"The Gospels DON'T Contain Eyewitness Testimony!" | The Historical Tell | Trailer 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 гру 2023
- This five part documentary series exposes cutting-edge research into the reliability of the Gospels of Jesus. In the series, we explore five "tells" that reveal that Luke relied on and interviewed eyewitnesses during the construction of his Gospel.
Subscribe now so that you don't miss our ground-breaking documentary airing Christmas Day 2023!
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
This isn't 100% related to the video, but I saw Bart Ehrman in the thumbnail and couldn't resist commenting.
A couple years ago, Bart Ehrman and Paulogia made a response video to your Gary Habermas video, where they basically said that Habermas was making up the fact that Bart Ehrman admitted the 1 Corinthians 15 creed dates to the early 30s AD. This was a big deal in both the CC and Paulogia communities at the time since nobody could find a time when Ehrman had dated the Corinthian creed early, and it damaged Habermas' credibility.
However, digging through Ehrman's blog I actually realized that he was either being DECEPTIVE, or at the best FORGOT his previous statements on the 1 Corinthians creed. In his June 2nd, 2016 article titled "The Core of Paul's Gospel", he says that we know that Christianity pre-dated Paul's conversion in part BECAUSE of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. This ONLY MAKES SENSE if he believes the content of the creed existed BEFORE 32-34 AD when Paul converted. The exact quote is:
"In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 Paul is reminding his Corinthian converts the very heart and core of his Gospel message that he preached to them when he first was among them. They, at the time, were pagans, and he preached to them about Christ’s death and resurrection - because that was the message of salvation that he himself had received from others...It is widely thought that it may have been some kind of creed that was recited in the Christian churches, or possibly a statement of faith that was to be recited by recent converts at their baptism, a creed that is being quoted by Paul here (not composed by him when writing the letter). It is often thought to have been crafted by someone other than Paul. It was a tradition floating around in the church that encapsulated the Christian faith, putting it all in a nutshell. Paul inherited this creed, just as he inherited the theology it embodies. He didn’t invent the idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection brought salvation. **That was the view of Christians before him.**" (notice the last sentence).
So there we have it; Bart Ehrman contradicted himself in a very material way, and it was done as a knee-jerk response to refute apologists in any way possible. This needs to be brought up publicly and visibly, since it shows atheists will be intellectually dishonest and change their tune, whenever it suits their needs, in order to contradict apologists.
Wow!
There are many apologists that are intellectually dishonest as well. It goes both ways. I don't believe Drew or Alex o Connor can be accused of dishonesty in this way for example. Let's not try and characterise together the other side
What? Habermas said that Ehrman had dated the High Christology Creeds (not 1 Corinthians 15 ) prior to Paul's conversion because he called them pre-Pauline, Ehrman said that's incorrect because pre-Pauline creeds just precede Paul's letters, not necessarily Paul's conversion.
Great job. God bless you for the research!
@@tomasrocha6139 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the most, if not THE most, notable pre-Pauline Christological creeds. Habermas mentions this at around 31 minutes in the original interview. In Ehrman’s article he even identifies it as a creed, which contains data that pre-dates Paul’s conversion (not his letters, his conversion). Yet in the Paulogia interview, he characterizes them as merely originating sometime before the letters. This is a clear discrepancy in his messaging.
(Edited to clarify that 1 Corinthians 15 IS one of the high christological creeds).
I am a non-believer who is interested in the truth. I haven't been persuaded yet of Gospel's authenticity and historicity. I am looking forward to this series to gain more insight and challenge my ideas.
Happy seeking. Glad you're here:)
You could use a different approach. Don't start by asking for the historical truth of the new testament, start by reading it. Read John's gospel. Read the sermon on the mount. Read all the teachings of Jesus and ask in your heart, are they true? Would the world and myself be better if I followed that advice? Is that advice "true"? Would the world be better if we believe God is love, that he loves us and that we are called to love others? Would we be better people if we stopped judging others and ourselves all the time?
What always gets me is how modern and psychologically sound the advice in the new testament is. How much it would free us in a psychological sense. That would be my advice for a first step in finding a truth that goes far beyond the question, "did xyz happen historically"?
@@MrSeedi76 Thank you for the well thought out comment. However, the problem I see with that approach is that I can apply that logic to any other religious systems and end up in a completely different system while fulfilling all of the requirements of that approach. I do believe the world will be a better place if Christian values were more widespread. I also believe the world will be a better place with more buddhist values. Same with Judaism and Hinduism and Shintoism and Daoism. However, if I can be persuaded that a man named Jesus truly existed and claimed divinity, then died and ressurected, I have no choice but to put my belief in him over other supernatural claims that can't be proven or religious systems that merely call for compassion. That's why I am interested in topics that will discuss historicity of the Gospels.
@@MrSeedi76I suppose people *could* use that approach. But then what should they think when they read Paul's statement "If the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins. Also, if this is the case, those who died in union with the Messiah are lost. If it is only for this life that we have put our hope in the Messiah, we are more pitiable than anyone. But the fact is that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died."
It seems that he considered whether it was actually _true_ to be more important than how people _feel_ about it.
If you have been searching for evidence to convince you of their authenticity... Have you ever tried an opposite approach? Like a sort of thought experiment.
Instead of trying to figure out how can the documents be genuine... Have you ever sat and meditated on what would it take for this to be all fake? This comes from people who have proven to be meticulous and accurate record keepers.... There is some compelling archeological evidence to suggest this too.
I don't mean just the Gospel accounts or New Testament... But what those spring out of. All the devout, pious, God fearing people... Who obeyed all those weird rules, and dressed in those funny clothes... Because they genuinely fear the wrath of God.
Christianity and the New Testament is the continuation of that. It would be a miraculous feat, in my opinion, for any band of liars and con artists, to pull off a false Gospel scam.
And what even for? It makes no sense, at least to me.
How do you feel about the Old Testament? Biblical archeology? The dead sea scrolls? The finger print of Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah? evidence for king David to name a few....
2000 years ago, is that really such a long time? Were people more gullible back then?
You will never turn skeptics into believers at least from the online atheist community. This isnt an intellectual problem, its a psychological problem, a problem of the heart not of the head for many.
@gsp3428
This is very true. We can only hope that through loving them they come to Him. :)
Very true. There was a post the other day and it had to do with the rainbow flag being displayed in churches and someone wrote the comment, “This really is a spiritual battle between good and evil.”
Under that someone wrote, “It’s too bad you’re not on the side of good.”
So I asked, “How do you know which side is good?”
Wow, the amount of hate based on an immediate, emotional judgement I received was crazy.
I wrote to one of them, “This is how you treat people that just asks a question? What if I wasn’t sure which side I was on and your response is what I have to judge the argument by? Why are those that demand tolerance so intolerant?”
Crickets. 😂
Not even psychological - it is a prideful, rebellious nature/ heart with spiritual scales covering "the eyes of their heart". The Holy Spirit's conviction brings us believers to repentance. Sadly, there will be many who refuse repentance & the subsequent relationship with The Lord but there will also be many "surprises" in His kingdom as we were those rebels at one time as well. 🌿💕
@@psyck Woke atheists are the worst, and online there are alot. Wokeness is a disease of the mind, cant question them on anything, otherwise you are a bigot, or a transphobe or a fascist. They somehow want everyone to abide by their rules, but who are they, where did this moral standard come from, are they God. Thats the weird thing about atheists, they want to push their morals on everyone else, and we must listen to them, but if God doesnt exist, there are no moral standards anyone is obligated to obey, just everyone telling everyone they are bad and I am good.
@@carriepriegel6477 Totally agree, our pride, our self absorbtion, narcissism, hedonism gets in the way
Jesus' own words "who do YOU say that I am?" is really aimed at every human who has the exposure & opportunity to confront that question. Because God's a gentleman, He can't force us to love Him (The Inquisition was a dismal, diabolical failure in every regard 💔) and His desire for relationship with each of us is infinitely more powerful & profound than any human efforts at debunking His existence & His Word.
And yet the consequence for non-compliance is brutal torture and infinitely lasting emotional anguish….what a gentleman!
Really excited for this bro, great job!
Truth always wins! Praise Jesus Christ - The Truth
Oh this is going to be good!
Looking forward to it! I've always thought the argument that Luke in particular was anonymous is kind of dumb, since it even names the patron within the document itself, so there were at least some substantial community who knew who wrote Luke from the get-go.
"dumb" to say the least......if you are going to falsely attribute a religious text, ...why would one choose a "b-List Saint" (...and "gasp!" a gentle )?....Why not one of the 12 ?
@@anarchorepublican5954 He was a companion of Paul. I think Luke and Paul worked together with James to grow Christianity. Frankly, I think the gospels are all just copies of each other and the church eventually threw names on the copies that looked substantially different.
@@anarchorepublican5954 Because unlike his traveling companion Luke the 12 weren't eyewitnesses to Paul in Acts, which is the sequel to Luke.
Can't wait for this!
lol I love that you’ve got Licona and McGrew back to back in who you’re featuring here. They’re on the same team.
this is the best Christmas present ever !!! Thank you Cameron and everyone who worked on this :)
I am so looking forward to this!
This is going to be good! I can’t wait
I can't wait!!!
No amount of "intellectual superiority"/attacks bring repentance. Great minds throughout history have tackled the same issue: the rebellious human nature/our stubborn hearts towards God. He won't give up like the father of the prodigal son because He loves us too much!!💕🌿
God leads my life
Exciting!!! I know what I'll be doing on Christmas 😊
Merry Christmas!
looks awesome!
Thanks again Cameron. If I ever don't get screamed at, I can use this info for sure.
This looks like it'll be dope. Can't wait. 😁
This is so sad. I know what it’s like to be afraid not to believe. It’s a book that helped people when they didn’t have anything else to give them hope outside of themselves and life. Capturing Christianity, provide the actual documents.
Can't wait
I think there’s skeptics and people who are unsure. Unsure people are more intellectually honest. Skeptics tend to actively engage in semantics that they themselves know aren’t real problems.
Seeing videos like this strengthens my faith
The moslem religion is a fraud
I lost counting on how often Bart forced Christians to cope instead of accepting the flaws their faith has
I lost count on how many times Err-man just straight up lies 😂. Or how many times he quotes German higher criticism without giving any credit to the people he quotes. Or how many times he uses silly laughter when he just told a rather funny lie.
@@MrSeedi76 thanks for demonstrating my point.
@@MrSeedi76Lies? Such as?
It would be nice if you could interview Rabbi Tovia Singer on this topic, I'm pretty sure he would rise several interesting points about this.
Colin Hemer's book is excellent as it relates to the eyewitness testimony contained in Luke/Acts.
St John was an eyewitness
II Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The Holy Spirit was there.
Yeah we call those people reporters/journalists, or historians. Does that mean we should now ignore all history for which there is no eyewitness authored accounts? Because that’s going to drastically reduce the history of humans.
Historians use a time and place criteria when validating events. The closer someone is to the location and time of the events, the more reliable the stories are. The problem with the Bible is that no historians of the time mention anything remotely close to the Biblical stories.
1) We don't have historians confirming the sun stopping in the sky.
2) We don't have historians confirming the exodus.
3) We don't have historians confirming the dead saints walking the streets.
4) We don't have historians confirming Jesus being put to death.
5) We don't have historians confirming Jesus performing miracles.
The only thing we can confirm about the Bible are some of the people and places. Well, people and places aren't enough to start believing in talking snakes and donkeys.
@@malirk😂 yawn. Come up with better arguments. BTW - I often wonder, why do atheist spend time online trying to argue with Christians who often know a ton more than they do themselves? Why do you even spend time on it? If I was an atheist, I would do other things with my life than constantly trying to convince myself. Trying to convince others certainly doesn't work anyway. Especially not in the comment section of a UA-cam video.
@@malirk the first three I will give you, because I don't know off the top of my head, but the last two we defiantly have records of, you just don't like them.
The biggest task the apologists are gonna have to overcome. Is explaining why early church fathers before Irenaeus don't cite the authors of the gospels. If they can't explain that satisfactorily then I can't co sign with their conclusion of knowing who the authors are.
What prominent church fathers were there before Irenaeus?
P.S. I know I can google this but I want to learn from your knowledge on this topic.
P.P.S. I've probably heard of them but I can't name them from memory.
@@malirk Justin Martyr is the big one. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. The Didache is anonymous but also doesn't reference authorship of the gospels. That's a few there and we see cases where they cite Paul when quoting but not with the gospels.
I'd say what would help start to change my mind is discovering manuscripts in the early 2nd century or late 1st with gospels having names on them. Or if we uncovered early church fathers that are reliable (not Papias) citing the authors we have today.
This is also on a spectrum so the more we find the stronger my confidence becomes. The less we find the lesser my confidence becomes.
Any eta on William lane Craig on the Jo Rogan podcast?
Even if it is genuine eyewitness testimony, would that really be enough to reasonably believe this stuff? I wouldn't believe someone who said they saw a real extraterrestrial, just on the basis of their testimony. I would need a lot more than that.
I think it has more to do with the supernatural acts in the Gospel accounts and skepticism towards a non hard materialistic worldview then the genuineness of the eyewitness testimonies themselves in my opinion.
But what if you heard the corroborating testimony of 500 witnesses, some of whom were previously skeptical?
Yeah, the fact that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus's acts (and there aren't) is just a detail in the end.
There has been a myriad of spectacular claims in the history of mankind, and many of them have supposed eyewitness accounts. The claims remain unbelievable. I'm not going to believe in something extraordinary just because multiple people are saying that they saw it.
And when you take into account the fact that the religious claims are from more than a thousand years ago, were only written down decades after the fact, have been proven to have been altered during their history (e.g. the story of the adulterous woman being a later addition to the Gospel of John), etc etc etc... Then it becomes even less reasonable to believe in those claims.
The bottom line to me is that it's all about faith. People who want to claim that believing in Christianity is something 100% rational are simply lying to themselves.
Precisely because it is a separate question, it would be unfair to expect a discussion or argument around this question to answer to the other. But it is indeed a question that should be covered in some venue, and I suspect the channel probably has done such or has plans to do such in the future.
@@Kiwifactor46 Do the gospels have testimonies from 500 witnesses? Or does it just say 500 people saw something?
For example: *There are 500,000 people today who just witnessed an alien flying around Nevada. They have all testified to this and made their testimony clear!*
Do you know have the testimony of 500,000 people seeing aliens?
Will be interested to watch this. I can't imagine any of the arguments presented in the documentary will be NEW per se, just a comprehensive collection of current thinking on the subject from people in favour of the Bible as historically true and accurate. Just on the subject of authorship - If we're just talking technically - Bart is correct. Within the text of each gospel, we do not have a declaration of authorship by the author, so by the strict definition they are anonymous works. The question is , can they be reliably attributed to the traditionally accepted authors and can eyewitness testimony be proven? I would say no, not to a satisfactory degree.But in truth - that doesn't matter a whole lot. The only question that matters, is did the events in the gospels happen as described? Did those miracles happen? Was there a virgin birth? As an atheist, I would of course say no, but as a christian, I'd argue you don't NEED the gospels to be written by Matthew, mark, Luke and John - you just have to have faith that their content is true. If irrefutable evidence was uncovered that the gospels were written by 4 women, or by 15 different authors all mashed together - would it change your view of your faith? of Jesus? Of God? I'd guess not. Anyway - happy Christmas/holidays/belated Hanukkah (delete as appropriate) to you all!
Isn't the question of whether they were eyewitnesses largely irrelevant? The word of 5 people, no matter how reliable you think they have been previously, doesn't come close to overcoming the massively low prior probability of walking on water, passing through rock, rising again, turning water to wine etc.
Tim and Lydia McGrew have a somewhat lengthy paper on overcoming low prior probabilities of miracles occurring (specifically as it pertains to the resurrection). Might be of interest to you:)
@@christiang4497 I doubt any paper, no matter how lengthy, can successfully argue for the idea that miracles are more likely than natural explanations. But I did find what I read of the paper pretty amusing.
The better question is, why do people not know how ancient biographies work? Probably because they never read any of them.
@@MrSeedi76 does this have relevance to my comment or did you misclick?
Over time, Ehrman's bibical point of view, has lessened for me. Yet, it's important to read different scholary conclusions..to make you think and clarify.
What do you disagree with him?
Most western scholars used secondary sources not primarily early sources such eastern scholars.
So they didn't use eye-witnesses either.
The Bible didn't either.
You should argue with non-believers that we don't need eye-witnesses. However, Cam is arguing Luke is from eye-witnesses.
The claim isn't that the Gospels don't contain eyewitness testimony, but rather that the Gospels are being presented by those who are NOT eyewitnesses. Whether what is being presented is wholly what an eyewitness claims is a separate but related matter.
In Mark 8 the authorities demanded a "sign from heaven." Jesus emphatically stated that Israel would not receive any such sign. Then in Luke 11 Jesus reprimanded the crowd for asking for a sign from heaven and said that the only sign that Israel would receive would be the sign of his ministry. Mark 8 and Luke 11 are compatible, but theologians who insist on casting the resurrection as the sign of Jonah dismiss both Mark 8 and Luke 11. This tells us that those who would falsify Luke's Gospel have an ulterior motive.
Why aren't you on TikTok yet?!
We are, just don’t post very often.
If they knew exactly who wrote the gospels, they still wouldn't believe. I guarantee you that if Jesus appeared in the sky for all to see tonight, tomorrow they would be saying it was some type of illusion, possible aliens, government psy-op, etc, and they would laugh at Christians for actually believing that it was real. There is nothing that could make them believe unless their heart wanted there to be a God.
It is fear that keeps them that way. They are afraid that there actually is a God and they don't want to have to change the way they live. They are like the ostrich sticking it's head in the sand hoping it is all just a bad dream.
If God appears before me right now, I'll believe.
He refuses to do this if he exists.
Incorrect, plenty of people believe in God without being Christian.
@@tomasrocha6139 Yeah. They believe in a deistic God, pantheistic God, another theistic God... many people believe things that contradict Christianity.
@@macmac1022 I think Christians deal with the hiddenness of God by saying we wouldn't believe even if God showed himself. The problems are:
1) I say I'd believe.
2) They don't know my mind.
Best they can do is call me a liar. So great... now they're just saying they don't trust me.
No
“Unless we are able to view things in terms of how they originate, how they are to return to their end, and how God shines forth in them, we will not be able to understand.” St Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
The only problem.. gospels copied from each other. 😂😂😂😂
Skeptics just need to go read what the early church fathers thought about eyewitnesses and the gospels. Papias would be a good start
Ok. So you're arguing that the author of Luke wasn't an eye-witness but that Luke used eye-witness testimony. Here are the problems:
1) Many stories have no one but Jesus to verify them. Consider Jesus on the mountain (Luke 4:9-11) or in the garden (Luke 22:43-44). So did Luke interview Jesus? I highly doubt that because Luke was a companion of Paul and Paul was not a fan of Jesus during Jesus; lifetime.
2) Luke is mostly copied from the other gospels. Around 2/3 of Luke is contained one of more of the other gospels. So did each gospel author interview the same exact people and write down the same exact stories with the same exact details? It seems more likely the stories were just stories created around these events.
3) Luke was written in 85 C.E. Why is this a problem? Well considering the events of Jesus happened around 20-40 C.E. you now have someone writing about these events 45-65 years after. So even if he interviewed eye-witnesses, it'd be like interviewing someone about a crash decades after it occurs. Testimonies based on memories only get worse the further you go from events.
TLDR: Luke probably didn't interview eye-witnesses for all things in his book which was written nearly half a century after the events. It's more likely that Luke just copied the other gospels.
1) The claim is not that it contains only eyewitness testimony, the claim is that it contains eyewitness testimony.
2) We know.
3) Luke probably had multiple sources and we do not know how they transferred their information to Luke. May have been written down for all we know, you're assuming it was memories but who knows? Could have been lost documents like a Q document, in which case Luke didn't need to rely on memory.
@@Jarige2
1) The people who saw the events did not write Luke. Thus it is not eyewitness testimony.
2) So did all the authors interview the same people, heard the same stories and wrote them down exactly the same? Seems more likely the gospels are just copies of each other.
3) Probably was oral tradition than a Q source.
@@malirk @malirk 1) If someone records what an eyewitness is saying in court, we call that report an eyewitness report even though it wasn't written by an eyewitness. Luke is like that. It contains eyewitness testimony but wasn't written by an eyewitness itself. Is that so hard to grasp?
2. Yes, we know parts from it are from Mark and some from either Matthew or some unknown source called Q. But that's completely irrelevant because nobody is claiming all of it is directly from eyewitnesses.
3. Oral traditions could still be eyewitness accounts, but handed over multiple times. Or only once or twice. We know Luke knew Paul, we know Paul knew Peter and James. Any eyewitness account is enough to justify the claim that Luke contains eyewitness testimony. I'm not even claiming all of Luke is eyewitness testimony, just that parts are.
The Sign of Jonah in Luke 11 is not the same as either Mark or Matthew. @@malirk
Skeptics HAVE to deny the gospels as eyewitness testimony and/or reliable historical accounts. Otherwise, they’d have to become Christians or just haters of Christ. Either the gist of the Gospels are true or they’re fictions.
Skeptics don’t have to discredit the supernatural. It comes without credit.
I don't care if people claim to have seen what happened in the gospels. I didn't believe my friend when he told me he could run a 3 minute mile. Why? I know the fastest mile is around 3:40 and my friend is not faster than the fastest man alive.
So now I have someone I know telling me to believe something I believe is impossible. I doubted my friend to his face.
The gospels could be from real people. I'm going to not believe people writing that a man was the son of God and rose from the dead. Why should I believe these claims? What evidence beyond someone saying it is there to believe them?
Give me the Case for Christ.
They're hearsay, legends and inventions.
@@DudeNamedDuncan You're right. God could convince me though. Why do you think God doesn't do this?
...the Eyewitnesses were in Jerusalem...Luke visited Jerusalem with Paul...it's just that simple...plus if one intends on falsely attributing a religious text, ...why would one choose a "b-List Saint" ...and "God forbid" a Gentile ! , like Luke?.
...Why not rather someone more important..like one of Disciples ?...the same problem with Mark...who is also a relative nobody.
....and that's exactly what later 2nd and 3rd century Apocrypha and Gnostics did ("pseudo")falsely attributing to James, Peter, Phiilip, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, even Judas....etc. etc. infinitum) ...
So-called Skeptics aren't even real clear thinkers...
So Luke would be a secondhand account. Luke was not the witness to the events. Luke talked to people and wrote down what they said. If Luke was the witness or the witnesses wrote down their accounts, it would be eye-witness testimony.
You agree..... Luke is not eye-witness testimony.
Luke as an author wasn't an eyewitness. But the claim is not whether the author is an eyewitness, because we know Luke is not. The claim is that Luke contains eyewitness testimony. That could still be true even if Luke himself is not an eyewitness.
@@Jarige2 The eye-witnesses didn't write it. Making what is in Luke secondhand accounts by definition. Luke could be conveying what he heard.... once again... this make Luke NOT eye-witness testimony.
Hey Cam! When are you going to release your financial records demonstrating why this channel is costing you upwards of $3k per month to operate?
E-begging in the name of Jesus is just absolutely deplorable and I hope you can find it in your heart to show us why you’re doing it.
A hen.
Nope. #1: ~50% of the Luke gospel is copied from Mark. Luke was writing to improve and maybe even replace Mark. #2: Luke is supposedly a physician friend of Paul's but such Greek physicians practiced Hippocratic medicine which never blamed illness on demon possession, yet the Luke author does this several times.
Do you really believe you're making a point?
Oh you mentioned Christmas season. This the time when Jesus was born. Holy nights. Midnight masses. Gifts exchange. Joyous. But Jesus was born in September and not in December. 😂😂. Why is nothing believable?
I never understood why people ever paid attention to Matt Dillahunty. He’s not a qualified scholar, and has no degrees of any kind.