Popper couldn't agree on the details. The accounts of the tomb, then, bear the marks of actual eyewitnesses. They are not contradictions that disqualify the accounts. No, Nick, I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold up.
@nickash3000
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for commenting! I discuss the Apostle Paul in the second episode of this series (which is not released yet). Of course, I agree with you that there was information about Jesus prior to the Gospels. The question is, how can we tell which details are historical and which are legendary? Yes, even a fictionalized account can incorporate historical information (as in your Band of Brothers example)-but how do we know that’s what happened here? With Band of Brothers, we can examine actual eyewitness accounts and compare them with the TV program. In the case of Jesus, we don’t have the original accounts; we have only the stories that were collected decades later. There are differing views on whether a Galilean fisherman would know any Greek. You are right that Greek was used all over the Roman world, but I’m not sure anybody was speaking it in rural fishing villages. (Galilee is not Judea.) Anyway, in Acts, Peter and John are described as “agrammatoi” which can be translated as “unschooled” or “illiterate.” The Greek in John’s Gospel may be “simple” but the book is a literary masterpiece; I’m not convinced that an unschooled Galilean wrote it, especially in the absence of any evidence. Yes, the Gospels have some literary devices or expressions that point to an Aramaic source. For me, that shows they are rooted in oral tradition, going back to the early Jesus movement. But that tells us nothing at all about which details came from eyewitnesses and which were fictitious embellishments. As for John 21, you missed my point at 7:06. The issue here is not the use of the third person (“This is the disciple”). The issue is that someone else, speaking in the first person, comments on the account (“We know that his testimony is true”). If the book was written by John, who left that comment? Yes, I agree with you that eyewitness accounts may differ. I made that point myself at 9:58, when I talked about four different people going to a party and noticing different events. But did you watch the whole video, or did you only get to the part where the women visit the tomb? A few minor inconsistencies are to be expected, but as the story goes on and the contradictions keep piling up, one starts to suspect there is something wrong.
@nickash3000
11 ай бұрын
The second and third parts of the series are now available. I hope you will check them out and let me know your thoughts.
Пікірлер: 42