Even as a sceptic myself, I must admit that a lot of the arguments I've seen recently against Undesigned Coincidences are so poor. Do so many not grasp the argument, or do they just not care? 🤷♂️
@@thepalegalilean1) The argument from Undesigned Coincidences (UCs) already acknowledges that. 2) This isn't relevant. UC's don't rely on literary independence. Instead, they focus on subtle details between different accounts that interlock together. Even if 2 accounts used the same source, it wouldn't negate the appearance of UC's, given that the connections are still unrelated. That's why they're called 'undesigned'.
@@Boundless_Border "I grasp it as a skeptic" and then you literally, QUITE literally, said the opposite of what it is. No, you don't understand. "UNDESIGNED coincidences." U N D E S I G N E D. I'm guessing you're just saying they aren't undesigned, which, again, is unintelligent in most examples. So no, you don't understand it.
The fact that if you have 5 witnesses to the sane crime you will get 5 different descriptions of the event. This is well known by those that teach law and witness testimonies. They can get the description of the perp different. One may say he had a red hat, and one may say it was blue. I personally saw a demonstration of this. It doesn't make them bad witnesses; just mistaken because of the way they say it. Has long has they all agree on the same perp doing it is enough for a conviction.
All common sense goes out of the window when it comes to analysing religious texts, it seems. Note: I'm pointing out how people forget your point about the nature of eyewitness accounts.
@@darkwolf7740Except there’s absolutely nothing latent in the Synoptics material when it comes to a commonly included narrative that necessitates eyewitness testimony is behind them. Read the story of Jesus healing the man with the crooked hand on a Sabbath in a Synogogue and tell me with a straight face that that isn’t a perfect example of mere literary borrowing between the Synoptists in some way.
@@ManoverSupermanNot the geographic data that indicates a person well versed in first century Galilee and the routes that needed to be traveled? The correct naming convention and common names for the time period? The titles and names of political leaders of the time ( including some that were incorrectly disputed until archeological data proved them accurate)? I have no idea what you would accept; if you dispute the gospels and Acts as historical eye witnesses testimony what historical document you would accept at all, the standard you are setting isn't a standard it's an insurmountable bar.
@@jaredgilmore3102You know that’s all a complete red herring from what I said. My argument is about a specific account that perfectly makes legitimate the theory of literary borrowing. And that is incredibly pertinent to the theory of undesigned coincidences, because it shows that literary borrowing and influence can account for some of these as well. All of the things you mentioned are merely the prerequisites for historical accuracy. So the authors knew of Pontius Pilate? Even you know that doesn’t automatically make everything the gospels write factual truth of itself. You know what other early Christian documents have time-appropriate names? The so-called Gnostic gospels! Please engage with the ideas, not your presuppositions about me from my comment. I concede that a good amount of the gospel materials have a root in history. Put your teeth away. I’m trying to have a conversation. It’s not an insurmountable bar at all. The reality is people like Erik simply don’t want to admit any degree of fallibility to the gospel authors or to even honestly consider that the materials might not be directly from eyewitnesses in their literary form. There is no grosser presupposition you can make about a text than that it is innerant or infallible. What people like Erik do and what actual critical scholars do is worlds apart in terms of bias. There is no equality here in intellectual terms.
People are gonna argue one witness saw a green hat on the suspect, while another saw a red hat on the suspect, totally missing the point that the suspect was, indeed, wearing a hat.
@@vantascuriosity4540 It is a good arguement about the witnesses not really being filled with God's power. But that stance in itself about biblical inerrancy might just be a modern ignorant take of the bible. I still do believe the main message is clear as day and night. But some minor details admittedly did get lost and do ruin the whole reliability of the accounts. It's not quite video evidence but it still needs faith to keep it dear.
@@genericscout5408Yeah but from what I am seeing those minor issues aren't too detrimental to the bible thus showing that the argument from undesigned coincidences stands strong, would you agree with that point?
@@genericscout5408 I don't think inerrancy is a modern take. The modern take is what we tend to mean with inerrant. But regardless, the Gospel doesn't hang on the Bible being inerrant.
Let's make the crime scene a designed coincidence: The first witness says, "the robber tripped." The second witness hears the first and then tells his story: "The robber tripped because his shoes were untied." The second witness is identifying the connection himself, probably to show off how much he knows (or else embellished). If he just said, "His shoes were untied" without mentioning the trip, and the story suggested he didn't see him trip, then it would count as UNdesigned coincidence, rather than designed coincidence.
The "Synoptic Problem" seems like a Catch-22 argument. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke were to contradict each other, then you'd have a pretty obvious credibility problem. But when the Synoptic Gospels corroborate each other, then you also supposedly have a credibility problem because it "proves" copying and plagiarism.
@@troublemaker9899 Read them all and judge for yourself. They read more like separate and independent accounts than a collaborative work And why would anyone go to the trouble of making up a preposterous story?
I'm studying theology, and the Q document is a source of great frustration for me. I have read entire papers written on the assumption that Q exists, and I can't help but laugh. No one will ever dare write a paper if they can prove that Q doesn't exist, because a whole bunch of people will be out of work.
Reminds me of something I heard RE: critical Bible scholarship that made me laugh and gave me a little paradigm shift. "Nobody wants to hear that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare"
out of curiosity is that where "Qanon" comes from? I dont know much about the whole deal I just assumed that was some internet cult of personality that got running somehow and someone just happened to have the name Qanon.
You know what's worse, that such an important hypothetical document for so many authors not even a piece of manuscript has ever been found. What's worse, an even more obscure pypirus document from an obscure gospel has survived the centuries. This document is called the Egerton Gospel.
I've always assumed that Matthew not mentioning the source by name in Herod's court, was to protect the identity of the source. And Luke mentioning it was probably because it was safe to do so
"... of this they are willingly ignorant." I believe there is wisdom in patiently instructing those who oppose themselves, but there comes a point where Jesus tells me to shake the dust off my feet. My New Year's resolution has been to better gauge those who are dealing in good faith vs. those who are not and who therefore multiply objections exponentially like a Hydra. I'm not Heracles.
In my experience, many are just plain ignorant. When I'm in the mood I will give lessons to the Invincibly Ignorant about history, chemistry, putting things in the proper context, et cetera & ad nausea as their Red Herring arguments wander all off topic. Many of their arguments just expose their carefully guarded ignorance, some of it requires massive conspiracies, but mainly I think they're just trolling.
I’ve had this experience dealing with advocates of many faiths over the years-Muslims, Jews, _Christians_ New Age spiritualist types. It seems no one is immune from dogma and the lack of the ability to even conceive of the possibility of being wrong in their faith.
I have to learn this lesson myself. I way too often let myself get baited into arguing with "skeptics" that don't care at all about learning, just insulting and belittling.
@@ManoverSupermandoes that include the possibility Atheists aren’t immune to dogma and their beliefs could be wrong? Sounds like you’re just describing normal humans. We all have biases.
@@MrJonny0Of course it does! I’ve spoken to many of them. We all have our blind spots. But after so many years of having these discussions with so many people, I conclude that God will not condemn the world on theological matters. Man is too ignorant a beast to be fairly judged on such criteria.
"Q" is speculation based on the false assumption that the Gospels are fiction. The Gospels are honest accurate accounts of real events. Some witnessed by thousands of people. Some witnessed only by God. To a certain cold case detective, that different witnesses of the same event relate different details is evidence that they are telling the truth. I believe him. I also believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who adds details only God could know.
"Q" speculation is not based on the assumption that the gospels are fiction. The Q hypothesis is based on the sayings shared by Luke and Matthew that aren't in Mark. It doesn't make the gospels untrue or true. It just would mean they shared another source outside of Mark.
"Q" is based entirely on suppositions, but the Gospels being fiction is not one of those. The main supposition is that Luke had no access to Matthew (even though Matthew was written first). The theory goes that since Luke agrees with Matthew sometimes and disagrees other times, there must have been some other document that contains exactly the parts of Matthew that Luke agrees with. Never mind that such document has zero evidence for its existence, that it's actually quite difficult to construct a document that works this way, and that the discrepancies are better explained by Luke simply disagreeing with Matthew or deciding to present a different perspective. "Q" is a legacy of the 19th century harmonization fad, and scholars kept the conclusion even when the premise became completely useless. The gospel authors didn't care about harmonization!
@@1001011011010 Every argument based on "Q" or arguing that "Q" must exist has been based on the Bible being fiction. Sometimes implied but always there.
@@markhorton3994 How and in what way does positing a shared source between Luke and Matthew outside of Mark imply the Gospels are fictitious? It simply doesn't logically follow.
@@fluffysheap Why would anyone assume that Luke had to base his Gospel on prior work? That is an assumption that all the Gospels are fiction. While each Gospei answers questions raised by those previously written each is based on a separate eye witness account and God filling in what no one saw. The eye witnesses are Mathew, Peter, John and every living witness available to Luke's investigation. That one was based on another implies fiction.
Well presented. That there are so many undesigned coincidences is truly incredible. Would late fiction writers really purposefully "redact" other Gospels on minutiae that only people reallllllly searching will find, and then a few paragraphs later flat out contradict the same Gospel they are trying to invent undesigned coincidences for? Not saying there are any legit contradictions, but I think the fact that there are many undesigned coincidences and many alleged contradictions is strong evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels! It makes no sense for the Gospel writers to add confirming details in one scenario and then in the very next scene to add seemingly contradictory details. The best explanation is that this is legit eyewitness testimony
The fact that there are contradiction within the gospels do not indicate in any way that there are alleged undesigned coincidences, so are those alleged coincidences really undesigned? or maybe there is something deeper going on that we just happen to not know yet? for example, an alternative explanation that i believe is more likely is: The possibility that after the gospels were orally communicated (for the first time) back in the old times, with back and forth conversations believers (including the authors) started to agree on certain beliefs creating a common belief which then would be basis for the scrolls that were writen which then became books, this without mentioning the fact that over the time of all of those centuries these gospels got modified, possibly even with the intention of creating more coherence between the gospels, making those "coincidences" seem undesigned.
@@guillermo3412 "...with back and forth conversations believers (including the authors) started to agree on certain beliefs creating a common belief which then would be basis for the scrolls that were written..." Recognize that if they're sharing the same stories, they probably have similar beliefs already.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT the problem is that these "similar beliefs" come after they share the stories and not before because there has to be something that starts the belief in the first place, a lot of these people werent alive when jesus was even said to live you know?, i also forgot to mention that not all the people who were listening to these figures were "believers" in the first place, a lot of them just converted in the process and it can be for a lot of reasons, it doesnt have to be because there was a common belief before the fact. it could be you know one person who started it all and then from there the belief expanded to his family or his closed group then to his local town, etc.
@@Yipper64 to my knowledge the only games that really provides much interest to corroboration and multiple perspective storytelling is like danganronpa, and that's a pretty weird game
early christianity started out without a written work and relied on the oral tradition of the community, the writers of matthew and luke didn't need to have read mark because they were presumably part of the same community, this explains the similarities between matthew and luke without needing another written work. it was all oral tradition to start, from the first gen followers to the second gen followers.
This is good evidence of there being actually accounts, but I think saying that these make the gospels "reliable" (I assume you mean entirely so) is probably why atheistic people are going to be turned away by this argument. I haven't heard the argument prior to this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if people over state how much this affirms the Christian position.
All this video is is good evidence that the authors of the gospels had access to each other's work. Also this fails to remedy for the things in the gospels that contradict each other.
Inspiring Philosophy has great series regarding these so-called contradictions. Undesigned coincidences is just one of evidences for the reliability of the gospel accounts. When taken all together, unless you just really want to be against it, it all makes sense logicallyand is beyond reasonable doubt
At the end of the day, a person will find a way to reject it all in their hearts even when they know what is written is true at arguably the deepest human level possible. What commandments of God are egregious in nature? Love your God and love your neighbor, and yet they contend with this not because they are skeptical, they masquerade their incredulity and hardened hearts with the facade of skepticism and empiricism. They refuse to accept responsibility over their own infinitely inadequate selves, not understanding that one exists that forgives them for their insufficiency. ”But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.“ 1 Corinthians 2:14
this is a really elegant and powerful argument. it was simply brilliant, mr. testify, to depict your side as the "wojaks" and the other side as the "soyjaks." truly it helped me understand who was winning the debate
The NT is historical documentation. It's not fictional hero storytelling. Nobody thought that being crucified in support of the idea that we are supposed to sacrifice for others was a good epic hero tale, we still don't!!
It's silly, that's what I think. Paul admitted to persecuting Christians. He traveled all over spreading the gospel and died a martyr's death. Unlike Muslim martyrdom, he did not die killing others to convert them, he died converting others to believe in sacrifice for others, as per the gospel of Jesus. That's not something to die for unless you think it's true.
Regarding undesigned coincidence: it is sufficient that one of these NOT be in Q to defend the argument, whereas the counterargument that Q contains every overlap, nothing less, is a stronger claim to make and is ultimately unverified. At my school, source criticism comes up in seminars and even the proponents argue with one another.
The gospel narratives: Literary works by different authors, with different agendas, intended for different audiences - about an itinerant preacher who spoke no Greek and left no works of his own. What contradictions?
Can you address how you would resolve the apparent editorial fatigue present in Luke’s gospel when he reorients the scene of the feeding of the 5k from a remote countryside to the city of Bethsaida, but apparently reverts to Mark’s rhetorical motive for the feeding by citing that it was growing late and the thousands of listeners would need sustenance if they weren’t given ample time to retreat to the towns where foods were being sold before evening came? This is a crucial junction upon which the verscify of your entire argument hinges.
@@TestifyApologetics thanks, I hadn’t seen that one before. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my concern. There is some specific verbiage that Goodacre highlights a few sentences prior to the part in his paper that you did address. Goodacre highlights that Luke’s account has Jesus and his disciples going directly into the city (υπεχωρησεν εις πολιν) in verse 10, and doesn’t offer any explicit reason for his readers to understand how they would’ve ended up in a desolate place. Though, I suppose the jury is out on where exactly Luke supposed that the crowds followed him in verse 11.
I had never heard of this argument, I'm already very deep in my faith but woah...pile this up with all the historic accounts of Jesus (especially in the talmud), cross-references, wisdom within the bible...I can't deny the existance of God even if I wanted to, I can only ignore it
You’ve also gotta realize that they probably borrowed from each other because they were trying to get information to their respective audiences. They probably didn’t know their work would be compiled as one 300 years later
Not well read in gospel stuff, but the synoptic problem theory with Q and Mark and stuff is well accepted by scholars for a reason right? The stories having these casual coincidences is could be expected under the synoptic problem theory too. A scribe sees discrepancies, has an incomplete manuscript, adds or takes away for a personal reason yadda yadda. The stories fitting together by having non contradictory information in different places doesn’t defeat the scholarly theory. If anything it is neutral, or supports the consensus slightly. But idk
@@Spriktor That isn’t true. If I killed myself in the name of Thor would it make my religion true? Are Islamic Jihadists more correct because of their conviction in suicide bombing? Use your brain, how strongly you hold a beleif doesn’t necessarily correlate to it’s truth.
@@Spriktor being willing to die for your beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs are true. Many religions have martyrs - it just means that those people genuinely believe in that religion, not that the religion is objectively right.
I think if you aren't well read in the gospel you don't fully understand how weirdly obscure the coincidences are. The Herod one is a SUPER obscure detail that isn't brought to attention in any of the Gospels as being an issue, but is only an issue for skeptics, but then is solved when reading each Gospel. The fact is that with these coincidences there is no attention drawn to them trying solve an issue. So for instance here's a story: 1. Jacob ran in the house and tripped. Now, an obvious addition would be: 2. Jacob ran in the house and tripped down some stairs and his mom found him crying. But, what the Gospels do is like this: 3. Jacob's mom found Jacob crying in the house. You see, story 1 and story 3 are actually two different "stories" but they cover same event. One tells it from Jacob's perspective, one is from the mom's perspective, but neither one explains the other on its own nor gives all the information at once. If you ONLY read story 1, you would have no hints about story 3 and vice versa. However, Story 2 is an example of where a skeptic would say "oh, this is clearly a later addition to fix issues in story 1 or story 3".
The synoptic problem can be entirely solved by simply saying the authors knew each other (no historian contest this) and that the gospel authors are simply who they are attributed to. This explains the information differences between them entirely, no need for extra sources. Q is not really "well accepted", as it introduces an massive problem by simply claiming it exist. Mainly, why do we have 0 evidence of its existence? It has never been mentioned in ANY of our historical sources who would have known about it, and there are no surviving physical copies. There are only one response to this argument against Q, and it is basically handwaving. The response is to claim that the early Church now having the Gospels feared that Q would mislead people without the appropriate interpretations the Gospels granted and as such was disposed of. I realize now I never told you what Q was so what I said might seem odd, Q is supposedly sayings of Jesus. Which is why the "response" to the argument is just handwaving, the idea that the early church that literally believes Q are the sayings of God, would for some reason dispose of the words of God in favor of the Gospels is frankly absurd. "Q" is "well accepted" in the same way that the late date of the gospels are "well accepted". Mainly that Atheist are the primary holders of this view, and the view itself basically requires the presupposition that the Gospel authors could not have been who they are attributed to, and as such all evidence which shows they are is actually not evidence.
Apologists fail to grasp the objection of skeptics. Which is that this line of argumentation is a red herring, a way to avoid grappling with the greater likelihood of fictionality because of the way ancient documents work. do the homework, Testify.
Would somebody here mind explaining why the infancy Gospel of Thomas is false and what some arguments for the date of creation being mid-late 2nd Century Ce and not the earliest possible dating 80ce making it contemporaneous with the Gospel according to Luke and why it is false etc.
In my view, the major weakness in your presentation is the "argument from casualness." I don't think there is anything casual about the smallest portion of sacred story writing. Everything is designed with the greatest care. You underestimate, I believe, the ways that one text could (in your own word) "supplement" another text. There is artistry in making something *sound* casual in literature; that doesn't mean it actually is....I happen to be religious; I just don't like poor arguments for what are essentially matters of faith.
Isn't this an inerrancy of the Bible PoV. I'm Christian too but I'm not sure I believe in that PoV. I kinda take it as normal dudes jotting this all down for others to read.
@@DUDEBroHey No, what I wrote is not about inerrancy, it's about piety and devotion. I'm not saying what they wrote is even true, but they definitely didn't just "jot stuff down."
@@TestifyApologetics I'm not a so-called skeptic; I didn't bring up contradictions. But f you want to go that route, then you can't both take instances where the texts seem to complement each other as evidence for their truth, but not accept their seeming contradictions as evidence for their falsity. How are you different from the "skeptics"-you're both selective in your reading?
@@TestifyApologeticsexactly, the skeptics are saying they are copying each other but at the same time they are contradicting each other Lol. They just dont want to believe
This is really cool. I hold to Matthean priority though. Mark’s greek is rough and church fathers say he got his gospel from Peter. The gospel is for the Jew first. So Matthew would be written first. Then Luke for Paul’s churches then mark.
There are two main issues that I see. First, even if the UC exist, how can you distinguish between the authors pulling from "the truth" and the authors pulling from a common story? Second, when you look at some supposed inconsistencies (i.e. details quite different in the resurrection accounts), apologists present harmonizations. This is the exact opposite of UC -- non-subtle differences should make the accounts less likely, under UC but we never hear that. This second point strikes me that the UC proponents are being overzealous pattern seekers and that most of the UC are just reading into the text, and why UCs are just not convincing to anyone outside of the bubble.
Discrepancies and reconcilable variations are a feature of eyewitness testimony and so there's an epistemic asymmetry here. Second, saying there was some kind of unknown "ur source" that contains both coincidences that they're pulling from is ad hoc. Third, you're still ignoring the evidential value of casualness.
@@TestifyApologetics Certain types of variations we expect with eyewitness testimony, and those aren't present in the Gospels. Saying there is some kind of ur-source is not ad-hoc -- it is informed by our knowledge of the transmission of stories, especially given that much of the gospels are *verbatim* copies of each other and they were written decades after the events. Finally, yes I discount the evidential value of "casualness" because it seems entirely subjective, and susceptible to overzealous pattern seeking.
What about P(casual given it is fabricated)? Are most people really unaware that too conspicuous of connections will make their stories less believable?
Why make up a fake story about Jesus that kills you and hunts you and jails you and hates you? All of them died for there love of Jesus. No one will follow it, no one will want it, no one will want to believe it. Still today, We are hated, hunted, killed and jailed. We believe because we know Jesus saves all from sin. Why are we hated? The devil is the prince of this world. Jesus is the king of all kings. The very fact we love you all and forgive you all, the most peaceful loving belief there is, But we are mocked and killed. We do not judge others, we do not hate anyone, we all are peacemakers. Yes, there are wolves pretending to be believers that make us look bad. Sent in by the devil. But make no mistake, there is a war going on. There is not one good argument to say it was a invented story.
If you leave open the possibilities that multiple people witnesses miracles and contributed their accounts to the gospels. There is no synoptic problem, there is no need for Q or other hypothetical written sources theories.
I've never heard of the synoptic argument before, but something that strikes me listening to your rebuttal of it is, well, how do you know that these coincidences are actually unplanned? Why does the fact that it seems 'casual' mean that it actually was?
@@Fancy_Creb Brotha watch the video. If it seems casual then it's more likely to be casual than a lie made to seem casual. If you disagree then we should talk about epistemology and the criteria for beliefs.
"John came fasting and praying and you called him possessed; the son of man came eating and drinking, and you called him a drunkard and a glutton." Don't get drunk, but you can have alcohol. (lol at the people suggesting Jesus saved the good welches grape juice for last at the feast in Cana.)
The Bible has never been disproved except in fairy tales. Modern scientists look on the bible as accurate as far as history goes. Bible scholars are in awe of the accuracy of copies, and no one outside of the 19th century doubts that the gospels were written by who claims them. Each Gospel has a slightly different writing style. But, believers in atheist fairy tales will continue to make atheism look something outdated and not for the bright.
That's absolutely false. First of all, scientists are not the ones you would ask about the historical validity of the Bible; that would be historians and archeologists. Secondly, while there have been some surprisingly accurate parts of the Bible, there are many inaccurate or unconfirmed parts. Christians typically say the accurate parts are literal but the inaccurate parts are metaphorical.
What sayeth the scripture? *2 Timothy 3:15-16* And that *from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,* which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. *16All scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: *2 Peter 3:15-16* And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved *brother Paul* also according to the wisdom given unto him *hath written unto you;* 16As also *in all his epistles,* speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the *other scriptures,* unto their own destruction. Timothy had the Holy Scriptures. Paul states that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of GOD. Peter states that Paul's epistles are scripture. 2nd Book, 3rd Chapter, verses 15 and 16 of BOTH Timothy and Peter 1 Peter 1:20-21 *Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.* 21For the prophecy came *not in old time by the will of man:* *but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.* Men did not write from memory (the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). The gospels were SPOKEN as these writers were moved by the HOLY GHOST, and written down. Galatians 3:8 And the *scripture,* *foreseeing* that God would justify the heathen through faith, *preached before the gospel unto Abraham,* saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. How does the scripture foresee, and preach? Who was foreseeing and preaching? Romans 9:17 For the *scripture saith unto Pharaoh,* Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. The SCRIPTURE SPOKE to Pharaoh. Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is *quick,* and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a *discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.* 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in *his sight:* but all things are naked and opened unto the *eyes of him with whom we have to do.* The word of God is called a "He" and a "Him". Quick (1828 Websters Dictionary) QUICK, adjective [If q is a dialectical prefix, as I suppose, this word coincides with the Latin vigeo, vegeo, and vig, veg, radical, coincide with wag.] 1. Primarily, *alive; living;* opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh. Leviticus 13:10. The word of God is alive, living, and discerns YOUR thoughts and intents. This does not mean that it only pricks your conscience. The scripture sees all creatures with HIS eyes. There are parts of the gospels that are complementary with each other, and some facts and events that are omitted between them. God intends that your read ALL FOUR. God wrote the scriptures through men MOVED by the Holy Spirit and therefore are inspired, preserved and inerrant. There is no guess work or theories of inspiration if you study what the scriptures say of themselves. John 16:13 Howbeit when *he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.* What was written over Jesus' head on the cross? Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, *THIS IS JESUS* THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, *THE KING OF THE JEWS.* Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of *Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,* THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. John 19:19-20 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS *OF NAZARETH* THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in *Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.* There are no contradictions here, and with all four gospels you get the entire superscription: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Hebrew) THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Greek) THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Latin)
I'm curious about which ones may be buried in Samuel, Kings, and perhaps Chronicles. Could light be shed on the exact sources for parts of Chronicles by something like this?
Chronicles almost undeniably had access to Samuel and Kings. We practically know this on the exact same bases as we highly suspect Matthew and Luke used Mark, and not vice versa. The same kinds of contradictions, rearrangements, additions and other redactions as to be expected are found in Chronicles as we expect in Matthew and Luke.
@@ManoverSuperman My question was more nuanced, I'll elaborate: Which clues may indicate the age of the other sources Chronicles also pulled from, and indeed could undesigned coincidences imply those sources to be possibly as old as Samuel and Kings?
@@Makaneek5060Ah I see. My bad. I honestly couldn’t say. I would _assume_ they are, since they appear to have been actual royal court records, but we simply cannot know since we do not, unfortunately, possess them.
Maybe address the most obvious objection. There was a community of Christians. The Gospel of Mark is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Mark." The Gospel of Matthew is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Matthew." The Gospel of Luke is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Luke." A communal story of Jesus (oral tradition) would explain any commonalities. We know there was a Christian oral tradition. We also know that stories from other oral traditions (ex. various myths) have coincidences.
So, the fact is that Matthew and Luke both contain about 90% of the material in Mark, sometimes with identical wording, and your response to this is to digg the remaining 10% for a few examples of things that they didn't copy? That is a really ridiculous argument. Regarding your robbery analogy. The coincidence is only impressive if you can be sure that the witness are independent and none of them hear the other one before making their statement. This is not the case for the gospels, since Mark is dated much earlier than Matthew and Luke.
Lol that would be ridiculous if that is what I argued. The point went several feet over your head. Also you're wrong about the analogy. Two witnesses aren't going to go ooh I'll mention the shoe but not the tripping and you mention the tripping but not the laces, that way our testimony looks super duper authentic! It's not impossible but not a safe way to bet. You're missing the whole thing about casualness.
@TestifyApologetics Two witnesses may not tell it that way, but one guy wanting to write his own version of an already existing story could. Matthew needs to tell the same story Mark does but he can't just produce an exact copy of Mark, so he adds some things and leaves a few things out. Thats why things like the two by two detail got left out (and again, you really need to digg deep to find those rare exceptions, since 90% of Mark is in Matthew). I don't see how the examples you choose are notable connections instead of just variations of an existing story. Your example of the disciples being paired is just Matthew leaving something out, not an undesigned coincidence Regarding Joanna explaining how Matthew knew what Herold had said: I don't see any strong coincidence there. Matthew contains several other scenes he couldn't have witnessed: the meetings between Judas and the chief priests (Matthew 27:3-10) and a meeting between the chief priests and the Pharisees with Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:62-66). How did Matthew know about those? Maybe that's just the way Matthew likes to tell stories.
I think the Gospels are written to be truthful accounts, but the undesigned coincidences argument seems odd to me. For one thing, what determines the 'casual' nature of a detail? If it raises a question in your mind, why wouldn't it raise a similar question in the mind of the author? Especially if this was holy writ to the author (like Mark), wouldn't you expect attention to detail, for the author to ponder or meditate on Scripture?
Mainly because most of the subtle connections are meaningless details that tend to add nothing to the overarching narrative being told. In other words, why would an author add something meaningless to their writings to make it look less genuine unless they're actually telling the truth.
@@darkwolf7740 That's just begging the question. What makes it "meaningless"? Writing material was expensive. They weren't writing social media screeds but sacred history. These things are included in the books for a reason.
@@1001011011010I'm specifically talking about undesigned coincidences that are related to minor events or people not given much spotlight in the Gospels. It seems more of a stretch to assume that the authors focused a lot of time on these details for the sake of it rather than historical validity.
Do you know how much fan fiction is written over minor characters who aren't given much spotlight in the actual published story the fan fiction is about? It is not at all unusual to ask a question about some detail, or indeed even to imagine answers to them ourselves. But that's fan fiction. We are instead talking about religion, something much more important and serious. A religion that (centuries later, so perhaps it is unfair to compare) held an ecumenical council over an iota. How many sermons or even books have been written about "minor" characters or details? How many legends told about this one or that? Or, indeed, how many historians could tell you about something most "normal" people do not care about? When we talk about sacred texts, you can find people writing line by line commentaries. Do you really think the authors didn't take their sacred duty to record about their Messiah seriously enough to pay attention to details in previous recorded works? It seems an absurd suggestion.
@@1001011011010There are a few false assumptions you're making here; 1) The Gospel authors weren't necessarily driven solely by historical accuracy, as per the norm for other historical works at the time. Some details were likely drawn upon for theological reasons, but that doesn't negate historical accuracy. By that standard, you'd have to invalidate much of ancient history. 2) "Fan fiction" is a strange comparison to make to the Gospels. They weren't written for entertainment purposes, nor were they written as a re-imagination or expansion of previously known stories. What are you getting at? The genre is not even remotely similar. 3) The argument that the authors of the Gospels would pay such attention to meaningless details presumes that they were written by eyewitnesses, which I assume you would deny. Assuming for a moment that they weren't eyewitnesses, it would be difficult for the authors to draw upon oral tradition alone in order to create undesigned coincidences. Given that these sources were likely small in number, it is extremely unlikely that these coincidences just 'happened'.
As someone who holds a lot of respect for the religion and the bible. I have to say the links in these accounts sound more like high level writing than a casual coincidence.
The claim of evidential value of casualness is supported by the false assumption that people are casual when writing based on real events but when they are writing based off of other texts they would be super heavy handed about it. They would be causal in both cases. It's not hard for, say, Matthew to read the pairs in Mark at one point and then later after it marinates (he obviously read the text more than one before doing his anonymous rewrite of the anonymous body of existing Jesus gospel material, of which there were several) is casually influenced to depict disciples in pairs. There's no reason to expect him to be heavy handed and break the fourth wall just so the audience knows exactly why they said this, that would make them a terrible author and the text would just be a fractal of digressions of digressions. Trying to clarify every editorial decision you make in the writing itself makes you neurotic, try it some time. Anonymous fluid rewrites also are also better than eyewitness reportage in explaining why we have a synoptic problem in the first place.
@@Greyz174 I don't have a problem. You guys claim there is one. It's a multilayered strategy. You guys try to dismiss John as a gnostic gospel that somehow isn't trying to be historical at all. Then when you only have 3 gospels to play with say that two of them plagerized the other. Now once left with one gospel tear it apart. It's just red herrings and we're expected to somehow waste time on them.
@@DUDEBroHey yeah so like i thought, you see everything with polemic brain, probably because you think there is spiritual warfare going on The term "problem" in "synoptic problem" means "thing to figure out" it's a neutral term describing an open question, and the project is just to come up with explanations for the literary relationship between the gospels and why they share so much material One hypothesis to explain the text's data is that the texts are collections of sayings and acts that people put together and rewrote and updated over a period of time. This fits the data better than the three texts being three things that came directly from eyewitnesses (who can just write their own story instead of just adding details to an existing one and have no reason not to), and it also nicely explains why we have a bunch if peripheral somewhat different versions of this synoptic tradition like the gospel of the hebrews or marcion's gospel (no he didnt just "mutilate" Luke per the traditional accusation, he had another proto synoptic gospel, i can explain why) or other peripheral ones; look at reconstructions of those texts, it's the same type of rewriting and updating text material, for a specific audience, that we see with the canonical three, just extended onwards. So this fluid-ish drawn out process for generating the gospel texts is a better explanation of the synoptic relations, is less expected on eyewitness reportage, and also covers even "undesigned coincidences" since shared / interlocking details are just as fine to casually come up with this process of generating texts. Rehashing the same material will get you a bunch of angles of the same stuff, which is a good format for people detecting "coincidences" Thats what i was actually talking about, make sure next time to only bring up your "systematic attack" hypothesis when someone is actually talking about that. Also, you should provide reasons for calling everything a red herring, otherwise youre just doing a thought terminating cliche
@@DUDEBroHey are these "you guys" in the room with you right now? None of that has to do with what I said, and it looks like you already had that response planned when you wrote the first one because it's not even a response to what I responded But yes you do have a specific and highly polemical understanding of the world "problem" it just means "open puzzle to figure out" about how to map out the sources and reasons for the large amounts of shared material.
@@TestifyApologetics It is a refutation. This argument seems most plausible to you because you already accept the existence of God and the truth of the gospels. Personally, I don't accept either, so this argument isn't any more valid than the authors of Matthew and Luke just having Mark as a reference, and/or being familiar enough with various retellings of the stories of Mark for the coincidences to exist.
@@lordfarquaad8601 that's called an ad hominem, not a refutation.... if a flat earther gave an argument for a global earth, you wouldn't say his arguments are wrong simply because he's a flat earther. The author of an argument has nothing to do with the validity of the argument itself
Erik, using that fabricated robbery story to illustrate how undesigned coincidences are authentic and unplanned doesn't really help your case. Can you find something from the contemporary real world?
@@TestifyApologetics Can you address how you would resolve the apparent editorial fatigue present in Luke’s gospel when he reorients the scene of the feeding of the 5k from a remote countryside to the city of Bethsaida, but apparently reverts to Mark’s rhetorical motive for the feeding by citing that it was growing late and the thousands of listeners would need sustenance if they weren’t given ample time to retreat to the towns where foods were being sold before evening came? This is a crucial junction upon which the veracity of your entire argument hinges.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
Even as a sceptic myself, I must admit that a lot of the arguments I've seen recently against Undesigned Coincidences are so poor. Do so many not grasp the argument, or do they just not care? 🤷♂️
The answer is yes
@@TestifyApologeticsCorrect. Here's a cookie. 🍪
@@thepalegalilean1) The argument from Undesigned Coincidences (UCs) already acknowledges that.
2) This isn't relevant. UC's don't rely on literary independence. Instead, they focus on subtle details between different accounts that interlock together. Even if 2 accounts used the same source, it wouldn't negate the appearance of UC's, given that the connections are still unrelated. That's why they're called 'undesigned'.
@@Boundless_Border "I grasp it as a skeptic" and then you literally, QUITE literally, said the opposite of what it is. No, you don't understand. "UNDESIGNED coincidences." U N D E S I G N E D. I'm guessing you're just saying they aren't undesigned, which, again, is unintelligent in most examples. So no, you don't understand it.
@@Boundless_Border In fact your entire argument....is explained away by the video. You most definitely didn't watch this video.
The fact that if you have 5 witnesses to the sane crime you will get 5 different descriptions of the event. This is well known by those that teach law and witness testimonies. They can get the description of the perp different. One may say he had a red hat, and one may say it was blue. I personally saw a demonstration of this. It doesn't make them bad witnesses; just mistaken because of the way they say it. Has long has they all agree on the same perp doing it is enough for a conviction.
All common sense goes out of the window when it comes to analysing religious texts, it seems.
Note: I'm pointing out how people forget your point about the nature of eyewitness accounts.
@@darkwolf7740Except there’s absolutely nothing latent in the Synoptics material when it comes to a commonly included narrative that necessitates eyewitness testimony is behind them.
Read the story of Jesus healing the man with the crooked hand on a Sabbath in a Synogogue and tell me with a straight face that that isn’t a perfect example of mere literary borrowing between the Synoptists in some way.
@@ManoverSupermanNot the geographic data that indicates a person well versed in first century Galilee and the routes that needed to be traveled? The correct naming convention and common names for the time period? The titles and names of political leaders of the time ( including some that were incorrectly disputed until archeological data proved them accurate)? I have no idea what you would accept; if you dispute the gospels and Acts as historical eye witnesses testimony what historical document you would accept at all, the standard you are setting isn't a standard it's an insurmountable bar.
@@jaredgilmore3102You know that’s all a complete red herring from what I said. My argument is about a specific account that perfectly makes legitimate the theory of literary borrowing. And that is incredibly pertinent to the theory of undesigned coincidences, because it shows that literary borrowing and influence can account for some of these as well.
All of the things you mentioned are merely the prerequisites for historical accuracy. So the authors knew of Pontius Pilate? Even you know that doesn’t automatically make everything the gospels write factual truth of itself. You know what other early Christian documents have time-appropriate names? The so-called Gnostic gospels! Please engage with the ideas, not your presuppositions about me from my comment.
I concede that a good amount of the gospel materials have a root in history. Put your teeth away. I’m trying to have a conversation. It’s not an insurmountable bar at all. The reality is people like Erik simply don’t want to admit any degree of fallibility to the gospel authors or to even honestly consider that the materials might not be directly from eyewitnesses in their literary form. There is no grosser presupposition you can make about a text than that it is innerant or infallible. What people like Erik do and what actual critical scholars do is worlds apart in terms of bias. There is no equality here in intellectual terms.
@@ManoverSuperman No the gnostic gospels do not have those things...
People are gonna argue one witness saw a green hat on the suspect, while another saw a red hat on the suspect, totally missing the point that the suspect was, indeed, wearing a hat.
Exactly!
@@vantascuriosity4540 It is a good arguement about the witnesses not really being filled with God's power. But that stance in itself about biblical inerrancy might just be a modern ignorant take of the bible. I still do believe the main message is clear as day and night. But some minor details admittedly did get lost and do ruin the whole reliability of the accounts. It's not quite video evidence but it still needs faith to keep it dear.
@@genericscout5408Yeah but from what I am seeing those minor issues aren't too detrimental to the bible thus showing that the argument from undesigned coincidences stands strong, would you agree with that point?
@@genericscout5408 I don't think inerrancy is a modern take. The modern take is what we tend to mean with inerrant. But regardless, the Gospel doesn't hang on the Bible being inerrant.
Let's make the crime scene a designed coincidence: The first witness says, "the robber tripped." The second witness hears the first and then tells his story: "The robber tripped because his shoes were untied." The second witness is identifying the connection himself, probably to show off how much he knows (or else embellished). If he just said, "His shoes were untied" without mentioning the trip, and the story suggested he didn't see him trip, then it would count as UNdesigned coincidence, rather than designed coincidence.
Silly nonsense. Nothing suggests exaggerated claim or falsehood in your story.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Nothing suggests exaggerated claims about the gospels other than your materialistic world view, so.
@@midimusicforever
I'm not a materialist. I am a Christian.
The "Synoptic Problem" seems like a Catch-22 argument. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke were to contradict each other, then you'd have a pretty obvious credibility problem. But when the Synoptic Gospels corroborate each other, then you also supposedly have a credibility problem because it "proves" copying and plagiarism.
A policeman told me that if witness statements are identical, beware. They might have met up in the pub and decided what to say.
They might also have, say, travelled together for several years.
@@troublemaker9899
Read them all and judge for yourself. They read more like separate and independent accounts than a collaborative work And why would anyone go to the trouble of making up a preposterous story?
I'm studying theology, and the Q document is a source of great frustration for me. I have read entire papers written on the assumption that Q exists, and I can't help but laugh. No one will ever dare write a paper if they can prove that Q doesn't exist, because a whole bunch of people will be out of work.
Reminds me of something I heard RE: critical Bible scholarship that made me laugh and gave me a little paradigm shift. "Nobody wants to hear that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare"
out of curiosity is that where "Qanon" comes from?
I dont know much about the whole deal I just assumed that was some internet cult of personality that got running somehow and someone just happened to have the name Qanon.
Just bringing awareness at the possibility of the book of Acts. Mark indeed follows Peter's style.
You know what's worse, that such an important hypothetical document for so many authors not even a piece of manuscript has ever been found. What's worse, an even more obscure pypirus document from an obscure gospel has survived the centuries. This document is called the Egerton Gospel.
Belief in the Q document, something nobody alive has seen, requires a great deal of faith.
I've always assumed that Matthew not mentioning the source by name in Herod's court, was to protect the identity of the source. And Luke mentioning it was probably because it was safe to do so
"... of this they are willingly ignorant."
I believe there is wisdom in patiently instructing those who oppose themselves, but there comes a point where Jesus tells me to shake the dust off my feet. My New Year's resolution has been to better gauge those who are dealing in good faith vs. those who are not and who therefore multiply objections exponentially like a Hydra.
I'm not Heracles.
In my experience, many are just plain ignorant.
When I'm in the mood I will give lessons to the Invincibly Ignorant about history, chemistry, putting things in the proper context, et cetera & ad nausea as their Red Herring arguments wander all off topic. Many of their arguments just expose their carefully guarded ignorance, some of it requires massive conspiracies, but mainly I think they're just trolling.
I’ve had this experience dealing with advocates of many faiths over the years-Muslims, Jews, _Christians_ New Age spiritualist types. It seems no one is immune from dogma and the lack of the ability to even conceive of the possibility of being wrong in their faith.
I have to learn this lesson myself. I way too often let myself get baited into arguing with "skeptics" that don't care at all about learning, just insulting and belittling.
@@ManoverSupermandoes that include the possibility Atheists aren’t immune to dogma and their beliefs could be wrong? Sounds like you’re just describing normal humans. We all have biases.
@@MrJonny0Of course it does! I’ve spoken to many of them. We all have our blind spots. But after so many years of having these discussions with so many people, I conclude that God will not condemn the world on theological matters. Man is too ignorant a beast to be fairly judged on such criteria.
Skeptics: "extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence."
Also skeptics: Quotes the supposed Q-source as if they had it in their lap.
As always amazing content. You helped strengthen my faith, started watching about 1 and a half years ago, and your videos have helped a ton! Thank you
The fact that there are so many is the attestation
"Q" is speculation based on the false assumption that the Gospels are fiction. The Gospels are honest accurate accounts of real events. Some witnessed by thousands of people. Some witnessed only by God.
To a certain cold case detective, that different witnesses of the same event relate different details is evidence that they are telling the truth. I believe him.
I also believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who adds details only God could know.
"Q" speculation is not based on the assumption that the gospels are fiction.
The Q hypothesis is based on the sayings shared by Luke and Matthew that aren't in Mark.
It doesn't make the gospels untrue or true. It just would mean they shared another source outside of Mark.
"Q" is based entirely on suppositions, but the Gospels being fiction is not one of those.
The main supposition is that Luke had no access to Matthew (even though Matthew was written first).
The theory goes that since Luke agrees with Matthew sometimes and disagrees other times, there must have been some other document that contains exactly the parts of Matthew that Luke agrees with.
Never mind that such document has zero evidence for its existence, that it's actually quite difficult to construct a document that works this way, and that the discrepancies are better explained by Luke simply disagreeing with Matthew or deciding to present a different perspective.
"Q" is a legacy of the 19th century harmonization fad, and scholars kept the conclusion even when the premise became completely useless. The gospel authors didn't care about harmonization!
@@1001011011010 Every argument based on "Q" or arguing that "Q" must exist has been based on the Bible being fiction. Sometimes implied but always there.
@@markhorton3994 How and in what way does positing a shared source between Luke and Matthew outside of Mark imply the Gospels are fictitious? It simply doesn't logically follow.
@@fluffysheap Why would anyone assume that Luke had to base his Gospel on prior work? That is an assumption that all the Gospels are fiction.
While each Gospei answers questions raised by those previously written each is based on a separate eye witness account and God filling in what no one saw. The eye witnesses are Mathew, Peter, John and every living witness available to Luke's investigation.
That one was based on another implies fiction.
Well presented. That there are so many undesigned coincidences is truly incredible. Would late fiction writers really purposefully "redact" other Gospels on minutiae that only people reallllllly searching will find, and then a few paragraphs later flat out contradict the same Gospel they are trying to invent undesigned coincidences for? Not saying there are any legit contradictions, but I think the fact that there are many undesigned coincidences and many alleged contradictions is strong evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels! It makes no sense for the Gospel writers to add confirming details in one scenario and then in the very next scene to add seemingly contradictory details. The best explanation is that this is legit eyewitness testimony
The fact that there are contradiction within the gospels do not indicate in any way that there are alleged undesigned coincidences, so are those alleged coincidences really undesigned? or maybe there is something deeper going on that we just happen to not know yet? for example, an alternative explanation that i believe is more likely is:
The possibility that after the gospels were orally communicated (for the first time) back in the old times, with back and forth conversations believers (including the authors) started to agree on certain beliefs creating a common belief which then would be basis for the scrolls that were writen which then became books, this without mentioning the fact that over the time of all of those centuries these gospels got modified, possibly even with the intention of creating more coherence between the gospels, making those "coincidences" seem undesigned.
@@guillermo3412 "...with back and forth conversations believers (including the authors) started to agree on certain beliefs creating a common belief which then would be basis for the scrolls that were written..."
Recognize that if they're sharing the same stories, they probably have similar beliefs already.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT the problem is that these "similar beliefs" come after they share the stories and not before because there has to be something that starts the belief in the first place, a lot of these people werent alive when jesus was even said to live you know?, i also forgot to mention that not all the people who were listening to these figures were "believers" in the first place, a lot of them just converted in the process and it can be for a lot of reasons, it doesnt have to be because there was a common belief before the fact. it could be you know one person who started it all and then from there the belief expanded to his family or his closed group then to his local town, etc.
@@guillermo3412
But skeptics claim collusion based on a Q source. You can't claim collusion AND contradiction.
@@sliglusamelius8578 i never claimed in my comment that there was collution in the biblical texts, please read again.
I tried the method of undesigned coincidences in the stories I listen to, and I must be sure of it. It is very useful 🔥👀🔥
Don't you see, the random coincidence of evolution is far more likely than just 3 witness testimonies overlapping...
Most Christians accept evolution so this point is kind of meaningless unless you know he's a young earth creationist.
@Dock284 Evolution doesn't argue for God's involvement, but Christians do. Being wrong is your constant companion
Evolution doesn’t argue against God’s involvement either
+ insert random petty insult for no reason
@@o00nemesis00o it most certainly does. The absence of God is against God. You clearly have no meaningful experience in the sciences.
It would be cool if this kind of argument featured in a novel or film to illustrate and give flavor for how it works to a broad audience.
Hmm, I wonder if a videogame could demonstrate the concept in an interactive way.
@@Yipper64 to my knowledge the only games that really provides much interest to corroboration and multiple perspective storytelling is like danganronpa, and that's a pretty weird game
early christianity started out without a written work and relied on the oral tradition of the community, the writers of matthew and luke didn't need to have read mark because they were presumably part of the same community, this explains the similarities between matthew and luke without needing another written work. it was all oral tradition to start, from the first gen followers to the second gen followers.
This is good evidence of there being actually accounts, but I think saying that these make the gospels "reliable" (I assume you mean entirely so) is probably why atheistic people are going to be turned away by this argument. I haven't heard the argument prior to this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if people over state how much this affirms the Christian position.
All this video is is good evidence that the authors of the gospels had access to each other's work.
Also this fails to remedy for the things in the gospels that contradict each other.
Inspiring Philosophy has great series regarding these so-called contradictions. Undesigned coincidences is just one of evidences for the reliability of the gospel accounts. When taken all together, unless you just really want to be against it, it all makes sense logicallyand is beyond reasonable doubt
Let me stop you at "reddit skeptic" Yeah reddit is full of something alright but it's more like a clogged toilet than a room full of skeptics.
Reddit is full of sceptics
At the end of the day, a person will find a way to reject it all in their hearts even when they know what is written is true at arguably the deepest human level possible. What commandments of God are egregious in nature? Love your God and love your neighbor, and yet they contend with this not because they are skeptical, they masquerade their incredulity and hardened hearts with the facade of skepticism and empiricism. They refuse to accept responsibility over their own infinitely inadequate selves, not understanding that one exists that forgives them for their insufficiency.
”But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.“
1 Corinthians 2:14
I just learned about the Q-document hypothesis and I think it will prove to hold as much credibility as phlogiston used to in alchemy.
Indeed, no such Q document has ever been found. It's a fiction.
this is a really elegant and powerful argument.
it was simply brilliant, mr. testify, to depict your side as the "wojaks" and the other side as the "soyjaks." truly it helped me understand who was winning the debate
There’s a huge incentive not to fully understand, and therefore strawman, this argument.
that's so key, because if it's true, it suddenly means life or death
@@winnumber101no
Thanks for what you do!
The NT is historical documentation. It's not fictional hero storytelling. Nobody thought that being crucified in support of the idea that we are supposed to sacrifice for others was a good epic hero tale, we still don't!!
Lots just have bad will toward the idea of the legitimacy of the works of the apostles. However, your talk is helpful for some.
What do you think of some critics who say that Paul's conversion is a mystical delusion?
By the way new subscriber
It's silly, that's what I think. Paul admitted to persecuting Christians. He traveled all over spreading the gospel and died a martyr's death. Unlike Muslim martyrdom, he did not die killing others to convert them, he died converting others to believe in sacrifice for others, as per the gospel of Jesus. That's not something to die for unless you think it's true.
Bro did them dirty with the thumbnail 😂
You should do some undesigned coincidences on the kings and the chronicles
This is a great explanation, thanks.
Regarding undesigned coincidence: it is sufficient that one of these NOT be in Q to defend the argument, whereas the counterargument that Q contains every overlap, nothing less, is a stronger claim to make and is ultimately unverified. At my school, source criticism comes up in seminars and even the proponents argue with one another.
The gospel narratives:
Literary works by different authors, with different agendas, intended for different audiences - about an itinerant preacher who spoke no Greek and left no works of his own.
What contradictions?
Jesus likely knew some Greek
Can you address how you would resolve the apparent editorial fatigue present in Luke’s gospel when he reorients the scene of the feeding of the 5k from a remote countryside to the city of Bethsaida, but apparently reverts to Mark’s rhetorical motive for the feeding by citing that it was growing late and the thousands of listeners would need sustenance if they weren’t given ample time to retreat to the towns where foods were being sold before evening came? This is a crucial junction upon which the verscify of your entire argument hinges.
I already did in a different video responding to Matthew Hartke
ruclips.net/video/YiDh4rEupPo/видео.htmlsi=x0R8hkoKQ_mQp2eU
@@TestifyApologetics thanks, I hadn’t seen that one before. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my concern. There is some specific verbiage that Goodacre highlights a few sentences prior to the part in his paper that you did address. Goodacre highlights that Luke’s account has Jesus and his disciples going directly into the city (υπεχωρησεν εις πολιν) in verse 10, and doesn’t offer any explicit reason for his readers to understand how they would’ve ended up in a desolate place. Though, I suppose the jury is out on where exactly Luke supposed that the crowds followed him in verse 11.
Thank you
the info about Joanna was pretty neat!
Thousands of people witnessed Jesus in action. Scribes wrote what they heard. Erroneous gospels would have been called out.
I had never heard of this argument, I'm already very deep in my faith but woah...pile this up with all the historic accounts of Jesus (especially in the talmud), cross-references, wisdom within the bible...I can't deny the existance of God even if I wanted to, I can only ignore it
You’ve also gotta realize that they probably borrowed from each other because they were trying to get information to their respective audiences. They probably didn’t know their work would be compiled as one 300 years later
👍Something is wrong with my phone. It won't let me like anything.
AT&T was hit with a cyber-attack. So were many pharmacies. It should be back in a day or two. Hope they didn't get your personal info in it.
@@randywise5241I don't have any relationship with AT&T. I am in Mexico and use Telcell. My internet connection is TelMex.
The problem went away.
Not well read in gospel stuff, but the synoptic problem theory with Q and Mark and stuff is well accepted by scholars for a reason right? The stories having these casual coincidences is could be expected under the synoptic problem theory too. A scribe sees discrepancies, has an incomplete manuscript, adds or takes away for a personal reason yadda yadda. The stories fitting together by having non contradictory information in different places doesn’t defeat the scholarly theory. If anything it is neutral, or supports the consensus slightly. But idk
they died for their accounts, idk whathever your agenda is but it cant be false if you are willing to be tortured and executed publicly for it
@@Spriktor That isn’t true. If I killed myself in the name of Thor would it make my religion true? Are Islamic Jihadists more correct because of their conviction in suicide bombing? Use your brain, how strongly you hold a beleif doesn’t necessarily correlate to it’s truth.
@@Spriktor being willing to die for your beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs are true. Many religions have martyrs - it just means that those people genuinely believe in that religion, not that the religion is objectively right.
I think if you aren't well read in the gospel you don't fully understand how weirdly obscure the coincidences are. The Herod one is a SUPER obscure detail that isn't brought to attention in any of the Gospels as being an issue, but is only an issue for skeptics, but then is solved when reading each Gospel. The fact is that with these coincidences there is no attention drawn to them trying solve an issue.
So for instance here's a story:
1. Jacob ran in the house and tripped.
Now, an obvious addition would be:
2. Jacob ran in the house and tripped down some stairs and his mom found him crying.
But, what the Gospels do is like this:
3. Jacob's mom found Jacob crying in the house.
You see, story 1 and story 3 are actually two different "stories" but they cover same event. One tells it from Jacob's perspective, one is from the mom's perspective, but neither one explains the other on its own nor gives all the information at once. If you ONLY read story 1, you would have no hints about story 3 and vice versa. However, Story 2 is an example of where a skeptic would say "oh, this is clearly a later addition to fix issues in story 1 or story 3".
The synoptic problem can be entirely solved by simply saying the authors knew each other (no historian contest this) and that the gospel authors are simply who they are attributed to. This explains the information differences between them entirely, no need for extra sources.
Q is not really "well accepted", as it introduces an massive problem by simply claiming it exist. Mainly, why do we have 0 evidence of its existence? It has never been mentioned in ANY of our historical sources who would have known about it, and there are no surviving physical copies. There are only one response to this argument against Q, and it is basically handwaving. The response is to claim that the early Church now having the Gospels feared that Q would mislead people without the appropriate interpretations the Gospels granted and as such was disposed of.
I realize now I never told you what Q was so what I said might seem odd, Q is supposedly sayings of Jesus. Which is why the "response" to the argument is just handwaving, the idea that the early church that literally believes Q are the sayings of God, would for some reason dispose of the words of God in favor of the Gospels is frankly absurd.
"Q" is "well accepted" in the same way that the late date of the gospels are "well accepted". Mainly that Atheist are the primary holders of this view, and the view itself basically requires the presupposition that the Gospel authors could not have been who they are attributed to, and as such all evidence which shows they are is actually not evidence.
Ahh, incident reports.... ask a security or police officer about testimonials. Youll get this concept.
For the algorithm
Apologists fail to grasp the objection of skeptics. Which is that this line of argumentation is a red herring, a way to avoid grappling with the greater likelihood of fictionality because of the way ancient documents work. do the homework, Testify.
bro what
@@TestifyApologetics when your response is bro what it makes you look like a goof and he's right
If evidence in the Gospels point to a Q source, maybe it should be called a G source - believers seem to forget they are divinely inspired.
Would somebody here mind explaining why the infancy Gospel of Thomas is false and what some arguments for the date of creation being mid-late 2nd Century Ce and not the earliest possible dating 80ce making it contemporaneous with the Gospel according to Luke and why it is false etc.
Obviously if all people or witnesses see or speak same in any situations its obviously a conspiracy.
In my view, the major weakness in your presentation is the "argument from casualness." I don't think there is anything casual about the smallest portion of sacred story writing. Everything is designed with the greatest care. You underestimate, I believe, the ways that one text could (in your own word) "supplement" another text. There is artistry in making something *sound* casual in literature; that doesn't mean it actually is....I happen to be religious; I just don't like poor arguments for what are essentially matters of faith.
Isn't this an inerrancy of the Bible PoV. I'm Christian too but I'm not sure I believe in that PoV. I kinda take it as normal dudes jotting this all down for others to read.
@@DUDEBroHey No, what I wrote is not about inerrancy, it's about piety and devotion. I'm not saying what they wrote is even true, but they definitely didn't just "jot stuff down."
lol everything was with the greatest care
also skeptics: They contradict all the time!!!
@@TestifyApologetics I'm not a so-called skeptic; I didn't bring up contradictions. But f you want to go that route, then you can't both take instances where the texts seem to complement each other as evidence for their truth, but not accept their seeming contradictions as evidence for their falsity. How are you different from the "skeptics"-you're both selective in your reading?
@@TestifyApologeticsexactly, the skeptics are saying they are copying each other but at the same time they are contradicting each other Lol. They just dont want to believe
Skeptic = Malicious actor
Matthew is first... and then Luke, THEN Mark.
Matthew wrote to Jewish people in Judea region... and possibly in Aramaic first.
This is really cool. I hold to Matthean priority though. Mark’s greek is rough and church fathers say he got his gospel from Peter. The gospel is for the Jew first. So Matthew would be written first. Then Luke for Paul’s churches then mark.
There are two main issues that I see. First, even if the UC exist, how can you distinguish between the authors pulling from "the truth" and the authors pulling from a common story? Second, when you look at some supposed inconsistencies (i.e. details quite different in the resurrection accounts), apologists present harmonizations. This is the exact opposite of UC -- non-subtle differences should make the accounts less likely, under UC but we never hear that. This second point strikes me that the UC proponents are being overzealous pattern seekers and that most of the UC are just reading into the text, and why UCs are just not convincing to anyone outside of the bubble.
Discrepancies and reconcilable variations are a feature of eyewitness testimony and so there's an epistemic asymmetry here. Second, saying there was some kind of unknown "ur source" that contains both coincidences that they're pulling from is ad hoc. Third, you're still ignoring the evidential value of casualness.
@@TestifyApologetics Certain types of variations we expect with eyewitness testimony, and those aren't present in the Gospels. Saying there is some kind of ur-source is not ad-hoc -- it is informed by our knowledge of the transmission of stories, especially given that much of the gospels are *verbatim* copies of each other and they were written decades after the events. Finally, yes I discount the evidential value of "casualness" because it seems entirely subjective, and susceptible to overzealous pattern seeking.
I like the Redditheist, looks like every atheist i know
clearly you know very few atheists
@@Dock284 I guarantee I know more atheists than you have friends, all 2 of them.
What about P(casual given it is fabricated)? Are most people really unaware that too conspicuous of connections will make their stories less believable?
Why make up a fake story about Jesus that kills you and hunts you and jails you and hates you? All of them died for there love of Jesus. No one will follow it, no one will want it, no one will want to believe it. Still today, We are hated, hunted, killed and jailed. We believe because we know Jesus saves all from sin. Why are we hated? The devil is the prince of this world. Jesus is the king of all kings. The very fact we love you all and forgive you all, the most peaceful loving belief there is, But we are mocked and killed. We do not judge others, we do not hate anyone, we all are peacemakers. Yes, there are wolves pretending to be believers that make us look bad. Sent in by the devil. But make no mistake, there is a war going on. There is not one good argument to say it was a invented story.
If you leave open the possibilities that multiple people witnesses miracles and contributed their accounts to the gospels. There is no synoptic problem, there is no need for Q or other hypothetical written sources theories.
I've never heard of the synoptic argument before, but something that strikes me listening to your rebuttal of it is, well, how do you know that these coincidences are actually unplanned? Why does the fact that it seems 'casual' mean that it actually was?
The whole argument is from likelyhood. It's more likely to happen under the hypothesis of the gospels being genuine.
@@Nox-mb7iu How would you even go about determining likelihood here?
@@Fancy_Creb "The casual nature of the accounts" - Testify
@@Nox-mb7iu Okay, but that's what my first question way- how do we know that these are actually 'casual' and not just made to seem that way?
@@Fancy_Creb Brotha watch the video. If it seems casual then it's more likely to be casual than a lie made to seem casual. If you disagree then we should talk about epistemology and the criteria for beliefs.
The thing that gets me the most are the made up prophecies in Matthew
I've touched on that elsewhere, just see the videos I put out in December.
@@TestifyApologetics Yeah your gonna probably point out all the the other vague prophecies like every Christian does.
Take a shot of milk every time Eric says "like pieces of a jigsaw".
No dice, hoss. I'm lactose intolerant.
"John came fasting and praying and you called him possessed; the son of man came eating and drinking, and you called him a drunkard and a glutton." Don't get drunk, but you can have alcohol. (lol at the people suggesting Jesus saved the good welches grape juice for last at the feast in Cana.)
@@TheBurningWarrior
Jesus probably ate olives too, doesn’t mean they aren’t disgusting.
The Bible has never been disproved except in fairy tales. Modern scientists look on the bible as accurate as far as history goes. Bible scholars are in awe of the accuracy of copies, and no one outside of the 19th century doubts that the gospels were written by who claims them. Each Gospel has a slightly different writing style. But, believers in atheist fairy tales will continue to make atheism look something outdated and not for the bright.
That's absolutely false. First of all, scientists are not the ones you would ask about the historical validity of the Bible; that would be historians and archeologists. Secondly, while there have been some surprisingly accurate parts of the Bible, there are many inaccurate or unconfirmed parts. Christians typically say the accurate parts are literal but the inaccurate parts are metaphorical.
Amen
What sayeth the scripture?
*2 Timothy 3:15-16*
And that *from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,* which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
*16All scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
*2 Peter 3:15-16*
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved *brother Paul* also according to the wisdom given unto him *hath written unto you;* 16As also *in all his epistles,* speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the *other scriptures,* unto their own destruction.
Timothy had the Holy Scriptures.
Paul states that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of GOD. Peter states that Paul's epistles are scripture.
2nd Book, 3rd Chapter, verses 15 and 16 of BOTH Timothy and Peter
1 Peter 1:20-21
*Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.* 21For the prophecy came *not in old time by the will of man:*
*but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.*
Men did not write from memory (the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). The gospels were SPOKEN as these writers were moved by the HOLY GHOST, and written down.
Galatians 3:8
And the *scripture,* *foreseeing* that God would justify the heathen through faith, *preached before the gospel unto Abraham,* saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
How does the scripture foresee, and preach? Who was foreseeing and preaching?
Romans 9:17
For the *scripture saith unto Pharaoh,* Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
The SCRIPTURE SPOKE to Pharaoh.
Hebrews 4:12-13
For the word of God is *quick,* and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a *discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.*
13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in *his sight:* but all things are naked and opened unto the *eyes of him with whom we have to do.*
The word of God is called a "He" and a "Him".
Quick (1828 Websters Dictionary)
QUICK, adjective [If q is a dialectical prefix, as I suppose, this word coincides with the Latin vigeo, vegeo, and vig, veg, radical, coincide with wag.]
1. Primarily, *alive; living;* opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh. Leviticus 13:10.
The word of God is alive, living, and discerns YOUR thoughts and intents. This does not mean that it only pricks your conscience.
The scripture sees all creatures with HIS eyes.
There are parts of the gospels that are complementary with each other, and some facts and events that are omitted between them. God intends that your read ALL FOUR. God wrote the scriptures through men MOVED by the Holy Spirit and therefore are inspired, preserved and inerrant.
There is no guess work or theories of inspiration if you study what the scriptures say of themselves.
John 16:13
Howbeit when *he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.*
What was written over Jesus' head on the cross?
Matthew 27:37
And set up over his head his accusation written, *THIS IS JESUS* THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mark 15:26
And the superscription of his accusation was written over, *THE KING OF THE JEWS.*
Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of *Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,* THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19-20
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS *OF NAZARETH* THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in *Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.*
There are no contradictions here, and with all four gospels you get the entire superscription:
THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Hebrew)
THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Greek)
THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Latin)
This idea of divine dictation couldn't even remotely explain why we have 4 gospels at all and not just one. That's not how inspiration works.
I'm curious about which ones may be buried in Samuel, Kings, and perhaps Chronicles. Could light be shed on the exact sources for parts of Chronicles by something like this?
Chronicles almost undeniably had access to Samuel and Kings. We practically know this on the exact same bases as we highly suspect Matthew and Luke used Mark, and not vice versa. The same kinds of contradictions, rearrangements, additions and other redactions as to be expected are found in Chronicles as we expect in Matthew and Luke.
@@ManoverSuperman My question was more nuanced, I'll elaborate: Which clues may indicate the age of the other sources Chronicles also pulled from, and indeed could undesigned coincidences imply those sources to be possibly as old as Samuel and Kings?
@@Makaneek5060Ah I see. My bad. I honestly couldn’t say. I would _assume_ they are, since they appear to have been actual royal court records, but we simply cannot know since we do not, unfortunately, possess them.
Maybe address the most obvious objection.
There was a community of Christians.
The Gospel of Mark is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Mark."
The Gospel of Matthew is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Matthew."
The Gospel of Luke is "Our communal story of Jesus, as told by Luke."
A communal story of Jesus (oral tradition) would explain any commonalities. We know there was a Christian oral tradition. We also know that stories from other oral traditions (ex. various myths) have coincidences.
no, that doesn't work. here's why - whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/08/more_on_ursource_theories_of_u.html
❤❤
So, the fact is that Matthew and Luke both contain about 90% of the material in Mark, sometimes with identical wording, and your response to this is to digg the remaining 10% for a few examples of things that they didn't copy? That is a really ridiculous argument.
Regarding your robbery analogy. The coincidence is only impressive if you can be sure that the witness are independent and none of them hear the other one before making their statement. This is not the case for the gospels, since Mark is dated much earlier than Matthew and Luke.
Lol that would be ridiculous if that is what I argued. The point went several feet over your head.
Also you're wrong about the analogy. Two witnesses aren't going to go ooh I'll mention the shoe but not the tripping and you mention the tripping but not the laces, that way our testimony looks super duper authentic! It's not impossible but not a safe way to bet. You're missing the whole thing about casualness.
@TestifyApologetics
Two witnesses may not tell it that way, but one guy wanting to write his own version of an already existing story could. Matthew needs to tell the same story Mark does but he can't just produce an exact copy of Mark, so he adds some things and leaves a few things out. Thats why things like the two by two detail got left out (and again, you really need to digg deep to find those rare exceptions, since 90% of Mark is in Matthew).
I don't see how the examples you choose are notable connections instead of just variations of an existing story. Your example of the disciples being paired is just Matthew leaving something out, not an undesigned coincidence
Regarding Joanna explaining how Matthew knew what Herold had said: I don't see any strong coincidence there. Matthew contains several other scenes he couldn't have witnessed: the meetings between Judas and the chief priests (Matthew 27:3-10) and a meeting between the chief priests and the Pharisees with Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:62-66). How did Matthew know about those? Maybe that's just the way Matthew likes to tell stories.
I think the Gospels are written to be truthful accounts, but the undesigned coincidences argument seems odd to me. For one thing, what determines the 'casual' nature of a detail? If it raises a question in your mind, why wouldn't it raise a similar question in the mind of the author? Especially if this was holy writ to the author (like Mark), wouldn't you expect attention to detail, for the author to ponder or meditate on Scripture?
Mainly because most of the subtle connections are meaningless details that tend to add nothing to the overarching narrative being told.
In other words, why would an author add something meaningless to their writings to make it look less genuine unless they're actually telling the truth.
@@darkwolf7740
That's just begging the question. What makes it "meaningless"? Writing material was expensive. They weren't writing social media screeds but sacred history. These things are included in the books for a reason.
@@1001011011010I'm specifically talking about undesigned coincidences that are related to minor events or people not given much spotlight in the Gospels. It seems more of a stretch to assume that the authors focused a lot of time on these details for the sake of it rather than historical validity.
Do you know how much fan fiction is written over minor characters who aren't given much spotlight in the actual published story the fan fiction is about? It is not at all unusual to ask a question about some detail, or indeed even to imagine answers to them ourselves.
But that's fan fiction. We are instead talking about religion, something much more important and serious. A religion that (centuries later, so perhaps it is unfair to compare) held an ecumenical council over an iota. How many sermons or even books have been written about "minor" characters or details? How many legends told about this one or that? Or, indeed, how many historians could tell you about something most "normal" people do not care about?
When we talk about sacred texts, you can find people writing line by line commentaries.
Do you really think the authors didn't take their sacred duty to record about their Messiah seriously enough to pay attention to details in previous recorded works? It seems an absurd suggestion.
@@1001011011010There are a few false assumptions you're making here;
1) The Gospel authors weren't necessarily driven solely by historical accuracy, as per the norm for other historical works at the time. Some details were likely drawn upon for theological reasons, but that doesn't negate historical accuracy. By that standard, you'd have to invalidate much of ancient history.
2) "Fan fiction" is a strange comparison to make to the Gospels. They weren't written for entertainment purposes, nor were they written as a re-imagination or expansion of previously known stories. What are you getting at? The genre is not even remotely similar.
3) The argument that the authors of the Gospels would pay such attention to meaningless details presumes that they were written by eyewitnesses, which I assume you would deny. Assuming for a moment that they weren't eyewitnesses, it would be difficult for the authors to draw upon oral tradition alone in order to create undesigned coincidences. Given that these sources were likely small in number, it is extremely unlikely that these coincidences just 'happened'.
As someone who holds a lot of respect for the religion and the bible. I have to say the links in these accounts sound more like high level writing than a casual coincidence.
The claim of evidential value of casualness is supported by the false assumption that people are casual when writing based on real events but when they are writing based off of other texts they would be super heavy handed about it.
They would be causal in both cases. It's not hard for, say, Matthew to read the pairs in Mark at one point and then later after it marinates (he obviously read the text more than one before doing his anonymous rewrite of the anonymous body of existing Jesus gospel material, of which there were several) is casually influenced to depict disciples in pairs.
There's no reason to expect him to be heavy handed and break the fourth wall just so the audience knows exactly why they said this, that would make them a terrible author and the text would just be a fractal of digressions of digressions. Trying to clarify every editorial decision you make in the writing itself makes you neurotic, try it some time.
Anonymous fluid rewrites also are also better than eyewitness reportage in explaining why we have a synoptic problem in the first place.
There is no synoptic problem.
@@DUDEBroHey you probably have a specific understanding of the word problem
@@Greyz174 I don't have a problem. You guys claim there is one. It's a multilayered strategy. You guys try to dismiss John as a gnostic gospel that somehow isn't trying to be historical at all. Then when you only have 3 gospels to play with say that two of them plagerized the other. Now once left with one gospel tear it apart.
It's just red herrings and we're expected to somehow waste time on them.
@@DUDEBroHey yeah so like i thought, you see everything with polemic brain, probably because you think there is spiritual warfare going on
The term "problem" in "synoptic problem" means "thing to figure out" it's a neutral term describing an open question, and the project is just to come up with explanations for the literary relationship between the gospels and why they share so much material
One hypothesis to explain the text's data is that the texts are collections of sayings and acts that people put together and rewrote and updated over a period of time. This fits the data better than the three texts being three things that came directly from eyewitnesses (who can just write their own story instead of just adding details to an existing one and have no reason not to), and it also nicely explains why we have a bunch if peripheral somewhat different versions of this synoptic tradition like the gospel of the hebrews or marcion's gospel (no he didnt just "mutilate" Luke per the traditional accusation, he had another proto synoptic gospel, i can explain why) or other peripheral ones; look at reconstructions of those texts, it's the same type of rewriting and updating text material, for a specific audience, that we see with the canonical three, just extended onwards. So this fluid-ish drawn out process for generating the gospel texts is a better explanation of the synoptic relations, is less expected on eyewitness reportage, and also covers even "undesigned coincidences" since shared / interlocking details are just as fine to casually come up with this process of generating texts. Rehashing the same material will get you a bunch of angles of the same stuff, which is a good format for people detecting "coincidences"
Thats what i was actually talking about, make sure next time to only bring up your "systematic attack" hypothesis when someone is actually talking about that. Also, you should provide reasons for calling everything a red herring, otherwise youre just doing a thought terminating cliche
@@DUDEBroHey are these "you guys" in the room with you right now?
None of that has to do with what I said, and it looks like you already had that response planned when you wrote the first one because it's not even a response to what I responded
But yes you do have a specific and highly polemical understanding of the world "problem" it just means "open puzzle to figure out" about how to map out the sources and reasons for the large amounts of shared material.
You'd only present this as an argument if you already believed in the truth of the gospels.
bruh...that has nothing to do with the argument itself, just the people making it. refute the actual argument.
@@TestifyApologetics It is a refutation. This argument seems most plausible to you because you already accept the existence of God and the truth of the gospels. Personally, I don't accept either, so this argument isn't any more valid than the authors of Matthew and Luke just having Mark as a reference, and/or being familiar enough with various retellings of the stories of Mark for the coincidences to exist.
🤦🤦🤦
@@TestifyApologetics If this argument has any merit, you're clearly unequipped to demonstrate it.
@@lordfarquaad8601 that's called an ad hominem, not a refutation....
if a flat earther gave an argument for a global earth, you wouldn't say his arguments are wrong simply because he's a flat earther. The author of an argument has nothing to do with the validity of the argument itself
Parrot.
Erik, using that fabricated robbery story to illustrate how undesigned coincidences are authentic and unplanned doesn't really help your case.
Can you find something from the contemporary real world?
I give examples from history in video one see the playlist. There's nothing wrong with my hypothetical example tho
@@TestifyApologetics Can you address how you would resolve the apparent editorial fatigue present in Luke’s gospel when he reorients the scene of the feeding of the 5k from a remote countryside to the city of Bethsaida, but apparently reverts to Mark’s rhetorical motive for the feeding by citing that it was growing late and the thousands of listeners would need sustenance if they weren’t given ample time to retreat to the towns where foods were being sold before evening came? This is a crucial junction upon which the veracity of your entire argument hinges.
@@TestifyApologetics you don't think there's anything odd about using a planned and inauthentic story as your go-to example?
@@seanhogan6893no, I really don't
@@TestifyApologetics ok. Well, as they say, the house always wins.
Thank you