Let's say there was a murder committed, and there are Seven possible suspects. In that room of questioning between the detective and the suspect, all seven seemed to tell the exact same story Not variations but the exact same story. That is a red flag from what I hear in Criminology. When you look at the New Testament Matthew mark luke and john, it is not the exact same stories of Christ. It's the same story told in four different ways.
The four gospel's accounts of the resurrection are very messy. I don't think anyone can read them and understand the full picture. They don't make perfect sense when you put them together. If I were writing a fake gospel in order to lie to people, and convince them of something that never happened... The first thing I would do is check to make sure that my story is clear and makes perfect sense when compared to my fellow liars. But the gospel writers didn't do that. They simply wrote the witnesses' accounts, and it didn't line up perfectly as a result. I believe every sentence in the gospels is 100% true. Yet not every sentence is the whole truth. In Luke 24:10 for example, the writer says that the two Mary's, Joanna, and the "others" told "The Eleven" what had happened at the tomb. However, it doesn't line up with John's account, which in my opinion, implies Mary ran into the two angels and Jesus as a separate event as the rest of the women's. So, it might seem to imply a contradiction. "How can Mary Magdalene tell The Eleven what had happened to the group of women, if she wasn't there for it?" Well, she *did* confirm to The Eleven that the angels were there, and that Jesus was risen. However, she likely arrived at a later time and added her testimony to theirs. So, someone might read into Luke's words and find a contradiction, but when you take a look into the possible intent of his sentences and phrases, there is plausible room for logically consistent interpretations.
@@FormerTrucker Yes, they do all agree. But that's not the end of the story. How they arrive to that conclusion is very important to their credibility. I find them very credible, and that's why I accept their conclusion. But if their accounts were too blatantly contradictory, or so alike that collusion was obvious, it would affect their credibility, and greatly weaken the evidence of Christianity.
I'm a Christian from India. I love turning point. Huge fan.
So cool to see how God is working through the Knectle family and bringing souls to Him. God bless them and their ministry!!
Love your enemies - it messes with their heads.
Remember that to be a part of the full Israel, you must be wrestling with God.
❤
Let's say there was a murder committed, and there are
Seven possible suspects. In that room of questioning between the detective and the suspect, all seven seemed to tell the exact same story Not variations but the exact same story. That is a red flag from what I hear in Criminology. When you look at the New Testament Matthew mark luke and john, it is not the exact same stories of Christ. It's the same story told in four different ways.
The four gospel's accounts of the resurrection are very messy. I don't think anyone can read them and understand the full picture. They don't make perfect sense when you put them together.
If I were writing a fake gospel in order to lie to people, and convince them of something that never happened... The first thing I would do is check to make sure that my story is clear and makes perfect sense when compared to my fellow liars. But the gospel writers didn't do that. They simply wrote the witnesses' accounts, and it didn't line up perfectly as a result.
I believe every sentence in the gospels is 100% true. Yet not every sentence is the whole truth.
In Luke 24:10 for example, the writer says that the two Mary's, Joanna, and the "others" told "The Eleven" what had happened at the tomb. However, it doesn't line up with John's account, which in my opinion, implies Mary ran into the two angels and Jesus as a separate event as the rest of the women's. So, it might seem to imply a contradiction. "How can Mary Magdalene tell The Eleven what had happened to the group of women, if she wasn't there for it?"
Well, she *did* confirm to The Eleven that the angels were there, and that Jesus was risen. However, she likely arrived at a later time and added her testimony to theirs. So, someone might read into Luke's words and find a contradiction, but when you take a look into the possible intent of his sentences and phrases, there is plausible room for logically consistent interpretations.
@@battt1718I agree
@@battt1718 They all agree that christ raised from the dead. End of story.
@@FormerTrucker Yes, they do all agree. But that's not the end of the story. How they arrive to that conclusion is very important to their credibility. I find them very credible, and that's why I accept their conclusion. But if their accounts were too blatantly contradictory, or so alike that collusion was obvious, it would affect their credibility, and greatly weaken the evidence of Christianity.
@@battt1718 dont you think if eyewitness testimony from 7 person about a case is a perfect carbon copy would be a problem?
Bro does NOT look like his laugh AT ALL😭😭😭