If I could just summarize Milwaukee's arguments in one simple sentence: "They didn't write exactly the way we do today, so it doesn't count as legit." Let's keep in mind that these are writers from almost 2000 years ago in a very different part of the world with a very different relational/cultural practice.
Usually then skeptics will follow up with something like "well then why didn't they write with modern audiences in mind, surely if God is behind them then they would have the foreknowledge to do so!" which is a very silly objection; you're telling me religious works made for ALL people across ALL times should be written specifically and solely for us in the current year? Atheists love to talk about how Theists make humans out to be more important than they are, but this argument seems to consider modern humans in particular the most important thing ever apparently lol.
As an African who is one generation removed from the oral tradition, I can't see what the argument against the gospel is. If I was writing the gospel I would probably do it like they do
The craziest thing when I see these repeated, weak arguments is that the people making them always seem to act like they're shedding the light on something no one else has figured out. In general, if you're reading the bible as a believer or non-believer, and you think you've determined something new and different, then you're probably wrong, and at the very least you should see what critics have already said about your "new" understanding or interpretation.
The worst part is when they're so smug and condescending about their "new" objection to the gospels, as if they have an intellect the size of west Montana simply because they trot out these recycled tired arguments with confidence, then when you point out the answered to their argument, they ignore it, repeat themselves until the Christian leaves, and declare victory in the name of atheism.
"Them always seem to act like they're shedding the light on something no one else has figured out" I feel the same. Here in Brazil we have some channels doing things like these, and they always act like "wow, no one told you that! The truth that preachers hide!" and so on. We even have mythicists, and always with old arguments, like Inuki said. They act as if they were shaking the structures with good arguments. I don't know whether to find it funny or feel embarrassed for them.
You're so right. People have dedicated their entire lives and minds to studying scriptures, since 2000 years ago. Centuries of millions and millions of people diligently studying every single facet of them. They dedicated themselves to them in a way that we can't fathom in our overloaded, overstimulated world of endless distractions. But trust me, some redditor who weighs less than his girlfriend has found a new insight that will absolutely DESTROY the theists!!
On one side of their mouth they say, since the gospels don’t match, they contradict eachother…and then in places where they do match, they say they were plagiarized This is a heart issue
They have a very high standard of scepticism with regards to the bible but will believe anything that is against it hook line and sinker. They can quickly point out the supposedly contradiction of the bible but can't see the contradiction on the logic they are presenting against the bible.
"Heads I win, tails you lose." A lot of new-atheists seem really like these kind of "I win no matter what" fallacious arguments. And as a former new-atheist myself, I can attest to how I used to actually consider that kind of thinking somehow reasonable and convincing.
@@fearlesswee5036 just now seeing this comment, but would love to hear a quick summary of how you moved from new-atheism to whatever you identify as now? I’m a Christian by the way, just honestly curious and hope to be encouraged by your story.
@@stealths15like how people post any x celebration or holiday is actually pagan and run with it. Like Yule and Christmas despite a 6th century scribe stating Yule was moved to coincide with the Christian holiday.
@@TestifyApologetics I think a lot of it plays into mordern sensibilities, like always wanting to be the main character. These days people almost always want to be the center of attention so they can't imagine that someone would humble themselves and not make a big deal about them being involved, let alone that being the genre style. But it is amazing how many people bring up complaints like this without even considering that the same could be levied about biographies now and people don't. The complaint about formal anonymity being one. Often when writing a biography nowadays the author remains formally anonymous. The only way that you know who wrote it being the front cover. I get a lot of very confused atheists when I point this one out.
@@euanthompson you're definitely right about that. People need to stop trying to be the main character. Because I am. I'm the main character and you're all my NPCs!!
"If an apostle wrote a document, it would automatically be accepted as scripture." He literally says with the names of multiple books listed on the screen claiming to be written by apostles, yet were not accepted as scripture.
The actual criteria the early church used to determine scripture included that, but also included other things: 1 Was it written by an Apostle (New Testament)? or Was it in widespread Jewish use (Old Testament)? 2. Was it in widespread Christian use? 3. Was it free of contradictions to church teachings?
Back in the time they knew what was written by the apostles. As long as they were living they could just ask them, and after their death there couldn't be new scriptures.
I did the typical spiral down atheist apologetics channels five years ago. I remember how these guys rocked my faith among many others. Amazing what God can show to you when you grow in knowledge. Thank you Erik
I used to listen to a lot of them before and after my faith to see if I was deluding myself. And while I don't believe in ultimate scientific proof for or against God I do believe there's strong arguments for God and of course my own personal relationship with God. However, when I began to hear the counter arguments and how the atheists would leave stuff out, contextually, historically, geographically, etc. It became apparent to me that either the atheists were one of two things. Either it was deliberate and deceitful and therefore they can't be trusted, or it was just their bias that keeps them misinformed and then again can't be trusted. My favorite one they bring up is how evil the bible is because it talks about beating your slave in the old testament (as if the old testament is even the standard for God's morality) and if the slave dies they owe a fine and if the slave does not die then no harm no foul basically. But ignore how two verses later it talks about if you beat your slave and harm them they're allowed to go free. So they're deliberately or ignorantly using this to pry on people's emotions while also ignoring how historically Christianity has led the charge in freeing slaves world wide.
@@udoaver9726 there doesnt have to be scientific proof for God because science is for the realm of natural reality, the existence of God is a philosophical not a scientific debate
It's really weird that Milwaukee Atheist are so hung up on the gospel authors not speaking in the 1st person. Essentially zero scientific papers are written in the first person (instead using words like "the author" as if the author of the paper is somehow not the person writing the paper) but we don't question their authenticity or authorship based on that.
"None of the Gospel authors even claim to be eyewitnesses". John 21:24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about those things, and we know that his testimony is true." Luke 1:1-4 "In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." The ironic part is that the person in the video also mentioned those exact same passages, and gave his reasons why he doesn't think it proves that they were based on eyewitnesses, while at the same time saying at the beginning that the Gospels themselves don't even claim to be based on eyewitnesses. Weird.
All these documents must have been written by eyewitnesses too because they say so! The Apocryphon of James "Since you asked that I send you a secret book which was revealed to me and Peter by the Lord,....I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me." Gospel of Peter 60 "But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord-" Gospel of Thomas prologue "Here are the [secret] words which Jesus the Living spoke an[d which were transcribed by Didymus Jude] Thomas." Gospel of the Ebionites in Epiphanius Panarion 30.13.2-3 "There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, who chose us." The Gospel of the Savior B 101 "Then the world became as darkness before us, the apostles. We became as [those] in the [im]mortal aeons, with our [eyes] traversing all the aeons and clothed with the [power] of our apostleship" Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1 "I Thomas, an Israelite, write you this account"
John 21 is saying that the writer got their information from the totally legit guy who says he was with Jesus and saw everything. It isn't saying that the disciple *IS* the writer. It draws a distinction between them that is very clear: *"WE* know *HIS* testimony is true." Luke 1 similarly is saying people claimed to be eyewitnesses and the writer is reporting what they told him. A writer saying they got information from someone who said they had been an eyewitness is not the same as the writer being an eyewitness. It's also impossible to test for veracity, so what we have here is alleged hearsay. We can't even verify that it *WAS* hearsay.
Great work Erik! Milwaukee Atheists also made a video talking about the authenticity of the references to Jesus in Josephus which I think you should also make a response to.
@@TestifyApologetics Aw man you gotta check out his arguements against the 5 ways of Saint Thomas Aquinas. As an Episcopalian who considers themself Anglo-Catholic, it infuriates me
Erik, I can't thank you enough for making all this content. I've learned so much in the past few months watching your videos and it's helped not only me but also helped me to edify others with the same information. The convenience of having these resources in such an accessible format is truly a Godsend. For that I thank you. God bless you, brother
In the discussion on the synoptics, I've thought on this and instantly came up with an analogy. I did a 15 month deployment to Iraq. If someone else from my unit decided to talk to a writer to get a book published on the war (compared to Peter telling John Mark about the ministry of Jesus), then if I wrote my own account I would absolutely use some of the material as they have a different memory from what I recall from the deployment. I would add details based on what I remembered and different possible experiences that I had. Add in the fact that Matthew wasn't there from the very beginning of Jesus' life and ministry it makes a lot of sense that he would use sources from before when he was on the scene.
Right. But here is the kicker: If your writer would have wrote down that Saddam himself walked on water or raised the dead, nobody in his right mind would believe it.
What gets me, is that he says the authours are "clearly not eyewitnesses" but his arguments as such are all essentially "naw bruh" Overstatement of the case, under provision of evidence
How could the authors all be eyewitnesses when the gospels were written many decades later. Also, most of the apostles were illiterate. They couldn't write.
0:20 First and foremost if a contradiction can be Reconciled is it a contradiction at all? no. He said some of the contradictions can be reconciled I wondered if that thought floated in his mind.
Wow, you guys do not split hairs like this when the shoe is on the other foot. God said no homosexuals and he meant no homosexuals, dammit. But all contradictions in the Bible are void under Universalism? That religious take that's considered heresy in many Christian circles? Yeah, no, why wouldn't you cut yourself into the necessary shape to be right when you're already right?
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 Oh, I'm sorry, can Christianity not handle that debate? You're not allowed to talk about it? Plus, I hear ya'll complain every day about homosexuality, so too bad if I blindsided you with the subject. Christians can't stop talking about it.
If i recall correctly, Gospel of Luke doesn't use an "according to". It's historically meant to be a documentary book consist of 2 parts, and if you read it in some area he wrote it in first person perspective. The gospel is the first part, Acts is the second. Its a legit published book at that time
@@bryanhall2860what is your response responding to? Specifically, "Luke is not an eyewitness." Did you intend to reply to another comment? I see very little connection between the OP and your reply.
@@bryanhall2860 Did you watch the video? We know that. Luke made that clear. He gathered eyewitness accounts, kinda like how a cop does to get eyewitnesses for a crime.
Hi Erik, It would be interesting to see a statistic on how frequently would ancient biographers and historians indicate what their sources were. The issue of alleged anonymity cannot help the skeptic at all (because of the points mentioned in your video among others), but the skeptic could come back and claim that although many ancient historians do not mention their names in their work, they cited what their sources were nonetheless, in contrast to the Gospels. So knowing how frequently ancient historians and biographers would cite their sources (or indicate what the sources were) would be a useful tool when doing a comparative analysis with the Gospels. I have not looked at this recently, but from my recollection, I don't think that even this would undermine Gospel authorship and reliability.
It funny how critics of the gospel all of a sudden lose their ability to understand literary/narritive tools, as if the gospels should be written in the same manner as a modern history text book.
True. I also often heard or read "the gospels are not biographies" until I read a doctoral thesis on the matter, called "The gospels as ancient biographies" 😂 which very much proved that the gospels indeed follow the literary tradition of ancient biographies. The authors definitely wanted to write history and they did so with the means and in the style of their time.
Erik, you’ve helped me IMMENSELY with preaching about His kingdom. (God’s kingdom). These videos have helped me have more evidence for the Gospels, and also gave me an insight on how other religions debate. Thank you, Erik.
Use Chat Gpt to make the notes it can save you time. RUclips also has a transcript. You can access it by clicking on the three dots just under the video where it will say 'Show Transcript'. Hope that helps.
You have the perfect cutscenes though out this entire video, which adds a level of… I don’t know, if I was Italian I’d do the finger tip kiss thing. That said, thank you for your ministry. Apologetics have done more for my faith and boldness to speak than the past 15 years I’ve been going to church.
Re Markian authorship: Mark was writing from the oral account/sermons of Peter. Peter didn't set out to write a Gospel, rather Mark set out to capture Peter's story as he happened to tell it, for use by catechumens. Church tradition holds that Mark was the "rich young ruler" of Matthew 19:16 and the provider of the "upper room" for the Last Supper.
Man these Atheists really need some new arguments, I’ve seen you debunk these same points time and time again that I would quote your arguments from your old video before you even reacted lol. Especially the point about writing in the 3rd person…the amount of times we had to debunk that lol, great video
I personally don't understand the appeal of being proud of being an atheist. As a weak agnostic, I find the uncertainty of ever being certain somewhat frustrating, especially when I'm hoping for some form of certainty. Moreover, the idea of a world without an afterlife seems unappealing to me. The thought of this possibility is not something I relish.
Even “atheistic” science says nothing is destroyed, just recycled. ironically. God doesn’t hide it from us, birth/death in its different forms is literally an essential part of creation. Cycles upon cycles. Add in the “ether,” or the electromagnetic spectrum and there’s our glimpse at ETHERnity. It’s right in front of us, don’t over-think it. Just be objective and prove things we can actually observe/measure/repeat in reality. Cycles are everywhere and are a testament to God’s masterful creation. Undying death, it’s such an incredible mechanism. Don’t let men or religion warp you, be yourself and praise God above all. That’s true wisdom, God wants us to question things. The Bible even says it. However the arguing and sectarian nature of religion is a big turn off. Religion killed God incarnate as Jesus. Don’t deify any man or manuscript. That’s idolatry. Even if we knew the Bible’s entire process of being created 1,000% as soon as you deify it, that’s idolatry and unfortunately many Christians do this, even unknowingly. God understands our plight better than we do. He understands we physically can’t prove so many things, especially historical events because we’re finite in this human form. Add in evil, lies, obfuscation, and it makes things that much more impossible. “Prove all things, hold on to that which is good.” One of the best Biblical understandings to live by. We are encouraged to learn and question God’s amazing wonders. I’m personally a non-religious Christian because I accept there must be a creator. More specifically then I accept my sin and fallible nature and I put my faith solely on God. If he also truly came as a man in the form of Jesus and did the things described in the Bible, it makes me love him even more because that whole mechanism of redemption makes perfect sense as well.
That's precisely the appel. The appeal is "I hold a worldview that is frustrating because I'm strong enough to admit the bitter truth". I know that because I spent some years in agnosticism, until I started studying (by actually reading and talking to people who actually read) arguments for God's existence, and arguments for God's properties, not just atheist caricatures of the arguments.
These videos are great. They present the argument of the opposite side showing the unbiased nature of apologetics and then also refuting them, allowing for solid rebuttals of arguments. You the man!
These lies and doubts about the Gospels have been asked and answered since the 1st century. The devil leads the atheist; and he has no new tricks; hence, old heresy popping up every few hundred years
Excellent video! I have a question I'm hoping you could help me with. As a Christian I have always been bothered by one thing.... What happened to Joseph? Why do we see no mention of his death (this seems like it would be VERY significant). It makes my skeptical ears stand on end.....The charges of adultery against Mary, writings in the text that show Joseph intended to divorce her, all of these things and then all of a sudden he's just missing entirely from the text. This seems extremely odd to me. I get in a mindset sometimes that thinks "man...maybe there was adultery....and Joseph left and to distance themselves from this, the writer just choose to not speak about it at all." Lord...forgive me and help me with my skepticism... I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject. Thanks for all your amazing work brother.
@@TestifyApologetics I understand and I love Lydia, I just got her new book Testimonies yesterday after seeing your (and Sean Mcdowells) recommendation. My faith in the trueness of Christ drives to your same conclusion but the skeptic in me can't resolve the strangeness of this omission in the text. None of the gospel writings record it even though Jospeh is mentioned throughout them. We can come to a conclusion based on other factors that Joseph died but do you agree with me that it does seem strange that there is no mention of it when it appears all other deaths and resurrections are well recorded. I grant that the deaths mentioned are usually in context of a resurrection so it's a showing of signs and wonders but I can't shake this. Maybe this is "skepticism from silence" but I really do struggle with this. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll be sure to check out Hidden in plain view.
There's no mention of Mary's death in the book of Acts, although it almost certainly happened by 60 AD, the time the book closes (Mary would be atleast 75 years old by then, life expectancy was lower). So why should Joseph's death be recorded in the gospels, especially if it was before the beginning of Jesus' public ministry? Joseph is certainly around during the visit to the Temple 12 years later, and even during His public ministry, Jesus is known by the locals in Nazareth in connection to Joseph - "Isn't this the son of the carpenter?". A straightforward reading of the text would imply that Joseph and Mary had several children after Jesus - four sons and an unknown number of daughters. There's every indication they had a normal, happy marriage.
7:57 even though I’m still highly skeptical of the gospels, I can’t stand this objection because if I recall correctly Jesus wasn’t many the only person predicating the temple’s destruction. If the White House or The Statue of Liberty was destroyed in the future year of 2040 and we went by this logic then either movies like Ghost Busters 2,2012, Independence Day, Planet of the Apes, etc where either written after 2040 or their writers has miraculous insight to the future
The strange thing to me is that if all the gospels were later than 70 AD why did never anyone add a comment to these prophecies like "And thus it happened under the reign of Vespasian" or sth. like that. Why make up a fulfilled prophecy but don't explicitly say that it has been fulfilled (like Matthew does with many OT prophecies)?
John 19:23-24 'When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, “They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.” - Ps. 22:18 So this is what the soldiers did.' Given that this pericope is told specifically in order to "fulfill scripture" (Psalm 22:18) then how do you know the author wasn't just interpreting the Psalm more literally than the synoptic authors? That's why the author has a separate treatment for the clothing vs the garment. This type of literary freedom doesn't necessarily rely on eyewitness testimony though.
Why does John's "eyewitness account" from John 18:28-19:11 record a totally different exchange between Pilate and Jesus where Jesus speaks a whole lot when the synoptic version barely has Jesus say anything at all during the trial scene?
well, a logical answer would be the things recorded in both happened. Analogy would be, i walk outside with an ice cream cone, it drops and i scream. 1 person says, i walked outside with an icecream cone, a 2nd person says i walked outside with an ice cream cone AND it dropped; making me scream. They would both be correct. Also I've heard that John was urged to write a Gospel, and ( think testify stated this in one of his videos) he was in Jesus inner circle so he knew things, and ( I think) wanted to write a Gospel different from the others. again I'm not certain so take this as you will, but yeah.
@TP The Free Thinker so if physical proof = someone else writing down that they physically seen them write it, then I’d say we we don’t need that to show traditional authorship, the attestation we have is sufficient to show they wrote the gospels. Because of how far away and far apart in time people were claiming that Matthew mark Luke and John wrote them, which makes collaboration less likely. Also the fact that there is no dissenting views on who wrote the gospels makes it less likely no one knew who wrote them at the time. Another thing is that non disciples were named as the authors which isn’t something you would want to do if you want to give them credibility. One final point is if they were just slapping names on books they didn’t know the authors of Why did they leave the book of Hebrews without one? This shows they were actually looking for authors and actually had some idea who wrote them. I didn’t know what you meant when you said original, for a second I thought you meant the gospels are copied of early gospels we don’t have anymore so I got confused. But I think I know what you mean now, if I’m right you’re talking about the original manuscripts? If that’s the case I do t think we need that either. I believe the evidence and general points I laid out is sufficient, obviously there’s more points one could make but I think I summed it up.
@charles4208 I don't get why atheists attack this notion of not having the originals as though having loads of copies is a bad thing. Even critical scholar Erhman believes that if we want to know what the original gospels said , we just read the bible we have today. Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252): Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
While I doubt John (and possibly Matthew) were literate or educated enough in Greek to write their gospels directly, I don’t see why someone else who was literate in Greek couldn’t have written the gospels for them, under their direction. As a theist who is currently agnostic about Christianity and exploring it, it’s not important to me whether John or Matthew literally sat down with the pen in their own hand to write every word - it’s more important where the information itself came from.
"don't read like eyewitness accounts". The Gospels were purposefully written in a literary 3rd person style because 1) that was the style for writing such things at the time and 2) because Matthew-Luke were written for catechumens and John for a theological argument. We can't expect them to be written like 21st century American documents! What would be useful would be to compare them to other first-century comparable documents.
Your analysis and refutation are right on point. And anyone familiar with the Christian case-maker, J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective, knows he applied FBI Forensic Eye Witness analysis to the Gospels and concluded they fit well with eyewitness testimony. I believe a Christian after this analysis. I trust him more than a 'smart' RUclipsr and even some scholars.
Many many times I write in the third person, hell even in my own work when I write clinical reports I write in the third person, and that is intentional so that someone else can understand who are the parties involved. I rarely will ever write in the first person, and it may even come down as a personal preference, but if Matthew believed he was writing down what could be potentially a divine event, it makes alot of sense that he would not want to center the object of attention on himself, by imploring in "I". Instead, he would separate himself from the story, not draw attention to himself, and simply record the events as they were unfolding. We have to remember, Matthew is a tax collector, he keeps records, he needs to be unbiased and true to the records. It is literally his job to do so. The idea that him speaking in the third person alone is proof alone that he did not write his own gospel is just radically insufficient.
It doesn’t matter who says what about the gospels not being eye witnessed. The facts outweigh that claim so bad it shouldn’t even be brought up anymore. One section of facts are the actual problems, discussions, debates, theories ect that were only around Israel at that time. We know this because other people wrote about them and when they were popular and solved. The conversation Jesus had with the priests about men divorcing their wife was a debate. So was a separate debate about polygamy. Jesus answered both in one statement from the Old Testament. This is why they were all amazed at him and stopped asking him questions cuz they had no response. That’s how Jesus rolls. The scribes even used a lot of His statements later with some still trying to argue them. None of this was happening in any other part of the world until centuries later.
I think what's worse is that when Ex-Christians make objections against the Gospels and the live hood of Christians but in reality is that they either not well educated of understanding the Gospels or left Christianity because of atheist youtubers that they got troubled on how to respond to those objections.
Oh, good heavens! These arguments are atrocious! I can't stand when their "points" being made were refuted more than a millennium ago. 😬😬😬 It's just painful to listen to.
Its extremely common for modern online atheists to attack the very practice of apologetics. So it would stand to reason those who have no respect for a field would be extremely bad at it.
I love when people banter about specific language and forger that theres thousands of languages that have evolved and changed how they work for thousands of years lo
Hi Eric, I have a small question. The Gospel according to St.Mark claims that St.John the Baptist's beheading, and that Herod didn't want to kill him. However, The Gospel according to Mathew states that Herod wanted to kill St.John (However, it later on subtly mentions that Herod was distressed at killing John-though that could be simply because he feared the public). It seems quite odd to me, if they both had access to testimony from Joanna. Thank you and God bless.
This isn't an actual problem if you think about it logically. Herod wanted to kill John because he(John) was messing in Herod's affairs, cramping his style. However, he at the same time didn't want to kill John because he feared the consequences. In the same way, a person may want to rob a bank because they're poor and think getting rich will solve their problems, but at the same time not want to rob a bank because if they get caught, the consequences will outweigh the pros.
Isn't it true that people can want and not want things a thing for a slew of reasons? A man wants to eat the pastries, but he is lactose intolerant. Therefore he may at the same time not want to eat the pastries. Herod if I recall correctly desired to kill John the Baptist, but for one another feared the possible repercussions; or who knows, maybe the judgement of God for killing a prophet. Therefore he at once wants the Baptist dead, but doesn't necessarily want to kill him either.
17:39 Okay most of the evidence you point out is really good but This part is like.... I don't even want to listen to that Milwaukee guy anymore; horribly out of context.
15:57 Neither St. Augustine nor St. Clement the Stromatist admit St. Mark wrote first. a) both admit St. Peter was first b) I don't know how St. Augustine explains the similarities c) St. Clement says St. Luke actually wrote second, and then went to St. Peter to get it vetted, where the First Pope who already knew Matthew held up both Gospels side by side, read from both, marvelling at the good match, and added some comments of his own too, while his amanuensis, St. Mark, wrote it down, thinking St. Peter was dictating a Gospel. Thereon _both_ Mark and Luke were approved.
The term ‘fundamentalist’ has become a mostly useless term-I generally try to avoid using it altogether. There are folks theologically to the right of me and there are folks theologically to the left of me. Calling those to my right “fundamentalists” has little value except as a pejorative. Most especially, calling those who (more or less) subscribe to traditional authorship for the gospels fundamentalists is rather disingenuous. Take Richard Bauckham. While he subscribes to traditional authorship for Mark and Luke, his views on Matthew and John are more complicated, though still more conservative than what Milwaukee Atheists describe. Alvin Plantinga describes the term rather humorously in a couple of his books, “We must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a bitch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’.”
If I thought this was the only life, I hope I wouldn't waste it generating bad arguments against those who believe otherwise. Perhaps atheist pointless hate has a supernatural origin.
You can sum up most skeptics arguments into a very condensed central idea- "We accept that other ancient writers did the same things, sometimes breaking the 'rules' even harder than the gospels, but because a miracle is impossible as we've never seen it happen, this means that we're going to create a double standard for ancient writing and claim the Gospels can't be trusted for authenticity."
What is crazy about these atheists? They criticize the gospels with details but believe the stupidity of the evolution ignoring the obvious of the evolutionists' claims.
I'm not him, but I think that at least 90 percent of our English bibles are accurate, and there is no major change in Christian doctrine. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is one way you could respond to him.
That's simply false. The base for English translations is the koine text, not some "modern Greek". People should note that Greece didn't really exist at the time of either Luther or King James. It was a part of the Ottoman Empire, the archenemy of the Christian Europe and at least the written language of the late Byzantine Empire was AFAIK not that different from 1st cent Greek (just like 14th-16th century Latin was essentially the same language as 1st century AD). What people also do not realize is that typical differences between the actual old NT manuscripts or codices (i.e. mostly 4th cent. to middle ages, but some fragments as old as 2nd cent.) are utterly trivial without any change of meaning. Like "Jesus answered [him]..." with "him" being in some manuscript but lacking in others.
I'd also point out that if the Gospel names were picked later to bolster their authority/seeming authenticity, the names selected were very odd choices. Mark and Luke were not apostles(why not attribute them to Peter or Paul proper? Rather than their companions). Matthew was an apostle, but a relatively minor one, and also a former tax collector, which would have made him less credible in a lot of people's eyes. John is a name we would 'expect' the church to pick. But John is also the one where we have the most reason to doubt apostolic authorship(I still think it most likely was the disciple, but theres at least reasons to think it might have been a different John).
Hey so pretty big thing here, and I see where I might be confused due to pronouns, but at 17:30 you are saying that Peter asking about “him” is Peter asking about John, when it also may make sense that Peter is asking about Judas, and the “him” used here is at first used for John (“when Peter saw him”) but from there after used for Judas (“Lord, what about him?” now him being Judas) . Can we be sure Peter is not being reminded of John’s question about Judas, rather than Peter asking “what about him?” in reference to John? My logic is, why would Peter be asking “what about John?” when it also makes sense to ask “what about Judas?” especially since John’s question to Christ about the betrayal was just mentioned. However I also see your strong point that by saying “this is the disciple who testifies” it does strongly imply “this disciple” is John throughout the passage, leaving the only question why did Peter ask about John? Out of knowledge John was esteemed? That works for me, but wow have I been reading this passage wrong then!
I think we should stop using Fundamentalist to mean Religious Zealots. Like the root of the word Fundamentalist is "Fundamental". Sorry for the tangent rant.
The problem with these atheist debunk videos are that they are so poorly and badly researched that they wouldn't even pass a basic school project requirements. The misnformation. The misrepresentation and the intent to be dishonest is reeking through most of these videos.
I find it annoying when people claim that Mark's gospel was written first as if it is "gospel" truth (no pun intended). There is a reason why it is often referred to as the synoptic "problem."
I just started giving “Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke” by John Wenham a read, and I agree. We should demand people who make this claim build a case for themselves instead of just repeating “muh scholar consensus,” so people who watch these videos get a grasp of just how mixed the evidence actually is.
@@stevenbatke2475 I would agree with you on this one as a Christian, when looking and these texts that claim miracles it is reasonable to assume the prophecies they contain may actually have been written around the time after the things they claim to predict. Unless it is of course an actual prophetic prediction. But this will hold true for every other religious scripture. And so since neither I the Christian or you the skeptic can definitively prove something that can't be scientifically proven like a miracle because it by definition is outside of our realm of possibilities we cant test it. Long story short using the prophecy to claim a later dating works but can't be definitive. And by default should be used as reality unless you're convinced otherwise from some other means.
I haven't watched the whole thing yet but I don't think the part about their intro being "cringe" is great. First and foremost i don't think it really fulfills the graceful, kind and respectful spirit Peter tells us to have. I am sure they worked hard on that but even if they didn't I don't think it's helpful to stoop to that level. Really it comes off as kind of ad hom. I say all this as someone who is also prone to these same things and loves your channel. Solo Deo Gloria brother! 🙏🏻❤️
These atheist objections aren’t low-hanging fruit that’s easy to pick. They’re fruit that didn’t need to be picked because they’re so rotten they fell off the tree by themselves.
Muh scholars “Mark couldn’t have gotten his information from Peter because he didn’t mention Peter the rock” Wut. This doesn’t even make sense in the own context of his argument. You have the explicit unanimous ancient testimony to Marcan authorship, and your only argument against this is that it doesn’t mention something that happened to Peter according to the other gospels you claim are just redactions of Mark? I question what these people imagine the early Church was like.
Js, most atheist don't care who did or didn't write something, because they don't believe any of it in the first place. These arguments are basically useless for either side
If I could just summarize Milwaukee's arguments in one simple sentence: "They didn't write exactly the way we do today, so it doesn't count as legit."
Let's keep in mind that these are writers from almost 2000 years ago in a very different part of the world with a very different relational/cultural practice.
Usually then skeptics will follow up with something like "well then why didn't they write with modern audiences in mind, surely if God is behind them then they would have the foreknowledge to do so!" which is a very silly objection; you're telling me religious works made for ALL people across ALL times should be written specifically and solely for us in the current year? Atheists love to talk about how Theists make humans out to be more important than they are, but this argument seems to consider modern humans in particular the most important thing ever apparently lol.
As an African who is one generation removed from the oral tradition, I can't see what the argument against the gospel is. If I was writing the gospel I would probably do it like they do
The craziest thing when I see these repeated, weak arguments is that the people making them always seem to act like they're shedding the light on something no one else has figured out. In general, if you're reading the bible as a believer or non-believer, and you think you've determined something new and different, then you're probably wrong, and at the very least you should see what critics have already said about your "new" understanding or interpretation.
The worst part is when they're so smug and condescending about their "new" objection to the gospels, as if they have an intellect the size of west Montana simply because they trot out these recycled tired arguments with confidence, then when you point out the answered to their argument, they ignore it, repeat themselves until the Christian leaves, and declare victory in the name of atheism.
And the real funny thing is that most of this stuff is really old and has thousands of published answers with evidence.
"Them always seem to act like they're shedding the light on something no one else has figured out"
I feel the same. Here in Brazil we have some channels doing things like these, and they always act like "wow, no one told you that! The truth that preachers hide!" and so on. We even have mythicists, and always with old arguments, like Inuki said.
They act as if they were shaking the structures with good arguments. I don't know whether to find it funny or feel embarrassed for them.
You're so right. People have dedicated their entire lives and minds to studying scriptures, since 2000 years ago. Centuries of millions and millions of people diligently studying every single facet of them. They dedicated themselves to them in a way that we can't fathom in our overloaded, overstimulated world of endless distractions.
But trust me, some redditor who weighs less than his girlfriend has found a new insight that will absolutely DESTROY the theists!!
@@Nick-qf7vt Bold of you to assume that redditors have girlfriends.
On one side of their mouth they say, since the gospels don’t match, they contradict eachother…and then in places where they do match, they say they were plagiarized
This is a heart issue
They have a very high standard of scepticism with regards to the bible but will believe anything that is against it hook line and sinker. They can quickly point out the supposedly contradiction of the bible but can't see the contradiction on the logic they are presenting against the bible.
"Heads I win, tails you lose." A lot of new-atheists seem really like these kind of "I win no matter what" fallacious arguments. And as a former new-atheist myself, I can attest to how I used to actually consider that kind of thinking somehow reasonable and convincing.
@@fearlesswee5036 just now seeing this comment, but would love to hear a quick summary of how you moved from new-atheism to whatever you identify as now?
I’m a Christian by the way, just honestly curious and hope to be encouraged by your story.
@@stealths15like how people post any x celebration or holiday is actually pagan and run with it. Like Yule and Christmas despite a 6th century scribe stating Yule was moved to coincide with the Christian holiday.
Sometimes it is worth showing why low hanging fruit is low hanging
And it's surprising how many people are impressed with it and think it's high brow stuff.
@@TestifyApologetics I think a lot of it plays into mordern sensibilities, like always wanting to be the main character. These days people almost always want to be the center of attention so they can't imagine that someone would humble themselves and not make a big deal about them being involved, let alone that being the genre style.
But it is amazing how many people bring up complaints like this without even considering that the same could be levied about biographies now and people don't. The complaint about formal anonymity being one. Often when writing a biography nowadays the author remains formally anonymous. The only way that you know who wrote it being the front cover. I get a lot of very confused atheists when I point this one out.
@@euanthompson you're definitely right about that. People need to stop trying to be the main character.
Because I am. I'm the main character and you're all my NPCs!!
@@TestifyApologetics His video would get _so_ much Reddit gold on /r/atheism.
"If an apostle wrote a document, it would automatically be accepted as scripture." He literally says with the names of multiple books listed on the screen claiming to be written by apostles, yet were not accepted as scripture.
The actual criteria the early church used to determine scripture included that, but also included other things:
1 Was it written by an Apostle (New Testament)? or Was it in widespread Jewish use (Old Testament)?
2. Was it in widespread Christian use?
3. Was it free of contradictions to church teachings?
Back in the time they knew what was written by the apostles. As long as they were living they could just ask them, and after their death there couldn't be new scriptures.
I did the typical spiral down atheist apologetics channels five years ago. I remember how these guys rocked my faith among many others. Amazing what God can show to you when you grow in knowledge. Thank you Erik
I used to listen to a lot of them before and after my faith to see if I was deluding myself. And while I don't believe in ultimate scientific proof for or against God I do believe there's strong arguments for God and of course my own personal relationship with God.
However, when I began to hear the counter arguments and how the atheists would leave stuff out, contextually, historically, geographically, etc. It became apparent to me that either the atheists were one of two things.
Either it was deliberate and deceitful and therefore they can't be trusted, or it was just their bias that keeps them misinformed and then again can't be trusted.
My favorite one they bring up is how evil the bible is because it talks about beating your slave in the old testament (as if the old testament is even the standard for God's morality) and if the slave dies they owe a fine and if the slave does not die then no harm no foul basically. But ignore how two verses later it talks about if you beat your slave and harm them they're allowed to go free. So they're deliberately or ignorantly using this to pry on people's emotions while also ignoring how historically Christianity has led the charge in freeing slaves world wide.
@@udoaver9726 There is evidence of a god or super power but there is no evidence of bible god
Amen
@@udoaver9726 there doesnt have to be scientific proof for God because science is for the realm of natural reality, the existence of God is a philosophical not a scientific debate
How do you know your god showed you anything?
Why should we trust the gospels in your opinion?
These Milwaukee Atheists have used a great many words but still managed to say nothing.
It's really weird that Milwaukee Atheist are so hung up on the gospel authors not speaking in the 1st person. Essentially zero scientific papers are written in the first person (instead using words like "the author" as if the author of the paper is somehow not the person writing the paper) but we don't question their authenticity or authorship based on that.
"None of the Gospel authors even claim to be eyewitnesses".
John 21:24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about those things, and we know that his testimony is true."
Luke 1:1-4 "In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
The ironic part is that the person in the video also mentioned those exact same passages, and gave his reasons why he doesn't think it proves that they were based on eyewitnesses, while at the same time saying at the beginning that the Gospels themselves don't even claim to be based on eyewitnesses. Weird.
Yes, that liar is delusional.
I think they don’t actually read they just take bits and pieces to fit their beliefs and ideologies without checking the facts.
He’s a liar
All these documents must have been written by eyewitnesses too because they say so!
The Apocryphon of James
"Since you asked that I send you a secret book which was revealed to me and Peter by the Lord,....I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me."
Gospel of Peter 60
"But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord-"
Gospel of Thomas prologue
"Here are the [secret] words which Jesus the Living spoke an[d which were transcribed by Didymus Jude] Thomas."
Gospel of the Ebionites in Epiphanius Panarion 30.13.2-3
"There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, who chose us."
The Gospel of the Savior B 101
"Then the world became as darkness before us, the apostles. We became as [those] in the [im]mortal aeons, with our [eyes] traversing all the aeons and clothed with the [power] of our apostleship"
Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1
"I Thomas, an Israelite, write you this account"
John 21 is saying that the writer got their information from the totally legit guy who says he was with Jesus and saw everything. It isn't saying that the disciple *IS* the writer. It draws a distinction between them that is very clear: *"WE* know *HIS* testimony is true."
Luke 1 similarly is saying people claimed to be eyewitnesses and the writer is reporting what they told him.
A writer saying they got information from someone who said they had been an eyewitness is not the same as the writer being an eyewitness. It's also impossible to test for veracity, so what we have here is alleged hearsay. We can't even verify that it *WAS* hearsay.
Great work Erik! Milwaukee Atheists also made a video talking about the authenticity of the references to Jesus in Josephus which I think you should also make a response to.
I'll take a look. Thanks
I've seen some of that response in the past... and even back then, I wasn't impressed...
@@TestifyApologetics Aw man you gotta check out his arguements against the 5 ways of Saint Thomas Aquinas. As an Episcopalian who considers themself Anglo-Catholic, it infuriates me
I feel like this is deja vu with how many arguments we had to cover on our stream last week lol
Yeah when IP reached out I was like "man, that's good timing."
@@TestifyApologetics just curious if there will be a response to kipp and company response to your guys video? Or discussion or debate?
Boyce and Dadpool are likely to have a conversation on someone's channel.
@@TestifyApologetics cool thanks
Erik, I can't thank you enough for making all this content. I've learned so much in the past few months watching your videos and it's helped not only me but also helped me to edify others with the same information. The convenience of having these resources in such an accessible format is truly a Godsend. For that I thank you. God bless you, brother
Glad to help! If it's good it's grace
In the discussion on the synoptics, I've thought on this and instantly came up with an analogy. I did a 15 month deployment to Iraq. If someone else from my unit decided to talk to a writer to get a book published on the war (compared to Peter telling John Mark about the ministry of Jesus), then if I wrote my own account I would absolutely use some of the material as they have a different memory from what I recall from the deployment. I would add details based on what I remembered and different possible experiences that I had. Add in the fact that Matthew wasn't there from the very beginning of Jesus' life and ministry it makes a lot of sense that he would use sources from before when he was on the scene.
Thank you for your service. Maybe you should write a biography of your experiences in Iraq, I bet it would be interesting.
Congrats. You're officially more intelligent and prudent than an atheist!
(Please don't take this as an insult! 😜🤪)
Right. But here is the kicker: If your writer would have wrote down that Saddam himself walked on water or raised the dead, nobody in his right mind would believe it.
Congratulations on the 20K!!!!
Thank you!!
What gets me, is that he says the authours are "clearly not eyewitnesses" but his arguments as such are all essentially "naw bruh"
Overstatement of the case, under provision of evidence
How could the authors all be eyewitnesses when the gospels were written many decades later. Also, most of the apostles were illiterate. They couldn't write.
@@Pushing_Pixels Where'd you get that idea from? Lmao
@@RIS3N1 It's common knowledge if you bother to look into it.
@@Pushing_Pixels If you have to look into it, by very definition it is not common knowledge
@@TheBanjoShowOfficial You don't have to look hard. Start with Google.
0:20 First and foremost if a contradiction can be Reconciled is it a contradiction at all? no. He said some of the contradictions can be reconciled I wondered if that thought floated in his mind.
Yeah they don't say. I'll be doing a 3 part response to Holy Kool-Aid's contradiction videos though hopefully soon
@Testify Kool-aid: 'every math answer on this test is wrong, now, on second look, some of the answers are right and can be resolved.'
Wow, you guys do not split hairs like this when the shoe is on the other foot. God said no homosexuals and he meant no homosexuals, dammit. But all contradictions in the Bible are void under Universalism? That religious take that's considered heresy in many Christian circles?
Yeah, no, why wouldn't you cut yourself into the necessary shape to be right when you're already right?
@@coyoteclockworkstudios3140 ¿1st and foremost who mentioned universalism or homosexuality in the 1st place?
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 Oh, I'm sorry, can Christianity not handle that debate? You're not allowed to talk about it?
Plus, I hear ya'll complain every day about homosexuality, so too bad if I blindsided you with the subject. Christians can't stop talking about it.
If i recall correctly, Gospel of Luke doesn't use an "according to". It's historically meant to be a documentary book consist of 2 parts, and if you read it in some area he wrote it in first person perspective. The gospel is the first part, Acts is the second. Its a legit published book at that time
Luke was not an eye witness to anything in the life of Jesus or his resurrection. What are you talking about?
@@bryanhall2860what is your response responding to?
Specifically, "Luke is not an eyewitness."
Did you intend to reply to another comment? I see very little connection between the OP and your reply.
@@bryanhall2860 Did you watch the video? We know that. Luke made that clear. He gathered eyewitness accounts, kinda like how a cop does to get eyewitnesses for a crime.
Exceptional work bro.
Great video brother, keep up the hard work.
Hi Erik,
It would be interesting to see a statistic on how frequently would ancient biographers and historians indicate what their sources were. The issue of alleged anonymity cannot help the skeptic at all (because of the points mentioned in your video among others), but the skeptic could come back and claim that although many ancient historians do not mention their names in their work, they cited what their sources were nonetheless, in contrast to the Gospels.
So knowing how frequently ancient historians and biographers would cite their sources (or indicate what the sources were) would be a useful tool when doing a comparative analysis with the Gospels.
I have not looked at this recently, but from my recollection, I don't think that even this would undermine Gospel authorship and reliability.
No, it really wouldn't.
Excellent video brother ❤
Thanks ✌️
interesting video brother, God bless and thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
Thank you for this video brother! I fully needed it in my toolbox! 🎉🎉🎉🥰✝️🙌🔥
It funny how critics of the gospel all of a sudden lose their ability to understand literary/narritive tools, as if the gospels should be written in the same manner as a modern history text book.
True. I also often heard or read "the gospels are not biographies" until I read a doctoral thesis on the matter, called "The gospels as ancient biographies" 😂 which very much proved that the gospels indeed follow the literary tradition of ancient biographies. The authors definitely wanted to write history and they did so with the means and in the style of their time.
Erik, you’ve helped me IMMENSELY with preaching about His kingdom. (God’s kingdom). These videos have helped me have more evidence for the Gospels, and also gave me an insight on how other religions debate. Thank you, Erik.
Beautiful work.
Your content is top notch man!
Really great stuff
Your videos are so rich. I'm going to start taking notes on your videos so I can absorb the information better. Very good, as always!
Use Chat Gpt to make the notes it can save you time. RUclips also has a transcript. You can access it by clicking on the three dots just under the video where it will say 'Show Transcript'. Hope that helps.
Smart move. 😎👉🏻👉🏻
Hey hey, God bless
You got a new subscriber
Keep up the good work 👏
Thanks for subbing!
You have the perfect cutscenes though out this entire video, which adds a level of… I don’t know, if I was Italian I’d do the finger tip kiss thing.
That said, thank you for your ministry. Apologetics have done more for my faith and boldness to speak than the past 15 years I’ve been going to church.
I am Italian and I enjoyed the video, so I did the finger tips kiss 😘
That's called the chef's kiss.
Way to go Testify!
Re Markian authorship: Mark was writing from the oral account/sermons of Peter. Peter didn't set out to write a Gospel, rather Mark set out to capture Peter's story as he happened to tell it, for use by catechumens. Church tradition holds that Mark was the "rich young ruler" of Matthew 19:16 and the provider of the "upper room" for the Last Supper.
So you've been told...
@@AnHebrewChild So the church elders record. It's history, old chap.
Man these Atheists really need some new arguments, I’ve seen you debunk these same points time and time again that I would quote your arguments from your old video before you even reacted lol.
Especially the point about writing in the 3rd person…the amount of times we had to debunk that lol, great video
Thanks for this!
I personally don't understand the appeal of being proud of being an atheist. As a weak agnostic, I find the uncertainty of ever being certain somewhat frustrating, especially when I'm hoping for some form of certainty. Moreover, the idea of a world without an afterlife seems unappealing to me. The thought of this possibility is not something I relish.
Even “atheistic” science says nothing is destroyed, just recycled. ironically. God doesn’t hide it from us, birth/death in its different forms is literally an essential part of creation. Cycles upon cycles. Add in the “ether,” or the electromagnetic spectrum and there’s our glimpse at ETHERnity. It’s right in front of us, don’t over-think it. Just be objective and prove things we can actually observe/measure/repeat in reality. Cycles are everywhere and are a testament to God’s masterful creation. Undying death, it’s such an incredible mechanism. Don’t let men or religion warp you, be yourself and praise God above all. That’s true wisdom, God wants us to question things. The Bible even says it. However the arguing and sectarian nature of religion is a big turn off. Religion killed God incarnate as Jesus. Don’t deify any man or manuscript. That’s idolatry. Even if we knew the Bible’s entire process of being created 1,000% as soon as you deify it, that’s idolatry and unfortunately many Christians do this, even unknowingly. God understands our plight better than we do. He understands we physically can’t prove so many things, especially historical events because we’re finite in this human form. Add in evil, lies, obfuscation, and it makes things that much more impossible. “Prove all things, hold on to that which is good.” One of the best Biblical understandings to live by. We are encouraged to learn and question God’s amazing wonders. I’m personally a non-religious Christian because I accept there must be a creator. More specifically then I accept my sin and fallible nature and I put my faith solely on God. If he also truly came as a man in the form of Jesus and did the things described in the Bible, it makes me love him even more because that whole mechanism of redemption makes perfect sense as well.
That's precisely the appel. The appeal is "I hold a worldview that is frustrating because I'm strong enough to admit the bitter truth". I know that because I spent some years in agnosticism, until I started studying (by actually reading and talking to people who actually read) arguments for God's existence, and arguments for God's properties, not just atheist caricatures of the arguments.
"People never speak about themselves in the third person!" --Apparently an argument.
These videos are great. They present the argument of the opposite side showing the unbiased nature of apologetics and then also refuting them, allowing for solid rebuttals of arguments.
You the man!
These lies and doubts about the Gospels have been asked and answered since the 1st century. The devil leads the atheist; and he has no new tricks; hence, old heresy popping up every few hundred years
Excellent video! I have a question I'm hoping you could help me with. As a Christian I have always been bothered by one thing.... What happened to Joseph? Why do we see no mention of his death (this seems like it would be VERY significant). It makes my skeptical ears stand on end.....The charges of adultery against Mary, writings in the text that show Joseph intended to divorce her, all of these things and then all of a sudden he's just missing entirely from the text. This seems extremely odd to me.
I get in a mindset sometimes that thinks "man...maybe there was adultery....and Joseph left and to distance themselves from this, the writer just choose to not speak about it at all." Lord...forgive me and help me with my skepticism...
I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject. Thanks for all your amazing work brother.
I think Joseph died. I have thought of making a video on this. Lydia McGrew has a good discussion on it in Hidden in Plain View
@@TestifyApologetics I understand and I love Lydia, I just got her new book Testimonies yesterday after seeing your (and Sean Mcdowells) recommendation.
My faith in the trueness of Christ drives to your same conclusion but the skeptic in me can't resolve the strangeness of this omission in the text. None of the gospel writings record it even though Jospeh is mentioned throughout them. We can come to a conclusion based on other factors that Joseph died but do you agree with me that it does seem strange that there is no mention of it when it appears all other deaths and resurrections are well recorded. I grant that the deaths mentioned are usually in context of a resurrection so it's a showing of signs and wonders but I can't shake this.
Maybe this is "skepticism from silence" but I really do struggle with this.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll be sure to check out Hidden in plain view.
How old was Jesus when distressed Mary *and Joseph* finally found him at the Temple?
@@flimsyjimnz 12 years old I believe.
There's no mention of Mary's death in the book of Acts, although it almost certainly happened by 60 AD, the time the book closes (Mary would be atleast 75 years old by then, life expectancy was lower). So why should Joseph's death be recorded in the gospels, especially if it was before the beginning of Jesus' public ministry? Joseph is certainly around during the visit to the Temple 12 years later, and even during His public ministry, Jesus is known by the locals in Nazareth in connection to Joseph - "Isn't this the son of the carpenter?". A straightforward reading of the text would imply that Joseph and Mary had several children after Jesus - four sons and an unknown number of daughters. There's every indication they had a normal, happy marriage.
7:57 even though I’m still highly skeptical of the gospels, I can’t stand this objection because if I recall correctly Jesus wasn’t many the only person predicating the temple’s destruction. If the White House or The Statue of Liberty was destroyed in the future year of 2040 and we went by this logic then either movies like Ghost Busters 2,2012, Independence Day, Planet of the Apes, etc where either written after 2040 or their writers has miraculous insight to the future
The strange thing to me is that if all the gospels were later than 70 AD why did never anyone add a comment to these prophecies like "And thus it happened under the reign of Vespasian" or sth. like that. Why make up a fulfilled prophecy but don't explicitly say that it has been fulfilled (like Matthew does with many OT prophecies)?
@@bartolo498 it may be to make it look,more authentic like with Daniel.
Dwight : FALSE
TESTIFY: this is false
Therefore it’s false
QED
excellent work
Well done, sir!
John 19:23-24
'When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,
“They divided my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.” - Ps. 22:18
So this is what the soldiers did.'
Given that this pericope is told specifically in order to "fulfill scripture" (Psalm 22:18) then how do you know the author wasn't just interpreting the Psalm more literally than the synoptic authors? That's why the author has a separate treatment for the clothing vs the garment. This type of literary freedom doesn't necessarily rely on eyewitness testimony though.
Why does John's "eyewitness account" from John 18:28-19:11 record a totally different exchange between Pilate and Jesus where Jesus speaks a whole lot when the synoptic version barely has Jesus say anything at all during the trial scene?
Whats totally different?
@@davidstrelec2000 Read Mark 15:1-15 and compare it to John 18:28-19:11. They look like totally different interactions between Pilate and Jesus.
well, a logical answer would be the things recorded in both happened. Analogy would be, i walk outside with an ice cream cone, it drops and i scream. 1 person says, i walked outside with an icecream cone, a 2nd person says i walked outside with an ice cream cone AND it dropped; making me scream. They would both be correct. Also I've heard that John was urged to write a Gospel, and ( think testify stated this in one of his videos) he was in Jesus inner circle so he knew things, and ( I think) wanted to write a Gospel different from the others. again I'm not certain so take this as you will, but yeah.
The evidence for traditional authorship is overwhelming, and a lot of the reasons given against it aren’t good. Great video!
@TP The Free Thinker I don’t know what “physical proves” means, or what “none of it is original”. Either
@TP The Free Thinker so if physical proof = someone else writing down that they physically seen them write it, then I’d say we we don’t need that to show traditional authorship, the attestation we have is sufficient to show they wrote the gospels. Because of how far away and far apart in time people were claiming that Matthew mark Luke and John wrote them, which makes collaboration less likely. Also the fact that there is no dissenting views on who wrote the gospels makes it less likely no one knew who wrote them at the time. Another thing is that non disciples were named as the authors which isn’t something you would want to do if you want to give them credibility. One final point is if they were just slapping names on books they didn’t know the authors of Why did they leave the book of Hebrews without one? This shows they were actually looking for authors and actually had some idea who wrote them.
I didn’t know what you meant when you said original, for a second I thought you meant the gospels are copied of early gospels we don’t have anymore so I got confused. But I think I know what you mean now, if I’m right you’re talking about the original manuscripts? If that’s the case I do t think we need that either. I believe the evidence and general points I laid out is sufficient, obviously there’s more points one could make but I think I summed it up.
@charles4208 I don't get why atheists attack this notion of not having the originals as though having loads of copies is a bad thing. Even critical scholar Erhman believes that if we want to know what the original gospels said , we just read the bible we have today.
Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):
Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
If only Ehrman would state this clearly in his monologs when he goes on and on about "copies of copies of copies" and "thousands of variations", etc.
While I doubt John (and possibly Matthew) were literate or educated enough in Greek to write their gospels directly, I don’t see why someone else who was literate in Greek couldn’t have written the gospels for them, under their direction. As a theist who is currently agnostic about Christianity and exploring it, it’s not important to me whether John or Matthew literally sat down with the pen in their own hand to write every word - it’s more important where the information itself came from.
"don't read like eyewitness accounts". The Gospels were purposefully written in a literary 3rd person style because 1) that was the style for writing such things at the time and 2) because Matthew-Luke were written for catechumens and John for a theological argument. We can't expect them to be written like 21st century American documents! What would be useful would be to compare them to other first-century comparable documents.
what version do you use? I like the readability!
Where does he gets the ideal that only Christians and jews have prophecies 🤔
Your analysis and refutation are right on point. And anyone familiar with the Christian case-maker, J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective, knows he applied FBI Forensic Eye Witness analysis to the Gospels and concluded they fit well with eyewitness testimony. I believe a Christian after this analysis. I trust him more than a 'smart' RUclipsr and even some scholars.
Many many times I write in the third person, hell even in my own work when I write clinical reports I write in the third person, and that is intentional so that someone else can understand who are the parties involved. I rarely will ever write in the first person, and it may even come down as a personal preference, but if Matthew believed he was writing down what could be potentially a divine event, it makes alot of sense that he would not want to center the object of attention on himself, by imploring in "I". Instead, he would separate himself from the story, not draw attention to himself, and simply record the events as they were unfolding. We have to remember, Matthew is a tax collector, he keeps records, he needs to be unbiased and true to the records. It is literally his job to do so. The idea that him speaking in the third person alone is proof alone that he did not write his own gospel is just radically insufficient.
I am continually surprised at the poor quality of arguments made against the Bible.
It doesn’t matter who says what about the gospels not being eye witnessed. The facts outweigh that claim so bad it shouldn’t even be brought up anymore. One section of facts are the actual problems, discussions, debates, theories ect that were only around Israel at that time. We know this because other people wrote about them and when they were popular and solved. The conversation Jesus had with the priests about men divorcing their wife was a debate. So was a separate debate about polygamy. Jesus answered both in one statement from the Old Testament. This is why they were all amazed at him and stopped asking him questions cuz they had no response. That’s how Jesus rolls. The scribes even used a lot of His statements later with some still trying to argue them. None of this was happening in any other part of the world until centuries later.
I think what's worse is that when Ex-Christians make objections against the Gospels and the live hood of Christians but in reality is that they either not well educated of understanding the Gospels or left Christianity because of atheist youtubers that they got troubled on how to respond to those objections.
Oh, good heavens! These arguments are atrocious! I can't stand when their "points" being made were refuted more than a millennium ago. 😬😬😬
It's just painful to listen to.
Great video bro!
Its extremely common for modern online atheists to attack the very practice of apologetics.
So it would stand to reason those who have no respect for a field would be extremely bad at it.
I love when people banter about specific language and forger that theres thousands of languages that have evolved and changed how they work for thousands of years lo
These atheist arguments are turning into a grindset.
thanks bro! I'm glad you did this video :)
Hi Eric,
I have a small question.
The Gospel according to St.Mark claims that St.John the Baptist's beheading, and that Herod didn't want to kill him. However, The Gospel according to Mathew states that Herod wanted to kill St.John (However, it later on subtly mentions that Herod was distressed at killing John-though that could be simply because he feared the public).
It seems quite odd to me, if they both had access to testimony from Joanna.
Thank you and God bless.
This isn't an actual problem if you think about it logically. Herod wanted to kill John because he(John) was messing in Herod's affairs, cramping his style. However, he at the same time didn't want to kill John because he feared the consequences. In the same way, a person may want to rob a bank because they're poor and think getting rich will solve their problems, but at the same time not want to rob a bank because if they get caught, the consequences will outweigh the pros.
Isn't it true that people can want and not want things a thing for a slew of reasons?
A man wants to eat the pastries, but he is lactose intolerant. Therefore he may at the same time not want to eat the pastries.
Herod if I recall correctly desired to kill John the Baptist, but for one another feared the possible repercussions; or who knows, maybe the judgement of God for killing a prophet.
Therefore he at once wants the Baptist dead, but doesn't necessarily want to kill him either.
@@trinity408 That's how St.Mathew's Gospel describes it. St.Mark's Gospel specifically mentions that Herod liked listening to St.John the Baptist.
I cant believe I've been able to find you. Thank you so much
17:39 Okay most of the evidence you point out is really good but This part is like.... I don't even want to listen to that Milwaukee guy anymore; horribly out of context.
"Matthew was written in third person so it can't be an eye witness."
5th Century St Augustine - "Oh really?"
Are you asserting that the gospel known as Matthew _is_ a firsthand eyewitness account?
They said so much, and nothing at the same time! I must say, I’m rather impressed.
Kerusso dismantled them too.
That intro should be illegal, whoever made that needs to get arrested ASAP
Can we say that authorship of the gospels doesn’t matter in regards to an individual’s faith?
15:57 Neither St. Augustine nor St. Clement the Stromatist admit St. Mark wrote first.
a) both admit St. Peter was first
b) I don't know how St. Augustine explains the similarities
c) St. Clement says St. Luke actually wrote second, and then went to St. Peter to get it vetted, where the First Pope who already knew Matthew held up both Gospels side by side, read from both, marvelling at the good match, and added some comments of his own too, while his amanuensis, St. Mark, wrote it down, thinking St. Peter was dictating a Gospel. Thereon _both_ Mark and Luke were approved.
The term ‘fundamentalist’ has become a mostly useless term-I generally try to avoid using it altogether. There are folks theologically to the right of me and there are folks theologically to the left of me. Calling those to my right “fundamentalists” has little value except as a pejorative. Most especially, calling those who (more or less) subscribe to traditional authorship for the gospels fundamentalists is rather disingenuous. Take Richard Bauckham. While he subscribes to traditional authorship for Mark and Luke, his views on Matthew and John are more complicated, though still more conservative than what Milwaukee Atheists describe. Alvin Plantinga describes the term rather humorously in a couple of his books, “We must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a bitch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’.”
With what they witnessed, I think their ego would the last thing they would of thought of.
To God be the glory.
If I thought this was the only life, I hope I wouldn't waste it generating bad arguments against those who believe otherwise. Perhaps atheist pointless hate has a supernatural origin.
You can sum up most skeptics arguments into a very condensed central idea- "We accept that other ancient writers did the same things, sometimes breaking the 'rules' even harder than the gospels, but because a miracle is impossible as we've never seen it happen, this means that we're going to create a double standard for ancient writing and claim the Gospels can't be trusted for authenticity."
What is crazy about these atheists? They criticize the gospels with details but believe the stupidity of the evolution ignoring the obvious of the evolutionists' claims.
I actually had a guy today saying that the Koine Greek was translated into modern versions of Greek, then into English. How would you respond?
I'm not him, but I think that at least 90 percent of our English bibles are accurate, and there is no major change in Christian doctrine. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is one way you could respond to him.
@@adoge1175 That's what my thoughts are, but he is making the claim that there is a change in doctrine.
That's simply false. The base for English translations is the koine text, not some "modern Greek". People should note that Greece didn't really exist at the time of either Luther or King James. It was a part of the Ottoman Empire, the archenemy of the Christian Europe and at least the written language of the late Byzantine Empire was AFAIK not that different from 1st cent Greek (just like 14th-16th century Latin was essentially the same language as 1st century AD).
What people also do not realize is that typical differences between the actual old NT manuscripts or codices (i.e. mostly 4th cent. to middle ages, but some fragments as old as 2nd cent.) are utterly trivial without any change of meaning. Like "Jesus answered [him]..." with "him" being in some manuscript but lacking in others.
@@bartolo498 OK, thanks. I kinda thought along the same lines.
Love how you shred the RUclips atheists. Is that wrong of me?
I'd also point out that if the Gospel names were picked later to bolster their authority/seeming authenticity, the names selected were very odd choices. Mark and Luke were not apostles(why not attribute them to Peter or Paul proper? Rather than their companions). Matthew was an apostle, but a relatively minor one, and also a former tax collector, which would have made him less credible in a lot of people's eyes.
John is a name we would 'expect' the church to pick. But John is also the one where we have the most reason to doubt apostolic authorship(I still think it most likely was the disciple, but theres at least reasons to think it might have been a different John).
The Dunning Kruger is strong with these ones.
Hey so pretty big thing here, and I see where I might be confused due to pronouns, but at 17:30 you are saying that Peter asking about “him” is Peter asking about John, when it also may make sense that Peter is asking about Judas, and the “him” used here is at first used for John (“when Peter saw him”) but from there after used for Judas (“Lord, what about him?” now him being Judas) . Can we be sure Peter is not being reminded of John’s question about Judas, rather than Peter asking “what about him?” in reference to John? My logic is, why would Peter be asking “what about John?” when it also makes sense to ask “what about Judas?” especially since John’s question to Christ about the betrayal was just mentioned. However I also see your strong point that by saying “this is the disciple who testifies” it does strongly imply “this disciple” is John throughout the passage, leaving the only question why did Peter ask about John? Out of knowledge John was esteemed? That works for me, but wow have I been reading this passage wrong then!
So we’re all going to ignore their intro 😭
Does he think these went unnoticed for 2,000 years?
Thanks!
Thank you!!!
I think we should stop using Fundamentalist to mean Religious Zealots.
Like the root of the word Fundamentalist is "Fundamental".
Sorry for the tangent rant.
The problem with these atheist debunk videos are that they are so poorly and badly researched that they wouldn't even pass a basic school project requirements. The misnformation. The misrepresentation and the intent to be dishonest is reeking through most of these videos.
Don't hate on people for being cringe, point out when they are wrong but embrace the cringe
I find it annoying when people claim that Mark's gospel was written first as if it is "gospel" truth (no pun intended). There is a reason why it is often referred to as the synoptic "problem."
I just started giving “Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke” by John Wenham a read, and I agree. We should demand people who make this claim build a case for themselves instead of just repeating “muh scholar consensus,” so people who watch these videos get a grasp of just how mixed the evidence actually is.
So, it’s “yes” to scholarly consensus when it suits your beliefs, and “no” to scholarly consensus when it doesn’t?
@@stevenbatke2475 No. I don't really care what the scholarly consensus is...that is a logical fallacy. What matters is where the evidence leads.
@@stevenbatke2475 I would agree with you on this one as a Christian, when looking and these texts that claim miracles it is reasonable to assume the prophecies they contain may actually have been written around the time after the things they claim to predict. Unless it is of course an actual prophetic prediction. But this will hold true for every other religious scripture. And so since neither I the Christian or you the skeptic can definitively prove something that can't be scientifically proven like a miracle because it by definition is outside of our realm of possibilities we cant test it.
Long story short using the prophecy to claim a later dating works but can't be definitive. And by default should be used as reality unless you're convinced otherwise from some other means.
@@davidkea1607 where the evidence leads is a good method. Do you find that scholars don’t go where the evidence leads?
Matthew likely used the "Logia" and added it into Mark's account.
I basically agree.
Hail Christ 👍🏻☦️
Why the objections to the Bible is much easier to memorize than the answer?
When were the gospels written? And in what order? Who wrote them?
He made a video about that, don't worry :)
Milwaukee athiest argument in a nutshell:
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, therefore the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
I find it weird that materialistic atheism is solely a western movement. Even Confucianism and Buddhism are somewhat spiritual
There is something about the boldness with which they plagiarize Bart ehrman. It's gross. Thanks for fighting lies and ignorance with truth and grace!
I haven't watched the whole thing yet but I don't think the part about their intro being "cringe" is great. First and foremost i don't think it really fulfills the graceful, kind and respectful spirit Peter tells us to have. I am sure they worked hard on that but even if they didn't I don't think it's helpful to stoop to that level. Really it comes off as kind of ad hom. I say all this as someone who is also prone to these same things and loves your channel. Solo Deo Gloria brother! 🙏🏻❤️
These atheist objections aren’t low-hanging fruit that’s easy to pick.
They’re fruit that didn’t need to be picked because they’re so rotten they fell off the tree by themselves.
Muh scholars
“Mark couldn’t have gotten his information from Peter because he didn’t mention Peter the rock”
Wut. This doesn’t even make sense in the own context of his argument. You have the explicit unanimous ancient testimony to Marcan authorship, and your only argument against this is that it doesn’t mention something that happened to Peter according to the other gospels you claim are just redactions of Mark?
I question what these people imagine the early Church was like.
Right - likely Peter would not have mentioned the rock out of humility, the 3rd person approach seems out of humility as well.
I love skepticism. What would happen happen after death if I reject this Jesus?
Surely Milwaukee Atheist has an answer.
Js, most atheist don't care who did or didn't write something, because they don't believe any of it in the first place. These arguments are basically useless for either side