Last Week of Jesus- Saturday

 

This video looks at Jesus’ last days through personal eyewitnesses. It will give you a new perspective on what occurred.

 

 

25 thoughts on “Last Week of Jesus- Saturday

  1. If you watch the video these are accounts of those who were with Jesus. There is poetic license here as this is not words straight from scripture but maintain the heart of it.

  2. The whole video is poetic licence. We have no records from ‘personal eye witnesses’ at all. Not even the gospels which weren’t attributed to the names they bear till at least 185ce. It’s dishonest to say so

    1. The earliest fragments we have date around 125. That does not mean there were not earlier manuscripts that we have not found. I do think these authors wrote or dictated the books that bear their names. The early church verified this through early church fathers writings and their own meetings to discuss canonicity. You want proof of earlier manuscripts and I can’t produce them. It doesn’t mean that what we have found that dates to second century is not from even earlier sources.

      1. The church did not attribute the gospels to Matt mark Luke and John till at least 185ce. They were not written by them but by later Greek speaking Christians decades later. It’s only faith that you believe they were. Not evidence.

      2. We don’t have much empirical evidence tray would satisfy a skeptic. Faith is involved. No doubt.we so have early church fathers who quote the New Testament that would have been connected to the apostles. Ignatius and Clement are two that I refer too. Ignatius of Antioch is our best source.

        Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.) was a student of the Apostle John. KIA he had a direct connection with the apostles. He was martyred, killed by Lions in the arena in Rome. After his arrest and during his transportation to Rome, he wrote seven letters . The letters of Ignatius, written very close to 107 A.D., quote from several New Testament books. . This is not at all an exhaustive list, just representative of books Ignatius uses.

        Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians

        2 – John 8:29
        3 – John 17:11-12
        5 – James 4:6
        6 – names Onesimus, as in Philemon
        6 – John 1:14
        7 – 1 Tim 4:10
        8 – 1 Pet 2:9
        9 – Matt 5:2, 2 Tim 2:24-25, Luke 23:34
        11 – Rom 2:4
        12 – Matt 23:35, Acts 9:15
        13 – Eph 6:16, 6:12
        14 – Luke 10:27, Matt 12:33
        15 – 1 Cor 4:20, Rom 10:10, 2 Cor 8:18
        16 – 2 Cor 6:14-16
        18 – 1 Cor 1:20

      3. You are fillabustering and blowing smoke. Faith is all you have, not evidence. Faith and trust that the Fathers are telling the truth.
        Cutt thru the B’s (blown smoke) and you get your admission that you have no evidence that the gospels were written by anyone who was a ‘personal eyewitness’ of the last week of Jesus.
        You video is more than poetic licence, but religious propaganda and dishonest representation

      4. Like I said my studies show hat the early church fathers saw these writings as authoritative and the early church later confirmed it as the Canon. I am not filibustering or blowing smoke. I am saying that I have enough there to verify my faith. You of course don’t have to watch the video or give credence to it. Many other scholars would agree with me and place their faith in the veracity and authority of the gospels.

      5. What you have is opinions and faith. No evidence. And alot of appeals to authority.
        One of the things that really made me search even more was the appeal to authority and numbers when the answers… I mean real answers. . we’re lacking.
        It is not incumbant for those who doubt, to present a case to prove the negative when the positive claim admittedly has no evidence. I don’t care how many scholars agree with your faith, it’s still just Faith without evidence.
        The gospels were not written by ‘personal eyewitnesses’ and they were not attributed to Matt mark Luke and John untill at least 185, well after their deaths and the deaths of any others who might have actually been eyewitnesses. That is what the evidence we have shows.

      6. You weren’t talking about attestation of the gospels. You said “personal eyewitnesses” you and I both know that none of the gospels or acts were titled with names nor did their authors claim to be who they were later attributed to. They were written decades later by Greek speaking Christians possibly in different countries , not the “personal eyewitesses” to the last week of jesus

      7. would have been? it’s fiction. you have not evidence that they were. it’s poetic licence as you said or propaganda as i said, but not evidence. you are now saying these ‘would have’ been eyewitnesses, but you don’t ‘know’ that. you ‘believe’ and have ‘faith’ that they would have been. how willing are you to play around with definitions here? the video is christian fiction created to give an impression that isn’t true. lying in service of the gospel is still lying.

      8. And KIA I don’t discount faith. Hebrews 11:6 tells me I cannot please God without faith. I believe in Him even without certain empirical data. I make no apologies for saying that ultimately it is by faith that I live.

  3. Like I said KIA. You advent caught me in anything by saying I have faith. I might see a chair sitting there with four legs and a beautiful shine to it but it still takes faith for me to sit in it with my whole weight. I believe the evidence points to the veracity of Scripture. My greatest hope is faith in what the words say about God and me. You attack my faith as if it is weakness. Faith is crucial to me.

    1. “Faith is crucial to me.”
      ————-
      as it once was for me too, brother. but faith is not evidence, regardless of what hebrews 11:! says.
      my majoy issue was when you tried to say that the video portrays ‘personal eyewitness’ testimony. even when you modified it later with saying it portrayed what those eyewitnesses ‘would have said’
      neither of those are true or evidenced by what we have as the source documents of actual history.
      you are correct. you have the freedom to have faith that it is the case, but you don’t have the freedom to say it actually IS the case without evidence. that would be dishonest.
      i’m not attacking your faith that it’s true. i’m pointing out that you don’t have evidence that what you have Faith in, is actually and Historically True.
      -KIA

      1. But the flip side is not necessarily true either. Just because we don’t have videoing of Matthew writing the gospel doesn’t mean he didn’t. Even if an emanuensis wrote it for him it still very well could be from him. The passing down of stories through oral tradition was common in that day. Not a lot of writing and no printer presses to make more. Just because evidence only goes back to second century in no way means the New Testament is not accurate. Lack of evidence does not prove it wrong. Peter, Judas, and John were eyewitnesses. My authority is the bible and it says they were. I feel no need to qualify he statement

      2. “Just because we don’t have videoing of Matthew writing the gospel doesn’t mean he didn’t. ”
        do you believe everything on the basis of not being able to prove the negative or is it just useful in ‘filling the gaps’ in evidence left by your Faith’s pronouncements and assertions?
        i think it would be very difficult to get thru all the schooling and education you have with that kind of a mindset.
        basically, as it was once for me, you faith is in the assertions and declarations of others you submit to as authoritative… mostly because you have been told they are by others you have believe to be authoritative, because they told you they were… and so on and so forth (insert infinite regression here).
        but the problem i found is that assertions, pronouncements, arguments for, and authoritative attestations to historical happening that have no historical evidence are even worse that weak. they are dishonest and manipulative.
        “lack of evidence does not prove it wrong”? don’t you see that as backward thinking when dealing with the question of whether it actually is True? you don’t presuppose what you will, then hold to it unless proven wrong. you leave yourself open to so much confirmation bias that way it’s not even funny. you stop thinking that way and just believe what you are told to believe that way, whether it’s actually true or not. you are smarter than that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s