Depends...... reading the bible is always great, not so much when reading through it with a member of the world mission society church of God or following along under the "guidance" of a branhamite or other non Christian groups, who say for example Song of Solomon 5:16 is a prophecy about Muhammad, but essentially reading the bible is great, we also need solid herminutics while reading.
@@Seed-vf1wg sorry if it wasn’t obvious, but I was mocking how some people think the whole bible is wrong because a verse about the number of generations between two people is off.
Please do more videos like the ones on Joseph Smith, I find the quality of information is so rich and easy to digest that I find myself watching it back 4-5x, on top of doing research of my own. With videos like this (I know its a collection of your former videos but still) I find the information is lost on me as it requires so much prior knowledge to really grasp your message.
You're absolutely correct that the details within Luke-Acts regarding Rome and Greece, such as geography, cultural practices, political structures, and societal norms, indicate the work of a highly literate and knowledgeable author (or authors). These details suggest a deliberate, literary construction rather than a simple recording of oral traditions. Here’s why this is significant: 1. Sophistication of the Writing The language and style of Luke-Acts are among the most refined in the New Testament, written in polished Greek with an awareness of Greco-Roman literary conventions. This demonstrates that the author was not only fluent in Greek but also familiar with the literary culture of the time. This level of sophistication points to an intentional effort to craft a coherent and persuasive narrative for a Hellenistic audience. --- 2. Familiarity with Roman and Greek Contexts Luke-Acts includes detailed knowledge about: Roman political titles and structures: The text correctly refers to figures like proconsuls (e.g., Acts 13:7, 18:12) and "politarchs" (Acts 17:6), which are regionally specific terms. Such precision implies the author had access to, or an understanding of, the administrative workings of the Roman Empire. Geography: The travel routes, locations, and cultural references throughout Acts, especially in the missionary journeys of Paul, align with what we know of the ancient Mediterranean world. This suggests an author (or editor) with access to firsthand information or extensive geographical knowledge. Cultural nuances: Luke’s Gospel and Acts show sensitivity to Greco-Roman customs, legal proceedings, and societal norms, such as the patron-client relationship or the public trials before Roman officials. --- 3. Purposeful Literary Construction The structure of Luke-Acts demonstrates careful planning. For example: Parallelism: Events in Jesus’ ministry in Luke parallel the experiences of the early church in Acts. This creates a theological continuity between the life of Jesus and the mission of the apostles. Speeches: The speeches in Acts, like Peter’s at Pentecost (Acts 2) or Paul’s before the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), reflect a crafted rhetorical style meant to resonate with a literate, Hellenistic audience. --- 4. Blending of Sources The author of Luke-Acts appears to synthesize oral traditions, earlier written sources (like the Gospel of Mark), and their own observations or insights. This blending of sources reflects the work of a deliberate historian and theologian constructing a narrative rather than simply compiling raw, unedited material. --- 5. Implications of a Literary Work The literary and historical sophistication of Luke-Acts suggests: A deliberate agenda: The author had theological aims, such as presenting Jesus and the apostles’ mission in a way that would appeal to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. Not an eyewitness account: The literary nature of the text indicates it was written by someone distanced from the events, relying on secondary sources. Collaborative or editorial process: The detailed knowledge of Greco-Roman society implies either the author was remarkably well-informed or worked collaboratively with others familiar with these contexts. --- Conclusion Luke-Acts is clearly the product of an intentional literary effort, demonstrating both theological purpose and historical awareness. The depth of detail about Rome and Greece reinforces that this was not the work of a simple compiler but of a skilled author (or group of authors) constructing a narrative to serve a specific audience and purpose. While this enhances its value as a theological document, it also raises questions about its historical reliability and the editorial choices behind its creation.
Hey i need to get a new bible my old one is getting worn out.... what version do you reccomend for easy reading? Should i get a KJV or is one of the newer ones better while still being accurate.
Favorit Vers from Acts (2:22): "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
Beautiful verse. I'd also add acts 20:28 "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the Church of God which He bought with His own blood"
One more thing to add at 33:40: Among Zeus and Hermes, Hermes was in charge of healing the sick. Hermes, who symbolized the movement of all things, was the god of messengers, as well as the god of commerce, thieves, travelers, death, and medicine. And his son, Asclepius, was a god who was worshipped as a god in Greece and then introduced to Rome. In other words, Paul, who performs miracles of healing people, is Hermes among Zeus and Hermes, who often travel together in the human world.
The author of Luke seems to edit all or most of the imminent sayings from Mark. This systematic alteration seems to have the goal of removing the imminence of the end times from Jesus' words. He makes the observable Parousia from Mark unobservable - Lk. 17:20-21. So with this empirical evidence of redaction in mind, how can we be sure Luke is accurately recording what his source really said versus totally changing the meaning of it? This goes for the sources he used for Acts as well. Here’s a concise summary of examples where Luke alters or adds to Mark: Alterations by Luke 1. Mark 9:1 → Luke 9:27 Change: Omits "come with power." Mark: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." Luke: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." 2. Mark 13:5-6 → Luke 21:8 Change: Adds warning about some claiming "the time is near." Mark: "Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray." Luke: "Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them." 3. Mark 13:13 → Luke 21:19 Change: Omits “endures to the end.” Mark: "But the one who endures to the end will be saved." Luke: "By your endurance you will gain your souls." 4. Mark 13:19-20 → Luke 21:23-24 Change: Omits “shortening the days.” Mark: "For in those days there will be such tribulation... and if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved." Luke: "For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people." 5. Mark 13:29 → Luke 21:31 Change: Omits “at the very gates.” Mark: "When you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates." Luke: "When you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near." 6. Mark 14:62 → Luke 22:69 Change: Removes the reference where the high priest sees Jesus return. Mark: "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." Luke: "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God." Additions by Luke: 1. Luke 19:11 Addition: Explains the parable is told because some "thought the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately." 2. Luke 21:9 Addition: Adds that "the end will not come right away."
Matthew reveals more that Jesus told his disciples that the kingdom of God would be taken away from Israel and given to another nation. This caused his disciples start questioning when will the end times come as it obvious to them the Messiah is coming to rule Israel. Jesus even warned them they will be killed by men thinking they are doing God's will. Even the Old Testament prophets did not know there are two coming of the Messiah and question how the Messiah is both the suffering servant and coming as the King of Israel. There is a mention of a great turning to God by the gentiles but no timeline when it would happen in OT. Jonah is a shadow of the turning of gentiles to God. The apostles were teaching men the gospel (thousands of Jews) in Judah for years. Luke didn't have to copy Mark as the gospel were spread by mouth for decades before it was written down. The apostles repeat preaching the same gospel over and over for decades. They gave their entire life to spread the gospel and even appointed deacons to handle the needs of the local church so they can totally focus on the gospel.
If what you say is true, I think Luke may have decided to redact such statements because Mark and Matthew have already recorded such details like imminence of the end times and his gospel (Luke) is still already the longest gospel. All the other gospels do not have all the content that Luke's gospel has. And I also think that Luke may have decided to redact other things as well apart from the imminence of the end times not only from Mark but maybe also from Matthew considering that there is strong evidence that Matthew's gospel is the earliest gospel.
Mark’s writing is based off of Peter’s preaching in Rome, which may have been more urgent to bring people to conversion. Rome was the heart of persecution for many years, after all. On the contrary, Luke’s systematic approach to collecting information is different. To get the infancy narrative, he had to interview Mary. He specifically states in his opening writing that he took time collecting from different sources. A record of Jesus’s life from a street preacher (Peter) vs a doctor/journalist (Luke) is going to be different.
How does one read these quotes side by side and still think this is a serious objection is beyond me. They're saying the exact same thing in slightly different words because they're different people recounting the same events. This is exactly what we would expect.
@catholiccrusader123 They're obviously not saying the exact same thing as each alteration is consistent in that it removes the imminence from Jesus' own words in Mark. The warning in Lk. 21:8 to not be led astray by those who say "the time is near!" contradicts Jesus' own proclamation from Mark 1:15. Mark's set of sayings implies imminence, Luke's do not so they demonstrably _not_ the same. The data is much more expected if Luke was trying to remove the imminence of the predictions. This is a major change if Jesus really was an apocalyptic preacher who predicted an imminent end and the author of Luke is trying to erase that message.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
Factophobes? The only people in denial here are those clinging to centuries-old myths without a shred of real evidence to back them up. It’s laughable to see someone dismissing critical thinking and evidence as a “Karen fit,” all while holding onto baseless, outdated superstitions. Peace and blessings? How about some intellectual honesty and a willingness to face reality for once? The facts don’t bend to wishful thinking or religious dogma. If you’re truly seeking peace, try engaging with evidence and reason rather than retreating into fantasy. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber, where truth is optional and convenience reigns.
Paul’s accounts of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, as recorded in the Book of Acts, contain significant contradictions that raise serious doubts about their reliability as literal, historical events. In Acts 9:7, it is stated that the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one, whereas in Acts 22:9, Paul claims they saw the light but did not hear the voice. This inconsistency about such a pivotal event calls into question whether Paul’s descriptions are accurate or trustworthy. If the details of this transformative event cannot be reliably established, it undermines the credibility of Paul’s claim to apostleship and his authority to reinterpret Jesus’ message. These discrepancies make it difficult to take Paul's accounts as literal, factual history and instead suggest that they may be embellished or tailored to fit his theological narrative. Without consistency, it becomes problematic to trust the foundation of his teachings as divinely inspired or as an authentic continuation of Jesus’ mission.
Are you sure there’s a contradiction, because Acts 22:9 says “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to” So they heard the voice as in Acts 9, but didn’t understand it. Acts 26 says Jesus spoke in Aramaic, maybe that’s why. Also with his companions not seeing anyone, just light as in Acts 26. Hope that helps .
No, first off, in Acts 9:3 its is mentioned that there was light all around him Also, you misread Acts 22:9. The correct translation of Acts 22:9 is that Paul claims that they did not understand what the voice was speaking to him. The greek word there was mistranslated as "did not hear the voice". The fact is you have a strong bias to jump towards conclusions of unreliability about the scriptures. You need to self reflect before jumping to such conclusions that suit your confirmation bias.
@sabhishek9289 No thats incorrect the word in acts 22 is ἤκουσαν the word that means understand in greek is συνῶσιν Its also used in (matt 13:15 / matt 13:17 / mark 11:18 / luke 1:58 / luke 2:20 / luke 10:24 / john 1:37 / john 4:1 / john 7:32 / john 9:40 / john 10:8 / john 12:18 / acts 5:24 / acts 11:1 / acts 28:27 / rom 10:14 Rom 10:18 / rev 11:12 ) Non of these passages the word was translated to understand Only few versions translated it this way in this passage in particular Like the nas that translated it in acts understand only in acts and translated it as hear in the rest of the bible witch rise questions about its honesty here
@@JunkYard-omarnour "Non of these passages the word was translated to understand" It seems that you didn't read Matthew 13:15, John 10:8 etc where it did mean that they did not listen or understand and yet you chose to jump to conclusions.
I hardly imagine there's a _lot_ of people doing that. And you'll probably find that most of those who do are simply regurgitating what they've been told, rather than having read the Bible - or even just the passages supposedly containing the 'proof' texts - for themselves.
Voluminous details about Paul's travels and friends argue against Sola Scriptura. God left us thousands of words about such matters but only snippets about, for example, the means of salvation?
Are you saying that tradition tells us the means of salvation because scripture didn't get it done? Paul's letters are much more about teaching than his travels and friends, it's pretty much just Acts constituting your "thousands of words"
@@fantasia55 So then where do we have access to Paul's oral teaching? I'm not aware of any church father even claiming to know something Paul said outside his letters
@14:00 - how could we be certain the author of Acts has not read some of Paul's letters, but not Galatians (where Paul is most angry with other Christian leaders)? Your two wittnesses describing the robber stumbling(1) and having untied shoes(2) are supposedly independent of each other, or their seamless agreement wouldn't mean much.
@ if you’re asking about whether or not Galatians was influenced by anything, check around 20:00. He discusses this point. He also expands on the biblical/historical context of Galatians and Acts beyond this point.
Part of the argument is the nonchalance of it. If you write something in order to explain something from a source you read, you likely don't do it obliquely
That’s not how history works. You present a false dichotomy where either we completely trust Acts or we don’t. Yes, the book contains some history, and some of it lines up with other details. But that doesn’t mean that we can just accept everything it says as if it’s history. This is not going to convince anyone of an event which occurs only in Acts. But I get the feeling that’s exactly what you’re using this series to establish.
You are misunderstanding the dichotomy presented in the video, which is in fact not whether Acts is completely accurate or not. The actual dichotomy is whether the author of Acts is telling the truth when he claims to be an eyewitness or not. This video presents a cumulative case as to how unlikely the second option is. The author would need to be aware of a massive amount of geographical and political knowledge that was not widely available and also have access to all of Paul's letters, including ones that many scholars suppose to be forgeries written around the same time as Acts (which is very questionable). He would also need to be a genius who plants clues and puzzle pieces that align with Paul's letters, but omit critical information that would add credibility to the would-be forger. It would be the greatest forgery ever created that would definitely make sure everything fell right into place, but, according to modern scholars, would also need to be a dumb and obvious forger who made many contradictions both within his own work and with the same Pauline letters that we have just established he had access to. This is an incredibly improbable picture compared to an eyewitness. And when you admit that Acts is an eyewitness account, it loses all reasons to be a forgery, since an eyewitness would be at risk of being caught by other eyewitnesses or people who heard from eyewitnesses and thus would have little to no incentive to lie.
You can’t spell “facts” without “ACTS”? Cute, but that doesn’t mean ACTS is a factual account of anything. Just because something is in a book doesn’t make it true, especially when it’s based on hearsay, mythology, and selective storytelling. If ACTS were actually full of facts, it wouldn’t need to rely on blind faith to prop up its shaky narrative. Real facts are backed by evidence, not the fanciful accounts of a group of ancient writers with an agenda. Keep trying, but your wordplay doesn’t change reality.
Paul’s accounts of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, as described in Acts, not only contain contradictions about what the men with him experienced but also about their physical positions. In Acts 9:7, it is said that the men stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. However, in Acts 26:14, Paul states that all of them fell to the ground during the event. These contradictions raise serious doubts about the reliability of the narrative. Moreover, the accounts are written from the perspective of others recording Paul’s testimony, not as direct eyewitness accounts. This means the details are secondhand and filtered through Paul’s own claims about what happened. If such a crucial event in establishing Paul’s authority is marked by inconsistency and subjectivity, it calls into question whether this encounter can be taken as a literal, historical event or whether it has been shaped to fit Paul’s theological agenda. Without a reliable foundation, trusting Paul’s reinterpretation of Jesus’ mission becomes highly problematic.
This is stupid because you're not saying that different authors contradict each other wich would make sense but that the same author is contradicting himself which frankly makes no sense, even a dumb author wouldn't do that and whatever you think about Acts, it's author wasn't an idiot.
@catholiccrusader123 I think it's hilarious 😂 "they were standing." "No they where laying face down on the ground" 🤯 almost like the Trinity both God and Man 😂😂😂
Stupid claim. Summarizing Paul’s conversion, which is narrated in three separate accounts in the Acts of the Apostles (9:3-8, 22:6-11, and 26:12-18): _At noon, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus, Paul and those travelling with him saw a bright light and fell to the ground, after which everyone except Paul stood up, speechless. The bystanders could hear the sound of Jesus speaking to Paul but didn't understand it. Having had his encounter, Paul got up and, temporarily blinded, was taken into Damascus by those travelling with him._ Your alleged discrepancy is easily resolved by taking into account the semantic range of the Greek noun φωνή (phóné), which includes everything from a sound, to noise, voice, or even a language or dialect. The flexibility of φωνή (phóné) is quite evident in: *Revelation 1:15* _his voice_ φωνή (phóné) _was like the sound_ φωνή (phóné) _of rushing waters_ Here, φωνή (phóné) is translated two different ways. The ESV (amongst others) clarifies the alleged contradiction in Paul's Damascus-road experience: *Acts 9:7* _They heard the sound but did not see anyone_ *Acts 22:9* _Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me_ Hence, your alleged discrepancy is nothing but the result of your failure to understand the nuances of the Greek text.
@Berean_with_a_BTh In their eagerness to resolve a perceived contradiction in Paul’s conversion, some fixate on the Greek word φωνή (phōnē), dissecting its nuances as though the story hinges on whether his companions heard a "sound" or a "voice." They argue over the semantics, wielding lexicons like swords, as if the credibility of the entire event depends on linguistic precision. Yet in doing so, they overlook the heart of the narrative
testify i really love your videos alot but a muslim youtuber has been refuting your videos and i wanna see you respond to it(pls dont delete my comment)
I typically don't do response videos. You need to be more specific. Also, you need to learn the difference between a response and a refutation. And why would you think I'd delete your comment? I do have some responses to Islamic videos about my on my blog, isjesusalive.com
Well I've had Carrier's claims thrown at me as if they reflect serious historical scholarship. I imagine I'm not the only one some rabbid skeptic has tried to use to cast doubt on Acts. So it's good to for videos like this to rebut Carrier's fringe views.
Hey @TestifyApologetics big fan of your content brother, I am curious, I am studying the pauline epistles & the bible study I hold wants to do them chronologically, I got 4 study bibles & try to look online for some pauline chronology, which is not always so good. Any tips, if you find time to respond, could I list the chronology of the 13 pauline epistles I have so far & am totally willing to wait for any feedback, correction, but hopfully confirmation of what I have gathered so far ?
The chronology of the pauline epistles seem to be Galatians > 1 Thessalonians > 2 Thessalonians > 1 Corinthians > 2 Corinthians > Romans > Philippians > Ephesians > Colossians > Philemon > 1 Timothy > Titus > 2 Timothy Mind you, Colossians and Philemon are basically interchangeable so either way works
Oh thank you so much, I was super close, & with the 4 prison epostles I will go Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. I like the starting epistle to start with "P" & the 4th prison epistle to end with "P", but it does, from my research is that Philemon is a leader within the church at colossae, so that works well with the dates I already have, & I screenshot your comment so thanks again, I know 2 Timothy was his last before execution in about 64AD, & the 2 pastoral epostles when he was free from house arrest in Rome (60AD - 62AD), I will seperate 1 Timothy, with Titus & end with 2 Timothy from Mamertine prison in Rome before his (John the baptizer treatment by the order of Emperor Nero) Thanks again mystery believer (sorry dont know how to address you, as brother or sister, but very good you helpped more than the about 6 other comments I left spread around Christian YT pertaining to the 13 Pauline epistles !!! YESHUA AKBAR !!!@@red20753
Just a question… why do you call biblical judea “Palestine”? Why would you call it the name the Roman oppressors named it to detatch the Jewish identity from the land Jesus lived his life?😊
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Boof Of Acts ❎️
Book Of Facts ✅️
Book of Acts and Facts✅
this the guy from ryan gosling memes?
@@GenericG11
It's literally me, but this is my alt account. I'll summon my main one
@MetroMan13
@@GenericG11
It's literally me.
Who wants to read the entire Bible with me for 2025?
Me
@gustavfant8047bet
@gustavfant8047 me
Depends...... reading the bible is always great, not so much when reading through it with a member of the world mission society church of God or following along under the "guidance" of a branhamite or other non Christian groups, who say for example Song of Solomon 5:16 is a prophecy about Muhammad, but essentially reading the bible is great, we also need solid herminutics while reading.
Me
Testify showing that the Book of Acts is the Book of Facts with this one 🗣🗣🔥🔥
Metro man goated
@Lukasinho_W
Real, @Lukasinho_W is goated too.
Yes, that is what the video is about
I love it so much lol, I'm using this.
The only false fact about this video is it’s 47 minutes while Erik said it’s 45.
Obviously since there is one small little contradiction, the whole entire video is false
@@Drizerce It would be great if you, y'know, actually debunked anything said in the video instead of making one singular snarky reply?
@@Seed-vf1wg sorry if it wasn’t obvious, but I was mocking how some people think the whole bible is wrong because a verse about the number of generations between two people is off.
@@Drizerce oh, I didn't see that. My bad.
Continuing to pray over your minustry as you share the Gospel in full to many! Thanks for another aweslme video!
I'm about to go on a few days of fasting, so I may not be able to eat food but I'll eat up the facts presented in this video.
"Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."🗣🔥🔥
@Lukasinho_W
Real
Good Luck on your fasting bro. Happy holidays.
@giammariamariani4976
Thanks, you too.
be strong and keep in mind that it's for God
Oh boy, it's Testifyin' time
@@Pyr0Ben Everyone in the cinema :😭
I love this channel fr fr
It's one of the things that keeps me sane.
The long format is nice 👍
Great video with so many historical connections, thank you!
Please do more videos like the ones on Joseph Smith, I find the quality of information is so rich and easy to digest that I find myself watching it back 4-5x, on top of doing research of my own. With videos like this (I know its a collection of your former videos but still) I find the information is lost on me as it requires so much prior knowledge to really grasp your message.
No. He needs to post scholarly videos. The internet is a vast place so reading into this on your own should prepare you to engage with the material.
Acts is the 2nd biggest reason I believe (after the prophecies in the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Do you have any other reasons?
Best gift for Christmas. Happy new year everyone.
God Bless you
I had to Act on watching this video!
Lmao
You're absolutely correct that the details within Luke-Acts regarding Rome and Greece, such as geography, cultural practices, political structures, and societal norms, indicate the work of a highly literate and knowledgeable author (or authors). These details suggest a deliberate, literary construction rather than a simple recording of oral traditions. Here’s why this is significant:
1. Sophistication of the Writing
The language and style of Luke-Acts are among the most refined in the New Testament, written in polished Greek with an awareness of Greco-Roman literary conventions. This demonstrates that the author was not only fluent in Greek but also familiar with the literary culture of the time. This level of sophistication points to an intentional effort to craft a coherent and persuasive narrative for a Hellenistic audience.
---
2. Familiarity with Roman and Greek Contexts
Luke-Acts includes detailed knowledge about:
Roman political titles and structures: The text correctly refers to figures like proconsuls (e.g., Acts 13:7, 18:12) and "politarchs" (Acts 17:6), which are regionally specific terms. Such precision implies the author had access to, or an understanding of, the administrative workings of the Roman Empire.
Geography: The travel routes, locations, and cultural references throughout Acts, especially in the missionary journeys of Paul, align with what we know of the ancient Mediterranean world. This suggests an author (or editor) with access to firsthand information or extensive geographical knowledge.
Cultural nuances: Luke’s Gospel and Acts show sensitivity to Greco-Roman customs, legal proceedings, and societal norms, such as the patron-client relationship or the public trials before Roman officials.
---
3. Purposeful Literary Construction
The structure of Luke-Acts demonstrates careful planning. For example:
Parallelism: Events in Jesus’ ministry in Luke parallel the experiences of the early church in Acts. This creates a theological continuity between the life of Jesus and the mission of the apostles.
Speeches: The speeches in Acts, like Peter’s at Pentecost (Acts 2) or Paul’s before the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), reflect a crafted rhetorical style meant to resonate with a literate, Hellenistic audience.
---
4. Blending of Sources
The author of Luke-Acts appears to synthesize oral traditions, earlier written sources (like the Gospel of Mark), and their own observations or insights. This blending of sources reflects the work of a deliberate historian and theologian constructing a narrative rather than simply compiling raw, unedited material.
---
5. Implications of a Literary Work
The literary and historical sophistication of Luke-Acts suggests:
A deliberate agenda: The author had theological aims, such as presenting Jesus and the apostles’ mission in a way that would appeal to both Jewish and Gentile audiences.
Not an eyewitness account: The literary nature of the text indicates it was written by someone distanced from the events, relying on secondary sources.
Collaborative or editorial process: The detailed knowledge of Greco-Roman society implies either the author was remarkably well-informed or worked collaboratively with others familiar with these contexts.
---
Conclusion
Luke-Acts is clearly the product of an intentional literary effort, demonstrating both theological purpose and historical awareness. The depth of detail about Rome and Greece reinforces that this was not the work of a simple compiler but of a skilled author (or group of authors) constructing a narrative to serve a specific audience and purpose. While this enhances its value as a theological document, it also raises questions about its historical reliability and the editorial choices behind its creation.
You are a blessing. This is too good. Thank you!
Just Awesome ❤
I'm very sure that the athiests will actually LISTEN to the video...right?
Unlikely
Hey i need to get a new bible my old one is getting worn out.... what version do you reccomend for easy reading? Should i get a KJV or is one of the newer ones better while still being accurate.
Either that one or NKJV from personal experience
ESV, NASB and NSRV are very good. I use ESV personally
I don't know how people manage without study notes, so i think the version is almost incidental while looking for who has the best study bible
Thank you. HalleluYAHWEH
LONG FORM CONTENT ON APOLOGETICS BY TESTIFY LETSSSSGGGGOOOOOBBBOOIIIIIII
Favorit Vers from Acts (2:22):
"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and
signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
Beautiful verse. I'd also add acts 20:28
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the Church of God which He bought with His own blood"
A 47 min video wow 🎉
One more thing to add at 33:40: Among Zeus and Hermes, Hermes was in charge of healing the sick. Hermes, who symbolized the movement of all things, was the god of messengers, as well as the god of commerce, thieves, travelers, death, and medicine. And his son, Asclepius, was a god who was worshipped as a god in Greece and then introduced to Rome. In other words, Paul, who performs miracles of healing people, is Hermes among Zeus and Hermes, who often travel together in the human world.
The author of Luke seems to edit all or most of the imminent sayings from Mark. This systematic alteration seems to have the goal of removing the imminence of the end times from Jesus' words. He makes the observable Parousia from Mark unobservable - Lk. 17:20-21. So with this empirical evidence of redaction in mind, how can we be sure Luke is accurately recording what his source really said versus totally changing the meaning of it? This goes for the sources he used for Acts as well.
Here’s a concise summary of examples where Luke alters or adds to Mark:
Alterations by Luke
1. Mark 9:1 → Luke 9:27
Change: Omits "come with power."
Mark: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."
Luke: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
2. Mark 13:5-6 → Luke 21:8
Change: Adds warning about some claiming "the time is near."
Mark: "Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray."
Luke: "Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them."
3. Mark 13:13 → Luke 21:19
Change: Omits “endures to the end.”
Mark: "But the one who endures to the end will be saved."
Luke: "By your endurance you will gain your souls."
4. Mark 13:19-20 → Luke 21:23-24
Change: Omits “shortening the days.”
Mark: "For in those days there will be such tribulation... and if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved."
Luke: "For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people."
5. Mark 13:29 → Luke 21:31
Change: Omits “at the very gates.”
Mark: "When you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates."
Luke: "When you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near."
6. Mark 14:62 → Luke 22:69
Change: Removes the reference where the high priest sees Jesus return.
Mark: "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Luke: "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
Additions by Luke:
1. Luke 19:11
Addition: Explains the parable is told because some "thought the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately."
2. Luke 21:9
Addition: Adds that "the end will not come right away."
Matthew reveals more that Jesus told his disciples that the kingdom of God would be taken away from Israel and given to another nation. This caused his disciples start questioning when will the end times come as it obvious to them the Messiah is coming to rule Israel.
Jesus even warned them they will be killed by men thinking they are doing God's will.
Even the Old Testament prophets did not know there are two coming of the Messiah and question how the Messiah is both the suffering servant and coming as the King of Israel. There is a mention of a great turning to God by the gentiles but no timeline when it would happen in OT. Jonah is a shadow of the turning of gentiles to God.
The apostles were teaching men the gospel (thousands of Jews) in Judah for years. Luke didn't have to copy Mark as the gospel were spread by mouth for decades before it was written down. The apostles repeat preaching the same gospel over and over for decades. They gave their entire life to spread the gospel and even appointed deacons to handle the needs of the local church so they can totally focus on the gospel.
If what you say is true, I think Luke may have decided to redact such statements because Mark and Matthew have already recorded such details like imminence of the end times and his gospel (Luke) is still already the longest gospel. All the other gospels do not have all the content that Luke's gospel has. And I also think that Luke may have decided to redact other things as well apart from the imminence of the end times not only from Mark but maybe also from Matthew considering that there is strong evidence that Matthew's gospel is the earliest gospel.
Mark’s writing is based off of Peter’s preaching in Rome, which may have been more urgent to bring people to conversion. Rome was the heart of persecution for many years, after all.
On the contrary, Luke’s systematic approach to collecting information is different. To get the infancy narrative, he had to interview Mary. He specifically states in his opening writing that he took time collecting from different sources.
A record of Jesus’s life from a street preacher (Peter) vs a doctor/journalist (Luke) is going to be different.
How does one read these quotes side by side and still think this is a serious objection is beyond me. They're saying the exact same thing in slightly different words because they're different people recounting the same events. This is exactly what we would expect.
@catholiccrusader123 They're obviously not saying the exact same thing as each alteration is consistent in that it removes the imminence from Jesus' own words in Mark. The warning in Lk. 21:8 to not be led astray by those who say "the time is near!" contradicts Jesus' own proclamation from Mark 1:15. Mark's set of sayings implies imminence, Luke's do not so they demonstrably _not_ the same. The data is much more expected if Luke was trying to remove the imminence of the predictions. This is a major change if Jesus really was an apocalyptic preacher who predicted an imminent end and the author of Luke is trying to erase that message.
God bless
This was a great video! Amazing how the Truth can be messy yet the messiness testifies 😀 to the Truth!
Ojala hubiera un canal que doble estos videos al español, me seria muy util.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
You guys don’t have an instagram?
Book of Acts -> Book o’ Facts
Barnabas might also have been identified with Zeus because at the time (Paul's 1st missionary journey) he was the bigger Apostle, not Paul.
Factophobes will not like this video & may have a karen fit of reality hitting home . Peace and blessings to all 🙏 ✝️ 🙏
Factophobes? The only people in denial here are those clinging to centuries-old myths without a shred of real evidence to back them up. It’s laughable to see someone dismissing critical thinking and evidence as a “Karen fit,” all while holding onto baseless, outdated superstitions. Peace and blessings? How about some intellectual honesty and a willingness to face reality for once? The facts don’t bend to wishful thinking or religious dogma. If you’re truly seeking peace, try engaging with evidence and reason rather than retreating into fantasy. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber, where truth is optional and convenience reigns.
Good work!
Paul’s accounts of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, as recorded in the Book of Acts, contain significant contradictions that raise serious doubts about their reliability as literal, historical events. In Acts 9:7, it is stated that the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one, whereas in Acts 22:9, Paul claims they saw the light but did not hear the voice. This inconsistency about such a pivotal event calls into question whether Paul’s descriptions are accurate or trustworthy.
If the details of this transformative event cannot be reliably established, it undermines the credibility of Paul’s claim to apostleship and his authority to reinterpret Jesus’ message. These discrepancies make it difficult to take Paul's accounts as literal, factual history and instead suggest that they may be embellished or tailored to fit his theological narrative. Without consistency, it becomes problematic to trust the foundation of his teachings as divinely inspired or as an authentic continuation of Jesus’ mission.
Sure buddy anything you think from the 21st century.
Are you sure there’s a contradiction, because Acts 22:9 says “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to”
So they heard the voice as in Acts 9, but didn’t understand it. Acts 26 says Jesus spoke in Aramaic, maybe that’s why.
Also with his companions not seeing anyone, just light as in Acts 26.
Hope that helps .
No, first off, in Acts 9:3 its is mentioned that there was light all around him Also, you misread Acts 22:9. The correct translation of Acts 22:9 is that Paul claims that they did not understand what the voice was speaking to him. The greek word there was mistranslated as "did not hear the voice". The fact is you have a strong bias to jump towards conclusions of unreliability about the scriptures. You need to self reflect before jumping to such conclusions that suit your confirmation bias.
@sabhishek9289
No thats incorrect the word in acts 22 is ἤκουσαν the word that means understand in greek is συνῶσιν
Its also used in
(matt 13:15 / matt 13:17 / mark 11:18 / luke 1:58 / luke 2:20 / luke 10:24 / john 1:37 / john 4:1 / john 7:32 / john 9:40 / john 10:8 / john 12:18 / acts 5:24 / acts 11:1 / acts 28:27 / rom 10:14
Rom 10:18 / rev 11:12 )
Non of these passages the word was translated to understand
Only few versions translated it this way in this passage in particular
Like the nas that translated it in acts understand only in acts and translated it as hear in the rest of the bible witch rise questions about its honesty here
@@JunkYard-omarnour "Non of these passages the word was translated to understand"
It seems that you didn't read Matthew 13:15, John 10:8 etc where it did mean that they did not listen or understand and yet you chose to jump to conclusions.
could you make a video refuting reincarnation? A LOT of people still defend reincarnation in christianity
Theyre the same whp also believe in karma and healing crystals.
I hardly imagine there's a _lot_ of people doing that. And you'll probably find that most of those who do are simply regurgitating what they've been told, rather than having read the Bible - or even just the passages supposedly containing the 'proof' texts - for themselves.
Voluminous details about Paul's travels and friends argue against Sola Scriptura. God left us thousands of words about such matters but only snippets about, for example, the means of salvation?
Are you saying that tradition tells us the means of salvation because scripture didn't get it done? Paul's letters are much more about teaching than his travels and friends, it's pretty much just Acts constituting your "thousands of words"
@muskyoxes Paul preached orally for years.
@@fantasia55 and his epistles are a good representation of that preaching, right? It doesn't seem like we can get it any other way
@@muskyoxes His letters are mostly to correct errant congregations.
@@fantasia55 So then where do we have access to Paul's oral teaching? I'm not aware of any church father even claiming to know something Paul said outside his letters
Testify, I saw a book called “Christ before Jesus” and was wondering if you could do a video sort of debunking their claims
@14:00 - how could we be certain the author of Acts has not read some of Paul's letters, but not Galatians (where Paul is most angry with other Christian leaders)? Your two wittnesses describing the robber stumbling(1) and having untied shoes(2) are supposedly independent of each other, or their seamless agreement wouldn't mean much.
@ if you’re asking about whether or not Galatians was influenced by anything, check around 20:00. He discusses this point. He also expands on the biblical/historical context of Galatians and Acts beyond this point.
@The_Sap_Lord - yes, I've watched it once and will watch that section again.
Part of the argument is the nonchalance of it. If you write something in order to explain something from a source you read, you likely don't do it obliquely
A fact based diet is the healthiest diet.
That’s not how history works. You present a false dichotomy where either we completely trust Acts or we don’t. Yes, the book contains some history, and some of it lines up with other details. But that doesn’t mean that we can just accept everything it says as if it’s history. This is not going to convince anyone of an event which occurs only in Acts. But I get the feeling that’s exactly what you’re using this series to establish.
You are misunderstanding the dichotomy presented in the video, which is in fact not whether Acts is completely accurate or not. The actual dichotomy is whether the author of Acts is telling the truth when he claims to be an eyewitness or not. This video presents a cumulative case as to how unlikely the second option is. The author would need to be aware of a massive amount of geographical and political knowledge that was not widely available and also have access to all of Paul's letters, including ones that many scholars suppose to be forgeries written around the same time as Acts (which is very questionable). He would also need to be a genius who plants clues and puzzle pieces that align with Paul's letters, but omit critical information that would add credibility to the would-be forger. It would be the greatest forgery ever created that would definitely make sure everything fell right into place, but, according to modern scholars, would also need to be a dumb and obvious forger who made many contradictions both within his own work and with the same Pauline letters that we have just established he had access to. This is an incredibly improbable picture compared to an eyewitness. And when you admit that Acts is an eyewitness account, it loses all reasons to be a forgery, since an eyewitness would be at risk of being caught by other eyewitnesses or people who heard from eyewitnesses and thus would have little to no incentive to lie.
@ This assumes that Acts had a single author, which it likely did not.
@@seanpierce9386And your evidence for that is???
Acts is legit!
If by "crazy memes" you mean random people face-palming, then I prefer their absence.
awesome
You cant spell FACTS without ACTS
You can’t spell “facts” without “ACTS”? Cute, but that doesn’t mean ACTS is a factual account of anything. Just because something is in a book doesn’t make it true, especially when it’s based on hearsay, mythology, and selective storytelling. If ACTS were actually full of facts, it wouldn’t need to rely on blind faith to prop up its shaky narrative. Real facts are backed by evidence, not the fanciful accounts of a group of ancient writers with an agenda. Keep trying, but your wordplay doesn’t change reality.
Paul’s accounts of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, as described in Acts, not only contain contradictions about what the men with him experienced but also about their physical positions. In Acts 9:7, it is said that the men stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. However, in Acts 26:14, Paul states that all of them fell to the ground during the event. These contradictions raise serious doubts about the reliability of the narrative.
Moreover, the accounts are written from the perspective of others recording Paul’s testimony, not as direct eyewitness accounts. This means the details are secondhand and filtered through Paul’s own claims about what happened. If such a crucial event in establishing Paul’s authority is marked by inconsistency and subjectivity, it calls into question whether this encounter can be taken as a literal, historical event or whether it has been shaped to fit Paul’s theological agenda. Without a reliable foundation, trusting Paul’s reinterpretation of Jesus’ mission becomes highly problematic.
This is stupid because you're not saying that different authors contradict each other wich would make sense but that the same author is contradicting himself which frankly makes no sense, even a dumb author wouldn't do that and whatever you think about Acts, it's author wasn't an idiot.
@catholiccrusader123 I think it's hilarious 😂 "they were standing." "No they where laying face down on the ground" 🤯 almost like the Trinity both God and Man 😂😂😂
Ok so that's not a response and none of that is incoherent at all. Bye.
Stupid claim.
Summarizing Paul’s conversion, which is narrated in three separate accounts in the Acts of the Apostles (9:3-8, 22:6-11, and 26:12-18):
_At noon, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus, Paul and those travelling with him saw a bright light and fell to the ground, after which everyone except Paul stood up, speechless. The bystanders could hear the sound of Jesus speaking to Paul but didn't understand it. Having had his encounter, Paul got up and, temporarily blinded, was taken into Damascus by those travelling with him._
Your alleged discrepancy is easily resolved by taking into account the semantic range of the Greek noun φωνή (phóné), which includes everything from a sound, to noise, voice, or even a language or dialect. The flexibility of φωνή (phóné) is quite evident in:
*Revelation 1:15*
_his voice_ φωνή (phóné) _was like the sound_ φωνή (phóné) _of rushing waters_
Here, φωνή (phóné) is translated two different ways. The ESV (amongst others) clarifies the alleged contradiction in Paul's Damascus-road experience:
*Acts 9:7*
_They heard the sound but did not see anyone_
*Acts 22:9*
_Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me_
Hence, your alleged discrepancy is nothing but the result of your failure to understand the nuances of the Greek text.
@Berean_with_a_BTh In their eagerness to resolve a perceived contradiction in Paul’s conversion, some fixate on the Greek word φωνή (phōnē), dissecting its nuances as though the story hinges on whether his companions heard a "sound" or a "voice." They argue over the semantics, wielding lexicons like swords, as if the credibility of the entire event depends on linguistic precision. Yet in doing so, they overlook the heart of the narrative
testify i really love your videos alot but a muslim youtuber has been refuting your videos and i wanna see you respond to it(pls dont delete my comment)
I typically don't do response videos. You need to be more specific. Also, you need to learn the difference between a response and a refutation. And why would you think I'd delete your comment? I do have some responses to Islamic videos about my on my blog, isjesusalive.com
@TestifyApologetics farhan Ahmed Zia that's the youtuber
See the blog. I responded to Farhan. His videos are really poor.
Anti spiral
Idk why you bring up Carrier as if he's NOT a crackpot conspiracy theorist
Well I've had Carrier's claims thrown at me as if they reflect serious historical scholarship. I imagine I'm not the only one some rabbid skeptic has tried to use to cast doubt on Acts. So it's good to for videos like this to rebut Carrier's fringe views.
People who cite him are "skeptics" in the same way flat earthers and faked moon landers are "skeptics"
Hey @TestifyApologetics big fan of your content brother, I am curious, I am studying the pauline epistles & the bible study I hold wants to do them chronologically, I got 4 study bibles & try to look online for some pauline chronology, which is not always so good.
Any tips, if you find time to respond, could I list the chronology of the 13 pauline epistles I have so far & am totally willing to wait for any feedback, correction, but hopfully confirmation of what I have gathered so far ?
The chronology of the pauline epistles seem to be Galatians > 1 Thessalonians > 2 Thessalonians > 1 Corinthians > 2 Corinthians > Romans > Philippians > Ephesians > Colossians > Philemon > 1 Timothy > Titus > 2 Timothy
Mind you, Colossians and Philemon are basically interchangeable so either way works
@@red20753 where is hebrews?
Oh thank you so much, I was super close, & with the 4 prison epostles I will go Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. I like the starting epistle to start with "P" & the 4th prison epistle to end with "P", but it does, from my research is that Philemon is a leader within the church at colossae, so that works well with the dates I already have, & I screenshot your comment so thanks again, I know 2 Timothy was his last before execution in about 64AD, & the 2 pastoral epostles when he was free from house arrest in Rome (60AD - 62AD), I will seperate 1 Timothy, with Titus & end with 2 Timothy from Mamertine prison in Rome before his (John the baptizer treatment by the order of Emperor Nero) Thanks again mystery believer (sorry dont know how to address you, as brother or sister, but very good you helpped more than the about 6 other comments I left spread around Christian YT pertaining to the 13 Pauline epistles !!!
YESHUA AKBAR !!!@@red20753
Just a question… why do you call biblical judea “Palestine”? Why would you call it the name the Roman oppressors named it to detatch the Jewish identity from the land Jesus lived his life?😊
I have a question. Why hasnt it been glassed by the nation its been trr orising since the 60s?
dumbest title in a while
Just study some real history, bro
No u, bro
No u, bro
No u, bro
What, you mean like that Napoleon guy? He was a myth bro.
HE IS.