Once critics doubted that the new testament books were written early in the early 1st century, then they doubted the authorship of the gospels, then they doubted the archeological contents of the new testament ...all proven wrong...now they move the goal posts again.
Yep. It's getting really old. It's so obvious they start out with the assumption that it must all be bs and go from there. It's hard to take such scholars as authorities.
Every additional confirmed historical detail gives us a piece of evidence that better supports the "Paul really made the journey" hypothesis over the "Luke was writing historical fiction" hypothesis.
Most ancient libraries only included popular landmarks, not minor places or customs like Luke consistently gets right. If Luke is going to all this trouble to get 84 minor details right, then Occam's Razor indicates that the events he records are likely also accurate too.
You know skeptical atheists, they need forensically verified video tape with bloody fingerprints verified by DNA testing. When you give them that they say, "anybody could have left those fingerprints, I need videotape of the guy bleeding on the videotape." So when you give them that they say, "but that's a different videotape. I need videotape of the guy bleeding on this videotape to be on this videotape." Then you say "but if the guy was bleeding on this videotape then it couldn't be in the camera recording." Then they say "AH HAH! I knew it was all made up."
0:00 Introduction 0:22 1. Sergius Paulus 1:33 2. The Gallio Inscription 2:33 3. The Erastus Inscription 6:09 No, Spider-Man still isn't real. 7:17 No, this doesn't automatically mean the miraculous parts are true.
I am very much appreciating your work. Many thanks. I do recommend that you slow down your delivery and loose the music. It's a bit distracting. But still, gold!
Love the return of these videos! Hope to see more of it along side the streams Some feedback though: I personally am not a big fan of the voice reading the bibleverses. Its not to bad, but I prefer your voice Oh and, I was completely blown away that a decently high official of Corinth already converted to christianity so early on and even went on missionary trips with Timothy. Thats just crazy! The amazing things you learn by watching your videos
the reason skeptic believe book of act is fiction because it record the miracles it's only reason if there is no any miracles I don't think they would doubt.
The writing the book of Acts (according to sceptics) being like: *Pseudo-Luke in 80 AD:* "Hey guys, I'm writing a religious legendary book and wondered if you know anyone who happen to remember who was in charge in Corinth in around 11th or 12th year of emperor Claudius' reign 30 years ago... it could make it sound more reliable." Others: "Bro, sorry but we don't. Let's check the politic section of the nearest library instead." Pseudo-Luke: "Ok thanks bro." Narrator: And this way some random dude in the late 1st century wrote a historical fantasy book that contests with the Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man in credibility. Testify:
These accuracies, if any, and while I acknowledged that these would not necessarily be proof of the scriptures’ authenticity, these will be used as proof of fallacies had it been inaccurate for sure with the critics!
Years ago I read Sir William Ramsays book, “The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the NT. In it he stated that he had found S Paulus family graveyard in Cyprus. He inferred that the family must have become Christian, because his descendants didn’t hold high positions in Roman government. One could not be a Christian and oversee offerings to pagan gods.
listing 5 popes doesn't = roman endoresment. there is a long, long list of popes being martyred. The only one telling porky pies is you buddy. Do your homework and come back later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes_who_died_violently
Excellent video. Also, what author writing fiction would include a single line casual reference to the protagonist cutting his hair in a random town?? :) "Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. *Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.* They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila." (Acts 18, NIV) The preponderance of casual details like that make a strong argument for the historicity of Acts.
@@trevornunn3285Well, if we use Occam's Razor then we can easily recognise that the persistent accuracy of the author makes it more likely that he's just recording history, rather than some overcomplicated conspiracy about him finding accurate details just to appease some people. You do know that Acts was addressed to 1 person, Theophilus, right? Why on Earth would Luke try to be so convulated in trying to convert just 1 person? Just think about how illogical that is for a second.
@@trevornunn3285Acts is addressed to Theophilus. Some debate whether that is just 1 individual or a term for a group of people. Why should it be excluded from the Bible if it is only addressed to 1 person? Would we reject a scientific textbook as fiction it it was written only to a small group of scientists? It's strange to bring up Harry Potter when that literally proves my point. HP is a book written by an author claiming to be writing fiction, and do we see signs of that? Yes, we do. HP is full of mythical places, people, and events. Things that we can falsify, things that we can show are false. Occam's Razor therefore tells us that the simplest explanation is that HP is a work of fiction. On the other hand, Acts is a book written by an author claiming to be writing non-fiction, and do we see signs of that? Yes, we do. Acts is full of historical places, people, and events. Things that we can verify, things that we can show are true. Occam's Razor therefore tells us that the simplest explanation is that Acts is a reliable work of non-fiction and that the intent of the author is to be historically accurate. If you're going to reject Acts solely on the basis of miracle claims, then we have a massive problem. A lot of ancient historians also record miracle events, even people like Tacitus and Josephus, of whom are proven to be very accurate and reliable historians. If we are being consistent, then we would have to throw out the vast majority of ancient history. Does that seem reasonable to you?
@@trevornunn3285Epic strawman. I said that HP is mythical because it can be falsified and shown to be false. Heaven and Hell can't be shown to be mythical or false in the same way.
The Spideman argument would have to explain historical precision not just in New York, but Chicago, Philidelphia and Boston in an isolated world without electronic media or even the printing press.
This entire strawman of saying superheroes are on the same critical wavelength as the God described in the Bible is a total fail. It takes seconds to realize how this falls apart. People can’t even agree on the lore for superheroes or movie trilogies like Star Wars because there’s different people pitching in different ideas of how they _want_ a narrative to unfold. Some people don’t accept the prequels of Star Wars, some don’t accept the sequels, some don’t accept either, some treat the cartoon shows as canon, others will disagree with major events like major protagonists’ or antagonists’ deaths. And mind you, this is for media that is less than a century old. The Bible doesn’t disagree on Abraham’s death, nor on the death of Jesus, nor on the death of any other character of the Bible. And it’s literally 3 millennia old. The comparison is for fools and fools alone.
@@TheBanjoShowOfficialTo be fair, the Bible has been meticulously compiled to exclude any apocryphal texts that contradict the narrative. Jewish and Christian lore has just as much fan fiction as the Greeks and Romans. You've drawn a target around the arrow and claimed a bullseye.
@@ryanrevland4333not only contradicts the texts the apocryphal are much later than the canonical and less detailed and more legendary than the canonical gospels.
The Spider-Man author incorporates real details of New York City seamlessly into the narrative. Queens, particularly Forest Hills, serves as Peter's home. Iconic landmarks like the Empire State Building, Central Park, and Times Square are integral to Spidey's adventures. The author displays an intimate understanding of the subway system, down to specific street entrances. Cultural events like parades and festivals are faithfully depicted and continue to be celebrated. The comics also authentically capture the spirit and character of New Yorkers. Given this amount of detail, how can we deny that Peter was bitten by a radioactive spider and granted superhuman strength?
If I wanted people to believe magic stories, I too would mix up hocus-pocus with real places and real people, to..........y'know........give it that air of authenticity
And yet we have numerous examples of texts from the ancient world which have "magic stories" but only reference really well known real places and real people. Which shows that you think very differently to people living in the united Roman Empire and/or that it was extremely difficult to find out these kinds of details back then.
If we are trying to cling to bits of archaeology to try and prove the veracity of Acts - it kind of feels no different then LDS apologists trying to use bits of archaeology to prove the Book of Mormon.
1) The Book of Mormon is on par with the Apocryphal Gospels for geographical accuracy (places, names, customs, beliefs, routes, etc...) 2) It's not just archeology that confirms events in Acts. Many of the recorded events were missed out by the popular historians of the day like Tacitus and Josephus, and only picked up by people like Suetonius. The Book of Mormon doesn't have that kind of luxury.
LDS apologists don't really have bits of archaeology and I just did a live on a lot more evidence that supports Acts than this. th-cam.com/users/live2XPTMMsVRss
Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
@@ramigilneas9274 The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin. “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds, etc.” (32) According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.” (34) That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate. Bing search
@@ramigilneas9274 I think it is easier to believe it was original and removed by some for moral reasons as Augustine and Nicon a Greek stated. Didymus the Blind (c. 313 - 398), a Greek speaking theologian from Alexandria, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, recounts the pericope of the woman caught in adultery and says it is found “in certain gospels.” Jerome came to him for a month in order to have his doubts resolved with regard to difficult passages of Scripture. Bing searches While this is circumstantial. I feel it is probable Jerome asked him about the PA and we know where Jerome put the PA in John. Peace
This is deliberately deceptive. The issue is not whether Paul was a real person or if real people were mentioned in Acts and other parts of the NT. It isn't even whether Paul actually believed the things he preached. It is whether those things are true. I recently saw a movie called Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. We know Lincoln was real but is the movie evidence for vampires? A favourite author of mine writes entertaining books about a department of the London police investigating supernatural threats. Do those books testify to the existence of supernatural creatures? Christians grasp at straws to try to prove their beliefs, even though they are taught that faith is a virtue. Archaeologists have uncovered many things which show the authors of the various books of the OT and NT placed their narratives in real situations and even included real people but there has never been a single find which sheds light on any of the main themes or stories of the Bible.
Took the shot and missed it completely. The reliability of Acts isn't used to prove that Christianity is true or that the supernatural exists. There have actually been many archaeological finds that shed light on Biblical stories. Have you ever heard of the Moabite Stone, or Tel Dan, or Givat Hamivtar? You seem to think that the NT writers have some kind of amazing access to geographical knowledge or local customs without the aid of Google or maps. In the ancient world, you couldn't know of things like this unless you either went to those places, or spoke to people who went there. The question is, why is the author of Acts going to all this trouble to be reliable; to accurately record local customs, place names, routes, historical events that not even Tacitus or Josephus records? What are they getting from it?
did you watch the end of the video? I specifically address this kind of objection. Deliberately deceptive...yes, on purpose I am really trying to snow people.
@@darkwolf7740 Missed the shot? Really? What is the title of the video? Also, please read my comment again. At no point did I mention disproving Christianity and my reference to the supernatural had nothing to do with Christianity, it was simply to indicate that a book about the supernatural was not evidence for its existence. Just as Acts may include real people and places without meaning the narrative of Acts is true. I think you missed the shot. I am aware of the finds you mentioned but I repeat that nothing found to date in any way substantiates the main themes and stories of the Bible. - The Moabite Stone. This seems to recount an event from the Bible but interestingly and perhaps understandably, it offers the opposite, Moabitic. perspective. But, regardless of who really won the conflict, the story could be removed from the Bible without affecting the overall theme and as such this find does not invalidate my point. - Tel Dan. Here we have an archaeological discovery which does indeed show that a place, hitherto unknown except through the Bible, really existed. But its existence does nothing to show that any Bible story is true. London exists but the Paddington Bear stories set there are not. - Givat Hamivtar The tombs and remains found at this site are interesting but offer us nothing not already known. We were already aware that such homes were built in the Second Temple period and that the Romans used crucifixion as a way of killing insurrectionists. The only thing it does do is confirm the use of nails in crucifixion, which scholars had previously debated. This does not make the crucifixion of Jesus a fact. I do not credit the authors of the gospels or Acts with any amazing knowledge, nor do I dispute that they did indeed know the places of which they wrote. That is not in question. My point is simple one. Including real people and places within a narrative does nothing to demonstrate that the narrative is a true historical account. The reason the authors went to the trouble of including these things in their story is blindingly obvious. It is also a well-known literary device. They did it to provide the very credibility which we are debating. The most we can say, with confidence, is that they knew of the people and places. That’s it. As for where their information came from, we cannot be sure. They may have travelled and had personal knowledge or they may have inherited such information from others. They may even have possessed maps of the area; such things did exist. It isn’t important. The fact remains that nothing Acts or in the New Testament as a whole, or in this video, is proof that the stories told therein are true. And because the story of Jesus is extraordinary, our default position should be one of doubt. You may choose to assuage that doubt with belief and faith. That is absolutely your right and I would never tell you, you are wrong because I do not have evidence to the contrary. But some of us are unable to believe on that basis and require incontrovertible evidence for any extraordinary claim.
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you for your response. You make good points. Allow me to answer them as best I can. You claim it was difficult for the author to be geographically accurate but how hard was it? Why did Luke have to visit these places just in order to write about them? Couldn’t he have already known them? And why should we think that the knowledge shown by the author, of places, people and politics, was difficult to obtain? The author seems to be an educated Greek speaker. Probably a scribe, as literacy was not widespread. This would allow him access to more information and knowledge than the average person. He may even have been well-travelled himself. Why should we imagine that possessing such information is out of the ordinary for such a man? Perhaps he had a map; they did exist. 😁 Even if we do believe the author made great personal effort to learn these things, that still does nothing to demonstrate the accuracy of his narrative. As for the non-existence of historical fiction, that is a red herring. If we do not simply presume the author to be recounting real events, we see that he is writing a work of faith, not history. He is weaving a story to substantiate his religious beliefs and share them. Acts is not and has never been suggested to be historical fiction. It is good to learn that you do not claim Luke to be an eyewitness, unlike many other Christians I have met who clearly do not read their Bible. However, once we understand this point, it makes it all the more likely that the story he tells is either invented or taken from a number of other people. People who probably believed that what they told was true. But we cannot possibly know if they were witnesses themselves or offering third-hand accounts. It may even be that there were no such sources for the author and he invented the whole story simply to back up the accounts of Paul. The fact is that we do not and cannot know the truth. The inclusion of certain real people, places and events within a narrative does not prove the overall narrative to be true and asserting that the author would have found it difficult to access such information must itself be demonstrated to be true before it may used to validate the truth of the whole narrative. It is perfectly understandable that people believe in the Bible and that is absolutely their right. But we must not assert that anything we read there is factual unless and until it is proven. These findings do not do that.
@@theoutspokenhumanist I would argue that the motive behind someone trying to get this kind of information indicates whether what they are recording is true or not. As far as we know from history, Luke had absolutely nothing to gain from lying, for he had no power or money to gain from writing Acts. That certainly should add some credibility to the events he records. As for how he got the information, it is clear that he had to have at least travelled to some of these places to know of local routes or customs, which are persistent throughout Acts. Maps in public libraries at the time only included major landmarks. They had no interest in minor places, let alone minor route systems or local customs of insignificant places. So the question should be if Luke's motive was of historical accuracy or deception. It isn't just geographical stuff Luke gets right. He also casually drops in a bunch of historical events not picked up by other historians. If someone is going to discredit Acts for inaccuracy, then likewise they should credit Acts for accuracy, lest they want to hold a double standard. Simple rejecting Acts is not a neutral position, nor does an extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even anything particularly extraordinary recorded in Acts, merely known places, customs, events and a few miracles dropped in, of which we see mirrored in many historical works at the same like Tacitus and Josephus, and yet, nobody would doubt that they were good historians.
Once critics doubted that the new testament books were written early in the early 1st century, then they doubted the authorship of the gospels, then they doubted the archeological contents of the new testament ...all proven wrong...now they move the goal posts again.
The goal posts have been shifted so much that they're now in a different stadium.
Well said! @@darkwolf7740
@@darkwolf7740💀
@@darkwolf7740 not even on the same planet i would say. They almost cant accept the fact that the new testament is factually highly reliable
Yep. It's getting really old. It's so obvious they start out with the assumption that it must all be bs and go from there. It's hard to take such scholars as authorities.
Every additional confirmed historical detail gives us a piece of evidence that better supports the "Paul really made the journey" hypothesis over the "Luke was writing historical fiction" hypothesis.
Dude, I just want you to know I freaking love you. One of the best TH-cam channels hands down. Always bringing in the hammers!
I love you too, random citizen!
@@TestifyApologetics 😂😂Thanks brother, keep up the good work
@TestifyApologetics I'm starting an apologetics study tonight at my church. We are going to use your work.
Most ancient libraries only included popular landmarks, not minor places or customs like Luke consistently gets right.
If Luke is going to all this trouble to get 84 minor details right, then Occam's Razor indicates that the events he records are likely also accurate too.
You know skeptical atheists, they need forensically verified video tape with bloody fingerprints verified by DNA testing. When you give them that they say, "anybody could have left those fingerprints, I need videotape of the guy bleeding on the videotape." So when you give them that they say, "but that's a different videotape. I need videotape of the guy bleeding on this videotape to be on this videotape." Then you say "but if the guy was bleeding on this videotape then it couldn't be in the camera recording." Then they say "AH HAH! I knew it was all made up."
@@darriuscole8544Luckily for you, I'm not one of those kinds of sceptic. I'm reasonable in what I ask for as evidence.
@@darriuscole8544- Don't forget CGI and AI? Miracles would never impress people today.
@@darriuscole8544Straw man arguments.
Luke did not know where the tomb of the patriarchs was. That’s a fairly large mistake.
0:00 Introduction
0:22 1. Sergius Paulus
1:33 2. The Gallio Inscription
2:33 3. The Erastus Inscription
6:09 No, Spider-Man still isn't real.
7:17 No, this doesn't automatically mean the miraculous parts are true.
I am very much appreciating your work. Many thanks. I do recommend that you slow down your delivery and loose the music. It's a bit distracting. But still, gold!
good morning everyone
Morning good
Doog gninrom
3:47
I didn't expect the Bass to just drop like that so suddenly.
Plot Twist: The voice was Testify's but in focus mode
Thank you
Love the return of these videos! Hope to see more of it along side the streams
Some feedback though: I personally am not a big fan of the voice reading the bibleverses. Its not to bad, but I prefer your voice
Oh and, I was completely blown away that a decently high official of Corinth already converted to christianity so early on and even went on missionary trips with Timothy. Thats just crazy! The amazing things you learn by watching your videos
*Plot Twist: It's Testify from an alternate universe*
Love the voice of the bible reader.
the reason skeptic believe book of act is fiction because it record the miracles it's only reason if there is no any miracles I don't think they would doubt.
The writing the book of Acts (according to sceptics) being like:
*Pseudo-Luke in 80 AD:* "Hey guys, I'm writing a religious legendary book and wondered if you know anyone who happen to remember who was in charge in Corinth in around 11th or 12th year of emperor Claudius' reign 30 years ago... it could make it sound more reliable."
Others: "Bro, sorry but we don't. Let's check the politic section of the nearest library instead."
Pseudo-Luke: "Ok thanks bro."
Narrator: And this way some random dude in the late 1st century wrote a historical fantasy book that contests with the Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man in credibility.
Testify:
These accuracies, if any, and while I acknowledged that these would not necessarily be proof of the scriptures’ authenticity, these will be used as proof of fallacies had it been inaccurate for sure with the critics!
Did Rabban Gamaliel say chapter 5 33-39 to the best of everyone's knowledge?
thanks :)
"Let the stones speak" Eilat Mazar
They will doubt the historicity of the Bible even if they find the skeleton of Goliath himself!
*"I will only believe if I have a time machine and see it! But even when I do see it, I'll just say that I'm hallucinating!"*
How would we know it was Goliath?
@@ramigilneas9274 E isso que um ateu diria mesmo com evidências da ressurreição de Jesus.
Common testify W
Years ago I read Sir William Ramsays book, “The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the NT. In it he stated that he had found S Paulus family graveyard in Cyprus. He inferred that the family must have become Christian, because his descendants didn’t hold high positions in Roman government. One could not be a Christian and oversee offerings to pagan gods.
I almost included data about his family but opted not to. Good point.
listing 5 popes doesn't = roman endoresment. there is a long, long list of popes being martyred. The only one telling porky pies is you buddy. Do your homework and come back later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes_who_died_violently
Meanwhile, we're still waiting d find a murky spring and d gigantic copper wall
😂😂😂
Excellent video.
Also, what author writing fiction would include a single line casual reference to the protagonist cutting his hair in a random town?? :)
"Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. *Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.* They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila." (Acts 18, NIV)
The preponderance of casual details like that make a strong argument for the historicity of Acts.
@@trevornunn3285Well, if we use Occam's Razor then we can easily recognise that the persistent accuracy of the author makes it more likely that he's just recording history, rather than some overcomplicated conspiracy about him finding accurate details just to appease some people.
You do know that Acts was addressed to 1 person, Theophilus, right? Why on Earth would Luke try to be so convulated in trying to convert just 1 person? Just think about how illogical that is for a second.
Yeah I like that unexplained allusion, like what is going on there?
@@trevornunn3285Acts is addressed to Theophilus. Some debate whether that is just 1 individual or a term for a group of people. Why should it be excluded from the Bible if it is only addressed to 1 person? Would we reject a scientific textbook as fiction it it was written only to a small group of scientists?
It's strange to bring up Harry Potter when that literally proves my point.
HP is a book written by an author claiming to be writing fiction, and do we see signs of that? Yes, we do. HP is full of mythical places, people, and events. Things that we can falsify, things that we can show are false. Occam's Razor therefore tells us that the simplest explanation is that HP is a work of fiction.
On the other hand, Acts is a book written by an author claiming to be writing non-fiction, and do we see signs of that? Yes, we do. Acts is full of historical places, people, and events. Things that we can verify, things that we can show are true. Occam's Razor therefore tells us that the simplest explanation is that Acts is a reliable work of non-fiction and that the intent of the author is to be historically accurate.
If you're going to reject Acts solely on the basis of miracle claims, then we have a massive problem. A lot of ancient historians also record miracle events, even people like Tacitus and Josephus, of whom are proven to be very accurate and reliable historians. If we are being consistent, then we would have to throw out the vast majority of ancient history. Does that seem reasonable to you?
@@trevornunn3285Epic strawman. I said that HP is mythical because it can be falsified and shown to be false. Heaven and Hell can't be shown to be mythical or false in the same way.
@@trevornunn3285Can you provide an example?
Your arguments against these Christian critics are spot on.. hoping that you will have more subscribers…
The Spideman argument would have to explain historical precision not just in New York, but Chicago, Philidelphia and Boston in an isolated world without electronic media or even the printing press.
Good point 👍
This entire strawman of saying superheroes are on the same critical wavelength as the God described in the Bible is a total fail. It takes seconds to realize how this falls apart. People can’t even agree on the lore for superheroes or movie trilogies like Star Wars because there’s different people pitching in different ideas of how they _want_ a narrative to unfold. Some people don’t accept the prequels of Star Wars, some don’t accept the sequels, some don’t accept either, some treat the cartoon shows as canon, others will disagree with major events like major protagonists’ or antagonists’ deaths. And mind you, this is for media that is less than a century old. The Bible doesn’t disagree on Abraham’s death, nor on the death of Jesus, nor on the death of any other character of the Bible. And it’s literally 3 millennia old. The comparison is for fools and fools alone.
@@TheBanjoShowOfficialTo be fair, the Bible has been meticulously compiled to exclude any apocryphal texts that contradict the narrative. Jewish and Christian lore has just as much fan fiction as the Greeks and Romans. You've drawn a target around the arrow and claimed a bullseye.
@@ryanrevland4333not only contradicts the texts the apocryphal are much later than the canonical and less detailed and more legendary than the canonical gospels.
The Spider-Man author incorporates real details of New York City seamlessly into the narrative. Queens, particularly Forest Hills, serves as Peter's home. Iconic landmarks like the Empire State Building, Central Park, and Times Square are integral to Spidey's adventures. The author displays an intimate understanding of the subway system, down to specific street entrances. Cultural events like parades and festivals are faithfully depicted and continue to be celebrated. The comics also authentically capture the spirit and character of New Yorkers.
Given this amount of detail, how can we deny that Peter was bitten by a radioactive spider and granted superhuman strength?
If I wanted people to believe magic stories, I too would mix up hocus-pocus with real places and real people, to..........y'know........give it that air of authenticity
This person here knows how to use his brains 😂
For what purpose? That's what is important. If someone is going to all this trouble to get such accurate things right, then why?
Money? Sex? Power?
answer
And yet we have numerous examples of texts from the ancient world which have "magic stories" but only reference really well known real places and real people. Which shows that you think very differently to people living in the united Roman Empire and/or that it was extremely difficult to find out these kinds of details back then.
Money? Sex? Power?....NAH. NEVER !!!!!!
good vid but please work on the pronunciation of names and places
I've heard Achaia pronounced two different ways.
If we are trying to cling to bits of archaeology to try and prove the veracity of Acts - it kind of feels no different then LDS apologists trying to use bits of archaeology to prove the Book of Mormon.
If the arch evidences shows it happened then it happened, 🤷♀️ but we know Joseph Smith is a false prophet
1) The Book of Mormon is on par with the Apocryphal Gospels for geographical accuracy (places, names, customs, beliefs, routes, etc...)
2) It's not just archeology that confirms events in Acts. Many of the recorded events were missed out by the popular historians of the day like Tacitus and Josephus, and only picked up by people like Suetonius. The Book of Mormon doesn't have that kind of luxury.
LDS apologists don't really have bits of archaeology and I just did a live on a lot more evidence that supports Acts than this. th-cam.com/users/live2XPTMMsVRss
Are the gospels legends?
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
@@ramigilneas9274 The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin. “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds, etc.” (32)
According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.” (34)
That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate. Bing search
@@ramigilneas9274 I think it is easier to believe it was original and removed by some for moral reasons as Augustine and Nicon a Greek stated.
Didymus the Blind (c. 313 - 398), a Greek speaking theologian from Alexandria, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, recounts the pericope of the woman caught in adultery and says it is found “in certain gospels.” Jerome came to him for a month in order to have his doubts resolved with regard to difficult passages of Scripture. Bing searches While this is circumstantial. I feel it is probable Jerome asked him about the PA and we know where Jerome put the PA in John. Peace
Why cherrypick?
how am I cherrypicking?
@@TestifyApologetics"Because he said so"
@@jokinn4849Perfectly sound 😭
This is deliberately deceptive.
The issue is not whether Paul was a real person or if real people were mentioned in Acts and other parts of the NT. It isn't even whether Paul actually believed the things he preached. It is whether those things are true.
I recently saw a movie called Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. We know Lincoln was real but is the movie evidence for vampires?
A favourite author of mine writes entertaining books about a department of the London police investigating supernatural threats. Do those books testify to the existence of supernatural creatures?
Christians grasp at straws to try to prove their beliefs, even though they are taught that faith is a virtue. Archaeologists have uncovered many things which show the authors of the various books of the OT and NT placed their narratives in real situations and even included real people but there has never been a single find which sheds light on any of the main themes or stories of the Bible.
Took the shot and missed it completely. The reliability of Acts isn't used to prove that Christianity is true or that the supernatural exists.
There have actually been many archaeological finds that shed light on Biblical stories. Have you ever heard of the Moabite Stone, or Tel Dan, or Givat Hamivtar?
You seem to think that the NT writers have some kind of amazing access to geographical knowledge or local customs without the aid of Google or maps. In the ancient world, you couldn't know of things like this unless you either went to those places, or spoke to people who went there. The question is, why is the author of Acts going to all this trouble to be reliable; to accurately record local customs, place names, routes, historical events that not even Tacitus or Josephus records? What are they getting from it?
did you watch the end of the video? I specifically address this kind of objection. Deliberately deceptive...yes, on purpose I am really trying to snow people.
@@darkwolf7740 Missed the shot? Really? What is the title of the video?
Also, please read my comment again. At no point did I mention disproving Christianity and my reference to the supernatural had nothing to do with Christianity, it was simply to indicate that a book about the supernatural was not evidence for its existence. Just as Acts may include real people and places without meaning the narrative of Acts is true.
I think you missed the shot.
I am aware of the finds you mentioned but I repeat that nothing found to date in any way substantiates the main themes and stories of the Bible.
- The Moabite Stone.
This seems to recount an event from the Bible but interestingly and perhaps understandably, it offers the opposite, Moabitic. perspective.
But, regardless of who really won the conflict, the story could be removed from the Bible without affecting the overall theme and as such this find does not invalidate my point.
- Tel Dan.
Here we have an archaeological discovery which does indeed show that a place, hitherto unknown except through the Bible, really existed. But its existence does nothing to show that any Bible story is true. London exists but the Paddington Bear stories set there are not.
- Givat Hamivtar
The tombs and remains found at this site are interesting but offer us nothing not already known. We were already aware that such homes were built in the Second Temple period and that the Romans used crucifixion as a way of killing insurrectionists.
The only thing it does do is confirm the use of nails in crucifixion, which scholars had previously debated.
This does not make the crucifixion of Jesus a fact.
I do not credit the authors of the gospels or Acts with any amazing knowledge, nor do I dispute that they did indeed know the places of which they wrote. That is not in question.
My point is simple one. Including real people and places within a narrative does nothing to demonstrate that the narrative is a true historical account.
The reason the authors went to the trouble of including these things in their story is blindingly obvious. It is also a well-known literary device. They did it to provide the very credibility which we are debating.
The most we can say, with confidence, is that they knew of the people and places. That’s it.
As for where their information came from, we cannot be sure. They may have travelled and had personal knowledge or they may have inherited such information from others. They may even have possessed maps of the area; such things did exist. It isn’t important.
The fact remains that nothing Acts or in the New Testament as a whole, or in this video, is proof that the stories told therein are true. And because the story of Jesus is extraordinary, our default position should be one of doubt. You may choose to assuage that doubt with belief and faith. That is absolutely your right and I would never tell you, you are wrong because I do not have evidence to the contrary. But some of us are unable to believe on that basis and require incontrovertible evidence for any extraordinary claim.
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you for your response. You make good points. Allow me to answer them as best I can.
You claim it was difficult for the author to be geographically accurate but how hard was it?
Why did Luke have to visit these places just in order to write about them? Couldn’t he have already known them?
And why should we think that the knowledge shown by the author, of places, people and politics, was difficult to obtain?
The author seems to be an educated Greek speaker. Probably a scribe, as literacy was not widespread. This would allow him access to more information and knowledge than the average person. He may even have been well-travelled himself. Why should we imagine that possessing such information is out of the ordinary for such a man? Perhaps he had a map; they did exist. 😁
Even if we do believe the author made great personal effort to learn these things, that still does nothing to demonstrate the accuracy of his narrative.
As for the non-existence of historical fiction, that is a red herring.
If we do not simply presume the author to be recounting real events, we see that he is writing a work of faith, not history. He is weaving a story to substantiate his religious beliefs and share them.
Acts is not and has never been suggested to be historical fiction.
It is good to learn that you do not claim Luke to be an eyewitness, unlike many other Christians I have met who clearly do not read their Bible.
However, once we understand this point, it makes it all the more likely that the story he tells is either invented or taken from a number of other people. People who probably believed that what they told was true. But we cannot possibly know if they were witnesses themselves or offering third-hand accounts.
It may even be that there were no such sources for the author and he invented the whole story simply to back up the accounts of Paul. The fact is that we do not and cannot know the truth.
The inclusion of certain real people, places and events within a narrative does not prove the overall narrative to be true and asserting that the author would have found it difficult to access such information must itself be demonstrated to be true before it may used to validate the truth of the whole narrative.
It is perfectly understandable that people believe in the Bible and that is absolutely their right. But we must not assert that anything we read there is factual unless and until it is proven. These findings do not do that.
@@theoutspokenhumanist
I would argue that the motive behind someone trying to get this kind of information indicates whether what they are recording is true or not.
As far as we know from history, Luke had absolutely nothing to gain from lying, for he had no power or money to gain from writing Acts. That certainly should add some credibility to the events he records.
As for how he got the information, it is clear that he had to have at least travelled to some of these places to know of local routes or customs, which are persistent throughout Acts. Maps in public libraries at the time only included major landmarks. They had no interest in minor places, let alone minor route systems or local customs of insignificant places.
So the question should be if Luke's motive was of historical accuracy or deception. It isn't just geographical stuff Luke gets right. He also casually drops in a bunch of historical events not picked up by other historians. If someone is going to discredit Acts for inaccuracy, then likewise they should credit Acts for accuracy, lest they want to hold a double standard.
Simple rejecting Acts is not a neutral position, nor does an extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even anything particularly extraordinary recorded in Acts, merely known places, customs, events and a few miracles dropped in, of which we see mirrored in many historical works at the same like Tacitus and Josephus, and yet, nobody would doubt that they were good historians.