What Would it be Like if the Book of Acts Was Fiction?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- The Book of Acts is chock full of historically verifiable facts that point to it being written by someone who traveled with Paul and had access to the disciples. But what if it was historical fiction? What would that be like? Let's take this theory for a test-drive and address the all-too common Spider-Man fallacy.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
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
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
Because this keeps coming up: In many parts of the world, "corn" is a term that refers to the most common cereal crop in a region, so it could be used to describe grains like rye, wheat, or oats. Don't get hung up on the silly cute emoji.
I'm also not just making this up:
"Patara, like Myra, was a port used by the Alexandrian corn fleet. Both became important places of transshipment, and imperial granaries were built at these two ports under Hadrian. It is notable that the city's name is correctly given as a neuter plural, as seen in local epigraphy and other literature"【Hemer, *The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History*, pg. 125】.
Also, the KJV version uses "corn" because any grain was called that in Elizabethan English. We get the word "kernel" from the word.
I was going to point that out. I'm glad that you know the meaning, but I suggest you not use the modern corn on the cob from the Americas, and instead use a wheat emoji, and/or use the word "grain" since that is modern English
Hey there is scammer going around your comment section pretending to be you in order to get money. Would you be able to deal with that?
You’re right Ethiopians use the same word for both barley and corn, kolo.
@@JudoMateo Maize didn't get to Africa or the Middle East for more than a thousand years after this text was written.
My problem with the spider man fallacy is motivation. Spider-Man is trying to tell a fiction but the Bible is claiming to be true. They have different motivations in their writing which shows atheist’s bias because it comes with the presupposition that it is a fictitious work which is just circular reasoning.
Everyone knows who authored Spider Man; a great fiction writer makes certain his work is acknowledged, but a great witness makes certain his account true.
@@jacoblee5796 The Quran is the only ancient document where its manuscript date is older than its date of composition.
If the Bible is all true, then why the mistakes?
@keith6706 "there are mistakes bro, trust me"
@@protochris What is the source for that assertion?
Can't believe I called your channel garbage once... I must have been on crack. You do such excellent work... You deserve a million subs.
Um, thanks lol!
@@TestifyApologetics 😂😂🤷♂🤷♂👍👍
Refreshing...true humility
@@JulianGentry 👍👍
@@JulianGentry Great to see the Apologetics upsurge going on. You keep up the good work as well.
I would like to point out that if you used the existence of New York in Spiderman to argue that Stan Lee had actually been to New York, you would, in fact, be correct.
LOL
By the whole spider man logic it could also mean that history before the invention of cameras or photos are fictional
@@Boundless_Border not only that, but a comparison would infer a real Spiderman existed, only Stan Lee embelished the tale (and maybe was there to see it/talk with Spiderman acoording to his own account)
The people claiming that Paul never existed cannot be taken seriously
@@TheVelvetTV_Riesenglied
I think you are making a giant leap in logic.
@@Boundless_Border Luke also gets names and positions correct, and those do change and are time sensitive
Another minor detail: no one was ever martyred claiming Spider-Man was true history and they knew him.
@@soarel325They are claiming it to be true, dont you know that theyre ancient biographies that are remarkably accurate?
I'll go first
Yeah but people who follow other religions past and present do, does that verify them?
@@Doofster Good question. The case of the Apostles is different in that they would have known beyond a reasonable doubt if their claims were true. They saw a man they knew personally raised from the dead, and spent a substantial amount of time after his resurrection with him. Since they could not have been lying, and could not have been lied to, there are only two remaining possibilities:
1. Hundreds of people in a group had vivid shared hallucinations that were able to eat their food and appear to people outside and opposed to the group
2. Jesus actually rose from the dead.
@@pseudonym1515
3. In fact, there was no group of people
It seems like skeptics simply choose to believe Acts was written later because of their bias towards naturalism. It seems a far simpler explanation that Acts was written by an eye witness given it's accuracy for details and relatively pedestrian tone.
Sadly the ghost of David Hume has still not been banished.
@@simontemplar3359 we might say he needs to be exHUMEd
I’ve never heard a skeptic explain why none of the non-canonical books considered forgeries from a later date contain any of these verifiable details about the first century.
@@Boundless_Border I can't discuss it, because I haven't researched. I'd still love to read your explanation.
@@Boundless_Border Yeah, I can't understand what that guy is saying. I up voted his comment to encourage somebody to explain. The bottom line is that the fake gospels can contain helpful information and mistakes. That doesn't strengthen our side or theirs's.
I don’t even understand the motivation of calling Acts fiction. There are a few miracles in it, sure, so a materialist would call those things falsely reported, but the whole thing, full of verified historical figures, places, and events? Is it just to throw rocks at the Bible, no matter how small the pebble?
yep
Acts is post-Luke, same author, and their main motivation for claiming the gospels are late anon is they report Jesus making highly accurate predictions about the fall of Jerusalem. They need to turn those into postdictions instead of predictions. They might be hitting Acts with the same bias since if it's early, Luke is most plausibly early too, and then so are Matthew and Mark.
Like when a Jesus myther says "it doesn't matter to me whether a historical Jesus existed, but i think he didn't", and then proceeds to dedicate their life to arguing he didn't
Probably because Luke and Acts are two halves of the same book. If Acts is an eyewitness account, than that would mean Luke is as well.
what kind of a logic is that???? OF COURSE theres references to real people and places. theyre trying to convince the reader its all true! what else would they write about? fictional places and people no ones ever heard of? theyre clearly trying to legitimize it! there isnt a mythology IN HISTORY OF MANKIND that didnt do that. the greek gods were living in mount olympus. crete was a real place. even king minos probably existed. that part is true. and the mythology they attributed to him was that he had a minotaur in the dungeon and everything he touched turned to solid gold (that part CLEARLY isnt true). these two things arent mutually exclusive. one does not negate the other. and also, stop underestimating people from the past and attributing them these "noble" qualities. life was short, harsh and cheap back then. swindlers, charlatans, forgerers and tricksters were on their A game back in those days. the culture might have been primitive but the physiology of their brain was the same as ours. they were capable of extremely complex cons, stings and organized deception involving dozens of participants
This isn’t quite an academic or intellectual comment but I’d like to say that watching this made me feel better at the end of a kinda bad day. Its glorious to hear about how little details further testify of the veracity of the Gospels
One problem here is that corn wasn't known in the old world until the first expeditions to America. Corn originally had a completely different meaning when it referred to corn it just meant a kernel
See the pinned comment
@@TestifyApologetics haha man I'm sorry
Are the Daily Bugle, Avengers Tower and the Baxter Building in the real life NYC? The Spider man fallacy makes little sense.
Don't expect critical thought from "critics" of the Bible.
@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon do you believe the hot big bang theory?
@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon this p much
@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon
"Is the garden of Eden an actual location"
It was but not anymore.
"Is Noah's ark an actual boat from circa the 5th millennium bc that could literally hold two of every animal found on Earth"
It was but most likely has deteriated (sp?) by now. Also, it was not every animal but every KIND.
"Do people actually resurrect from the dead and turn water to wine"
Usually no. That is why it is called a miracle.
Now your turn:
Can people survive a free fall from 20K feet in the air without a parachute?
If no, then Vesna Vulović must be fiction
Can people survive over 30 minutes with zero pulse?
If no, then Ruby Graupera-Cassimiro must be fiction
Remember, miracle are things that happen outside of what is usually possible. There were really a short time period where miracles were happening in scripture (Moses, Elijah/Elisha, Jesus, Apostles).
@@Ironica82 also there is that location in the middle east that appears to have been a big giant boat and there were these stones with holes in them, and a bunch of "cave" drawings.
it's laughable critics trying to declare Acts a piece of fiction, yet at the same time they claim it's been highly edited. Why would you edit a piece of fiction; that's why it's a whole piece left alone. Why didn't Luke easily reconcile Paul's introduction to the church with Peter, but instead awkwardly parallels their missionary work in two parts? Luke is obviously drawing on separate and reliable historical sources.
have you ever seen nerds argue about video game lore people can create some elaborate fanfiction due to seemingly insignificant lazy righting.
Skeptics love moving the goal post. They claim that Acts was written by later Christians, but then once you point out how unlikely that is, they immediately shift to saying "well, they were just lying."
Setting aside that the testimony of mass martyrdom would definitely suggest - at the very least - sincerity of their belief, the constant shifting done by skeptics in order to uphold their position just really highlights how shakey their ground is.
Sincerity of belief doesn't make that belief true. Do you think Jews in Nxzi Germany weren't sincere about their beliefs? How about muslims? Or any other religion other than your own. Also how shaky is the ground built on lies and contradictions. Here is a few:
God dwells in his chosen temples (2 Chronicles 7;16) vs God doesn't dwell in his chosen temples (Acts 7;48)
God tempts men (Genesis 22;1) vs God doesn't tempt men (James 1;13)
God accepts human sacrifices (2 Samuel 21;14) vs God forbids human sacrifices (Deuteronomy 12;30-31)
I have more if you need.
@@Squibblezombie if someone is executed and buried is this sacrifice? where did they bring the body to an altar, unless you count tombs? when did they offer it to God and he accept it?
@@miniepicness Sorry for forgetting to respond, I was reminded when someone liked my comment and I went to go see what it was.
You couldn't find any wrongness with my entire argument or anything about it, your only evidence that I was wrong was the exact definition of the word sacrifice, which doesn't really matter because the Bible says that Jesus was SACRIFICED multiple times, such as in Hebrews 9;28 and Ephesians 5;2. Your own Bible is telling you that you are wrong.
Luke knows a lot more about the history of his time than Herodotus did about his time. A lot of stuff Luke talks about has been confirmed via other sources.
Let’s just ignore that the NYC of Spider-Man is full of fictional details like Yancy Street, the Baxter Building, and the Daily Bugle that clearly differentiate it from reality.
@@jacoblee5796 No. The level of detail about New York City in Marvel comics would be evidence that the creators were familiar with the city at that time, and not that it was written centuries later on a different continent. Where were Marvel’s offices at again? It’s just that there are also fictional details added into the stories that clue us in that Spider-Man probably isn’t real. Where are the made up geographical details in the book of Acts?
@@simonodowd2119 WTH are you talking about? There’s nothing in Luke or Acts talking about Egyptians, Egypt, or even really a desert. Josephus also wrote LONG after Luke (you might notice that Luke says nothing about the destruction of the Temple or the fall of Jerusalem, Paul’s execution, or a number of other things that would have been considered very important to his readers if he wrote after those events.
@@simonodowd2119So you found the roman investigation report from that time on this case, that proves the author of Acts made this up?
@@John-fk2kyActs 21:38. Might have been a local event that wasn't much of a problem for later historians to remember. Just because no other source mentiones it, that is no proof that it didn't happen.
Well, when you have non-biblical accounts to Jesus, it's pretty hard to deny him.
"Spiderman travelled to the corner of 3rd and east 24th to visit NYC Barber Shop, before crossing the road to eat at Natsumi."
- Stan Lee, who has neve been to new york, correctly guesses random details which are entirely true
And that is why spiderman is definitely real
Great job brother! Keep up the good work! The Lord be with you!
Ok, so the main debate I've seen of people trying to take out Paul from Acts is... for other reasons. If you've ever seen a liberal church call someone a Pauline, you know
We need more corn discussion!
🌽🌽🌽
Especially since corn isn't found in the New World until after the Columbian exchange...
@@jonathonsmith3920 Top comment
I mean to be fair. Paul traveling around and having a very detailed written record of his travels and missionary work does not prove the existence of God or the truth of scripture. It just means he actually did do that.
It may not prove God's existence, rather, you can get that from the Old Testament and in the Gospels, the Epistles and the like.
There's over 300 messianic prophecies fulfilled and if that isn't enough the Book of Daniel with it's foretelling of the rise of Medo/Persia, Greece and Rome are another prophecy that was fulfilled. Statistically just 8 of the 300 Messianic prophecies being false has been calculated to be 10 to 17th power. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Choose to ignore the mountains of evidence. You're free to believe what you want. I'm not intruding on your beliefs but presenting what I've learned in nearly 40 years of serious study.
You’re absolutely right. Acts being real history is not a full court buzzer beater game winner to the divinity of Jesus. It’s just a layup. Part of a cumulative case. If Acts is true, then that puts Luke, Acts’ prequel, into consideration. And if the mundane specifics are true, then that puts the supernatural elements of the narrative into consideration as well; not affirmation, just consideration
I love your work.
Skeptics : if the NT has too much detail... Its suspicious and id it has too little detail how can we trust it?? Hahahaha
Spitting fACTS again! 😉 I just recently reread Acts before you started this and was blown away at all the casual mentions of the geography and what seem like minor events. You really notice how its authenticity shines comparing it with books like Quran, Enoch, or the Book of Mormon! Great video!
Hey Testify, to counter the skeptics. You can use the socio-economics argument for the gospels and the book of Acts. What I mean is: since historical fiction only started to come into existence in the beginning of the 19th century, you can explain the vital socio-economic role that the industrial revolution played into the existence of realistic historical fiction in literary works. You can use the economic term "opportunity cost" and maybe "leisure time". See the fact is that: the industrial revolution made it possible for realistic historical fiction like "Thaddeus of Warsaw" to be written because of affordable opportunity cost and leisure time. The middle class that was birthday from the industrial revolution were able to afford it in terms of opportunity cost and leisure time because they are both dense in population (like the lower class population) and at the same time wealthy (like the upper class).
This is why realistic historical fiction would be impossible in 1st AD where there was no industrial revolution and no middle class.
@@soarel325 It belongs to the genre of history because of criteria like detailed information, unexplained allusions, unnecessary details, undesigned coincidences, local geographical regions, local geographical person names, criteria of embarrassment, case of forced fulfilled prophecy etc that are used throughout the gospel. I never said that it belongs to historical fiction and nor would I say that it belongs to cultic myths. Because the evidence makes it clear that it is in fact history.
Edit: Cultic myths wouldn't have fulfilled all of these criteria that I provided above. So no the gospels and the book of Acts are not Cultic myths. Rather they are genuine historical facts. Theological ideas are not exclusive of reality and history. That is a false assumption that you are making.
@@soarel325 "uncritically presenting stories about angels and miracles alongside more down-to-earth accounts"
That is because those events actually happened. They are merely presenting the facts.
"Such a practice is only found in cultic legends"
There is no evidence for these cultic legends to be true. These cultic legends fail the scientific criteria of detailed information, unexplained allusions, unnecessary details, undesigned coincidences, local geographical places, local geographical person names, criteria of embarrassment, case of forced fulfilled prophecy, criteria of archaeology, early dating etc. And that's why we know that these legends are completely made.
The gospels and the book of Acts are overwhelmingly supported by all these scientific criteria to be reliable and accurate historical documents.
@@soarel325 @soarel325 "uncritically presenting stories about angels and miracles alongside more down-to-earth accounts"
That is because those events actually happened. They are merely presenting the facts.
They are not making guess work or writing based on rumours here saying "It is said that...". They are not writing legends. They are writing reality/history. The events including the supernatural events in the Gospels actually happened.
@@soarel325 "Such a practice is only found in cultic legends"
There is no evidence for these cultic legends to be true. These cultic legends fail the scientific criteria of detailed information, unexplained allusions, unnecessary details, undesigned coincidences, local geographical places, local geographical person names, criteria of embarrassment, case of forced fulfilled prophecy, criteria of archaeology, early dating etc. And that's why we know that these legends are completely made.
The gospels and the book of Acts are overwhelmingly supported by all these scientific criteria to be reliable and accurate historical documents.
@@soarel325 Your arguments fail because they are based on the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. Also you make the fallacious argument of: "appeal to authority" when you use Eusebius like that.
The term "sceptic" is not accurate. "Bible critic or denier" is accurate.
Very good video and very interesting information.
I think the real problem "critics" has with the book of acts (or any book in the bible ) is that they have account of supernatural event in them. But since dismissing miracles on the basis of them being miracles would be circular reasoning, most prefer to dismiss the whole book as late fiction which come right back at their face as the book in question is written as historical text.
I'll admit with some embarrassment that I flung Acts away after finding the apparent inconsistency of Judas's death. I still don't know what to make of that and have considered Acts less authoritative for it ever since. How did he buy a field with money he lobbed into the temple and sprinted away from? Why did he kill himself in remorse in the gospels and dramatically explode in Acts?
Different eyewitness details for why he exploded in acts and hung himself in the gospels
Truthfully does it really matter how he died or if there are two competing versions of what happened? I don't think Christianity dies on this particular hill
Atheists comment something about spOdermaN.
Testify: "I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye."
I'm commenting to support this channel.
God bless you brother!
I’m not even a believer (or skeptic) and I like this guys videos just on the history/logic invovled.
I know it’s a long shot but I might as well ask if you havent answered it already.
EDIT: I apologize you already answered my first question in another video. Thanks lol
Several people claim that Ephesians wasn’t written by Paul. They also are saying that damages the accuracy of the Scriptures because he didn’t write it and someone added the end of Ephesians in later. Bart Ehrman also had a youtube short talking about how Paul’s letters shouldn’t include Ephesians because of the difference in writing style.
Another one was how in Job someone else added other things to the story later (Cant remember the specifics) and how that corrupts the reliability of scripture. (Which it doesn’t because even removing both of those does not remove the reliability of Christ and his teachings, and in turn the Old Testament.) Just wanted to hear your thoughts on things such as that
thanks for checking back in the library
Truth is merely a shell game to an internet Atheist. Rejecting any level of faith whatever, and requiring 100% definitive evidence for a claim disqualifies all knowledge on all topics.
Amen
There is no such thing as "proof," only what we've agreed is an acceptable threshold of evidence. Nothing can ever truly be "known," because all things could potentially be illusion. The thing is, Atheists have decided that anything that supports "faith" or the existence of God is automatically suspect at best, and outright false at worst, while accepting popular ideas about science simply because "science said so." They claim that science allows for experimentation to prove or disprove certain assertions, but unless they are personally performing every experiment to prove or disprove every assertion of science, they are in essence taking it on faith that someone else (and a sufficient number of people) have done so.
In short, I find Atheism to be an absolute cesspool of confirmation bias, and it's rare that any Atheist has the strength of character to swim out of that cesspool. More likely, an Atheist who read this comment is going to, once again, ignore all the evidence of God screaming in his face and instead decide to bite back. No self-reflection.
Yes, exactly -- no serious debate is based on 100% certitude, because that's totally impossible. Absolutely nothing at all, can be known, _for sure..._ there's always another possibility, such as Boltzmann Brains, etc.
The typical standard for debates is what is _most reasonable_ to believe.
Honestly, after watching debates between William Lane Craig, and the world's most famous atheists for several years, I no longer believe in the existence of atheists... just people with underlying emotional issues about their own father, disguised as a rational position on the existence of God.
"... requiring 100% definitive evidence for [an extraordinary] claim ..."
Shouldn't it be a piece of cake for a god that want to save humanity from eternal consequences?
Got my popcorn ready waiting for the spooderman fans to arrive
“Skeptics got it all twisted up.” I hear the Joseph Smith story has some “historical nuggets” and does get some “hard stuff right”.
This channel is SO underrated!
"There are 'historically accurate facts' in this book!...
...THEREFORE IT'S ALL CORRECT INCLUDING THE CRAZY STUFF"
Misrepresentation of the point. It's less,"book have historical coincidences so book true" and more "book connects between it's chronology by different authors so well, it's hard to be big conspiracy by giga five head brains thousands of years ago" Which is why secondary sources independent of the bible validate the bible, when they report on some of the same "crazy" stuff. Including figures or groups that have a vested interest in deflating the accounts in the new testament if they hate Jesus or Christians. Metatrons video "is Jesus historical" includes secondary source accounts like this. Including rabbinicals and romans. As does the video "complete choas, Jerusalem after Jesus" by Matthew. For secondary accounts validating biblical narrative in the old testament, "discoveries that confirm parts of the bible" by Sideprojects includes archeological accounts for some of that stuff. And aside from that, the point the video was making is "if getting historical details wrong can be counted against the bible, then what it gets right counts in it's favor". Cheers mate
@@pugfleet1993 You just got mad at another person for doing the strawman fallacy and then proceeded to do a strawman fallacy. Smh
No, the Spider-Man thing isn't really a fallacy because it doesn't claim directly that something is false. Likewise, your reversal of the claim does not mean that accurate historical facts necessarily prove something. That's not a double standard. That's simply the difference between a positive and negative in formal logic. Having said that, Christ is King and God bless
Regarding your point at 4:20, you haven’t demonstrated a double standard. Simple Bayesian reasoning means that different pieces of evidence will (properly) be weighed differently. If you are considering whether a letter claiming to be written in 1937 is fake or not, and it mentions Truman is president, that single fact will cost it a lot of credibility. If it mentions FDR is president, that single fact won’t do much to convince you either way, since you’d expect that either way. That’s just the way an objective, Bayesian evaluation of evidence works.
On an unrelated point, I have no interest in the historicity of Acts as a travelogue. As far as I can see, the book is only important today due to its miracle claims, and the odds of those being true is made only microscopically better by the author being able to paint a passably accurate portrait of the world he was living in. Bayesian reasoning again.
You're right. No way someone could write a fictional tale with real places and people. That type of writing definitely didn't exist. I mean, wasn't Homer's Odyssey written in 2002?
Since you mentioned Philippi, can you address Nestla-Aland's conjectural emendation changing Acts 16:12 from "the leading city" to "a leading city"?
I love this channel I've started seeing all the videos
None of this has anything to do with evidencing god or spookadoodlery magic (miracles).
No, you were denying Yeshua was a real person.
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 No I'm not. It is possible that there was real wandering preacher in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago named Yeshua. There is no way to know for sure. My point is that, if there was, he was just a man- not divine and performed no real miracles because there is no such thing as magic (the supernatural).
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 He wasn't doing anything, other people were making that claim. If we wanna sort by people we disagree with, then Christians are just racist bigots that hate everyone. Do you see how rude that is to compare somebody to people they may not agree with just because they share a religion.
is all of this info from the book you mentioned at the start?
in the future, I would really appreciate it if you could add the page number from the source you get a fact/piece of information from :)
See The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History by Colin Hemer. Chapter 4.
Who knew all the spider comics I read & all the spider content I watched would help me defend Christianity. Crazy
How does this guy not have more subs?
by atheist logic, spiderman can exist randomly for no reason like the big bang
That is definitely atheist logic, according to a Christian. I’ll give you that! ;)
@@stevenbatke2475if the whole universe can just pop into existence why can’t a spiderman
@@malteburen825 what do you mean by "pop into existence"?
@@trepinne6840literally nothing existing, then somehow energy that was somehow there compressed or however it’s worded in 1 infinitesimal spot and bang, the universe exists
@@darkma1ice oh you mean strawmanning the big bang?
I don't know if all of Acts is fiction or not, but the escapes from prison featured in there are remarkably similar to what is seen in Euripides' Bacche which has very similar scenes of divine prison breaks featured in that work
you didnt address the issue... ?
Anyone reading Luke/Acts in good faith will naturally see they are carefully written historical accounts. But if you are attached to an ideology that doesn't like what it or the Bible teaches, then one can raise all sorts of vacuous objections. It is a simple as that.
I feel like if Acts had no miracles or reports of miracles and was just a history of the apostles' travels and teachings no one would doubt it for a second.
@@TestifyApologetics Most likely true.
When you said “corn trade” was that a euphemism? Surely they weren’t trading corn pre columbian exchange
3:00 am i tripping or isn’t corn from the americas
No man ever got crucified upside down in the name of Spiderman.
Muslims did 9/11
@@vladthecon And Christians did the crusades, spanish inquisition, conquering of the new world, and the nxzis were mostly comprised of Christians. What is your point?
@@Squibblezombieatheism killings soviet leaders, Cambodian genocide, North Korea one more is China committing genocide against uygurs its weird and ironic for you atheists who think who can speak about mass murderer.
Spider-Man doesn't exist in this part of the Multiverse! The argument is false! 😂😂😂😂
Your right, you don't need fancy arguments. The fact that it contradicts itself many times is enough.
Nah
@@TestifyApologetics Nah?
Where does it contradict itself?
@@TeamPlant Well if your being sincere, I could list several, but the only one where I could name the book and verse off the top of my head is the seeing gods face contradiction. Genesis 32:30, Exodus 33:20,
Gen 12:7, Exodus 33:11, John 1:18, Exodus 24: 9-11 (ish), 1 Timothy 6:16. I suggest you read them (in any order you like). If you want, I could break them down or link you to a contradiction video better than the mild and not very solid one Testify refutes. It's a little condescending but it is very well made.
@@TeamPlant
God dwells in his chosen temples (2 Chronicles 7;16) vs God doesn't dwell in his chosen temples (Acts 7;48)
God tempts men (Genesis 22;1) vs God doesn't tempt men (James 1;13)
God accepts human sacrifices (2 Samuel 21;14) vs God forbids human sacrifices (Deuteronomy 12;30-31)
Nice video but a small correction. Patara I don’t think could have been known for corn as corn is native to he Americas unless there’s a different type of vegetable they called corn then I could be wrong
@@Mnoname148 corn refers to a cereal crop. Not specifically the vegetable itself. Corning meat doesn't mean you put corn on it. It means you salt it. Read comment pinned by creator.
3:05 Hey, just a heads-up, corn is a new-world food, not old-world. There's no way that they were trading corn in Greece in 50 AD
The word corn is often used for a variety of different cereal crops, not just maize.
@@stephengray1344 Uhhmmm please give me an example of that. Nowhere in the United States is corn EVER used for something that isn't genuinely corn.
For instance corn flakes are different than wheat flakes. Mixing those two up would be a lawsuit in the works.
@@bloopboop9320 In the Elizabethan English in common use when the King James version was translated, that is how the word "corn" was used. Later translations often use the more current "meal," "grain," etc. But yes, the use in the video of an image of an ear of maize was in error
"Patara, like Myra, was a port used by the Alexandrian corn fleet. Both became significant hubs for transshipment, and imperial granaries were established at these two ports under Hadrian. It's worth noting that the city's name is accurately presented as a neuter plural, consistent with the local epigraphy and other literature sources" (Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 125).
Don't get hung up on a corn emoji. It was there merely to be um...corny.
@@bloopboop9320 well idk much but in wikipedia under the names categorie for maize i saw, corn *is* actual also used to talk about any cereal crop varying geographically with the local, such as wheat in England and oats in Scotland or Ireland. The usage of corn for maize started as a shortening of "Indian corn" in 18th century North America. And the Bible was not wrtitten in US nor in English... so what corn refers to in USA is kinda irrelevant. I guess it might just be a confusion with how the wolrd evolved and by the time corn was used for the translation it maybe refered to just wheat or just cereals and not Maize. But idk i just googled things up
Amen.
But the spider man argument still makes sense, even if they had said things that wouldn't be as well known, AKA they were there, that doesn't mean things like the miracles happen. That's the Spider-Man argument.
P.S. I agree that the miracles actually happen but that requires capital F Faith not facts.
1. gamaliel was not a psychic.
2. sicarii don’t lead men into the wilderness.
3. The proliferation of the codex made cross referencing from libraries significantly easier for those who had means (origen).
4. Paul was not a temple worshipper (1 Corinthians 3:16).
5. Paul was not a roman citizen.
6. People don’t shrug off venomous snake bites.
7. peter didn’t think kosher laws no longer applied (Galatians).
8. Paul did not know the gospel of “Matthew” (acts 23:3).
9. The book of acts was not in Marcion’s canon and it’s not attested to until justin. “Mark,” less popular than “luke”-acts, was attested to in the first century (“Matthew” [85-100] for sure and depending on the date Hebrews [90-120] and Revelation [90-135]).
10. paul thought that gentile followers of Jesus MUST not become circumcised.
Bonus: If these arguments were as effective as made out to be they would be convincing PHD scholars from accredited universities. They’re not.
1. Thanks for telling me about your bias.
2. Really? Some people think Luke is copying Josephus here to the point they don't see a major discrepancy. This smacks of a priori history.
3. That's not very common, and it's unlikely that he would be sifting through a bunch of dusty scrolls in Alexandria to learn about overland routes, cities, landmarks, political boundaries, sea routes, local customs, beliefs, languages, dialects, terminology, ethnic identities, religious practices, synagogue locations, and titles of local officials throughout the Roman Empire just to write a work of historical fiction, a genre that didn't exist for hundreds of years. Moreover, sending this off to someone who probably never traveled to any of those places and couldn't appreciate its accuracy, only for him to supposedly contradict Paul's letters in Galatians and Thessalonians, seems like quite a stretch
4. Not quite accurate. See this article: www.logos.com/grow/pauls-view-of-law/
5. Assertion. If he was from Tarsus and born of a wealthy family, there's no reason to think he wasn't.
6. anti-supernatural bias again
7. Paul was correcting him because he did but was being inconsistent and hypocritical.
8. Never said he did....(???)
9. Acts is either attested to or cited approvingly by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, Origen, Eusebius, and others.
10. See 4 again, and Paul did things so as not to offend others. He tells us he became all things to all men, including the Jews.
Bonus: This is just the bandwagon fallacy. Popularity is a rotten test of truth. You're also just discounting the scholars who do disagree with your view, and there are a good handful. These bad arguments are not going to refute them.
Buddy
Corn is a new world crop
It was probably rice or even moreso grain, you may want to explain that because people would catch that.
see the pinned comment buddy
If anyone becomes great on earth may the Father take his or her place or the Son.
It’s not about believing the NT it the fact that Christians believe in Genesis that makes it hard to believe.
I don't think any skeptic or at least any significant number of skeptics actually make the claims the creator of this video alleges they make. I think he is setting up a strawman. I certainly have no problem with the author of Acts having traveled widely, perhaps sometimes with Paul, or using travelogues from people who did when writing Acts. I doubt very much this person could be reliably identified as Luke, but that is a different matter altogether.
The creator of this video also completely misses the plank when he tries to refute what he calls the Spider-Man critique. I think he misrepresents the critique in order to more easily defeat it, which, again, is the definition of a strawman argument.
The Spider-Man argument does not apply to a work like Acts being a complete work of fiction, but applies *_only_* to the reasoning of believers who say that *_because_* the author of Acts is right about so many geographical and historical details, he *_must_* also be right (or is probably right) about the supernatural events he describes.
It is unremarkable that an author from the right time and region would get certain geographical details right. That in itself does not increase the reliability of the author regarding other claims he makes, though it may increase our confidence in his other geographical details.
For example, if the author of Acts gets the river outside Philippi right, then that would indeed increase our confidence in his claims about details of the area around Philippi, but it would do little or nothing to increase our confidence regarding his claims about the topography of China (if he were to make any claims like that), and not at all regarding his claims about genome sequencing of armadillos (if he were to make any claims about that). By the same token, the author of Acts being right about Philippi does nothing to increase our confidence in his claims about anything supernatural being true.
For all your complaining that I am beating on a straw man, I am indirectly responding to this article by Bart Ehrman, who is the most well known agnostic biblical scholar on the planet.
www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasek/five-reasons-why-sex-can-be-better-atheists
All you're doing is repeating the same bad argument. Acts is reporting to be giving us historical truth and seems to be very successful at reporting accurate facts. Yet if we take your view seriously, if God ever did do something in the past that was supernatural and someone wrote it down, we could never know it. We could always say yes they were truthful about all of this stuff and they seem to be honest, knowledgeable and close to the facts BUT wait right where we wanna say they are lying, they are lying. You have no picture of a unified author.
@@TestifyApologetics
I think you sent the wrong link lol
@@TestifyApologetics I have tried to respond to your reply -three- -four- -five- six times now. If you are removing my response, please don't.
Added after 6th try did not show up:
I don't know why my response to your comment does not show up. I doubt it is you who is removing it, but if it is, please don't. I will make a revised version of my response and try and post that instead.
Try 1... Try 2...
@@TestifyApologetics Try 2
I think you copy-pasted the wrong link from your browser history...
You said: _"All you're doing is repeating the same bad argument."_
I have not read the article you link to about pleasures of the flesh, or the article you talk about from Bart Ehrman, so I cannot possibly be "repeating" anything from it.
You said: _"Acts is reporting to be giving us historical truth and seems to be very successful at reporting accurate facts."_
I am sure it does when it talks about geographical and historical facts. That is not the point.
You said: _"Yet if we take your view seriously, if God ever did do something in the past that was supernatural and someone wrote it down, we could never know it."_
Written reports about stuff are notoriously feeble evidence. If you don't just rely on written sources for mundane claims, like whether there is a river near a city, then why would you do so for supernatural claims? In effect, you are lowering your standards of evidence for more implausible claims. That does not make sense.
Also, if a God relied on written reports of his existence and mighty deeds, then that would not be a particularly powerful or intelligent deity... or it would be a deity with bad intentions. Take your pick.
You said: _"We could always say yes they were truthful about all of this stuff and they seem to be honest, knowledgeable and close to the facts BUT wait right where we wanna say they are lying, they are lying."_
Nope. If you were intellectually honest, you would deal with the supernatural claims the same way you deal with the geographical claims; you don't just assume there is a river outside Philippi just because some dude wrote down that there is; you check to see if there is indeed a river, or at least was when the dude was writing. Only then do you accept that his statement was true.
Same for supernatural events like miracles. Dude writes down he saw a miracle, OK, then you go and try to verify the miracle. Sadly of course, that has never actually been done, so you are kinda stuck there, and we (humanity) have no idea how to verify most claims of miracles, although we have become pretty good at debunking them. What you should then do, if you were intellectually honest, is at least remain agnostic regarding the claim, or even provisionally reject it for lack of evidence, just like you would if you could not find a river outside Philippi.
You said: _"You have no picture of a unified author."_
What does that mean? Do you mean that I do not believe the Bible was divinely inspired? Are you seriously claiming miracle to support claims of miracles?
Man, at points this got a bit corny, but good job. ;)
Corn? I thought that was an Americas-only crop before 1493.
see the pinned comment
but muh SPOODERMAN fallacy!!!
Amazing video.
So, by your logic, because the Harry Potter books mention some real people and places, that proves wizards and magic exist?
You still using the same fallecy☠️💀you are denying Yeshua was a real person and his apostles existed
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 no, just that jesus and friends didn't do miracles similar to how I believe that abraham lincoln was real but that he wasn't a vampire hunter (there was a movie about him hunting vampires)
@@vladthecon 🤦🏾♂️it's jesus and his disciples not Jesus and friends, you are comparing real life figures with fictional characters which doesn't work.
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 Abe Lincoln wasn't a myth but some people added supernatural elements to a real story to make it more fun.
@@vladthecon Abraham Lincoln only became a vampire for entertainment nothing else l, secondly Jesus did not became God for entertainment
That Spider-Man argument you took off within the last few months didn't it? 🤔, LOL.
Goes to show, people will parrot what they hear 🤷🏽♂️
Revelation 12:17
New International Version
17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring-those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus
Thank you
Have you ever considered calling The Atheist Experience, The Line, or a similar call in show?
Why would I do that when I have a perfectly good brick wall I can talk to at home?
The reason why no one likes The Atheist Experience (that is Including many atheists as well) is because they are ignorant, rude, evasive and agressive for no reason, so hence its like trying to reason with a brick wall. They don't do atheists any justice and many atheists would agree too.
@@TestifyApologetics The brick wall won't reply to your arguments. On the other side, your arguments should hold if the bible was really true.
I used to be a believer, but the whole doctrine of salvation in Jesus is highly dependant on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Should it fails, all the NT becomes invalid, no matter the contradictions, testimonies, prophecies etc.
One of the weakest point of the bible is the flood story. When one begins to ask questions, problems become apparent.
The Spiderman Fallacy is stupid in the sense that we know Stan Lee wrote comics to sell for profit. The Gospels were written as testament to something that happened.
We know the motivates for both. One was fiction for profit and one was to relay historical events
Was it historical that someone waked on water, healed the sick and flew to heaven after beeing ressurected?
I think it's fun to hear all of what you are saying and I am subscribed. "They" who ever they are or will be in the future will be held to account by the Father of all. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Thankfully I don't have to listen long to some people to get a little poke from the Holy Spirit that what ever these "they" folks have to say is bogus bloviating nonsense. Thanks to God and Jesus, they have formed in all of us once we believe, a belief system of sorts. The scriptures, all of them are are the story about the human life and experience over the last 6000 years (plus or minus). I am pretty sure that we all will be studying them for the next 6000 year as well. I don't think "they" will get much out of they're 15 minutes of fame. But keep on keeping on, I enjoy your short stories and they add to the story they I have over looked or did not concider.😁
Isn't "Praise the Watchmaker" a deist saying?
No
Even the Spiderman stories get details of the late 20th-early 21st Centuries right.
Maybe you should watch the second part of the video too, not just react on the title or the first 2 minutes.
@@praevasc4299 I think you missed my point. I am in agreement with Testify. You shouldn't summarily throw Acts out the window just because it describes miracles as taking place, but the fact that it gets the history and geography right should give pause to not do so.
At around 4:00, it is said that some people claimed to have found contradictions between Acts and the letters of Paul. Is there a video examining these accusations?
Another W video from Testify on the book of (F)acts
And this is why spice is good for you.
Best channel on UA-cam
I'm Lovin' It!
Corn? Wasn't corn from mesoamerica?
see the pinned comment
3:44 evolutionists are more likely to believe in spiderman
No one cares about getting place names or mundane details right. People only care if the supernatural claims are true.
way to miss the point
you're the guy in the meme
@@TestifyApologetics Then the guy in the meme is right!
@@teehee7355 *facepalms*
Time and time again I see people with a naturalistic presupposition tell us the supernatural not only doesn’t exist but can’t. At that point there’s not much to derive from facts on a UA-cam video or UA-cam comment section. At least come at things with an open mind. I also find it peculiar that materialists/naturalists are now positing the possibility of an eternal universe which by definition is supernatural. But since scientists are coming around seemingly so is the rest of the community. While this may not be directed to you seeing as I don’t know you feel free to ignore it. But if it is relevant to your worldview perhaps think it over. Looking forward to a good faith dialogue.
"It was almost impossible to fact check back then" and "if it's not true then why doesn't Acts perfectly line up with Paul's letters" less than three minutes apart in the same video... How about "if Luke traveled with Paul why doesn't Luke's account line up?"
The Spider-Man analogy stands - you don't even address it here in spite of the thumbnail. Yeah, if I lived in New York I could make accurate claims about the region and things that went on in and around where I lived, and still not be truthful about other things. If I can tell you the name of a Bodega on 9th street in Brooklyn and that they have a sale on 20 oz. Pepsi's that are 2 for $5, that doesn't make the claim that Spider-Man stopped an armed robbery across the street at Williams Plaza any more true.
Spiderman comic say they're fiction
Hey I’ve got a random question but how old are you? Or would you at least say if you’re gen Z or not? I’ve got a theory on a lot of the UA-camrs I admire and want to see if it works for you too haha
I'm too old for these references, how about that?
"How do you do fellow kids?"
UM! wrong sort of corn! it would have been high grade wheat, which was called corn, which is why maze is usually called corn as it has large grains and a heavy yield, but was not found in the Mediterranean until after trade with the Americas began
see the pinned comment my friend
Jesus is the onlt way
Just one question: in the minute 3:04 you mentioned that Patara was known for its corn trade, but corn wasn't traded until america was discovered, would you explain that detail further?
Patara, like Myra, was a port used by the Alexandrian corn fleet. Both became significant hubs for transshipment, and imperial granaries were established at these two ports under Hadrian. It's worth noting that the city's name is accurately presented as a neuter plural, consistent with the local epigraphy and other literature sources" (Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 125).
Don't get hung up on a corn emoji. It was there merely to be um...corny. the word has a wider meaning in that world than maize.
corn as in reference to the crop indigenous to the Americas is a more recent use of the word. The word corn is derived from an Old English word that basically just means grain. Corn trade in this context would just be referring to the buying and selling of any sort of cereal crop.
I understand what you are getting at, but luke and paul visiting a place isn't the hail mary you think it is. For one, it does nothing to prove the authenticity of the miracles or Jesus's resurrection. It also is about as helpful to modern scholars as the Iliad is to understanding Troy. A religious text pushing a message cannot separate the message and the historicity. Also the point that there are contradictions in the Bible to real life just shows that the Bible may be true in some instances but it isn't reliable.
Here are some examples of the Bible contracting itself so you remember that the Bible isn't even internally consistent and is certainly not true:
God dwells in his chosen temples (2 Chronicles 7;16) vs God doesn't dwell in his chosen temples (Acts 7;48)
God tempts men (Genesis 22;1) vs God doesn't tempt men (James 1;13)
God accepts human sacrifices (2 Samuel 21;14) vs God forbids human sacrifices (Deuteronomy 12;30-31)
I have more but I don't feel like writing them all out right now.
These are incredibly lame examples of contradictions. That history can't have a theological message is a textbook example of a false dichotomy
@@TestifyApologetics Why do you think these contradictions are lame? Can you please give an actual reasoning on why you think that way instead of just saying *nuh uh* to it and moving on. Also it is not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy would be like if I said that the only options are that Acts are 100% true or 100% false and then justifying parts of it as true to justify why some parts cannot be false. My point was that using the Bible to understand ancient times is like using the Iliad to understand Troy which is not a false dichotomy, it is a comparison.
It's a false dichotomy because that's not the argument I'm making
@@TestifyApologetics Then it would be a strawman argument instead of a false dichotomy. Also what are you getting at? Noone cares about the fact that 2 people visited a place unless they are trying to prove or disprove the Bible. Also nice job dodging the part where I asked you why you thought my contradictions were lame. I noticed.
@Squibblezombie Your examples are "lame" because seconds of research reveal that those verses don’t paint the picture you think they do
2 Chronicles 7:16 describes God being attentive and caring towards the temple, not physically dwelling in it.
The word used in Genesis 22:1 isn't "tempt" it's: נִסָּ֖ה (nis·sāh). It means: "To test"
2 Samuel 21:14 isn't a human sacrifice. It's a request for an act of judgement to be displayed before the eyes of God.
3:05 are you sure you wanted to say corn? That was not introduced to Europe at that time.
see the pinned comment
Those who compare superhero comics or fantasy fiction (like HP, LotR, Twilight, etc.) are pretarded
But what about all those people who claim to have known Spiderman, travelling the world to tell others about him ... even dying to spread the message ... and the historians who mention Spiderman's family and Spiderman's follwers .... are they wrong? ... 😂
About the perceived double standard: when critics mention the census of Quirinius they don't say it's inaccurate.
They argue, yes, the census happened, but it is in Luke. Mathew anchors Jesus' birth to a different event (shortly before the death of Herod the Great), and the two together cannot be reconciled.
Apologist try to fix that by presupposing another, earlier census - but there is no evidence ever being such.
Both Luke's and Matthew's narrative refer to real historical events and they're both consistent on their own. The problem arises when apologist try to harmonize these two.
I hope this helps to understand the point.
I understand the point. They're still saying he gets it wrong by saying it was worldwide and giving it an appearance that it happened in a short time and it required everyone to return to their ancestral home from dozens of generations ago. I've addressed the census problem in December.
@@TestifyApologetics
I see. Thanks.
But do you see how a story can contain both historically accurate and dubious elements?
The laziest and dumbest argument ever. "I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the Easter Bunny." Find an example of a story that is _intended_ to be taken as true. It's really easy for a book to be false and nonfiction. Pick one!
Spiderman exists. I have a close personal relationship with Spiderman. And Peter. And the Holy Spider. It's not a religion. It's a relationship!
You don't understand because the green goblin has corrupted your soul. The media is controlled by goblin worshippers. If you just open your heart to spiderman, you'll see the truth.
I'll pray for you.
This is honestly hilarious. Good job.
Summary of Video:
1. first few minutes, a summary of details indicating the author was familiar with where and when they were writing about. Names of places, titles, that kind of thing. This would be like me writing about the tall building under construction in downtown Portland which had lights near the top of the crane vaguely in the shape of a flag in 2015. Not common knowledge, yet possible with great effort to eventually verify. I had psychotic delusions take hold in 2015 and there was much content I wrote about that turned out to not be real.
2. 4:00 this is when the spiderman analogy is brought up. The aspects you can verify (setting) doesn't verify the events nor serve as evidence of them. It merely discounts any objection claiming even the time/place is fictional.
3. 4:09 "If messing up details is a mark AGAINST acts, getting them spot-on is a point in it's favor." No, that is a logical fallacy. Luke saying Mary & Joseph traveled to bethleham for an empire-wide census when the first census was in 74 is a mark against because it litterally could not have happened. Plot hole if you say this happened in real life. That aspect of it could not have happened. Did not happen. But if Luke had instead said they traveled to Bethleham for no good reason or said "This takes place 70 years before the first census" that wouldn't be a point FOR. Getting the setting right doesn't make the events of the story true even though getting the setting wrong does mean those parts must be wrong. No double standard. Just logical how it works.
4. 5:50 "They want to claim this was written in the 80's or..." well the Gospel of Luke could NOT have been written earlier than 74 since it mentions an empire wide census as a plot point, and that happened for the first time in 74. That's the absolute earliest for Luke and the way Acts and Luke is written, it is as if Acts was written immediately after Luke by the same author. So that places ACTS at 74 at the ABSOLUTE earliest possible, and since they didn't go together 100% of the time, it makes it more reasonable they had different release dates, so like 75 for acts? So... who cares if it's 75 or 80 or 90? It HAS to be before the mid 2nd century, because then Luke gets quoted at that point by someone. But it also HAS to be after the first census in the empire in 74.
That's about it.
That's not a fallacy. Only if he claimed they directly prove it, which he's clarified many times isn't the argument; it's cumulative. Also census argument is debunked per Glenn Miller. The key is these accurate details put the author there in that time and place, pushing toward a very EARLY document, in a culture that would know the other things you want to be false were false and would pounce on the document for the slightest error. Doesn't make sense.
Hey testify, love your videos! What are your thoughts on universalism?
I think it's false, dangerous and heretical
Atheists: "we want academic proof that all of this happened and existed."
Researchers: "here you are."
Atheists: "no, not that kind of proof!"
Researchers: "..."
Can you give academic proof Israelites truly were ensl@ved in Egypt? Because there is absolutely none.
yeah we asked for academic proof. the key word is academic, christians usually forget that part
@@inezaathere was wall drawings of semetic people living Egypt as slaves, plus what better slaves than foreign people if you don't wanna use your own
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 no there aren’t. There are no artifacts, drawings, or records
@@inezaa like no evidence of you coming from monkey's
The argument is stupid, but to argue the bible to be accurate to real life events, would mean that one would have to debunk all other religions around the world that has similar accounts of a deity and miracles, excluding mythologies of course.
This simply isn’t true. You don’t need to examine every other religions claim to rule them out or prove what the Bible says to be correct. In terms of historical claims like “Paul was shipwrecked”, these claims are unaffected by the claims of other religions because they are merely historical events. The only real conflict is the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and his claim to deity. However, if this can be demonstrated as true (which it can), then all other religions that profess something different must be false.
@@grosty2353 all other religions that contradict the bible.
@@handavid6421 name a religion other than Christianity that doesn’t contradict the Bible.
@@grosty2353almost none. what are you saying?
@@grosty2353 most religions do contradict the bible through polytheism, idolatry, Reincarnation, Animism, Pantheism... with millions of religions, millions of prophets, witnesses of miracles...
who the hell says luke and acts is fiction, how is calling that stupid a hot take
I am sure Muslims believe the same thing about the Quran. Just because YOU think a book is true, doesn't mean that it is true.