I foresee some possible objections (but the Synoptic problem!), so if you're one of those who have questions brewing in your mind, read Jonathan McLatchie's excellent responses to Christians like Kurt Jaros and atheists like Richard Carrier: jonathanmclatchie.com/category/bible-reliability/undesigned-coincidences/ There are three pages of blog posts here, so it might take some time but I promise it will be rewarding. And it will probably answer your question.
Lukan Priority is on the rise. Where do you stand on this issue. Are you familiar with Robert Lindsay and David Flusser (Steven Notley who is living). Lukan priority is so fantastically supported, but it does not fit the dogmatic prerogative of continental european scholarship.
I find the synoptic problem to be kind of uninteresting tbh precisely because there's arguments like the one in the video shows they all had their own information. I'm split between Markan and Matthean but it is a backburner of a topic to me. If we can show the documents are early eyewitness reports that are reliable than that's enough for me. But I'd be interested in hearing out a Lukan priority argument because that's a new one for me.
@@TestifyApologetics Lukan priority has some good arguments from the Jerusalem Perspective. But, if Luke really travelled with Paul and Luke never records the death of Paul (which we would expect it would), that places Luke in 60AD. Which is WAY before Mark. Luke also does not have a clear temple destruction prediction like Mark does, which does not really matter since other Jewish Sages predicted the fall of the Temple due to the corruption of the house of Annas and Caiaphas. I don't really want to get into Triplets or doublets here, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Luke's Gospel has more historical accuracy, and we can assume that the sources Luke is using to write his Gospel (see Luke 1), are more primitive than Mark due to their accuracy of representing very specific language debates that were happening with Jewish Sages and Teachers of the Law. Mark often doesn't preserve this. Additionally, it was VERY common for Jews to take OT stories and dramatize them in the Second Temple Period. Josephus does this with the story of Jonah. Mark uses immediately so much, and its dramatic ending fits the idea that Jews were turning stories into Greco-Roman plays. Mark could have very well been used for one of these plays or dramatized re-tellings. Imagine the gasp at the end of Mark, empty tomb... typical Gap-filling story effect. Truly a genius ending to a drama. There is WAY more. But I digress. The Paul argument is completely knock-down. Most scholars hand-wave it away but we all know that hand waving has no explanatory power.
As a very young skeptic, I thought having four different Gospel accounts was a liability to believing the overall message of "The Gospel". That changed slowly over time, as did my skepticism. Reading the Gospel of John, the words of Christ are so straight forward and bold, and the reactions of those listening so true to life, I find it to be quite compelling in it's narrative. It is almost a "no one could cook this up" sort of thing.
YES especially when you compare it to things like the gospel of Thomas and other later forged works, it's very quite different in the way it's presented, and it's more of a description of what they've seen instead of a worldview they're even trying to defend
Jesus wasn't being a jerk to Peter, He was letting him reaffirm his love, declaring it three times as he had denied it three times before. It's actually quite beautiful.
It can come off as a bit jerkish because Jesus knew his heart was all for him. As soon as Peter saw him again, we all knew he was over the moon. 😂 And keep in mind, Peter did not know that Jesus would come back in that way. So yeah, when he felt he betrayed Jesus by not standing by his own words, he was likely broken. … incidentally, we could also say that their fishing success in John was identical to when Peter and Jesus first met. 😅 I would dot that as a bit of an undesigned coincidence too, if not just a sense of God’s humor.
Excellent video. I recently read Lydia McGrew's book and some of Paley's. This is a great concept that helps to counter much of the nonsense that is 'higher textual criticism.'
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA,What a video was that!!! Brother,I'm enjoying a lot this channel.Pls,Don't stop making this mind-blowing videos. I hope some of my left likes and comments help your channel rising up that much!!! ☺☺☺
I plan on doing another video on undesigned coincidences, probably on the feeding of the 5000 where there is a crazy cluster of them. Be sure to check out Blunt's book, it's in the description and it's free.
My favorite undesigned coincidence is when Jesus is being taken by the Romans and Judas. When I first became christian I read all the gospels through in about 4 days. I was so mad at peter in Matthew and mark but the more I got familiar with him and Jesus it all just clicked together by John.
That’s a good question, for 2:10 maybe they both pulled from the Q source for that story. But I think this is one where one might say this event was more closely based on true events than others.
0:13 _"But if this is true why do the gospels have little interlocking details that seem to be unlikely if they were copied from each other or some other common source?"_ 1:53 _"Here's Matthew 26: 67-68"_ "Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” Luke 22: 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” But under the hypothesis of Markan priority, both Matthew and Luke used Mark. If we compare them to Mark we find a reference to blindfolding in Mk 14: 64 and so Luke was just copying this from him and Matthew was as well but just left the blindfolding part out. Mark 14: 64 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. Why did you leave out this verse from your comparison? This seems to contradict your quote from 0:13 that says these details would be "unlikely" if they were copied from each other.
Watching your video I remembered that in the gospels, both named different times of Jesus death/crucifixion (12h and 15h). Could you clarify what we must take on that? It's possible to make a video talking about that kind of incoherent things in the gospels? Sorry so much for my English. Thanks for all the videos brother!
I mostly agree with this article. www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/hour-jesus-crucified-resolving-apparent-bible-contradiction/ The more interesting question is what day did he die, John seems to disagree to some skeptics. Here's a good video on that ruclips.net/video/stqA0Es1y1o/видео.html
Excellent video again. Sir I have some questions and I know you can help me out. Luke said he wrote an orderly account of what others have written, 1. Why didn't he mentioned that Jesus came to die for the sin of the world like Matthew and Mark wrote? 2. In Luke 1:1 when Luke referred to many have taken in hand, what did he mean and what are those *many* accounts he referred to since we have only Matthew, and Mark before Luke accounts and John came or was written later. Can we call two accounts many? Thank you for your sir. Please I'm also following your contents on your website aside RUclips
1. Luke clearly did believe Jesus died for our sins. Even if it doesn't seem prevalent in his gospel it is in Acts, which is written by Luke. Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. - Acts 20:28 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. - Acts 13:37-39 2. Luke may have used Mark and Matthew and 2 isn't many, but that doesn't mean there were not other written sources that are now not lost to us. Luke clearly has his own materials, and opportunity to meet other apostles and eyewitnesses from Jerusalem.
777th like on this video. ❤ Bible is the true word of God. Repent and believe in Jesus the LORD because this life is short but eternity is a long time.
I think you misinterpreted John waiting for Peter. He was doing that to defer to Peter’s authority. John was a teenager. Peter was much older, plus the leader of the group. Edit: you also misinterpreted Jesus and Peter’s conversation. This was the Reinstatement of Peter, for the 3 denials, as well as a lesson to humble Peter due to Jesus’ use of _agape_ (unconditional love) and Peter’s use of _phileo_ (brotherly love). Peter was no longer going beyond where he actually was at, but was also given a second chance to say he loved the Lord.
for the second i'm 90% sure you can read it both way , because that's why the Bible is good to read , for the first , well maybe but we can't rule out what testify said for now
I hope one day this channel can Grow i'm litteraly sharing it with everyone on tik tok so they can sub but seems they are forgeting about it. Also hey did You check out the link I gave You? You know "Tim O neils" (athiest) conclusion on the ressuraction? Last time I gave You it but My comment got deleted
You say _"Skeptics like to tell Christians......Matthew and Luke copied Mark"_ If I'm not mistaken, isn't Markan priority the consensus view in modern scholarship? In other words, it's not just "skeptics" who think this but most experts in NT studies?
These people really look for any little thing to make the bible look fake or unreliable. So ridiculous. That just shows they don't have the Holy Spirit.
The Gospel of John describes the scene of Pilate and Jesus, where they talk about the truth. But John and the others were ordinary poor fishermen, peasants, farmers, etc., so they did not have access to the pagan house and could not know what they were both talking about. It seems to me that this is an imagination and fiction created by John. What do you think about it? How could they find out and from whom?
I address several of those objections in this video: ruclips.net/video/kCv6tyNYEUI/видео.html Plus see Luke 8:3. They knew people connected in high places. Also, they could have talked to Jesus himself unless you want to beg the question against the resurrection.
I foresee some possible objections (but the Synoptic problem!), so if you're one of those who have questions brewing in your mind, read Jonathan McLatchie's excellent responses to Christians like Kurt Jaros and atheists like Richard Carrier:
jonathanmclatchie.com/category/bible-reliability/undesigned-coincidences/
There are three pages of blog posts here, so it might take some time but I promise it will be rewarding. And it will probably answer your question.
Lukan Priority is on the rise. Where do you stand on this issue. Are you familiar with Robert Lindsay and David Flusser (Steven Notley who is living). Lukan priority is so fantastically supported, but it does not fit the dogmatic prerogative of continental european scholarship.
You should pin this
I find the synoptic problem to be kind of uninteresting tbh precisely because there's arguments like the one in the video shows they all had their own information. I'm split between Markan and Matthean but it is a backburner of a topic to me.
If we can show the documents are early eyewitness reports that are reliable than that's enough for me. But I'd be interested in hearing out a Lukan priority argument because that's a new one for me.
@@ea-tr1jh Weird, it was pinned earlier. Thanks, fixed.
@@TestifyApologetics Lukan priority has some good arguments from the Jerusalem Perspective. But, if Luke really travelled with Paul and Luke never records the death of Paul (which we would expect it would), that places Luke in 60AD. Which is WAY before Mark. Luke also does not have a clear temple destruction prediction like Mark does, which does not really matter since other Jewish Sages predicted the fall of the Temple due to the corruption of the house of Annas and Caiaphas.
I don't really want to get into Triplets or doublets here, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Luke's Gospel has more historical accuracy, and we can assume that the sources Luke is using to write his Gospel (see Luke 1), are more primitive than Mark due to their accuracy of representing very specific language debates that were happening with Jewish Sages and Teachers of the Law. Mark often doesn't preserve this.
Additionally, it was VERY common for Jews to take OT stories and dramatize them in the Second Temple Period. Josephus does this with the story of Jonah. Mark uses immediately so much, and its dramatic ending fits the idea that Jews were turning stories into Greco-Roman plays. Mark could have very well been used for one of these plays or dramatized re-tellings. Imagine the gasp at the end of Mark, empty tomb... typical Gap-filling story effect. Truly a genius ending to a drama.
There is WAY more. But I digress. The Paul argument is completely knock-down. Most scholars hand-wave it away but we all know that hand waving has no explanatory power.
As a very young skeptic, I thought having four different Gospel accounts was a liability to believing the overall message of "The Gospel". That changed slowly over time, as did my skepticism.
Reading the Gospel of John, the words of Christ are so straight forward and bold, and the reactions of those listening so true to life, I find it to be quite compelling in it's narrative. It is almost a "no one could cook this up" sort of thing.
YES especially when you compare it to things like the gospel of Thomas and other later forged works, it's very quite different in the way it's presented, and it's more of a description of what they've seen instead of a worldview they're even trying to defend
Jesus wasn't being a jerk to Peter, He was letting him reaffirm his love, declaring it three times as he had denied it three times before.
It's actually quite beautiful.
It can come off as a bit jerkish because Jesus knew his heart was all for him. As soon as Peter saw him again, we all knew he was over the moon. 😂
And keep in mind, Peter did not know that Jesus would come back in that way. So yeah, when he felt he betrayed Jesus by not standing by his own words, he was likely broken.
… incidentally, we could also say that their fishing success in John was identical to when Peter and Jesus first met. 😅 I would dot that as a bit of an undesigned coincidence too, if not just a sense of God’s humor.
@@Arcticmaster1190
Like... "Hey Pete, remember when ? ..." 😂
Excellent video. I recently read Lydia McGrew's book and some of Paley's. This is a great concept that helps to counter much of the nonsense that is 'higher textual criticism.'
Another great video, keep sharing truth my brother and may God continue to bless you 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks, that means a lot to me coming from Batman. ;)
JUST WONDERFUL! Thank you so much!
I love your thumbnails!! And of course your content too!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA,What a video was that!!!
Brother,I'm enjoying a lot this channel.Pls,Don't stop making this mind-blowing videos.
I hope some of my left likes and comments help your channel rising up that much!!!
☺☺☺
You are really underrated. Thanks for all your work
More please!
I plan on doing another video on undesigned coincidences, probably on the feeding of the 5000 where there is a crazy cluster of them. Be sure to check out Blunt's book, it's in the description and it's free.
@@TestifyApologetics nice! Keep up the good work
I'll check that out
I love undesigned coincidences, especially ones between books that are supposed to have no connection/were textually independent of each other.
How do you not have more subscribers yet??? 👍🏻
I just found this channel and did. Sharing also. 👍💜
Reading happy new ear today, 1st january, hits different
Glory To The Triune GOD
My favorite undesigned coincidence is when Jesus is being taken by the Romans and Judas.
When I first became christian I read all the gospels through in about 4 days. I was so mad at peter in Matthew and mark but the more I got familiar with him and Jesus it all just clicked together by John.
That’s a good question, for 2:10 maybe they both pulled from the Q source for that story. But I think this is one where one might say this event was more closely based on true events than others.
Masterfully done as always
Another good resource on this topic is Frank Morison's _Who Moved the Stone?_
J. Warner Wallace discusses these coincidences in his book, Person of Interest.
Love your videos. God bless you
Great work! God bless!
I’d love to see another video with more undersigned coincidences post ressurection 😊
0:13 _"But if this is true why do the gospels have little interlocking details that seem to be unlikely if they were copied from each other or some other common source?"_
1:53 _"Here's Matthew 26: 67-68"_
"Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”
Luke 22: 64
They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?”
But under the hypothesis of Markan priority, both Matthew and Luke used Mark. If we compare them to Mark we find a reference to blindfolding in Mk 14: 64 and so Luke was just copying this from him and Matthew was as well but just left the blindfolding part out.
Mark 14: 64
Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
Why did you leave out this verse from your comparison? This seems to contradict your quote from 0:13 that says these details would be "unlikely" if they were copied from each other.
well , if they both borrowed from mark , why didn't they just took all of the passage instead of taking basically one half each ?
Great stuff: keep it up!
Excellent video!!!
I Dont have enough thumbs for all your videos.
Undersigned coincidence: I gave you a thumbs up on this video.
Great content. Keep it up
Super helpful! Thank you!
Great video man!
Watching your video I remembered that in the gospels, both named different times of Jesus death/crucifixion (12h and 15h). Could you clarify what we must take on that? It's possible to make a video talking about that kind of incoherent things in the gospels? Sorry so much for my English.
Thanks for all the videos brother!
I mostly agree with this article. www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/hour-jesus-crucified-resolving-apparent-bible-contradiction/
The more interesting question is what day did he die, John seems to disagree to some skeptics. Here's a good video on that ruclips.net/video/stqA0Es1y1o/видео.html
One was using the Roman way of reckoning time, the other was using the Jewish way.
Simple.
Hey Testify!! Love your content! I wanted to find out, how and where can your viewers contact you? :)
Thanks! If it is good it is grace.
The contact form on my blog should be fine
isjesusalive.com/contact/
Excellent video again.
Sir I have some questions and I know you can help me out.
Luke said he wrote an orderly account of what others have written,
1. Why didn't he mentioned that Jesus came to die for the sin of the world like Matthew and Mark wrote?
2. In Luke 1:1 when Luke referred to many have taken in hand, what did he mean and what are those *many* accounts he referred to since we have only Matthew, and Mark before Luke accounts and John came or was written later.
Can we call two accounts many?
Thank you for your sir.
Please I'm also following your contents on your website aside RUclips
1. Luke clearly did believe Jesus died for our sins. Even if it doesn't seem prevalent in his gospel it is in Acts, which is written by Luke.
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
- Acts 20:28
but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
- Acts 13:37-39
2. Luke may have used Mark and Matthew and 2 isn't many, but that doesn't mean there were not other written sources that are now not lost to us. Luke clearly has his own materials, and opportunity to meet other apostles and eyewitnesses from Jerusalem.
This comment is for the algorithm!
777th like on this video. ❤ Bible is the true word of God. Repent and believe in Jesus the LORD because this life is short but eternity is a long time.
I need more knowledge. MORE I TELL YOU!
@testify what program do you use for the graphics for your video?
It's called Videoscribe
I think you misinterpreted John waiting for Peter. He was doing that to defer to Peter’s authority. John was a teenager. Peter was much older, plus the leader of the group.
Edit: you also misinterpreted Jesus and Peter’s conversation. This was the Reinstatement of Peter, for the 3 denials, as well as a lesson to humble Peter due to Jesus’ use of _agape_ (unconditional love) and Peter’s use of _phileo_ (brotherly love). Peter was no longer going beyond where he actually was at, but was also given a second chance to say he loved the Lord.
for the second i'm 90% sure you can read it both way , because that's why the Bible is good to read , for the first , well maybe but we can't rule out what testify said for now
I hope one day this channel can Grow i'm litteraly sharing it with everyone on tik tok so they can sub but seems they are forgeting about it. Also hey did You check out the link I gave You? You know "Tim O neils" (athiest) conclusion on the ressuraction? Last time I gave You it but My comment got deleted
Weird I saw a comment but no link. Feel free to try again, maybe YT thought it was spam?
@@TestifyApologetics wait what happened to my comment? I copy-pasted Tim’s comment and link and addeded it here but now it’s gone?
You say _"Skeptics like to tell Christians......Matthew and Luke copied Mark"_
If I'm not mistaken, isn't Markan priority the consensus view in modern scholarship? In other words, it's not just "skeptics" who think this but most experts in NT studies?
The threefold affirmation of Peter starts at verse 15 (John 21:15), not 5. Very good video nonetheless. Thanks :)
The Mathew 26 Luke 22 isn’t an undesigned coincidence. In Mathew Jesus us blinded by their spit, in Luke he is blindfolded.
Very good video, but I do have one comment, I think you are talking to fast, it’s a bit hard to follow along.
Thank you, good feedback. I will try and slow it down some.
How can anyone deny that Jesus rose from the dead with this evidence? It’s so great that all atheists must just hate God.
These people really look for any little thing to make the bible look fake or unreliable. So ridiculous. That just shows they don't have the Holy Spirit.
The Gospel of John describes the scene of Pilate and Jesus, where they talk about the truth. But John and the others were ordinary poor fishermen, peasants, farmers, etc., so they did not have access to the pagan house and could not know what they were both talking about. It seems to me that this is an imagination and fiction created by John. What do you think about it? How could they find out and from whom?
I address several of those objections in this video:
ruclips.net/video/kCv6tyNYEUI/видео.html
Plus see Luke 8:3. They knew people connected in high places. Also, they could have talked to Jesus himself unless you want to beg the question against the resurrection.
Do you believe newspaper reports? How do the reports gather information about what is happening in the White House without stepping in?