Absolutely love this fella. His detective work is second to none and he never let's his bias get in the way of showing us facts. Stunning. Thank you so much for all your hard work.
J. Warner Wallace's experience as a detective with witness testimony is invauable. He has successfully applied it to the gospels. Of course, if the gospels agreed in all details, then the writers would be accused of collusion. Can't win sometimes.
I really appreciate how you bring your field of expertise to show the reliability of scripture. What is so discouraging to me is how non believers “strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel.” They pick at the smallest apparent inconsistencies and ignore the big picture. All these people agree on a divine, crucified and risen savior! And they went to their deaths resolutely for it. Oh by the way, I looked up the accounts of Matthew and Luke and just wanted to point out, you had it reversed. Luke mentions the blindfold, Matthew doesn’t. 🙂
@@colejames423all the apostles except John, and multitudes of believers in the early church. Stephen was one of the first to be martyred, and Paul (at that time called Saul of Tarsus) was part of the crowd that was stoning Stephen.
Hi Phil. Yeah, Luke 22:63-64 covers all three details (the blindfold, the beating, and the "who struck you" question). So I would say there's no undesigned coincidence there. Matthew 26:68 includes that they struck and slapped him and asked him "who struck you", omitting the blindfold, and Mark 14:65 includes that they beat him and told him only to "prophesy" (not "who struck you?). (For completeness, the parallel account is probably John 19:3, where people strike him in the face, but don't blindfold him or ask who struck him.) So I would say this is an undesigned coincidence between Matthew and Mark, if you hold that they were both written before (or without access to) Luke's gospel.
Absolutely love this fella. His detective work is second to none and he never let's his bias get in the way of showing us facts. Stunning.
Thank you so much for all your hard work.
Much appreciated
J. Wallace is a smart ex-atheist who followed where the evidence led him.
So is the guy he's talking to, although an ex-investigative journalist.
J. Warner Wallace's experience as a detective with witness testimony is invauable. He has successfully applied it to the gospels. Of course, if the gospels agreed in all details, then the writers would be accused of collusion. Can't win sometimes.
Awesome explanation!
Yes, Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords...
I really appreciate how you bring your field of expertise to show the reliability of scripture. What is so discouraging to me is how non believers “strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel.” They pick at the smallest apparent inconsistencies and ignore the big picture. All these people agree on a divine, crucified and risen savior! And they went to their deaths resolutely for it. Oh by the way, I looked up the accounts of Matthew and Luke and just wanted to point out, you had it reversed. Luke mentions the blindfold, Matthew doesn’t. 🙂
Who went to their death resolutely for a belief in divine, crucified and risen savior?
@@colejames423all the apostles except John, and multitudes of believers in the early church. Stephen was one of the first to be martyred, and Paul (at that time called Saul of Tarsus) was part of the crowd that was stoning Stephen.
Glad I found this page.
I watch these videis over and over and share them I love his insightsand hiw nice he and lee are ..
The thumbnail text is misspelled. It should read: Hidden, not, “hiden”
What everyone should take from this...
Don't listen to college professors when it comes to Religion
That's an interesting point of view indeed to say the least.
Another words, the gospels lack the conditions necessary for collusion. Meaning , the eyebrow raises when four testimonies are exactly the same.
NIV and other Bibles translations have Luke 22 v 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” but is it in the Greek?
: Think the Greek says something like "having covered over him".
Hi Phil. Yeah, Luke 22:63-64 covers all three details (the blindfold, the beating, and the "who struck you" question). So I would say there's no undesigned coincidence there.
Matthew 26:68 includes that they struck and slapped him and asked him "who struck you", omitting the blindfold, and Mark 14:65 includes that they beat him and told him only to "prophesy" (not "who struck you?).
(For completeness, the parallel account is probably John 19:3, where people strike him in the face, but don't blindfold him or ask who struck him.)
So I would say this is an undesigned coincidence between Matthew and Mark, if you hold that they were both written before (or without access to) Luke's gospel.
Love it
Wow
Who the heck is Phillip. Lol