ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- Biblical critics like Bart Ehrman say that Luke wasn't a traveling companion of Paul. Whoever wrote Luke inserted themselves into the narrative to give the story an appearance that it was written by a witness. But is this really true? Here I argue there's some interesting evidence in the form of undesigned coincidences that show that the writer of Acts was very familiar with Paul as well as his travel and companions. This is best explained by the writer being Paul's traveling companion.
Horae Paulinae: www.google.com...
Also be sure to get a copy of Lydia McGrew's book Hidden in Plain View for an updated version of the argument. amzn.to/386Xi8Q
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Speaking of generous patrons, thanks for those who support this channel! If you're interested in helping me make more videos like these, go to patreon.com/isjesusalive
Several more videos to come on the book of Acts.
When I heard that Erhman claimed that Jesus was confused and didn't know why he was crucified I can't take him serious at all,
he feels disingenuous
👏 👏 👏 👏 Error-man has his own agenda which is strictly Pauline. He discredits apostles, Luke, Gnostic texts (that have their own problems), Judaism ✡️ & Islam ☪️, while pretending he is an atheist. He freely insults lost Christologies while creating his own. He’s on record for saying no historical Jesus, no Resurrection, then suddenly reversing on both. Portraying Jesus as an idiot who doesn’t know why he is being crucified is just par for the course. Weak atheists like him because he does crude insults to whoever he is character assassinating. Only his concept of Paul withstands whatever this week’s target 🎯 is. It sells his books & seminars. Atheists today do not do rigorous assessment of Christian texts. They just lap it up as they have an incredible strong need for approval. Error-man is mostly bent on sales but he and his Christian clergy (of all people) supporters think weak arguments is the way to stop the growing trend of lost believers. They gain any people, the same will leave for a new fad like maybe the latest from Alien Astronauts. It’s dishonest. It’s disingenuous. And it has no lasting glue. A very weak way to get people back.
(But then some of the religious always viewed their target audience as incredibly stupid children.)
@@cheryldeboissiere1851 Error-Man, that's a good one
William Lane Craig put it nicely, not sure exactly how he went about saying this, but there’s 2 different Bart Ehrmans; the scholar Bart and the author Bart. The scholar Bart seems to be very conservative in his claims, definitely a skeptic but not very bold in his claims. The author Bart, however, makes wild claims about the historical Jesus, saying he never claimed to be God, etc etc. which makes sense, because the books need to sell.
@@noahalban6384 seems like it's common among skeptics.
Same with Dawkins, who claimed, in his books, that there was no historical evidence for Jesus at all.
When he was pressed on that by John Lennox hos nervously admitted that he lied about that
@@awesomefacepalm Atheists don't have to worry about lying and project their conscience onto the Bible's writers.
If we had an ancient book that wrote in the first person (Luke) when the writer was with a specific person (Paul) and every other ancient source says that the writer (Luke) was a companion of this person (Paul) nobody would deny it, but because it's part of the New Testament much more skepticism is added than would normally be applied.
It because of Markan priority... NOT because of skepticism. Because if Luke was with Paul.... this puts Luke-Acts MUCH closer to 60AD due to Paul being in chains and that being the best explanation of Luke complaining the longest book of the NT with Paul as a source - a work like Luke-Acts would have taken like 1-2 years to write.... Paul was in Chains in Caesarea for 2 years before going to Rome... oh yeah... Paul is left alive at the end of Acts... hmmm why wouldn't Luke record that when he copiously records tons of other geo political executions or issues.
You can’t prove the Bible using the Bible is one standby that used to confound me until I prayed and I believe the Holy Spirit pointed me towards the truth. The Bible didn’t exist as the Bible until 200-300 years after the death of Christ. Both the Old and New were scrolls and possibly other forms, such as codex but the Epistles or letters of Paul were sent to their intended reader and then copied and shared. Scribes were commanded to do a perfect job, (close to perfect) & if something was added or changed they were to note the addition or change.
@Atheist Deprogramming Have you read the original forward from the translators to the reader in that edition? I highly recommend it.
@Atheist Deprogramming Fair enough, if you are so determined let me not stand in your way. God bless.
@@rebelresource
You could just date mark to the 50's
I went to a church where the preacher taught that the Apostle Paul was blind but after I actually read the bible (which most people do not) I was glad to see that Paul was a tent maker and that at several points in Acts, Paul "beholds" or "sees" certain things. He looked at a blasphemer at one point before striking him blind. He saw that a person had the faith to be healed. Blind tent makers are not very useful. People with advanced degrees are often very stupid.
It’s interesting that someone who supposedly has studied the text would say that. maybe he was referring to Paul being blinded by Jesus on his way to Damascus but then got healed after he got to the town?
and left out the part where he got healed?
he was blind for 3 days. Acts 9:9 not sure what the preacher said. but was important part of Pauls story that he regained his sight or that God punished him for persecuting his followers and Paul became a great apostle.
@@kaptaink1959 This is true. There's also some who theorise that Paul's vision was impaired which is why he signs Galatians(6;11) in big letters and is possibly what Paul is referring to as his 'thorn in the flesh'. This is conjecture either way though, it's not a clear statement. Although I don't think someone needs perfect vision to make tents anyway.
Ehrman getting trucked out every Easter and Christmas season is getting old. He has not got a leg to stand on, and frankly, it seems that his whole career is really an extension of 19th century skeptical critics. I've seen Dan Wallace take him apart. I'd love to see NT Wright shut him down too. I'm sure Professor Ehrman is a nice guy, but he is so sadly misguided. Sorry his super evangelical version of Christianity didn't square with the Bible, but that doesn't make the Bible wrong. I don't get it. I am getting really tired of regularly seeing him pop up twice a year and having to say yes I've read most of his works and it's all not only been said before, but he even concedes that (for example) there is no fundamental Christian doctrine that rests on a textual error. He has made a lot of lectures about there being more textual variants than verses in the New Testament, but is apparently not intellectually honest enough to admit that they don't amount to a hill of beans without someone like Dan Wallace basically backing him into a corner.
Come back to Jesus, Bart. Seriously. He never stopped loving you.
I know, for real. Abandoning God is so cringe.
The best part about Bart Ehrman having made a career and basically just making up nonsense and doing talks on it is that it has provided ample opportunity to inform people just how much the Bible holds up under scrutiny. Without Ehrman's theories, we might be faced with CREDIBLE historians that would know better than to try and make such erroneous claims. There would just generally be a lot less opportunity to talk about such things. Thanks, Bart. You're a peach.
I would say just part of a peach. The pit which is toxic.
The peach is an interesting statement from both you guys. Consume a little of it and it can be sweet, consume all of it and you'll die. Seems very appropriate.
I don’t believe Bart purposely does these things knowing that he’s lying he’s trying to rationalize how he got twisted up. The story goes that, while no one can be sure what happened, he realized that scripture may be wrong in terms of it’s exactitude. I pray he comes back to faith.
@@michaelbrickley2443 Everything he writes is poisoned by his insistance that nothing supernatural is possible. No God no angels no miracles. If he is not deliberately twisting both Scripture and non Biblical writings his bias acomplishes the same thing. His opinions on the New Testament are directly opposed to scholars who do not hate God. Many of his opinions such as when the Gospels were written are blatantly obvious in their falsehood. He claims that the authorship of the Gospels and the epistles, including Paul's, is unknown. The "church fathers" knew who wrote them with at most 2 degrees of separation and none claims any other author.
@@MadebyKourmoulis I went to look at your comment so I could give it a like and I can't find it. I can click reply from notifications but not find it by clicking " 4 replies". Please try again.
People who go to the Atheist Church (and make NO MISTAKE, Atheism is a very strong religion. It is the state religion of most nations including the United States of America) have an agenda of placing the writings of the New Testament AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This, they wish, gives them license to push the record of the ministry of Jesus very far from the people who actually experienced it. Their sincere desire eclipses historic fact and even logic itself. Why would Luke suddenly include himself in the travelings of Paul when the whole first part of the Book of Acts (along with the prequel, The Gospel of Luke) is hear-say. Why turn a biography into a firsthand account? What is to be gained? If you are such a person then why not insert yourself into the ENTIRETY of the works (from start to finish)? It's illogical BUT the Atheist religion has an agenda that is counter to the agenda of God and so, with their noses planted firmly in the air, they spin a tale that attempts to invalidate the record of the people who lived at the time. The error of the Atheist religion is only exceeded by its arrogance. Well did the Psalmist write: "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
“Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” -- 2 Timothy 4:11
I pressed like when you said "Appolo-gist".
Well... I laughed of the pun! 🤣💙👍
Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.
2 Timothy 4:11 ESV
Ooof!
The Atheist religion discards the pastoral epistles too. Everything that disagrees with their world view is a forgery. Atheism is a powerful religion.
Whoa whoa whoa stop the clock! This letter that wasn't actually written by Paul names a "Luke" so obviously the author of Acts must be this Luke! - That is Irenaeus' flawed reasoning anyway which is the main reason we have this obviously unreliable tradition.
@@simmadownnah8788 Yeah...nope. You otta simmer down with your baseless and unproven assertions. You need to support your claims or they are hearby dismissed. A cursory review of arguments against Pauline authorship just aren't convincing...especially those in the Wikipedia entry which is complete with the typical and unsupported late dating after 70 AD (after Paul's death).
Going back to the topic of the video, there's of course additional reasons to think Luke was with Paul to include the harmony of Acts with Paul's own mention of events to include confronting Peter and James. Furthermore, when Paul does quote Jesus and Scripture it corresponds to Luke's Gospel.
Do better or go home 🙂
Dismissed!
I rolled my eyes then saw the lady rolling hers ha ha. Wouldn't have been funny without that clip.
Hey, do we have any research that compares the frequency of undersigned coincidences in known forgeries/fiction with authentic accounts? I feel like if we did, we could compare the frequency of their appearance in authentic accounts to the New Testament and it could make this argument 10x strong. Thanks.
From what I’ve seen and read, undesigned coincidences don’t happen in fiction or forgeries. If the writer is making up a story and trying to make it seem true, any coincidences that can be corroborated would seem too obvious and designed.
But as you said, it would be nice to see a comparison of a forgery or fiction that tries to appear historical with the gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters.
Undesigned coincidence is a very strong tool to prove the integrity of the biblical text. It's all over the Bible, and as an arrow in the quiver of the fiction writer, has no antecedent in ancient literature - not to mention the difficulty involved in producing such undesigned coincidences.
It's interesting how ancient and medieval history scholars endlessly study the sources and pull strand after strand of nuanced inspection, always building on their work and the work of others, and they walk on eggshells not to make any firm statements on any ideas(It can actually be frustrating at times); meanwhile NT scholars like Ehrman do the opposite, and pick the next nearest grape and tell the world it's sour. Is there any meat to this guy at all? What does he do all day?
I'm not sure what "conventional dating" has to do with this anyway, let alone be presented as some kind of proof. For all other ancient writings, we get a range of dates when the could have been written. Acts could very well have been written around 85. It could just as easily have been written in 62. For both dates, he can still be a companion of Paul.
And why 85? It's just the latest date humanly possible that lazy mechanical NT scholars can support(it was once much later), or perhaps he just cynically considers it useful in cases like this.
Meanwhile, the amateur NT scholar does do the work, and doesn't waste our time.
Late dates are baseless assertions by people 2000 years after the facts. They want to avoid the truth. Paul is still alive and Jerusalem is still around in Acts.
This was written long after Paul’s death? Did you mention in a different video that it not being mentioned in acts that Paul was excited in some kind of proof he was? Seem like I heard hear or somewhere that acts wasn’t finished before Paul was killed.
Hey Testify, is Barnabas's cousin Mark, the writer of the gospel of Mark?
Good question. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) said he was.
St Priscila and St Aquila pray for us
St palamas pray for us
An author is either a meticulous detail-watcher with all the source material in front of him so as to artificially craft the appearance of dozens of undesigned coincidences, OR he is a careless fool bungling lots of the facts.
Many skeptics can’t avoid the cognitive dissonance of saying “both.”
Hope you are still doing, and doing well!
Very good.
Nice video
What about accepting that the New Testament is the oral tradition of the early church written down and copied and recopied hundreds of times thus is very flawed.
Whats the deal with insisting on the authenticity of the claimed authors? Is that a faith requirement?
There's zero evidence of your theory
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has high-resolution scans of manuscripts dating back to within decades of when they were claimed to have been written. The only differences from those manuscripts and what is in modern Bibles are minor scribal errors. In none of the manuscripts has the meaning changed. The fact is, there needs to be manuscript evidence to substantiate the claim that the teachings of Jesus were altered, and there is no evidence for that claim. All the manuscripts we have are solidly consistent with what is in the Bible today.
Many scribes and pharisees saw Jesus in action and were early converts. They would have written things down. There were thousands of other witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written to authenticate them. There are over 5000 early manuscripts plus the writings of early church leaders. Our current Bible translations are accurate. A good Bible will also list variants of a passage in footnotes. If you read them, you will see they have no effect on theology.
Somewhere along the line in this barts fella faith cause I think he believed once the enemy came along and sowed disbelief in him...
It’s no enemy of any kind... Bart couldn’t sell a book until he went over to his pretend atheist act. Now he reaps in cash from weak atheists who were abused by a variety of Christian sects led by idiots who could not answer a single query with “I don’t know”. These people are not critical thinkers but they love his childish performances.
It is funny how we never hear anyone claiming that Gautama was a myth or that the Quran doesn’t contain the historical teachings of Mohammad written by his close followers but was actually written by anonymous authors a century later
Its true. The Quran is not from Muhammed no evidence of Muhammed in this book.
@@klub7justin
He's mentioned by name in the Quran.
The Quran was written while Mohammed pbuh was alive and it was compiled and standardized few decades after his death.
Nope, you all got it wrong. Muhammed PBUH never learned to read and write so his was an oral tradition throughout his lifetime. It continued as such when Abu Bakr was the First Caliph. Because verses were being lost because speakers of the Suras were getting old and forgetting verses, Abu Bakr commanded that it be written down.
After the Four Righteous Caliphs (of the Sunni whom Shia don’t recognize), there was a new Islamic Empire who was held to have corrupted the verses. Thus one needs the Hadith to truly understand the Koran.. There is either four or twenty Hadiths, I don’t remember. Maybe it’s Four Hadiths and Twenty Schools of Interpretation.
Oh, I can safely say all of this because hey, I’m not Moslem and will happily admit I may have missed some important detail. Moslems today cannot say anything solid on the subject because some iman might swear out a fatwa on them and they get killed for being truly knowledgeable and getting it wrong. Insults to Islam ☪️ is a serious offense in some countries.
I’m not even shooting for insult, I’m just saying what I’ve read, which could be mistaken or missing some details. And no Moslem should try to correct this unless they have a death wish.
Good morning Erik, I was hoping you could address a theological issue concerning the Olivet discourse's Prophecy?
The first words presented as being spoken by Jesus in the first chapter of the earliest gospel are:
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in this good news.”
(Mark 1:15)
The writer of gMark does not depict Jesus explaining what he means and expects his audience to understand - here Jesus is proclaiming that the expected end time had come, that the kingship of God was close and that those who believed this and repented would join the righteous when the imminent apocalypse arrived. Far from being a prophet of doom, Jesus is depicted proclaiming this imminent event as “good news” - the relief from oppression, both human and demonic, was almost here. And this succinct summary is effectively the whole of his message in this and in the other two synoptic gospels (gMatt and gLuke); the word “gospel” literally means “[the] good news”.
One of the key elements of this message was its urgency and immediacy; in these earliest texts Jesus is not depicted as proclaiming that this world-changing event will happen some time in the distant future, but that it was happening soon. Very soon, in fact. This is something that the synoptic gospels generally emphasise repeatedly:
“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.”
(Mark 9:1; cf. Matt 16:28 and Luke 9:27)
Later, after predicting the fall of the Temple, detailing the End Times tribulations and the subsequent arrival of God’s cosmic intervention, Jesus is depicted repeating:
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
(Mark 13:30)
And the writer of gMatt also emphasises the imminence of the coming apocalypse in a reported saying that seems to be even more urgent:
“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
(Matt 10:23)
This Matt 10:23 saying may reflect an insistence by the historical Jesus that the apocalypse was coming any day, with the “this generation” sayings noted above reflecting a later reaction to the fact that decades had passed without the “kingship” arriving. But all of these reported sayings reflect an emphasis in urgency and imminence; as do many other elements in the synoptics. When we turn to the parables that Jesus is depicted telling in the synoptic gospels, once again we find that not only is the coming apocalypse their central theme, but its imminence is repeatedly emphasised. For example:
“But know this: if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.”
(Luke 12:39-40, cf. Matt 24:48-50)
Likewise, Luke 12:45-46 (cf. Matt 24:48-50) has a servant misbehaving and carousing while his master is away and warns “the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful” (v. 46). Similarly, the parable of the bridesmaids ends with the warning:
“Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”
(Matt 25:13)
Then there is a similar exhortation in Luke 12:36:
“Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks.”
This emphasis on the imminence of the coming apocalypse is, again, not unique to the reported teaching of Jesus. We find it in other, earlier Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic works. For example:
For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it speaks of the end, and does not lie. If it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay. (Habakkuk 2:3)
I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. (Isa 46:13)
The age is hurrying swiftly to its end … judgement is now drawing near. (4 Ezra 4:26, 8:61)
The advent of the times is very short … the end which the Most High prepared is near. (2 Bar 85:10, 82:20)
Of course, nothing in the Judaism of this period was uniform and there are other traditions that do imply the kingship of God is a more distant eventuality or are far more ambiguous about when it will come about. But in the synoptic gospels, and most clearly in gMark and gMatt, the emphasis is very much on urgency and the imminence of the coming transformation of the cosmos.
So did the Apostles believe the Apocalypse was imminent? If so how would you reconcile this alleged failed apocalyptic prophecy? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
I'm doing a livestream in June or July with someone on this topic. Among other things, Jesus seems to say the nations will hear the gospel first and clearly that could not be fulfilled in their lifetimes and I think they thought it was possible but not necessarily going to happen, but I'm not going to go into depth here and now.
Also this suspiciously looks an awful lot like "Resurrection Expert" copypasta. Where did you find this?
Luke 17:22 disproves this idea. Jesus specifically said the disciples would not see the end.
Zephyr, I have seen something similar in the Gospel of John. Imminence is actually a cue to be ready when the time comes. It is an instruction to always be ready. But Jesus never actually stated when, though the one time he was pretty precise was about the destruction of Jerusalem was coming. That warning does have a within our lifetime feel to it or close to the lifetime of peoples around him. Jesus never dates “ Second Coming” or “Messiah Shows Up” in any way. Only specific is about not being able to recognize the timeframe... some chitchat about talk of war & rumors of war which could easily be assigned to any point in history eg. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine. Some chitchat about earthquakes... so any time... Jesus had the same approach to daily life... don’t worry about tomorrow... something about lilies of the field not particularly worrying...
I think way too many frustrated people latched onto Revelations & forgot the part about not worrying... sort of a live for today philosophy... seize the day...
End Time people are nuts 🥜
barrt my boy🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Bart Errman was never a saved Christian.
••Mark 4: 9And he (Jesus) said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11And he said unto them, UNTO YOU it is given TO KNOW the mystery of the kingdom of God: BUT UNTO THEM that are without, all THESE THINGS ARE DONE IN PARABLES:
12That seeing THEY may SEE, and NOT PERCEIVE; and hearing THEY may HEAR, and NOT UNDERSTAND; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
••Luke 16: 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, THEY HAVE MOSES AND THE PROPHETS; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, IF THEY HEAR NOT Moses and the prophets, NEITHER will they BE PERSUADED, though one ROSE FROM THE DEAD.
••2 Corinthians 3: 12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But THEIR MINDS WERE BLINDED: for UNTIL THIS DAY REMAINETH the SAME VAIL untaken away in the reading of the old testament; WHICH VAIL IS DONE AWAY in CHRIST.
15But EVEN UNTO THIS DAY, when Moses is read, the VAIL IS UPON THEIR HEART.
••2 Corinthians 4: 1Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3But IF our gospel BE HID, it is HID TO THEM THAT ARE LOST:
4In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED THE MINDS of THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
••1 John 2: 18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: BUT THEY WENT OUT, THAT THEY MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST THAT THEY WERE NOT ALL OF US. (KJV)
He was saved in baptism but he is living in apostasy
Not a true Scotsman's fallacy
@@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz • He doesn't believe in miracles(resurrection). He was never a saved Christian.
@@waxworse Let's not debate once saved/always saved or perseverance of the saints, etc., please. I'm more concerned with the arguments than Ehrman's character or status as a former professing Christian. Those are interesting theological questions for sure but not really my focus here.
@@TestifyApologetics • Got it.
Bart is batting 1000 (so far). Swing, batter!😁
sorry - 'acts' is entirely ghostwritten by Esau [=Pharisees] ; having taken chapter 1 from the gospels [prob 'from John'] then having invented an entire fiction. You can only see this if you know how in-cr-di-bly he corrupted the whole NT , after his fathers corrupted Prophets . The stories like "and we sailed on a Roman ship with 300 soldiers 500 yards out of the ports where the water was 20 feet deep and 6 fishes swam around [=paraphrased]" is cringe : especially when you realize how he did his best to keep réal details OUT of his corrupt scroll - that the Reformation just copied into the present KJV .