In Acts 16 we read that Paul circumcised Timothy. This is another PROOF of the validity of the New Testament via the Jewish roots of the New Testament. Why? Consider; Paul doing this had nothing to do with Timothy's salvation and everything to do with Timothy's calling. His mother was Jewish. This being the case, Paul knew that God wanted Timothy to identify with his Jewish roots / Jewish calling because as Paul lays out in Romans chapters 9 through 11, God is not finished with Israel. Paul, Timothy and the other Jewish disciples identifying with their Jewish roots had nothing to do with justification by faith and everything to do with their specific calling to continue to live as Jews albeit, they were now putting all their faith in trust in Yeshua for their full atonement and they now had full fellowship with their Gentile brothers. We see this distinction in Acts 21 when Paul speaks with the elders at Jerusalem. When he takes the four Jewish believers to the Temple to complete their Nazarite service, it's part of their identity and calling as Jews but has nothing to do with putting faith in the Temple sacrificial system for atonement. Why is this important? Because this anihilates these arguments which claim that the New Testament was some sort of 2nd cent invention made up by non-Jewish Greco-Roman gnostics. They couldn't possibly understand the nuance which I just pointed out. What Paul did in Acts 16 makes PERFECT SENSE when you compare such to Acts 21, Romans 9-11 etc.
I genuinely do not understand why you think interweaving known facts from known letters (ie primary sources) into a history is beyond the author of Acts. Could you explain? Isn't that what one would expect of a historian or other author writing about someone?
I believe I can help you here. The argument presented by Testify isn't about interweaving facts from external sources into an account. It is about the unexpected connections between differing accounts that are often unconnected or insignificant details. Undesigned coincidences suggest that these connections are difficult to fabricate, especially when they cause multiple sources to interlock with such ease, without any clear sign of manipulation. In other words, the connections are so subtle and pointless that it adds credibility to the accounts as historical, since nobody in their right mind who is making up stuff would try to subtly connect things that add nothing to the message they're trying to push. If they were doing it solely to add credibility, why would they try and draw attention to something so pointless? The reality is, they wouldn't, and that's the point.
@@darkwolf7740 Who decides what is "too subtle" or "insignificant"? If someone is a big enough fan of Paul to write his history (OK, Acts is more than just Paul, but it is a LOT of Paul) you'd think they'd pay attention to the details of the sources they have, wouldn't you? Like, it's too subtle for ancient authors to pick up some of these things that must have some unspecified explanation, but we reading translations and separated from the culture can pick up on them? That strikes me as quite strange
Nobody decides what is too subtle or insignificant to be considered an Undesigned Coincidence because the approach is objective, not subjective. For example, Acts mentions Priscilla, and then, in Paul's writings, Paul discusses Priscilla in an unrelated context. The significance of the connection is found through the indirect context of the references to Priscilla, so it adds credibility to the account without relying on subjective factors such as opinions or biases. I'm unsure of what you mean when you say, "it's too subtle for ancient authors to pick up some of these things" because the argument from undesigned coincidences doesn't claim that. It is the very nature of the connections that is important, not the 'superior' perception by a modern audience. If the argument relied on that, then it wouldn't be an undesigned coincidence, but rather, fabrication or manipulation of some kind. @@1001011011010
@@darkwolf7740 So the letters mention Priscilla and Aquila, and Acts mentions Priscilla and Aquila. What makes this an "undesigned coincidence" objectively, as opposed to, say, a designed reference to those mentioned in Paul's letters? My latter point is that, if we are picking up on them, then...why couldn't they? Like the video's first example...why would he be getting there later? This is a question raised by just reading the letter itself. And we are noticing it, so why wouldn't they? And if they are noticing it, someone may answer that question if writing about Paul. I wouldn't find that odd.
Yeah, that's what we'd anticipate if the person was actually there. Scholars argue that Acts might be historical fiction pretending to be real history. Your scenario envisions a superfan of the apostle Paul, almost like a Cartesian deceiver who leaves no traces of his presence in the document. It's like he's unbelievably stealthy. But here's the kicker: the same folks suggesting this also claim he was sloppy, made historical errors, and contradicted Paul's letters (not to mention not having Paul's letters in the first place). The straightforward explanation? Acts was likely written by someone who actually traveled with Paul.
Just commenting to say these videos are unreal, keep up the good work!
Forgot to comment it the first time I saw this, but I just wanted to say I really appreciate the increased focus on the "undesigned" part in this one!
Loving this series
Great video, Testify! God bless you!
God bless you, Erik.
Thank you
Thanks for the content these videos are awesome
Another great video :) thanks for this!
In Acts 16 we read that Paul circumcised Timothy. This is another PROOF of the validity of the New Testament via the Jewish roots of the New Testament. Why? Consider; Paul doing this had nothing to do with Timothy's salvation and everything to do with Timothy's calling. His mother was Jewish. This being the case, Paul knew that God wanted Timothy to identify with his Jewish roots / Jewish calling because as Paul lays out in Romans chapters 9 through 11, God is not finished with Israel. Paul, Timothy and the other Jewish disciples identifying with their Jewish roots had nothing to do with justification by faith and everything to do with their specific calling to continue to live as Jews albeit, they were now putting all their faith in trust in Yeshua for their full atonement and they now had full fellowship with their Gentile brothers. We see this distinction in Acts 21 when Paul speaks with the elders at Jerusalem. When he takes the four Jewish believers to the Temple to complete their Nazarite service, it's part of their identity and calling as Jews but has nothing to do with putting faith in the Temple sacrificial system for atonement. Why is this important? Because this anihilates these arguments which claim that the New Testament was some sort of 2nd cent invention made up by non-Jewish Greco-Roman gnostics. They couldn't possibly understand the nuance which I just pointed out. What Paul did in Acts 16 makes PERFECT SENSE when you compare such to Acts 21, Romans 9-11 etc.
First? No. 1st? Yes.
The first ? No. Thirst? Yes :)
I genuinely do not understand why you think interweaving known facts from known letters (ie primary sources) into a history is beyond the author of Acts.
Could you explain? Isn't that what one would expect of a historian or other author writing about someone?
I believe I can help you here.
The argument presented by Testify isn't about interweaving facts from external sources into an account. It is about the unexpected connections between differing accounts that are often unconnected or insignificant details. Undesigned coincidences suggest that these connections are difficult to fabricate, especially when they cause multiple sources to interlock with such ease, without any clear sign of manipulation.
In other words, the connections are so subtle and pointless that it adds credibility to the accounts as historical, since nobody in their right mind who is making up stuff would try to subtly connect things that add nothing to the message they're trying to push. If they were doing it solely to add credibility, why would they try and draw attention to something so pointless? The reality is, they wouldn't, and that's the point.
@@darkwolf7740 Who decides what is "too subtle" or "insignificant"? If someone is a big enough fan of Paul to write his history (OK, Acts is more than just Paul, but it is a LOT of Paul) you'd think they'd pay attention to the details of the sources they have, wouldn't you?
Like, it's too subtle for ancient authors to pick up some of these things that must have some unspecified explanation, but we reading translations and separated from the culture can pick up on them? That strikes me as quite strange
Nobody decides what is too subtle or insignificant to be considered an Undesigned Coincidence because the approach is objective, not subjective. For example, Acts mentions Priscilla, and then, in Paul's writings, Paul discusses Priscilla in an unrelated context. The significance of the connection is found through the indirect context of the references to Priscilla, so it adds credibility to the account without relying on subjective factors such as opinions or biases.
I'm unsure of what you mean when you say, "it's too subtle for ancient authors to pick up some of these things" because the argument from undesigned coincidences doesn't claim that. It is the very nature of the connections that is important, not the 'superior' perception by a modern audience. If the argument relied on that, then it wouldn't be an undesigned coincidence, but rather, fabrication or manipulation of some kind. @@1001011011010
@@darkwolf7740
So the letters mention Priscilla and Aquila, and Acts mentions Priscilla and Aquila. What makes this an "undesigned coincidence" objectively, as opposed to, say, a designed reference to those mentioned in Paul's letters?
My latter point is that, if we are picking up on them, then...why couldn't they? Like the video's first example...why would he be getting there later? This is a question raised by just reading the letter itself. And we are noticing it, so why wouldn't they? And if they are noticing it, someone may answer that question if writing about Paul. I wouldn't find that odd.
Yeah, that's what we'd anticipate if the person was actually there. Scholars argue that Acts might be historical fiction pretending to be real history. Your scenario envisions a superfan of the apostle Paul, almost like a Cartesian deceiver who leaves no traces of his presence in the document. It's like he's unbelievably stealthy. But here's the kicker: the same folks suggesting this also claim he was sloppy, made historical errors, and contradicted Paul's letters (not to mention not having Paul's letters in the first place). The straightforward explanation? Acts was likely written by someone who actually traveled with Paul.