it must be reassuring when you notice that the bible is nosense and despite claims to the contrary it has contrradictions, then along comes someone willing to lie through their teeth to fix the problem and you can breath again. yes a great job, like a card trick, or a politician.
Here is quite and interesting perspective, quite a lot of vids on this channel. The Ark of the Covenant traced to its final resting place - with drone footage ua-cam.com/video/3QyjHjTtozA/v-deo.html Kolbrin Bible and Christianity ua-cam.com/video/XhWLzgY6zUw/v-deo.html
It was also common in ancient accounts to make stuff up entirely and add in hearsay as truth, so if you allow literary devices, do you also allow these similarities?
@@Altair1904 The bible is never victorious. It is debunked at every turn by every field of knowledge. Get over it. If you believe a lying apologist like this person, you need to seriously take a look at your critical thinking skills, and up them a bit.
That’s not apologetics at all and I don’t think you could have said anything more stupid. In fact I don’t think you even watched the video. In fact I don’t think you understand anything to do with Christianity other than we believe in God and that Jesus is God. What you have said is truly pathetic. Go back to Reddit.
Also I just saw you did watch the video and agreed with IP which makes what you said even more awful. To say there has to be a contradiction for it to be explained away is logical cancer. If it can be explained away there wasn’t a contradiction only something thought to be one.
Never believe the "view numbers" youtube gives. I was once watching a monster machine video, because it showed 8M views. A day later it showed 7M! They are all made up
@@HarryNicNicholas Wrong, he only demonstrated that ancient Historiography was different from our modern one, and that we have to try to understand the Cultural Historical Context to correctly Interpret the text, but you certainly don't know what these words mean ☺️
I don't think you need to bring cultural context into it at all, you simply need to remember the randomness of pertinence, it is impossible to explain why people recalling events don't mention certain details they are aware of. Ulysses S Grant never once mentions the Emancipation Proclamation in his memories of the Civil War, does this mean he didn't know about it?
@@armandvega2752 Another good one from my life is that I was married for 5 years before my wife told me that she could play the clarinet. I was shocked 'how come you never told me that before?" She couldn't explain it, she said 'I don't know, I just never thought of mentioning it before' Haven't we all had moments like that with people we thought we knew really well?
Huh, it never actually occurred to me that Matthew DOESN'T mention the Ascension... I always took it by inertia that he implied it happened in Galilee... Without this, there really isn't a contradiction at all
@Excuse me but Ancient audiences cared more about coherent narrative flow rather than chronological sequence and chronological accuracy. This doesn't undermine the historical reliability and relative accuracy of the text in the bigger picture, since we can easily piece together what most likely happened by taking in all the info that the Gospels and Acts give us, and putting said info into its correct cultural and linguistical context. The text doesn't need to follow our modern western understanding of how historical documents ought to be structured - sicne I'm certain ancient audiences understoof when an author was using certain literary techniques in order to make the info easier to read and understand to their respective audiences - in order to be historically reliable. And I can assure you the fundielicals and new atheists alike care next to nothing about historical accuracy give how both can't help but hold onto historical falsehoods.
@Excuse me but Not who you addressed, but I don't think they think you are holding onto a falsehood, only that you are reading or assuming the modern approach (which to me does feel more natural, but doesn't take into account the needs and nature of attitudes in the past and so makes it easier for the modern reader to look down on the approach of those who in the past had a very good reason for using their styles) and so viewing the other approaches of the past with scorn as they don't match the modern emphasis and approach.
@Excuse me but I do, though mainly because modern society is far more technically minded, or believes itself to be. There is also it seems a greater emphasis on proof - though social media does make one question that. My own mindset is very modern, but I can recognise how different times have different modes of thinking and communicating.
@Excuse me but ahhh, but they are more accurate and reliable because we have the means to implement them, the understanding of what makes something logical, and the foundation building up towards it. It isn't intuitively obvious how to do this to an early society, and their focus isn't on the deeper or more fundamental elements of the truth. After all, you'll notice most creation stories tend to focus on why matter is ordered the way it is, rather than on where the matter came from, as they all focus on the idea there were matter to begin with that became ordered. Yet we ask the question, where did the matter come from. What are your thoughts on the people of the past, what they wondered and how they went about solving it, and what do you think their answer to your approach, the modern approach, would be?
The biggest tension in the resurrection appearances may not be Jerusalem vs. Galilee. It may simply be the conflict between Matthew's very brief description of a single meeting with his disciples versus the "40 days" of appearances mentioned in Acts 1. Matthew uses about 100 words to record the Great Commission and then he's done. How can that be all that Matthew had to say about appearances of the risen Jesus that supposedly spanned 40 days? Jesus presumably thought he needed those 40 days, but when you read Matthew, it sounds like he really needed about 5 minutes. If Matthew was compressing, he got completely carried away. That is not the most likely explanation. Not even Luke can deliver a convincing account of the "40 days." In Acts 1, he describes just one appearance that features references to Pentecost and ends with an ascension. In other words, it sounds like the same appearance as in Luke 24.
2:00 -2;54 To me these things are not just even from middle east or non-western, we still do them. It's just that some people take them for granted or don't notice them.
Those with a good grasp of both Old and New Testaments, as well as the history of the Levant, understand why accusing Jesus of claiming to be "King of the Jews" is absurd. #1 Not a single person in ancient Palestine uttered the word "Jews" in any conversation, so there's that. Nothing close to that word was used by anyone in the region. What would have been said to Pilate is that he claimed to be King of IUDAEUS - king of JUDAEANS. ie people of the kingdom of Judaea. And there were multiple different ethnic groups in Judaea at that time, including but not limited to the Canaanites that weren't driven out (Judg 1), the mixed Canaanite descendants of Judah the Shelanites, the Edomites/Idumeans forcibly assimilated into Judaea by the high priest John Hyrcanus (Gen 36:1-2, Joseph, Ant. 13.9.1), and a remnant of 2 Israelite tribes - Judah and Benjamin. All these different people were known as Iudaeus/Judaeans. (Ioudaios in Greek) Iudaeus doesn't identify whether someone was an Israelite or an Edomite, or anyone else living in the territory. #2 Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth of Galilee - 2 countries to the north of Judaea. (The Apostles were Galilean too) "And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." -Mat 21:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." -Act 1:11 He had to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judaea when he taught people in that country. People have been making the mistake of thinking Jesus was a Judaean (and recently, a "Jew"for) 2,000 years. The bible records two instances where people assumed he lived in Judaea, Herod the Great after he was born and the Samaritan woman. Both thought he was a Iudaeus, because neither knew him personally. Those who actually knew him referred to him as a Galilaean, or the king, Messiah, or Savior of Israel. Never a Judaean. (or Jew) "And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this [fellow] also was with him: for he is a Galilaean." -Luk 22:59 (Mat 21:11, 26:69, Lk 2:25, 22:59, 23:6, 24:21, Jn 1:49, 12:13, Act 5:31, 13:23, 28:20) (Israel the people, the 12 tribes, not a state or country. At that time Israel was a people without a state, there was no jurisdiction called Israel, so it wasn't treason to say that, however I'm sure the Romans wouldn't have approved) Accusing Jesus of claiming to be King of Judaeans would be like accusing someone who grew up in the Czech Republic of claiming to be king of the Italians, or someone from Moldova of claiming to be king of the Bulgarians. It would be absurd. And for all the same reasons. Pilate realized what was going on and sent him to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee thinking that would take care of the matter. "When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time." -Luk 23:6-7 Come on people, it's time to become workman that need not be ashamed - rightly dividing the word of truth. Instead of just assuming mainstream beliefs are accurate because lots of people believe and repeat them.
How do we know Carrier even exists? The evidence for his existence is sketchy. You might say "Well, we have books written by him." Well, if I found a book claiming to be written by Spiderman, would that mean Spiderman exists? Obviously not. Furthermore, Carrier's name is obviously symbolic. Who was one of the most influential atheists of the early 21st century? RICHARD Dawkins. Carrier's first name is also Richard. Coincidence? I think not. "Carrier" probably refers to the fact that he's carrying the Jesus mythicist movement forward. And as one final piece of evidence, there was a Jesus mythicist in the 19th century called RICHARD CARLILE (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carlile). The parallels are too great to be coincidental. Carrier is a myth.
Granting the premise that the gospels use literary devices that were common in the ancient world, including the changing of chronological details, the fact remains that the gospels cannot be taken literally. This may not be a problem for Michael Jones (IP), but it will be a problem for many literalist believers.
I think what it shows is that the Bible is not a book dropped from heaven, but that it was written by people. This is something that many Christians do not always consider, and may not like, but it is not a problem for the Christian claim of historical accuracy.
@@migaotto292 I agree that this is more evidence that the Bible was written by people, but I also think it is more evidence against the claim of the Bible being divinely inspired and inerrant. I am not sure what you mean by "historical accuracy". If a Bible passage gives us the wrong chronology for stylistic reasons, that may be explained by the literary fashions of the day, but the chronology is still messed up, and the information we get from this text can therefore not be said to be "historically accurate".
@@hansdemos6510 You are attempting to judge the validity of a 1st century account by applying 21st century expectations to it. How important is it to get the chronology perfectly right if your main mission is to communicate events and the significance of the meaning behind it to people? When I talk about historical accuracy, I am asking whether the events that are reported did actually happen, regardless of technicalities like chronology. Mark, for instance, did not order his narrative in terms of chronology but in terms of themes. He wanted people to read his gospel and understand the meaning of the events, not just as another interesting thing that people talk and forget about the next day. Besides, for the most important parts the narratives are chronologically structured, especially the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus.
@@migaotto292 You said: _"When I talk about historical accuracy, I am asking whether the events that are reported did actually happen, regardless of technicalities like chronology."_ Well, as the chronology is an integral part of "historical accuracy", I would say that if you mess up one, you mess up the other. You may call that "judging the validity of a 1st century account by applying 21st century expectations", but I would retort that our modern way of finding the truth behind ancient texts has quite a good track record, and if given the choice, I will go with modern methods, thank you very much. Also, I think you and IP may be misusing an explanation for why the gospel texts were written the way they were written as a justification to overlook the loss of information this style choice has caused. Do you think this was the best way the gospel writers could have written their stories down? Or would you agree that it would have been better if they had listed their sources properly and given full disclosure about all the events in their correct historical order, who did what at what time, what they were wearing, what they ate, and how much they paid for it, etc. etc.? I understand that this was not common to do at the time, but do you agree that from the standpoint of historical accuracy and believability, that would have been better? If you don't agree with that, then I think you are fooling yourself. If you do agree, then you must admit that when they start messing stuff up, even if that was common for people writing stuff like they did in their day and age, valuable information that we, the readers, might use to verify the stories, inevitably gets lost. And that equally inevitably means that the narrative will lose some of its convincing power, and that the evidence it purports to present is weakened by the same measure. Now, this may not matter to you, because you are already a believer anyway, but it does matter to any outsider who is trying to find out what really happened, and it should matter to a historian or scholar, no matter what their religious background is.
@@hansdemos6510 You say that "if you mess up the one, you mess up the other." That would be true if they messed it up, but would that apply if they never intended to write chronologically in the first place? For instance, sometimes writers jump back and forth in time to tell the story, but we do not say that they made a mistake because they intended it to be like that. I would also go with modern methods, all I am saying is that you have to take the cultural expectations into account since the gospels was not written for us. Of course there is a loss of information, no matter how they chose to write it. The gospels claim that the ministry of Jesus lasted three years, which certainly cannot be fully contained in the gospels, otherwise we would be spending a very long time reading it and the message that the authors were trying to communicate would be lost. I do not know whether the gospels could have been written better or not. I think part of the reason that we do not have a super comprehensive account, like you want, is because the authors and the people they interviewed, worked from memory. They would only remember the significant events and the details from those events that really struck them hard. Interesting that you mention details, since the authors included very specific details from time to time, such as what clothes Jesus wore before they took Him to be crucified, what the official accusation was, what happened when the earthquake struck, how much money the poor woman gave for taxes, how much money Jesus gave to Peter, etc. They also included specific time lapses, such as how long Jesus was on the cross, why they wanted to take him off quickly, when the woman came to the tomb, etc. It is details like this that make you think that the authors were speaking from eyewitness testimony, and not just reciting something that they had heard. I think the reason that the gospel authors did not explicitly list their sources is because they were writing in a time when the people in the gospels were still alive and the readers would have known them, so they could just ask them. For instance, it would be a logical assumption to make that when the gospel author talks about the appearance of the angel to Mary, his source would be Mary and the readers could find out from her themselves. These questions that you ask do matter to me, which is why I am having this discussion with you.
I love your content IP! I was watching your case for the soul series and was wondering, how do you account for testimonies of people who had NDEs and said that nothing happened?
so you're on your deathbed and you start to drift off skyward, not knowing if you are about to meet your maker, or if you are bound for the hot place, but you stop to check out the colour of polythene bags, you drop by the nurses station to see what's on tv, you pop into the linen closet to read bar codes on bed sheets, yeah sure, thats your eternal soul. if it was me i would want some questions answered, can we travel faster than light, what is the cure for cancer? what do people bring back from their meeting with god? "granny says love each other" NDE's are nothing more than people imagining things.
If you are going to hold the same standards to the Gospels as other ancient writers such as Plutarch on using literary devices, do you also accept Plutarchs writings about supernatural events as historical or other authors who said Caesar ascended into heaven? If you reject these as just superstitions of that time, then it seems to me that we should reject the supernatural in the New Testament for the same reason. I guess my question is ultimately - if you are going to compare it to contemporary sources and allow for literary devices, why can you say that the stories are more truthful than the fictitious stories in other sources.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think you'll some interesting things. For example the tops of the mountain are blackened as if they were scorched as described in exodus. there is a large flat area at the foot of the mountain where the Israelites could have camped. there was a flowing body of water there they could have drank from. There are altar sights there one with a depiction of a golden calf, ancient Hebrew writing and the other with animal bones and 12 pillars. near the mountain is a site with palm trees and 12 wells, a split rock with stream markings coming from it which indicates water came from there. A whole bunch of other stuff
@@InspiringPhilosophy and if you look at the gulf of Aqaba there's an elevated flat surface that the Israelites could have crossed, chariots on the floor of it, There's also 2 poles that mark it. it also looks like what was described in Exodus
What? You did not even answer the question: Where did Jesus ascend from - Jerusalem (Bethany) or Galilee? Pulling literary devices out of one's arse is a terrible way to completely not answer this question.
Bethany. The Galilee narrative is false. Google LukePrimacy. Luke contains the correct resurrection narrative, which is why it matches Acts, and Paul as well (1 Cor 15:5
@@davidbrachetto1420 That's one way to deny the contradiction. But as is - it is still there in the Bible we have. And you have simply cherry picked one as false and the others as true with not one shred of evidence for why. This just makes it worse. Instead of a contradiction we now have false gospels - ok! I'll take that too. Furthermore, it would be expected for Luke and Acts to agree since the same person wrote it - that is not surprising nor significant as evidence! Lastly, Paul does not agree with the gospels - no woman, no tomb, and 500 at once, no flesh and blood Jesus just appearances similar to Paul's. Paul is clear that flesh and blood don't inherit the kingdom and that the resurrection body is not the same as that which went into the ground - it's a spiritual body. The 500 does not match the 120 in Acts shortly after his ascension. There was not even 500 followers during the days prior to the ascension.
Jesus 'ascended into Heaven' in September 33 AD. He went to the Vestry House in Qumran, which was called 'Heaven' because the 3 High Priests (who were all called 'God') did their teaching & preaching there.
The text in Luke 24:51 "and was carried up into heaven" is missing from some of the old manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae). If it's a later interpolation then the contradiction between Luke and Acts ceases to exist.
True, but also Like dies not present the Resurrection and the Ascension on one day. Easter Sunday is filled to the brim with events including the disciples going to Emmaus. The go to a house because it's evening, habe supper with Jesus, recognise him and the hurry back to Jerusalem. By then it was night. And yet the Ascension seems to be an event in daylight, with visible clouds etc.
Have you read Lydia McGrew's book The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices? She's not a fundamentalist or a dogmatic inerrantist but she makes a thorough argument that Licona and others are mistaken when claiming the Gospel authors used fact-changing literary devices. Might be worth checking out.
@@zekdom Great question. Unfortunately, I don't have McGrew's book so I don't know how she herself would answer it. As a point of clarification, McGrew is (I think) okay with literary devices that don't change the facts of a story (like spotlighting). Conflation would fall into that category. Regarding the appearances in Luke seeming to take place in one day, McGrew's colleague Jonathan McLatchie says, in response to Matthew Hartke: "Hartke also notes that 'In Luke, moreover, all the appearances take place on Easter day, while in Acts they take place over a forty day period!' However, given that Luke and Acts are clearly written by the same author (as is virtually unanimously acknowledged), I would suggest that more charity be extended to the text before one concludes that a single author has contradicted himself. At the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity concerning time. In fact, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know exactly what this phrase means, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared (however long that took) and they sit down to eat. They recognize Jesus as He breaks bread, and then he disappears. The Emmaus disciples then immediately returned to Jerusalem - a distance of sixty stadia (Lk 24:13), or around 10-12km (6-7 miles) - a journey that would have taken them well over an hour, perhaps even two. They then spoke with the disciples and tell them their story (Lk 24:35). Then Jesus appeared and showed Himself. They gave Him some food (Lk 24:42). Only following this did Jesus begin speaking with them about the Scriptures. He then led them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one attempts to place all of these events on the same evening, it would certainly have already been dark by this time, making it rather difficult for the disciples to witness the ascension into heaven (Lk 24:51). Thus, even simply taking Luke 24 on its own terms, it does not at all appear that all of these events took place in a single day. Apparently Luke was either running out of scroll at this point or was in a hurry. He does not appear to have full knowledge yet of precisely how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply left it non-specific and subsequently clarified in his second volume, in Acts 1." (jonathanmclatchie.com/on-matthew-hartkes-five-reasons-to-doubt-the-resurrection/) Regarding the location of the ascension, I think the text must be pressed to get even a surface-level contradiction. In Luke 24:49, Jesus says "As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high." Although Jesus does say to "stay" in the city, I don't see how this couldn't be said from Galilee. Then, Jesus leads them to "the vicinity of Bethany", which at first blush seems to contradict Matthew, who says the ascension took place in Galilee from "the mountain". However, Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, which is just east of Jerusalem. This is assuredly covered by the phrase "the vicinity of Bethany". I might be missing something, but I don't think there's a genuine "contradiction" present that we need to use literary devices to absolve. Sorry this got so long! If you're interested in reading more about the shortcomings of the literary device theory, I would recommend either McGrew's book or her blog whatswrongwiththeworld.net/ (just search for "literary devices"). If you have any other comments feel free to send them!
@@calebjore3295 No no, your response is much appreciated! I may have to buy Lydia McGrew’s book, then. Also, Benjamin D. Sommer’s book “The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel” - that may help me considerably with the Trinity.
IP, the end of Mark I think ilistrate it better than other historical documents. When the women, in Jersusalem, talk to the angel, he tells them that the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee again where they need to go meet him. However when you keep reading the rest of Mark it doesn't mention this meeting they had in Galilee, it doesn't say what he told them. When you read the end of Mark If you would removed the part in where the angel talk about Galilee, one would think that the ascension of Jesus was the same day of his resurrection after his first meeting with the disciples in Jerusalem. But since Mark mentions the Galilee part we can know it was not so, but that he only did not tell everything that happened between the first meeting at Jersusalem and when they went to Galilee and the final ascension in Jersusalem. Said like this it may seems complicated, but if you just read the passage of Mark you will quickly see what I'm talking about.
Ok, I just read ch16. Mark is tied for my favorite gospel... so reading it is certainly not a chore! There are many interesting things about Mark's concluding chapter, but I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "if you removed the part in which the Angel talked about Galilee, you would think that his ascension was the same day... after his meeting with disciples in Jerusalem." You would only think that part about Jerusalem if you allowed other narratives to flesh out your understanding of Mark's (Peter & Andrew's) account. Nothing at all is said of Jerusalem. And I don't see how anyone would de facto assume _when_ the ascension happened. The timing of it would be an open question. Im not looking for debate btw. It's a great topic and I'm just wondering what you're seeing that I may be missing! (Wouldn't be the first time I was slow on the uptake) lmk
According to IP, one of the reasons Matthew's gospel ends in Galilee instead of returning to Jerusalem for the Ascension is that there were more gentile cities up in Galilee and that gave a "better fit" with the the mission of the early church, but that mission is clear once Jesus says "Teach all nations." Hiding the return to Jerusalem can't really add anything to those words. The "better fit" accomplishes nothing. It's just an excuse to hide a contradiction.
No He’s just saying the author of matthew wants to focus more on the Galilean, you bring up a false dichotomy by saying it could only speak about Galilee lol
Luke place the ascension at Jerusalem. Matthew mentions that Jesus met the disciples in Galilee after his resurection, but he doesn't mentions the ascension. So, where do you see a contradiction ?
@@dodleymortune8422 The ascension is implicit, in Matthew, in the fact that it is tied to the great commission and that Jesus told them not to depart from Jerusalem in the other gospel. How did they get to Galilee if they were told to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost? How many great commission's were there? Let me guess more than one - right? I only know of one and it was at both Jerusalem and Galilee. OOOPS!
@@VeridicusMaximus No, Jesus certainly told the disciples more than once what was their mission. In real life we often repeat things, especially important ones.
So it sounds like it is a contradiction if we take it literally like you said at 7:03 unless you conflate them. Which I don't see how one could coherently conflate the stories without saying some level of error has taken place on one of the author's part or both of them making an error.
it would be a error in modern world, but you can’t say they made an error: the literally instruments were different and a well put together narrative was many times better perceived by the readers then a time-coherent one. They didn’t make any errors for the standards of Greco-Roman biographies of which the gospels are.
@@danielesorbello619That doesn't make any sense though. Like at that point anyone could say any text has no contradictions than by that logic. But no one says that or talks like that at all. I think it's far better to just admit that there are errors in the Bible. Cause we don't want to act or appear delusional to people in this. It isn't the end of the world to admit that.
@@omnikevlar2338 “Like at that point anyone could say any text has no contradictions than by that logic.” that’s not what conflation means: it is the conflation of two stories in a different one to keep a good narrative that provides a message: in this passage matthew is valuing the message: not the historicity: so you can’t examine it like how you could with any other passage: matthew has a very strong motif about Jesus giving miracles to galilee but being rejected by people who lack faith: this motif is why this interpretation is valid and this cannot be said for every verse of the same gospel. Luke instead was much more interested in providing a good narrative flow so he skips and conflated periods of time: here as in Matthew what’s important is the message of them: not the timeline. So this DETERMINED passages in luke and Acts cannot be judged by the historical point of view (they are still conflations of real events) but from the message they bear. “I think it's far better to just admit that there are errors in the Bible.” yes there are, but this isn’t one of them.
@@imbored6638 Oh I disagree I look at this as a major error in the story. You’re telling me you guys can’t agree on which area you saw a man again after dying on the cross? Doesn’t make sense.
Any chance of a video about 1 John 5:7-8 and this note: "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)" ???
"We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations." (7:02) I'm sorry... but, no. The contradictions remain regardless your attempts to attribute them to "conflation and compression." As your own quote from "Misreading Scripture From Western Eyes" states, "chronological sequence is not as important as structuring EVENTS into a coherent narrative flow." In other words, the EVENTS are more important than correctly placing them in perfect chronological sequence. It's the EVENTS that matter! And I agree. But... there must still be a "coherent narrative flow" in which such KEY EVENTS critical to the narrative actually appear... and/or where they appear, are at least somewhat harmonious with one another! And yet, where the Gospels are concerned, there is none such for the Ascension... for only ONE of those Gospels originally bothered to mention the Ascension, at all. And the other Gospel that had that event added to it MANY decades later (Gospel of Mark) directly contradicts the other as to WHERE and HOW it occurred. Strangely (and, yes, contradictorily), the Ascension is only originally mentioned in but ONE of the Gospels, the LAST of the Synoptics written: the Gospel of Luke (whose Greco-Roman author, "Lucas," was the same as for Acts). And being the Last of the Synoptics written, we should expect it to be written furthest from the time of the original events and, thus, the most inaccurate for being influenced by the Paulininan brand of Christianity under which umbrella it was written... and, thus, also arguably the most embellished. And where Luke is concerned, this is exactly what we find, for it is the longest and the most flowery and poetic of the Synoptic Gospels, containing events and details not found elsewhere. And, thus, this calls into question whether any such added events have any actual historical foundation... or had been later concocted and inserted to better serve the growing Paulinian Christological and theological narrative, of which the Gentile aspects had by that time taken precedence... hence making exactly such a "Great Commission" and "Ascension" of even greater critical importance! In case it needs to be pointed out, while only recounted in the earlier Gospel of Matthew, Jesus originally forbade his disciples from preaching to the Gentiles... not even to the Samaritans inside Israel. Instead, Jesus made it crystal clear that He was "sent only unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" and that they were to preach only to such "lost sheep of Israel" (Matt. 10:6 ; 15:24), as well. By such pronouncements as this, Jesus revealed He was NOT any sort of worldwide "Savior" nor was He there to establish some new worldwide religion! Jesus' true mission was specific ONLY to those "Lost Sheep," and had nothing to do with preaching a new religion as Jesus was a practicing Orthodox Jew all His life, and stated to the Samaritan woman that, indeed, Jerusalem's Temple was still God's true House. Further, Jesus had stated He was NOT SENT to abolish the Law... but to FULFILL it. And yet all despite this, Saul preached his own brand of Gentile-focused Christology that indeed abolished the Law and its requirements while succeeding also in creating -- despite Jesus' statements -- exactly the sort of Gentile-centered worldwide religion Jesus had specifically commanded AGAINST! Thus, as during Jesus' life He had NEVER preached to the Gentiles and NEVER commissioned any of His disciples to do so, but had specifically commanded against any such during His life... it stands to reason the "Great Commission" and the "Ascension" that accompanied it had to be invented and inserted AFTER Jesus' resurrection to attempt justifying what Saul was doing. And THAT'S why original Mark doesn't contain it... and the rest of the Gospels make some mention of the "Great Commission" justifying it, all of which also are harmonious... because they HAD to be: It was one of those KEY EVENTS upon which Saul's Church absolutely depended. The Ascension, however? Yeah... not so much. And the PROOF that the Ascension was also added later and was not a real event... is the fact that only the LAST of the Synoptics, the one Gospel most likely to have been deliberately embellished, originally even mentions it. This is also further evidenced by the fact that the addition of the Ascension narrative to Mark is NOT harmonious with Luke's mention. And, no, I'm not speaking of chronology or content here... but of something far more basic: WHERE IT OCCURRED! For the redacted version of Mark claims it occurred while they were indoors reclining at a table... while in Luke, they were walking somewhere outdoors near Bethany. And, again, neither Matthew or John mention it, at all. Now, think about this: If this was the LAST TIME the "apostles" actually saw Jesus... and observed Him literally ascending up into Heaven, itself... don't you think that would be an event they would have remembered well ALL THEIR LIVES?! And yet, only Luke originally bothers to mention it at all... and Mark's far-later addition of the event can't agree with Luke's account in ANY WAY! To my view, this proves it was a later fabrication added to give Saul's brand of Christianity the stamp of Jesus' approval it so glaringly lacked and so desperately needed. Now... compare this with the Gospels' accounts for ANY of the other key events in Jesus' life and you'll find they ALL agree! All of the Synoptic Gospels agree Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordan. All agree He preached primarily in Galilee. Most all mention and agree generally on His key miracles, too. All agree He was crucified in Jerusalem and placed in a nearby tomb. All agree there was a multitude of unnamed women never previously mentioned who had traveled with Jesus throughout His ministry who watched the crucifixion from afar. And on and on. Yet... only ONE of the Gospels originally even mentions the Ascension and Mark's far-later account directly contradicts Luke's on both WHERE and HOW it occurred. Again, I go back to your quote from that same book stating that "chronological sequence" is not as important as placing the key "events" into a "coherent narrative flow." And where the Ascension is concerned ... we find NO such "coherent narrative flow," at all. Unlike all the other key events in Jesus' life harmoniously recounted across the Gospels (I said "harmoniously," not "identically"), where the Ascension is concerned, we find either NO mention of any such event... or we have contradiction regarding where and how and what constituted that claimed event. And that speaks powerfully to it having been a later convenient invention added to support and give justification to Saul for preaching to the Gentiles a Gospel Jesus never preached, portraying Jesus as He never intended... but instead in direct contradiction of Jesus' own words specifically prohibiting AGAINST any such.
respected IP, can you make a review video for "science of God" book by Dr. Gerald Schroeder? His approach is also very different and I would like to see your insight on his view. Thank you.
Can you please make a video discussing the origins and true meaning of the supposed name “Iao”, which many claim is the true name of God. Thank you very much.
This will not solve this contradiction Time and place is very important if I a true beliver. Also the ascending event itself is important so as a true beliver chronological orders very important Putting the cultural and social frame as defence is very weak for me, it may fit for such a contradiction but will fail for other contradictions And I love ur vids and ur way in exploring the problems from every side
For me what does ultimately solve this is realizing that Matthew doesn't actually mention the Ascension. He just says they met in Galilee at some point. Which fits with John and Luke. They each just mention different things and leave out others, which is reasonable
Were there ancient literary devices? Yes. Without question. Were they used here? Before answering that question, we should ask, is it necessary to resort to them at all? If, the ordinary manner of narration can explain them, there's no need to assume some ancient literary device. "Spotlighting" (discussed in another video)? We, ordinary folk, do that all the time. "Conflation"? Same. Talk to investigators, lawyers, social workers, anyone who routinely takes people's testimonies and they will think it very strange that such things are supposed ancient literary devices. In any case, before these devices are invoked they should first be shown to 1) actually exist (Here I reiterate that "spotlighting" is not an ancient literary device) and 2) the intended audience of the text, ordinary men and women of their day, would actually have known of, expected and understood these, something I think is hard to establish from just "Plutarch (and other authors) used these". I'm not saying this explanation is wrong, lest anyone misunderstand. I'm saying, even using the same explanation, i.e that the writers "conflated" the events, there is no need to invoke "ancient literary device" as an explanation when "ordinary narration" does it as well.
"We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations." I am sorry to see this series devolve into admissions of contradictions. There is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke, even by our "modern" standards (and by modern, I mean that idea that statements in a narrative are either true or false, which is actually not modern at all). Why did you feel the need to cede this ground? Luke's Gospel clearly uses the statement "then," which does not commit on how much time passed after the events of the prior sentence. Similarly, there is nothing in Matthew that commits Matthew's Gospel to the non-ocurrence of events in Luke's Gospel. Why do you think you are defending the Gospels by appealing to Plutarch and Lucullus? Don't you think secular scholars would be fine with placing the Gospels on the same plane as Plutarch? No one thinks Plutarch is the inspired Word of God. One must say either that the narratives contradict or they do not. If they contradict, then at least one sentence in the Gospels is a falsehood. That is not a modern cultural paradigm; that is just a basic proposition of logic and using an ancient criterion of truth. With friends like this...
I find your comment puzzling. They way I see it he is not saying there IS a contradiction, he is saying a contradiction can only exist in the minds of those who unreasonably twist the accounts. He cites Plutarch to show that this twisting is unreasonable even for secular literature of the time. Nowhere does he equate Plutarch with scripture that I heard. (If I missed that please provide a reference.) It seems to me that a problem only exists in your mind because you are unreasonably twisting what he is saying to create the appearance of a problem in your mind, just as he is saying the Bible critics do. So you are kind of helping him make his point: anyone can create the appearance of a problem in anything if they twist it unreasonably enough, but a fair minded person will recognise the absurdity of the claim.
He gave up this ground because he wants to appear "reasonable" to intellectual types. "I'm not one of those crazy fundamentalists." It's also the reason why he makes videos attacking fundamentalist core doctrines like Young Earth. I'm not a Young Earth person myself but I respect those Christians who are and would never want to publicly criticize any believer for trying to follow what they are persuaded the Bible says. The owner of this channel wishes to leave no uncertainty that he's "not one of them." Hence, the exasperated facepalm. These kinds of apologetic platforms often do more harm to the cause of truth, than good. "We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations." You said you were sorry to see this series devolve into admissions of contradictions. I would have no problem with admitting contradictions wherever logic absolutely necessitates it. After all, Jesus tells us that in the mouth (singular voice) of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. And in the trial of Jesus we read a damning indictment of contradictory testimony: Many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. At the last came two false witnesses... but neither so did their witness agree together. Mat26 & Mrk14 But ceding ground (as you put it) with weakly constructed arguments that amount to "don't put such modern (read/ strict) demands on the biblical narrative" is no way forward. Mike Licona has turned this sort of overly-apologetic apologetic into an art form. ~ Honestly, with some of these guys, I sometimes wonder if we don't have a case of Luke 20:20 "so that they might take hold of his words."
I just recently thought of luke and john Luke writing as in one day. But jesus told peace the same day asked to touch his body the 8th eating fish in the 21 st chapter of john.
Isn’t it a contradiction to say God is a free agent, but at the same time, God has to choose good over evil and has to choose the highest good over lesser good? God has no choice in the matter.
Taking a single conversation in Luke between Jesus and his disciples and then literally splicing one spoken sentence from the next just to shove a 40 day 100 mile trip to Galilee and back between them is one of the most desperate forms of rationalization I've seen from this series so far. At this point, virtually no contradictory aspect in any story ever could amount to a plot hole because one can make up an outlandish just-so story to reconcile them. IP's claimed focus on "what's plausible rather than what's possible" in the past only makes videos like this even more laughable. There's a reason most biblical scholars don't buy in to such "explanations" for these kinds of contradictions.
@@charles4208 I know the literary device exists, but what's IP's evidence it's used in this specific passage? The fact the device merely *exists* isn't enough. Why should we think this specific speech from Jesus is actually a compilation of two speeches from the beginning and end of a 40 day period, with a 100 mile trip to Galilee and back in between them? Is there any evidence that this is a more *plausible* interpretation of scripture than there simply being a contradiction between different authors? No, and the only reason IP is offering this explanation as rational is because it's not a contradiction.
@@hawkxlr Depending on where they were in Galilee, it could have been as few as 50 miles (maybe even 30ish miles), although where it probably was (the Sea of Galilee) would be nearer to 70 miles (average humans can travel 20 miles a day). Only in the far north of Caesarea Philippi would it be 100 miles. But yes, we SHOULD read texts in the lens of the culture they were written in. It would be absurdly ridiculous not to. You claim to know the literary device exists, but don't think it should be used. By that logic, if I said I traveled from St. Louis to Kansas City and back in two days (c. 225 miles one direction), we could look at the cultural context of the modern day and assume I drove my car. It would be ridiculous to assume the journey was made up because it is impossible, and then reject the explanation that I took my car, even though we know that this device was a viable option in my time.
@@5BBassist4Christ I would suggest you reread my comment, because it seems you didn't understand almost any of my points. Also, I didn't put too much thought into the distance, nor did I say the distance was impossible to cover. I knew it was considerable and ballparked it.
Maybe christians should just say that the message of the bible is the important thing and not the details... Because contradictions don't really go away just because we can't exclude the possibility that the contradictions were made intentionally. What hypothetical contradiction could we add to a bible story such that we couldn't consider it a literary device?
So to make this work, you have to jam the Galilee appearance story in Matthew all before Jesus tells the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power from on high? That doesn’t make sense with how the disciples react in Luke 24:36-42 with shock and confusion if they had already met the risen Jesus in Galilee as Matthew portrays. Man this is a weak solution to the contradiction.
You are right, Luke 24:36-49 comes first. John shows this same event (albeit with additional wording) as occuring before they went to Galilee (John 20:19-23), the sea of Tiberias event in John 21. Understanding that the command to go to Galilee was issued first, and then this conversation about staying in Jerusalem comes second, understand it as 2 instructions 1) Go to Galilee, because I'm going there 2) After this, remain in Jerusalem.
@@isaacmarshmallow8751 that’s not what happens though. While in Jerusalem, in Luke 24:49 he tells them to stay in Jerusalem. So if Luke 24 happened first, then they couldn’t have left to go to Galilee.
@@Iamwrongbut Yeah but the command to go to Galilee was issued before the command to stay in Jerusalem. Both on the same day. On the first day. But he also appeared for 40 days. Enough time to venture to Galilee and back. Put yourself there, and look at the accounts to see how they actually followed these two commands issued the same day. After the John/ Luke account, they go to Galilee. Then after Jesus has risen, they stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost. Then you have Acts 1:4-5 which is a repeat occurance of the 2nd command (occuring after the 40 days mention, which could have even been uttered even at Galilee to all the gathered disciples, not just the 11 apostles) Then you have Acts 1:8 where the command is referenced by implication on the final meeting at the end of the 40 days. So, in the first instance he's making known his intentions to the 11 apostles, the second instance to the larger group of Christians assembled (potentially), and then finally a re-affirmation to the 11 gathered at Bethany.
@@isaacmarshmallow8751 did you read my first comment? If they initially went to Galilee and met the risen Jesus, then why did the disciples freak out and not recognize him when they saw him in Jerusalem? If they already knew what he looked like, they wouldn’t have thought they saw a ghost. Hahaha the response of the disciples in Luke 24:36-42 makes no sense unless it is the first appearance of Jesus to them. And if it is, then in that same convo he tells them to stay in Jerusalem and thus they wouldn’t have gone to Galilee.
Would not it be easier if Jesus appear in front of Cayaphas or any other Pharisee instead of His Disciples? The fact that He showed up only in His circle makes me thinking that we are no different with Gnosticism or any other secret comunity
Read Matthew 15-16 Jesus heal many people, feeds the 4 thousand, and the Pharisees demand a sign from him immediately after it. If he showed himself to them they still wouldn’t believe. It’s only after the Holy Spirit comes and empowers the early church that they start to turn and believe acts 4:8-14 I think the difference between us and the dozens of movements claiming the messiah is that after his resurrection ascension and Pentecost in acts we see many former Pharisees in the early church movement. You might know them as the “circumcision party” (acts 11:2). There was a great schism in the Jewish leadership between those who believed Jesus was the messiah and those who didn’t. No other group gained that sort of momentum because they didn’t fulfill the Old Testament prophecies like Jesus did.
no, i accept that he explainded it very very bad in this video but what he said is right: one gospel puts the spotlight on one thing, another to another. Then John puts then in order. What he said in the video is a good argument but you have to read the passages to understand it better.
Weak. While Luke-Acts certainly does show that the 40 days were compressed, you CANNOT say that there is any allowance in the text of Luke for the disciples to have gone to Galilee. You are making a huge assumption based on forced and cherry picked literary devices. The more natural reading puts the time break just before Luke says 'When Jesus led them to Bethany'.
@mysotiras 05 neither there is any historical evidence that Jesus existed. The reality is that the stories in the bible are all Egyptian myth, Judaism is the copy of Sumerian pagan worship. Animal sacrifice don't work. All you know is to defend the lies that the bible is.
@@anthonyjohn9000 I would be interested to hear your intellectual justifications for holding to Jesus mythicism. Given that about 99% of scholars across the theological spectrum accept the existence of a historical Jesus, claiming that he did not exist is definitely a fringe view. Doesn't mean you can't defend it though! What evidence has convinced you that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist?
Claiming literary devices do not resolve a contradiction, they just give justification to the already convinced as to why they don't have to question their holy book... but you only buy these tales if you already committed to them. I find it beyond frustrating that you will allow authors to change narratives so much because it better suites the story they are telling, but deny legend building as part of that narrative composition. When you see differences in 4 stories (that have been preserved) is it not fair to ask were they ever intended by the authors to be complementary? If God inspired these things and knew for the fast amount of human history that they would be used as a revelation to speak to the events in human history by which all of humanity might be saved from firey destruction is it not fair to ask why God would inspire authors to use literary devices that would have their accounts appear contradictory? I feel bad for the poor people that existed before youtube gave IP a platform to explain to all of us heathens how to possibly reconcile these things. These accounts can so easily be explained as legendary storytelling where Mark gets the ball rolling about this special prophet, who 10ish years later is more than a prophet he was part of the divine since birth, and add another 15-20 years and he was God from eternity past. The accounts were never intended by the authors to line up, they were telling a more compelling story than the one before them. I will say it's impressive how many people simply wave contradictions away based on phrases of "could have" and "possibly".
What you find is reasonable is your own bias. As long as IP establishes a reasonable degree to which the two can coexist, then you don’t have a valid reason to attack them. When dealing with a work that is consistently proven accurate, that gives credence to the totality of the work.
@Excuse me but Are you serious? Do you unironically believe that? Have you read a historical document, ever? Do you know how all history was recorded for thousands of years? It’s rare to find any historical documents 500+ years old that didn’t put story telling as the matter of first importance
@@whatsinaname691 The problem is that to Christians these stories aren’t just historical embellishments that look to claim what movies do (based on real life events). Christians claim these stories are inerrant and 100% true, they believe that this isn’t a person really speaking… it’s God. But God apparently likes his truth muddled with literary fluff. Trying to defend this as god inspired and inerrant makes the claim of a divine book come off as silly. And channels like IP now only exist to help the completely devoted try to keep the quasi Christians from abandoning the sham. As a former pastor I get home much you want to believe this is true and how much you have altered your entire life around it, but it’s really blind and misinformed hope. Take off the blinders, the world is not as evil as you’ve been led to believe.
@@mbselsing I’m legit a convert, so you can just keep on projecting, but if you’ve never read Jung you’ll never understand. There’s a reason people use literary devices, and it’s to further elucidate, not to obscure. If each book says the exact same thing you would just say they all were copy-pasted and unreliable so it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Luke and Acts are inconsistent in a way that's incredible. In Acts, we hear about the 40 days, but in Luke, comments made by the risen Jesus are summarized in just a couple paragraphs. So either Jesus was extremely repetitive during the 40 days and his remarks are fairly summarized in a couple paragraphs or Luke's "compression" was more like a deletion where he threw away almost all the sayings of the risen Lord. Neither one sounds likely. Also the topics discussed by Jesus mismatch. In Luke, it's the fulfillment of scripture; in Acts it's the Kingdom of God. In each case, we're told the general topic and nothing more. Guess it wasn't important.
As Professor Woland put it: "You of all people must realize that absolutely nothing written in the gospels actually happened. If you want to regard the gospels as a proper historical source..." He smiled again and Berlioz was silenced.
@mysotiras 05 Alternatively, you could check who Woland is, and thereby discover one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. The reward for curiosity.
@@lauterunvollkommenheit4344 i wont lie i misunderstood what you said completely and knew nothing of the context i tried to save myself there but i feel rather embarresed. i thought you had come here to argue and thought you were an atheist. ive also been sick so you caught me on a bad day. i had no idea Bulgakov was a christian and no idea woland was a fictional character and im deeply sorry for my statements and misunderstanding. but i must tyank you for directing me towards Bulgakovs works because i shall hopefully soon read them. also sorry for any mispelling i have mild dyslexia
@@somebodysomewhere5571 No need to apologize, I hope you feel better. As to Bulgakov: he probably considered himself a Christian, while the Orthodox Church probably considers him a heretic. Fortunately, the Master and Margarita stays the same in either case.
Harry Potter happened because London is real. Also why would they call Madelyn his sister if it was a fiction! Please consider making a video that debunks all these Harry Potter skeptics.
@@chriszekableyat9886 but- isn’t Jesus God? And the son? That’s the claim from Christianity ✝️!!!!! And just because I claim something. Or you. That doesn’t mean it’s true now does it? Where’s it recorded he said that? The Bible?? lol. Sure thing bud. You got it down. 😂😂😂😂😂👌🏿
@@hellwithit Observe what’s going on in the world today, especially the river Euphrates is drying up(see revelation 16:12) and people like you were mentioned in the Bible that during at the end times(it’s happening right now) people like you still refuse to know the truth even they’re right in your face. And what’s coming is not a 🤣😂 matter, it’s a spiritual battle not of the flesh.
@@chriszekableyat9886 not any type of 'god,'deity'' or any small 'G' but.., *'FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD"* WHEN JESUS MADE THIS STATEMENT IN JOHN 17:3,, -CAN THERE BE OTHER GODS WHEN THE WORD 'ONLY' IS USED? #TRINITY IS AN ANTI CHRIST MAN-MADE FAKE BELIEF/DOCTRINE#
@@chriszekableyat9886 yeah yeah so freaking what? Rivers come and go. Doesn’t mean anything. And people like me. You mean those people who speak the word of God which is given to us and are going to be shunned and persecuted , looked upon as crazy,- by the majority of people who are deceived? Those people? Yep. That’s me alright! Pagan religion is and has closed your eyes so you can no longer gaze upon the truth! You were given the capability to think for yourselves. Yet thoughts become Numb in your presence! Your ears were made so to listen to the harmony and God’s creation and live in all its splendid glory for all your days. But you only dwell upon death. Wait for it to come within your walls of ignorance., so you may revel at all that comes with it! Never giving a chance to live life without fear of failure. Hopelessness is what life is for you. Relying upon someone else to be responsible for the evil one does. Jesus was a Jew. Do you know what he believed? Maybe it’s time for you to get up off your lazy astonishment and LOOK 👀
Acts 1:3 is a prime candidate for a later addition. Despite the reference to 40 days, the first chapter of Acts describes just one appearance of the risen Jesus and that appearance sounds like the same one outlined in Luke 24. Both include Jesus telling his disciples to stay in Jerusalem in anticipation of Pentecost; both end with the Ascension. The dozen words outlining the 40 days were probably added later to lessen the tension between the simplicity of early stories such as Luke 24 and the later proliferation of appearance reports.
@@danielesorbello619 You only believe things for which you have "proof"? Most people have to settle for what seems most likely or most probable. After all, there's no surveillance video.
@@mytwocents7481 ok so give me some evidence that probably the 40 days were added later other than: the stories are very similar it would be strange if they weren’t the same. There are no textual variants that could help you, and i’ve searched around and you are the first one to say that.
@@danielesorbello619 I have given you the evidence. That one sentence says 40 days but then the passage continues and nothing else in the chapter supports there being more than one appearance. If you read that Jesus appeared during a period of 40 days, then you would reasonably expect to hear about several appearances. But then you only hear about one that sounds like the one you already heard before. If that doesn't make you suspicious I don't know what more I can tell you. It makes me suspicious. And if I'm the first one to say that, good for me.
@@mytwocents7481 Bro you are not putting in context a lot of things: 1) the forty day narrative fits perfectly with the passage 2) Luke doesn’t necessary implicate that Jesus resurrected and ascended in the same day: in fact it seems pretty odd: Jesus would’ve: appeared to the woman, appear to the disciples and do this kind of Sermon to them on how his death and resurrection was according to the scripture, and Jesus’s death was around passover so it would be dark by the 7. It seems a bit odd. 3) your assumption is based in the fact that a story starts and ends in the same way? For your own reasoning Luke couldn’t have added details to his Gospel? Luke made great time skips in his works so it seems pretty normal. Like what’s the logic behind this: you don’t have textual variants, you don’t have any clear evidence, the only thing you have is that the stories are very similar and so that verse must’ve been added later? That’s pretty weal evidence. So, no that’s not a probable explanation.
Nothing actually historical or biographical about the gospels. They were written well into the second century, by Greek authors, who were familiar with Greek thought and philosophy. They were far removed from Jerusalem, which by that time had been destroyed. Any potential eye witnesses to Jesus were long dead. There was very limited means of travel and communication to Palestine. The gospels were written to push a certain theological narrative, when all kinds of ideas about Jesus, like whether he actually came into the flesh, etc. swirled around. Gospels mainly fiction and legend (especially the resurrection), so no need to try and smooth out contradictions.
@Orthodoxprince4ever what makes you assume that this is in anyway factual? Who said that he rose? Paul? Or maybe you believe that one of the 3 different versions of this lie is actually true? So you tell me. What is the proof of Jesus rising? Because Christianity says it is?? Lol. Seriously you tell me what you have as far as proof! And why is it, that he only appears to Christians? Just like the virgin Mary seems to only appear to catholics.. and you don't find that odd? Odd that only people who have a vested interest in the stories of their own religious beliefs, say such things? If you say that the newtestament is true. Well, Jesus said, some of you will see the kingdom before you pass away. Was that true? Jesus said not to change anything of the laws of Moses. But Christianity did. So is that making Christianity true and following his words? Does it not bother you that you follow beliefs which were not the same as your Jesus? Who was Jewish by the way? And as a jew, who was trying to be the JEWISH MESSIAH, WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE that Jesus was there for us, the gentiles? Didn't he say that he was here for the children of God, the Israeli the jew? And not to give his message to the gentiles. It was like throwing your dinner out to the dogs? Lol. Seriously you should actually wake up and use your head my heart. And no one ever said anything about the messiah doing miracles, except for the Christian religion. Pharoahs magicians did miracles too. Were they Devine also?
Why can't apologists just accept that the gospels were written by 4 different people, each with their own theology to espouse? Of course there are contradictions, the 4 gospels aren't meant to tell one coherent story. Come on, each subsequent author looked at the previous work, copied some bits and deliberately changed other bits, to tell THEIR story, with THEIR theology, contradictions be damned. John's authors basically chucked the lot and contradicted almost everything, making up a whole lot of nonsense "Mark" had never heard of. Get over it. There are contradictions. It is dishonest to try and harmonise them away, and create your own mega gospel. Appreciate them for what they are, what they are trying to say, and stop trying to create some grand narrative. It isn't there.
Everything's going to hell in a handbasket. Buy yourself some Shiba Bitcoin so you have some money that's not in the dollar if and when the dollar collapse.
I can't tell you how much peace of mind your videos have brought to me. Thank you.
Thank you. I’m glad I could help
Poo Moral Ly
@@rintume8631 Mind using English in your reply?
it must be reassuring when you notice that the bible is nosense and despite claims to the contrary it has contrradictions, then along comes someone willing to lie through their teeth to fix the problem and you can breath again. yes a great job, like a card trick, or a politician.
@@amkaen fly away next time you poo for me
this is obvious for everyone who reads ancient accounts, literary devises were used all around. Great job as always IP
Here is quite and interesting perspective, quite a lot of vids on this channel.
The Ark of the Covenant traced to its final resting place - with drone footage
ua-cam.com/video/3QyjHjTtozA/v-deo.html
Kolbrin Bible and Christianity
ua-cam.com/video/XhWLzgY6zUw/v-deo.html
good job at lying for god again. how do you xians live with yourselves?
@Joseph the Wanderer Yes lying is how you cope.
@Joseph the Wanderer You poor soul.
It was also common in ancient accounts to make stuff up entirely and add in hearsay as truth, so if you allow literary devices, do you also allow these similarities?
Christian: Bible
Atheist: Bible Debunking
Christian: Debunked Bible debunking
Atheist: Debunking the debunked Bible
debunking
Christian: “Debunking the debunked Bible debunking” Debunked!
Note that the Bible is always victorious but it never gets the great credit it deserves from our atheist friends
Who came first then, the Bible or the debunking? We will never know...
The true gnosis is that the Bible was written to debunk some whacky heresy
@@Altair1904 The bible is never victorious. It is debunked at every turn by every field of knowledge. Get over it. If you believe a lying apologist like this person, you need to seriously take a look at your critical thinking skills, and up them a bit.
@@SilverSixpence888 what was wrong with ip logic in this video?
I really appreciate the way you acknowledge your sources! Those look like great books to add to my library.
I've wondered about this a lot. Thanks for making a video on it.
Another supposed contradiction destroyed, great Job Michael😇😁
That’s not apologetics at all and I don’t think you could have said anything more stupid. In fact I don’t think you even watched the video. In fact I don’t think you understand anything to do with Christianity other than we believe in God and that Jesus is God. What you have said is truly pathetic. Go back to Reddit.
Also I just saw you did watch the video and agreed with IP which makes what you said even more awful. To say there has to be a contradiction for it to be explained away is logical cancer. If it can be explained away there wasn’t a contradiction only something thought to be one.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 Many things can be "explained away", but that doesn't mean it isn't a contradiction.
@@stylicho if they are no longer a contradiction they arent a contradiction. if its explained away it means the contradiction has been explained away.
@Excuse me but ye i was tired sorry
Great video IP what video are you going to the next?
The next video will be "Thanksgiving is Not Racist"
The fact you need to explain this is kinda sad
Really does show how society has faltered still great video IP
@@somebodysomewhere5571 kinda desparate. running out of bible to lie about?
What a great video! Thank you!! Please keep on these videos
You should do a video debunking top ten changes in the bible. That video has millions of views.
Never believe the "view numbers" youtube gives. I was once watching a monster machine video, because it showed 8M views. A day later it showed 7M! They are all made up
In that video though He’s not wrong on some things
@@thiccmcchicken550 but most things are yk…
Well done once again, Bart ehrman brings this up and i keep rolling my eyes lol
Excellent video!
if you like the wool pulled over your eyes. he admits it's a contradiction at the start ffs.
@@HarryNicNicholas Wrong, he only demonstrated that ancient Historiography was different from our modern one, and that we have to try to understand the Cultural Historical Context to correctly Interpret the text, but you certainly don't know what these words mean ☺️
Why then did some of the disciples doubt in Matthew 28 if this was a subsequent appearance?
I don't think you need to bring cultural context into it at all, you simply need to remember the randomness of pertinence, it is impossible to explain why people recalling events don't mention certain details they are aware of. Ulysses S Grant never once mentions the Emancipation Proclamation in his memories of the Civil War, does this mean he didn't know about it?
Good point. Similar to how Marco Polo never mentioned the Great Wall in his writings. Doesn’t mean he didn’t know about it.
@@armandvega2752 Another good one from my life is that I was married for 5 years before my wife told me that she could play the clarinet. I was shocked 'how come you never told me that before?" She couldn't explain it, she said 'I don't know, I just never thought of mentioning it before' Haven't we all had moments like that with people we thought we knew really well?
That's why arguments from silence are considered often a falasy.
@@jaskitstepkit7153 fallacy
Its not just "not mentioning it"
Its about what happened too!
Literally love these vids
Huh, it never actually occurred to me that Matthew DOESN'T mention the Ascension... I always took it by inertia that he implied it happened in Galilee... Without this, there really isn't a contradiction at all
I love how the fundamentalist and nu athiest troll comments are nearly indistinguishable from each other.
I guess philosophical cranks are entrusted with determining what historical accuracy is lol
@Excuse me but
Ancient audiences cared more about coherent narrative flow rather than chronological sequence and chronological accuracy.
This doesn't undermine the historical reliability and relative accuracy of the text in the bigger picture, since we can easily piece together what most likely happened by taking in all the info that the Gospels and Acts give us, and putting said info into its correct cultural and linguistical context.
The text doesn't need to follow our modern western understanding of how historical documents ought to be structured - sicne I'm certain ancient audiences understoof when an author was using certain literary techniques in order to make the info easier to read and understand to their respective audiences - in order to be historically reliable.
And I can assure you the fundielicals and new atheists alike care next to nothing about historical accuracy give how both can't help but hold onto historical falsehoods.
@Excuse me but Not who you addressed, but I don't think they think you are holding onto a falsehood, only that you are reading or assuming the modern approach (which to me does feel more natural, but doesn't take into account the needs and nature of attitudes in the past and so makes it easier for the modern reader to look down on the approach of those who in the past had a very good reason for using their styles) and so viewing the other approaches of the past with scorn as they don't match the modern emphasis and approach.
@Excuse me but I do, though mainly because modern society is far more technically minded, or believes itself to be. There is also it seems a greater emphasis on proof - though social media does make one question that. My own mindset is very modern, but I can recognise how different times have different modes of thinking and communicating.
@Excuse me but ahhh, but they are more accurate and reliable because we have the means to implement them, the understanding of what makes something logical, and the foundation building up towards it. It isn't intuitively obvious how to do this to an early society, and their focus isn't on the deeper or more fundamental elements of the truth. After all, you'll notice most creation stories tend to focus on why matter is ordered the way it is, rather than on where the matter came from, as they all focus on the idea there were matter to begin with that became ordered. Yet we ask the question, where did the matter come from. What are your thoughts on the people of the past, what they wondered and how they went about solving it, and what do you think their answer to your approach, the modern approach, would be?
I listened to Bart Ehrman bring this up, and he makes too big of a leap to conclude the narratives aren't historically reliable.
Hey, do you plan on making a response to Paulogias newest response to you on the burial in a tomb?
When I get the time, yes
there's no need, i trust paulogia more than IP.
@@HarryNicNicholas really?
@@austinapologetics2023 he tells him what he likes to hear that's why
This one bugged me for a while. It's hard to un-Westernize one's mind. Thanks IP!
The biggest tension in the resurrection appearances may not be Jerusalem vs. Galilee. It may simply be the conflict between Matthew's very brief description of a single meeting with his disciples versus the "40 days" of appearances mentioned in Acts 1. Matthew uses about 100 words to record the Great Commission and then he's done. How can that be all that Matthew had to say about appearances of the risen Jesus that supposedly spanned 40 days? Jesus presumably thought he needed those 40 days, but when you read Matthew, it sounds like he really needed about 5 minutes. If Matthew was compressing, he got completely carried away. That is not the most likely explanation.
Not even Luke can deliver a convincing account of the "40 days." In Acts 1, he describes just one appearance that features references to Pentecost and ends with an ascension. In other words, it sounds like the same appearance as in Luke 24.
Fantastic video and very important topic
Interesting!!
Hello IP, have you done a video on scholars claiming the book of Deuteronomy was written in the time of king Josiah and not written by Moses?
I think in his series on the docu. Hypothesis
2:00 -2;54
To me these things are not just even from middle east or non-western, we still do them.
It's just that some people take them for granted or don't notice them.
Hey IP, will you ever touch on the Antichrist topic?
satan and god are the same person.
@@HarryNicNicholas Huh?
Those with a good grasp of both Old and New Testaments, as well as the history of the Levant, understand why accusing Jesus of claiming to be "King of the Jews" is absurd.
#1 Not a single person in ancient Palestine uttered the word "Jews" in any conversation, so there's that. Nothing close to that word was used by anyone in the region. What would have been said to Pilate is that he claimed to be King of IUDAEUS - king of JUDAEANS. ie people of the kingdom of Judaea.
And there were multiple different ethnic groups in Judaea at that time, including but not limited to the Canaanites that weren't driven out (Judg 1), the mixed Canaanite descendants of Judah the Shelanites, the Edomites/Idumeans forcibly assimilated into Judaea by the high priest John Hyrcanus (Gen 36:1-2, Joseph, Ant. 13.9.1), and a remnant of 2 Israelite tribes - Judah and Benjamin. All these different people were known as Iudaeus/Judaeans. (Ioudaios in Greek)
Iudaeus doesn't identify whether someone was an Israelite or an Edomite, or anyone else living in the territory.
#2 Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth of Galilee - 2 countries to the north of Judaea. (The Apostles were Galilean too)
"And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." -Mat 21:11
"Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." -Act 1:11
He had to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judaea when he taught people in that country.
People have been making the mistake of thinking Jesus was a Judaean (and recently, a "Jew"for) 2,000 years. The bible records two instances where people assumed he lived in Judaea, Herod the Great after he was born and the Samaritan woman. Both thought he was a Iudaeus, because neither knew him personally.
Those who actually knew him referred to him as a Galilaean, or the king, Messiah, or Savior of Israel. Never a Judaean. (or Jew)
"And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this [fellow] also was with him: for he is a Galilaean." -Luk 22:59
(Mat 21:11, 26:69, Lk 2:25, 22:59, 23:6, 24:21, Jn 1:49, 12:13, Act 5:31, 13:23, 28:20)
(Israel the people, the 12 tribes, not a state or country. At that time Israel was a people without a state, there was no jurisdiction called Israel, so it wasn't treason to say that, however I'm sure the Romans wouldn't have approved)
Accusing Jesus of claiming to be King of Judaeans would be like accusing someone who grew up in the Czech Republic of claiming to be king of the Italians, or someone from Moldova of claiming to be king of the Bulgarians.
It would be absurd.
And for all the same reasons.
Pilate realized what was going on and sent him to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee thinking that would take care of the matter.
"When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time."
-Luk 23:6-7
Come on people, it's time to become workman that need not be ashamed - rightly dividing the word of truth. Instead of just assuming mainstream beliefs are accurate because lots of people believe and repeat them.
I don't think we need the argument as evidence. It's sufficient that the accounts are more than similar and the message(s) not changing.
One question: What would have motivated the disciples (not just the Eleven) to return to Jerusalem for the final appearance and ascension?
when are you debating Carrier?
Check out the past debates with Carrier !
@@davidjanbaz7728 what?! i cant find any debates between them anywhere. Please tell me where i can find them! 🙏
How do we know Carrier even exists? The evidence for his existence is sketchy. You might say "Well, we have books written by him." Well, if I found a book claiming to be written by Spiderman, would that mean Spiderman exists? Obviously not. Furthermore, Carrier's name is obviously symbolic. Who was one of the most influential atheists of the early 21st century? RICHARD Dawkins. Carrier's first name is also Richard. Coincidence? I think not. "Carrier" probably refers to the fact that he's carrying the Jesus mythicist movement forward. And as one final piece of evidence, there was a Jesus mythicist in the 19th century called RICHARD CARLILE (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carlile). The parallels are too great to be coincidental. Carrier is a myth.
@@calebjore3295 This is GOLD
He 'ascended' into the mountains to the East..
Granting the premise that the gospels use literary devices that were common in the ancient world, including the changing of chronological details, the fact remains that the gospels cannot be taken literally. This may not be a problem for Michael Jones (IP), but it will be a problem for many literalist believers.
I think what it shows is that the Bible is not a book dropped from heaven, but that it was written by people. This is something that many Christians do not always consider, and may not like, but it is not a problem for the Christian claim of historical accuracy.
@@migaotto292 I agree that this is more evidence that the Bible was written by people, but I also think it is more evidence against the claim of the Bible being divinely inspired and inerrant.
I am not sure what you mean by "historical accuracy". If a Bible passage gives us the wrong chronology for stylistic reasons, that may be explained by the literary fashions of the day, but the chronology is still messed up, and the information we get from this text can therefore not be said to be "historically accurate".
@@hansdemos6510 You are attempting to judge the validity of a 1st century account by applying 21st century expectations to it. How important is it to get the chronology perfectly right if your main mission is to communicate events and the significance of the meaning behind it to people? When I talk about historical accuracy, I am asking whether the events that are reported did actually happen, regardless of technicalities like chronology. Mark, for instance, did not order his narrative in terms of chronology but in terms of themes. He wanted people to read his gospel and understand the meaning of the events, not just as another interesting thing that people talk and forget about the next day. Besides, for the most important parts the narratives are chronologically structured, especially the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus.
@@migaotto292 You said: _"When I talk about historical accuracy, I am asking whether the events that are reported did actually happen, regardless of technicalities like chronology."_
Well, as the chronology is an integral part of "historical accuracy", I would say that if you mess up one, you mess up the other. You may call that "judging the validity of a 1st century account by applying 21st century expectations", but I would retort that our modern way of finding the truth behind ancient texts has quite a good track record, and if given the choice, I will go with modern methods, thank you very much.
Also, I think you and IP may be misusing an explanation for why the gospel texts were written the way they were written as a justification to overlook the loss of information this style choice has caused.
Do you think this was the best way the gospel writers could have written their stories down? Or would you agree that it would have been better if they had listed their sources properly and given full disclosure about all the events in their correct historical order, who did what at what time, what they were wearing, what they ate, and how much they paid for it, etc. etc.? I understand that this was not common to do at the time, but do you agree that from the standpoint of historical accuracy and believability, that would have been better?
If you don't agree with that, then I think you are fooling yourself. If you do agree, then you must admit that when they start messing stuff up, even if that was common for people writing stuff like they did in their day and age, valuable information that we, the readers, might use to verify the stories, inevitably gets lost. And that equally inevitably means that the narrative will lose some of its convincing power, and that the evidence it purports to present is weakened by the same measure.
Now, this may not matter to you, because you are already a believer anyway, but it does matter to any outsider who is trying to find out what really happened, and it should matter to a historian or scholar, no matter what their religious background is.
@@hansdemos6510 You say that "if you mess up the one, you mess up the other." That would be true if they messed it up, but would that apply if they never intended to write chronologically in the first place? For instance, sometimes writers jump back and forth in time to tell the story, but we do not say that they made a mistake because they intended it to be like that. I would also go with modern methods, all I am saying is that you have to take the cultural expectations into account since the gospels was not written for us.
Of course there is a loss of information, no matter how they chose to write it. The gospels claim that the ministry of Jesus lasted three years, which certainly cannot be fully contained in the gospels, otherwise we would be spending a very long time reading it and the message that the authors were trying to communicate would be lost.
I do not know whether the gospels could have been written better or not. I think part of the reason that we do not have a super comprehensive account, like you want, is because the authors and the people they interviewed, worked from memory. They would only remember the significant events and the details from those events that really struck them hard. Interesting that you mention details, since the authors included very specific details from time to time, such as what clothes Jesus wore before they took Him to be crucified, what the official accusation was, what happened when the earthquake struck, how much money the poor woman gave for taxes, how much money Jesus gave to Peter, etc. They also included specific time lapses, such as how long Jesus was on the cross, why they wanted to take him off quickly, when the woman came to the tomb, etc. It is details like this that make you think that the authors were speaking from eyewitness testimony, and not just reciting something that they had heard. I think the reason that the gospel authors did not explicitly list their sources is because they were writing in a time when the people in the gospels were still alive and the readers would have known them, so they could just ask them. For instance, it would be a logical assumption to make that when the gospel author talks about the appearance of the angel to Mary, his source would be Mary and the readers could find out from her themselves. These questions that you ask do matter to me, which is why I am having this discussion with you.
I love your content IP! I was watching your case for the soul series and was wondering, how do you account for testimonies of people who had NDEs and said that nothing happened?
so you're on your deathbed and you start to drift off skyward, not knowing if you are
about to meet your maker, or if you are bound for the hot place, but you stop to check
out the colour of polythene bags, you drop by the nurses station to see what's on tv,
you pop into the linen closet to read bar codes on bed sheets, yeah sure, thats your eternal soul.
if it was me i would want some questions answered, can we travel faster than light, what is the cure for
cancer? what do people bring back from their meeting with god? "granny says love each other"
NDE's are nothing more than people imagining things.
IP will make up any old tosh for the sake of the loverly god.
I saw a video just a few days ago of Paulogia hosting Bart Erhmann, where he brought up this very issue. Long story short: face-palm.
for what reason? i think paulogia is much more reliable than IP. much.
@@HarryNicNicholas Paulogia? Are you kidding me? LMAOOOOO
If you are going to hold the same standards to the Gospels as other ancient writers such as Plutarch on using literary devices, do you also accept Plutarchs writings about supernatural events as historical or other authors who said Caesar ascended into heaven? If you reject these as just superstitions of that time, then it seems to me that we should reject the supernatural in the New Testament for the same reason. I guess my question is ultimately - if you are going to compare it to contemporary sources and allow for literary devices, why can you say that the stories are more truthful than the fictitious stories in other sources.
1:15
1:27, 1:33
1:52, 2:40
Are you going to do a video on Jabal al-Lawz mountain
No
@@InspiringPhilosophy Might i ask why?
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think you'll some interesting things. For example the tops of the mountain are blackened as if they were scorched as described in exodus. there is a large flat area at the foot of the mountain where the Israelites could have camped. there was a flowing body of water there they could have drank from. There are altar sights there one with a depiction of a golden calf, ancient Hebrew writing and the other with animal bones and 12 pillars. near the mountain is a site with palm trees and 12 wells, a split rock with stream markings coming from it which indicates water came from there. A whole bunch of other stuff
@@InspiringPhilosophy Not to mention in Galatians 4:25 pual writes it to be in arabia
@@InspiringPhilosophy and if you look at the gulf of Aqaba there's an elevated flat surface that the Israelites could have crossed, chariots on the floor of it, There's also 2 poles that mark it. it also looks like what was described in Exodus
Garden of Gethsamane?
Or between Jerusalem and Galilee?
What? You did not even answer the question: Where did Jesus ascend from - Jerusalem (Bethany) or Galilee? Pulling literary devices out of one's arse is a terrible way to completely not answer this question.
Bethany. The Galilee narrative is false. Google LukePrimacy. Luke contains the correct resurrection narrative, which is why it matches Acts, and Paul as well (1 Cor 15:5
@@davidbrachetto1420 That's one way to deny the contradiction. But as is - it is still there in the Bible we have. And you have simply cherry picked one as false and the others as true with not one shred of evidence for why. This just makes it worse. Instead of a contradiction we now have false gospels - ok! I'll take that too.
Furthermore, it would be expected for Luke and Acts to agree since the same person wrote it - that is not surprising nor significant as evidence!
Lastly, Paul does not agree with the gospels - no woman, no tomb, and 500 at once, no flesh and blood Jesus just appearances similar to Paul's. Paul is clear that flesh and blood don't inherit the kingdom and that the resurrection body is not the same as that which went into the ground - it's a spiritual body. The 500 does not match the 120 in Acts shortly after his ascension. There was not even 500 followers during the days prior to the ascension.
Jesus 'ascended into Heaven' in September 33 AD. He went to the Vestry House in Qumran, which was called 'Heaven' because the 3 High Priests (who were all called 'God') did their teaching & preaching there.
The text in Luke 24:51 "and was carried up into heaven" is missing from some of the old manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae). If it's a later interpolation then the contradiction between Luke and Acts ceases to exist.
True, but also Like dies not present the Resurrection and the Ascension on one day. Easter Sunday is filled to the brim with events including the disciples going to Emmaus. The go to a house because it's evening, habe supper with Jesus, recognise him and the hurry back to Jerusalem. By then it was night. And yet the Ascension seems to be an event in daylight, with visible clouds etc.
Have you read Lydia McGrew's book The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices? She's not a fundamentalist or a dogmatic inerrantist but she makes a thorough argument that Licona and others are mistaken when claiming the Gospel authors used fact-changing literary devices. Might be worth checking out.
Just curious, how would Lydia McGrew handle the supposed difference between Luke 24:49 and Matthew 28:16 without the “literary device” approach?
@@zekdom Great question. Unfortunately, I don't have McGrew's book so I don't know how she herself would answer it. As a point of clarification, McGrew is (I think) okay with literary devices that don't change the facts of a story (like spotlighting). Conflation would fall into that category. Regarding the appearances in Luke seeming to take place in one day, McGrew's colleague Jonathan McLatchie says, in response to Matthew Hartke:
"Hartke also notes that 'In Luke, moreover, all the appearances take place on Easter day, while in Acts they take place over a forty day period!' However, given that Luke and Acts are clearly written by the same author (as is virtually unanimously acknowledged), I would suggest that more charity be extended to the text before one concludes that a single author has contradicted himself. At the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity concerning time. In fact, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know exactly what this phrase means, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared (however long that took) and they sit down to eat. They recognize Jesus as He breaks bread, and then he disappears. The Emmaus disciples then immediately returned to Jerusalem - a distance of sixty stadia (Lk 24:13), or around 10-12km (6-7 miles) - a journey that would have taken them well over an hour, perhaps even two. They then spoke with the disciples and tell them their story (Lk 24:35). Then Jesus appeared and showed Himself. They gave Him some food (Lk 24:42). Only following this did Jesus begin speaking with them about the Scriptures. He then led them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one attempts to place all of these events on the same evening, it would certainly have already been dark by this time, making it rather difficult for the disciples to witness the ascension into heaven (Lk 24:51). Thus, even simply taking Luke 24 on its own terms, it does not at all appear that all of these events took place in a single day. Apparently Luke was either running out of scroll at this point or was in a hurry. He does not appear to have full knowledge yet of precisely how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply left it non-specific and subsequently clarified in his second volume, in Acts 1." (jonathanmclatchie.com/on-matthew-hartkes-five-reasons-to-doubt-the-resurrection/)
Regarding the location of the ascension, I think the text must be pressed to get even a surface-level contradiction. In Luke 24:49, Jesus says "As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high." Although Jesus does say to "stay" in the city, I don't see how this couldn't be said from Galilee. Then, Jesus leads them to "the vicinity of Bethany", which at first blush seems to contradict Matthew, who says the ascension took place in Galilee from "the mountain". However, Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, which is just east of Jerusalem. This is assuredly covered by the phrase "the vicinity of Bethany". I might be missing something, but I don't think there's a genuine "contradiction" present that we need to use literary devices to absolve.
Sorry this got so long! If you're interested in reading more about the shortcomings of the literary device theory, I would recommend either McGrew's book or her blog whatswrongwiththeworld.net/ (just search for "literary devices"). If you have any other comments feel free to send them!
@@calebjore3295 No no, your response is much appreciated!
I may have to buy Lydia McGrew’s book, then.
Also, Benjamin D. Sommer’s book “The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel” - that may help me considerably with the Trinity.
Poo moraly
IP, the end of Mark I think ilistrate it better than other historical documents.
When the women, in Jersusalem, talk to the angel, he tells them that the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee again where they need to go meet him. However when you keep reading the rest of Mark it doesn't mention this meeting they had in Galilee, it doesn't say what he told them. When you read the end of Mark If you would removed the part in where the angel talk about Galilee, one would think that the ascension of Jesus was the same day of his resurrection after his first meeting with the disciples in Jerusalem. But since Mark mentions the Galilee part we can know it was not so, but that he only did not tell everything that happened between the first meeting at Jersusalem and when they went to Galilee and the final ascension in Jersusalem.
Said like this it may seems complicated, but if you just read the passage of Mark you will quickly see what I'm talking about.
Ok, I just read ch16. Mark is tied for my favorite gospel... so reading it is certainly not a chore!
There are many interesting things about Mark's concluding chapter, but I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "if you removed the part in which the Angel talked about Galilee, you would think that his ascension was the same day... after his meeting with disciples in Jerusalem."
You would only think that part about Jerusalem if you allowed other narratives to flesh out your understanding of Mark's (Peter & Andrew's) account. Nothing at all is said of Jerusalem. And I don't see how anyone would de facto assume _when_ the ascension happened. The timing of it would be an open question.
Im not looking for debate btw. It's a great topic and I'm just wondering what you're seeing that I may be missing! (Wouldn't be the first time I was slow on the uptake)
lmk
According to IP, one of the reasons Matthew's gospel ends in Galilee instead of returning to Jerusalem for the Ascension is that there were more gentile cities up in Galilee and that gave a "better fit" with the the mission of the early church, but that mission is clear once Jesus says "Teach all nations." Hiding the return to Jerusalem can't really add anything to those words. The "better fit" accomplishes nothing. It's just an excuse to hide a contradiction.
No He’s just saying the author of matthew wants to focus more on the Galilean, you bring up a false dichotomy by saying it could only speak about Galilee lol
Luke place the ascension at Jerusalem.
Matthew mentions that Jesus met the disciples in Galilee after his resurection, but he doesn't mentions the ascension.
So, where do you see a contradiction ?
@@dodleymortune8422 The ascension is implicit, in Matthew, in the fact that it is tied to the great commission and that Jesus told them not to depart from Jerusalem in the other gospel. How did they get to Galilee if they were told to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost? How many great commission's were there? Let me guess more than one - right? I only know of one and it was at both Jerusalem and Galilee. OOOPS!
@@VeridicusMaximus
No,
Jesus certainly told the disciples more than once what was their mission.
In real life we often repeat things, especially important ones.
@@dodleymortune8422 Good luck in organizing that nonsense into a coherent narrative. Let's see you do it?
Will you make a video to refute the atheist youtuber NonStampCollector ?
The comments here are very random, I must have come too early
Also, good video
So it sounds like it is a contradiction if we take it literally like you said at 7:03 unless you conflate them. Which I don't see how one could coherently conflate the stories without saying some level of error has taken place on one of the author's part or both of them making an error.
it would be a error in modern world, but you can’t say they made an error: the literally instruments were different and a well put together narrative was many times better perceived by the readers then a time-coherent one. They didn’t make any errors for the standards of Greco-Roman biographies of which the gospels are.
@@danielesorbello619That doesn't make any sense though. Like at that point anyone could say any text has no contradictions than by that logic. But no one says that or talks like that at all.
I think it's far better to just admit that there are errors in the Bible. Cause we don't want to act or appear delusional to people in this. It isn't the end of the world to admit that.
@@omnikevlar2338 “Like at that point anyone could say any text has no contradictions than by that logic.”
that’s not what conflation means: it is the conflation of two stories in a different one to keep a good narrative that provides a message: in this passage matthew is valuing the message: not the historicity: so you can’t examine it like how you could with any other passage: matthew has a very strong motif about Jesus giving miracles to galilee but being rejected by people who lack faith: this motif is why this interpretation is valid and this cannot be said for every verse of the same gospel. Luke instead was much more interested in providing a good narrative flow so he skips and conflated periods of time: here as in Matthew what’s important is the message of them: not the timeline. So this DETERMINED passages in luke and Acts cannot be judged by the historical point of view (they are still conflations of real events) but from the message they bear.
“I think it's far better to just admit that there are errors in the Bible.”
yes there are, but this isn’t one of them.
@@omnikevlar2338Obviously there are some errors like scribing errors such as the age 8 vs 18 contradiction because of small marks but not this.
@@imbored6638 Oh I disagree I look at this as a major error in the story. You’re telling me you guys can’t agree on which area you saw a man again after dying on the cross? Doesn’t make sense.
To improve the time and flow...doesn't wash. Sounds like a re-writing that was not checked...
Any chance of a video about 1 John 5:7-8 and this note: "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)" ???
how is that a necessity ? It's an obvious fraud. There is a video about that in my "the trinity delusion" playlist.
"We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations." (7:02)
I'm sorry... but, no. The contradictions remain regardless your attempts to attribute them to "conflation and compression." As your own quote from "Misreading Scripture From Western Eyes" states, "chronological sequence is not as important as structuring EVENTS into a coherent narrative flow." In other words, the EVENTS are more important than correctly placing them in perfect chronological sequence. It's the EVENTS that matter! And I agree. But... there must still be a "coherent narrative flow" in which such KEY EVENTS critical to the narrative actually appear... and/or where they appear, are at least somewhat harmonious with one another! And yet, where the Gospels are concerned, there is none such for the Ascension... for only ONE of those Gospels originally bothered to mention the Ascension, at all. And the other Gospel that had that event added to it MANY decades later (Gospel of Mark) directly contradicts the other as to WHERE and HOW it occurred.
Strangely (and, yes, contradictorily), the Ascension is only originally mentioned in but ONE of the Gospels, the LAST of the Synoptics written: the Gospel of Luke (whose Greco-Roman author, "Lucas," was the same as for Acts). And being the Last of the Synoptics written, we should expect it to be written furthest from the time of the original events and, thus, the most inaccurate for being influenced by the Paulininan brand of Christianity under which umbrella it was written... and, thus, also arguably the most embellished. And where Luke is concerned, this is exactly what we find, for it is the longest and the most flowery and poetic of the Synoptic Gospels, containing events and details not found elsewhere. And, thus, this calls into question whether any such added events have any actual historical foundation... or had been later concocted and inserted to better serve the growing Paulinian Christological and theological narrative, of which the Gentile aspects had by that time taken precedence... hence making exactly such a "Great Commission" and "Ascension" of even greater critical importance!
In case it needs to be pointed out, while only recounted in the earlier Gospel of Matthew, Jesus originally forbade his disciples from preaching to the Gentiles... not even to the Samaritans inside Israel. Instead, Jesus made it crystal clear that He was "sent only unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" and that they were to preach only to such "lost sheep of Israel" (Matt. 10:6 ; 15:24), as well. By such pronouncements as this, Jesus revealed He was NOT any sort of worldwide "Savior" nor was He there to establish some new worldwide religion! Jesus' true mission was specific ONLY to those "Lost Sheep," and had nothing to do with preaching a new religion as Jesus was a practicing Orthodox Jew all His life, and stated to the Samaritan woman that, indeed, Jerusalem's Temple was still God's true House. Further, Jesus had stated He was NOT SENT to abolish the Law... but to FULFILL it. And yet all despite this, Saul preached his own brand of Gentile-focused Christology that indeed abolished the Law and its requirements while succeeding also in creating -- despite Jesus' statements -- exactly the sort of Gentile-centered worldwide religion Jesus had specifically commanded AGAINST!
Thus, as during Jesus' life He had NEVER preached to the Gentiles and NEVER commissioned any of His disciples to do so, but had specifically commanded against any such during His life... it stands to reason the "Great Commission" and the "Ascension" that accompanied it had to be invented and inserted AFTER Jesus' resurrection to attempt justifying what Saul was doing. And THAT'S why original Mark doesn't contain it... and the rest of the Gospels make some mention of the "Great Commission" justifying it, all of which also are harmonious... because they HAD to be: It was one of those KEY EVENTS upon which Saul's Church absolutely depended. The Ascension, however? Yeah... not so much. And the PROOF that the Ascension was also added later and was not a real event... is the fact that only the LAST of the Synoptics, the one Gospel most likely to have been deliberately embellished, originally even mentions it. This is also further evidenced by the fact that the addition of the Ascension narrative to Mark is NOT harmonious with Luke's mention. And, no, I'm not speaking of chronology or content here... but of something far more basic: WHERE IT OCCURRED! For the redacted version of Mark claims it occurred while they were indoors reclining at a table... while in Luke, they were walking somewhere outdoors near Bethany. And, again, neither Matthew or John mention it, at all.
Now, think about this: If this was the LAST TIME the "apostles" actually saw Jesus... and observed Him literally ascending up into Heaven, itself... don't you think that would be an event they would have remembered well ALL THEIR LIVES?! And yet, only Luke originally bothers to mention it at all... and Mark's far-later addition of the event can't agree with Luke's account in ANY WAY! To my view, this proves it was a later fabrication added to give Saul's brand of Christianity the stamp of Jesus' approval it so glaringly lacked and so desperately needed.
Now... compare this with the Gospels' accounts for ANY of the other key events in Jesus' life and you'll find they ALL agree! All of the Synoptic Gospels agree Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordan. All agree He preached primarily in Galilee. Most all mention and agree generally on His key miracles, too. All agree He was crucified in Jerusalem and placed in a nearby tomb. All agree there was a multitude of unnamed women never previously mentioned who had traveled with Jesus throughout His ministry who watched the crucifixion from afar. And on and on. Yet... only ONE of the Gospels originally even mentions the Ascension and Mark's far-later account directly contradicts Luke's on both WHERE and HOW it occurred.
Again, I go back to your quote from that same book stating that "chronological sequence" is not as important as placing the key "events" into a "coherent narrative flow." And where the Ascension is concerned ... we find NO such "coherent narrative flow," at all. Unlike all the other key events in Jesus' life harmoniously recounted across the Gospels (I said "harmoniously," not "identically"), where the Ascension is concerned, we find either NO mention of any such event... or we have contradiction regarding where and how and what constituted that claimed event. And that speaks powerfully to it having been a later convenient invention added to support and give justification to Saul for preaching to the Gentiles a Gospel Jesus never preached, portraying Jesus as He never intended... but instead in direct contradiction of Jesus' own words specifically prohibiting AGAINST any such.
Hello
hello
Hi
Hey Mike.Paulogia has made a response to you and other apologists concerning the resurrection of Jesus.Any plans on responding?
He said he will do it when he gets the time.
respected IP, can you make a review video for "science of God" book by Dr. Gerald Schroeder? His approach is also very different and I would like to see your insight on his view. Thank you.
Can you please make a video discussing the origins and true meaning of the supposed name “Iao”, which many claim is the true name of God. Thank you very much.
god's real name is bobby. he likes horses and walks on the beach.
This will not solve this contradiction
Time and place is very important if I a true beliver. Also the ascending event itself is important so as a true beliver chronological orders very important
Putting the cultural and social frame as defence is very weak for me, it may fit for such a contradiction but will fail for other contradictions
And I love ur vids and ur way in exploring the problems from every side
For me what does ultimately solve this is realizing that Matthew doesn't actually mention the Ascension. He just says they met in Galilee at some point. Which fits with John and Luke. They each just mention different things and leave out others, which is reasonable
Were there ancient literary devices? Yes. Without question. Were they used here? Before answering that question, we should ask, is it necessary to resort to them at all? If, the ordinary manner of narration can explain them, there's no need to assume some ancient literary device. "Spotlighting" (discussed in another video)? We, ordinary folk, do that all the time. "Conflation"? Same. Talk to investigators, lawyers, social workers, anyone who routinely takes people's testimonies and they will think it very strange that such things are supposed ancient literary devices.
In any case, before these devices are invoked they should first be shown to 1) actually exist (Here I reiterate that "spotlighting" is not an ancient literary device) and 2) the intended audience of the text, ordinary men and women of their day, would actually have known of, expected and understood these, something I think is hard to establish from just "Plutarch (and other authors) used these".
I'm not saying this explanation is wrong, lest anyone misunderstand. I'm saying, even using the same explanation, i.e that the writers "conflated" the events, there is no need to invoke "ancient literary device" as an explanation when "ordinary narration" does it as well.
"We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations."
I am sorry to see this series devolve into admissions of contradictions. There is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke, even by our "modern" standards (and by modern, I mean that idea that statements in a narrative are either true or false, which is actually not modern at all). Why did you feel the need to cede this ground?
Luke's Gospel clearly uses the statement "then," which does not commit on how much time passed after the events of the prior sentence. Similarly, there is nothing in Matthew that commits Matthew's Gospel to the non-ocurrence of events in Luke's Gospel.
Why do you think you are defending the Gospels by appealing to Plutarch and Lucullus? Don't you think secular scholars would be fine with placing the Gospels on the same plane as Plutarch? No one thinks Plutarch is the inspired Word of God.
One must say either that the narratives contradict or they do not. If they contradict, then at least one sentence in the Gospels is a falsehood. That is not a modern cultural paradigm; that is just a basic proposition of logic and using an ancient criterion of truth.
With friends like this...
Yeah sometimes I don't understand that. No need to cede an axiom when not necessary
I find your comment puzzling. They way I see it he is not saying there IS a contradiction, he is saying a contradiction can only exist in the minds of those who unreasonably twist the accounts. He cites Plutarch to show that this twisting is unreasonable even for secular literature of the time. Nowhere does he equate Plutarch with scripture that I heard. (If I missed that please provide a reference.) It seems to me that a problem only exists in your mind because you are unreasonably twisting what he is saying to create the appearance of a problem in your mind, just as he is saying the Bible critics do. So you are kind of helping him make his point: anyone can create the appearance of a problem in anything if they twist it unreasonably enough, but a fair minded person will recognise the absurdity of the claim.
Mr John I like ur response
I have the same idea but in different way
any idea who wrote the gospels?
He gave up this ground because he wants to appear "reasonable" to intellectual types. "I'm not one of those crazy fundamentalists."
It's also the reason why he makes videos attacking fundamentalist core doctrines like Young Earth. I'm not a Young Earth person myself but I respect those Christians who are and would never want to publicly criticize any believer for trying to follow what they are persuaded the Bible says. The owner of this channel wishes to leave no uncertainty that he's "not one of them." Hence, the exasperated facepalm.
These kinds of apologetic platforms often do more harm to the cause of truth, than good.
"We only have a contradiction if we impose our modern cultural expectations."
You said you were sorry to see this series devolve into admissions of contradictions. I would have no problem with admitting contradictions wherever logic absolutely necessitates it.
After all, Jesus tells us that in the mouth (singular voice) of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
And in the trial of Jesus we read a damning indictment of contradictory testimony:
Many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. At the last came two false witnesses... but neither so did their witness agree together.
Mat26 & Mrk14
But ceding ground (as you put it) with weakly constructed arguments that amount to "don't put such modern (read/ strict) demands on the biblical narrative" is no way forward.
Mike Licona has turned this sort of overly-apologetic apologetic into an art form.
~
Honestly, with some of these guys, I sometimes wonder if we don't have a case of Luke 20:20
"so that they might take hold of his words."
Great Video!
The gospel of Mark does not have post resurrection appearances of Jesus.
I just recently thought of luke and john
Luke writing as in one day.
But jesus told peace the same day asked to touch his body the 8th eating fish in the 21 st chapter of john.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@@OrthoFireCrusader ?
Could make a vídeo of dinosaurs and the bible?
Another supposed contridiction nailed to the atheist door. Superb work IP.
I will check my holy book Gospel of Barnabas to confirm but Jerusalem is more likely but let me confirm first
Happy Sabbath everyone, I hope everyone have a amazing day
Isn’t it a contradiction to say God is a free agent, but at the same time, God has to choose good over evil and has to choose the highest good over lesser good? God has no choice in the matter.
Poo moraly
Taking a single conversation in Luke between Jesus and his disciples and then literally splicing one spoken sentence from the next just to shove a 40 day 100 mile trip to Galilee and back between them is one of the most desperate forms of rationalization I've seen from this series so far. At this point, virtually no contradictory aspect in any story ever could amount to a plot hole because one can make up an outlandish just-so story to reconcile them.
IP's claimed focus on "what's plausible rather than what's possible" in the past only makes videos like this even more laughable. There's a reason most biblical scholars don't buy in to such "explanations" for these kinds of contradictions.
This is actually a literary device to used back then….. so no it’s not “desperate” it’s actually quite rational to hold to.
@@charles4208 I know the literary device exists, but what's IP's evidence it's used in this specific passage? The fact the device merely *exists* isn't enough. Why should we think this specific speech from Jesus is actually a compilation of two speeches from the beginning and end of a 40 day period, with a 100 mile trip to Galilee and back in between them?
Is there any evidence that this is a more *plausible* interpretation of scripture than there simply being a contradiction between different authors? No, and the only reason IP is offering this explanation as rational is because it's not a contradiction.
@@hawkxlr Depending on where they were in Galilee, it could have been as few as 50 miles (maybe even 30ish miles), although where it probably was (the Sea of Galilee) would be nearer to 70 miles (average humans can travel 20 miles a day). Only in the far north of Caesarea Philippi would it be 100 miles.
But yes, we SHOULD read texts in the lens of the culture they were written in. It would be absurdly ridiculous not to. You claim to know the literary device exists, but don't think it should be used. By that logic, if I said I traveled from St. Louis to Kansas City and back in two days (c. 225 miles one direction), we could look at the cultural context of the modern day and assume I drove my car. It would be ridiculous to assume the journey was made up because it is impossible, and then reject the explanation that I took my car, even though we know that this device was a viable option in my time.
@@5BBassist4Christ I would suggest you reread my comment, because it seems you didn't understand almost any of my points.
Also, I didn't put too much thought into the distance, nor did I say the distance was impossible to cover. I knew it was considerable and ballparked it.
@@hawkxlr for the 40 days part 2:52
I think you are wrong here and would like to debate you on this.
Maybe christians should just say that the message of the bible is the important thing and not the details... Because contradictions don't really go away just because we can't exclude the possibility that the contradictions were made intentionally. What hypothetical contradiction could we add to a bible story such that we couldn't consider it a literary device?
Or maybe He just appeared to them in Spirit which according to Occams razor, the most likely event is probably the correct event
or perhaps they made it all up down the pub one night.
Wonder how many online skeptics will have the courage to watch this series…..🤔
I watched it and its copeology 101
So to make this work, you have to jam the Galilee appearance story in Matthew all before Jesus tells the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power from on high?
That doesn’t make sense with how the disciples react in Luke 24:36-42 with shock and confusion if they had already met the risen Jesus in Galilee as Matthew portrays. Man this is a weak solution to the contradiction.
Kkkkk this Inspired guy just make every thing look worse.
You are right, Luke 24:36-49 comes first. John shows this same event (albeit with additional wording) as occuring before they went to Galilee (John 20:19-23), the sea of Tiberias event in John 21.
Understanding that the command to go to Galilee was issued first, and then this conversation about staying in Jerusalem comes second, understand it as 2 instructions
1) Go to Galilee, because I'm going there
2) After this, remain in Jerusalem.
@@isaacmarshmallow8751 that’s not what happens though. While in Jerusalem, in Luke 24:49 he tells them to stay in Jerusalem. So if Luke 24 happened first, then they couldn’t have left to go to Galilee.
@@Iamwrongbut Yeah but the command to go to Galilee was issued before the command to stay in Jerusalem. Both on the same day. On the first day. But he also appeared for 40 days. Enough time to venture to Galilee and back.
Put yourself there, and look at the accounts to see how they actually followed these two commands issued the same day. After the John/ Luke account, they go to Galilee. Then after Jesus has risen, they stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost.
Then you have Acts 1:4-5 which is a repeat occurance of the 2nd command (occuring after the 40 days mention, which could have even been uttered even at Galilee to all the gathered disciples, not just the 11 apostles)
Then you have Acts 1:8 where the command is referenced by implication on the final meeting at the end of the 40 days.
So, in the first instance he's making known his intentions to the 11 apostles, the second instance to the larger group of Christians assembled (potentially), and then finally a re-affirmation to the 11 gathered at Bethany.
@@isaacmarshmallow8751 did you read my first comment? If they initially went to Galilee and met the risen Jesus, then why did the disciples freak out and not recognize him when they saw him in Jerusalem? If they already knew what he looked like, they wouldn’t have thought they saw a ghost. Hahaha the response of the disciples in Luke 24:36-42 makes no sense unless it is the first appearance of Jesus to them. And if it is, then in that same convo he tells them to stay in Jerusalem and thus they wouldn’t have gone to Galilee.
Would not it be easier if Jesus appear in front of Cayaphas or any other Pharisee instead of His Disciples? The fact that He showed up only in His circle makes me thinking that we are no different with Gnosticism or any other secret comunity
Read Matthew 15-16 Jesus heal many people, feeds the 4 thousand, and the Pharisees demand a sign from him immediately after it. If he showed himself to them they still wouldn’t believe. It’s only after the Holy Spirit comes and empowers the early church that they start to turn and believe acts 4:8-14
I think the difference between us and the dozens of movements claiming the messiah is that after his resurrection ascension and Pentecost in acts we see many former Pharisees in the early church movement. You might know them as the “circumcision party” (acts 11:2). There was a great schism in the Jewish leadership between those who believed Jesus was the messiah and those who didn’t. No other group gained that sort of momentum because they didn’t fulfill the Old Testament prophecies like Jesus did.
It didn’t.
Gospel 1: Says one thing.
Gospel 2: Says totally different thing.
Professional Bible Excuse Maker: It is possible both happened. DEBUNKED !!!
LOL
no, i accept that he explainded it very very bad in this video but what he said is right: one gospel puts the spotlight on one thing, another to another. Then John puts then in order. What he said in the video is a good argument but you have to read the passages to understand it better.
THATS THE ORTHOSTUDYBIBLE ur orthodo (i cant do the final letter my keyboards wierd)
in the great nation of imagi.
Weak. While Luke-Acts certainly does show that the 40 days were compressed, you CANNOT say that there is any allowance in the text of Luke for the disciples to have gone to Galilee. You are making a huge assumption based on forced and cherry picked literary devices.
The more natural reading puts the time break just before Luke says 'When Jesus led them to Bethany'.
"transplanted"
how do you sleep at night?
transplanted = changed the story to fit. contradiction. jeez.
I think people like you can also prove that Hercules, Spiderman, batman and Harry Potter were not fiction but real.
@mysotiras 05 neither there is any historical evidence that Jesus existed. The reality is that the stories in the bible are all Egyptian myth, Judaism is the copy of Sumerian pagan worship. Animal sacrifice don't work. All you know is to defend the lies that the bible is.
@@anthonyjohn9000 I would be interested to hear your intellectual justifications for holding to Jesus mythicism. Given that about 99% of scholars across the theological spectrum accept the existence of a historical Jesus, claiming that he did not exist is definitely a fringe view. Doesn't mean you can't defend it though! What evidence has convinced you that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist?
Claiming literary devices do not resolve a contradiction, they just give justification to the already convinced as to why they don't have to question their holy book... but you only buy these tales if you already committed to them. I find it beyond frustrating that you will allow authors to change narratives so much because it better suites the story they are telling, but deny legend building as part of that narrative composition.
When you see differences in 4 stories (that have been preserved) is it not fair to ask were they ever intended by the authors to be complementary? If God inspired these things and knew for the fast amount of human history that they would be used as a revelation to speak to the events in human history by which all of humanity might be saved from firey destruction is it not fair to ask why God would inspire authors to use literary devices that would have their accounts appear contradictory? I feel bad for the poor people that existed before youtube gave IP a platform to explain to all of us heathens how to possibly reconcile these things.
These accounts can so easily be explained as legendary storytelling where Mark gets the ball rolling about this special prophet, who 10ish years later is more than a prophet he was part of the divine since birth, and add another 15-20 years and he was God from eternity past. The accounts were never intended by the authors to line up, they were telling a more compelling story than the one before them.
I will say it's impressive how many people simply wave contradictions away based on phrases of "could have" and "possibly".
What you find is reasonable is your own bias. As long as IP establishes a reasonable degree to which the two can coexist, then you don’t have a valid reason to attack them. When dealing with a work that is consistently proven accurate, that gives credence to the totality of the work.
@Excuse me but Are you serious? Do you unironically believe that? Have you read a historical document, ever? Do you know how all history was recorded for thousands of years? It’s rare to find any historical documents 500+ years old that didn’t put story telling as the matter of first importance
@@whatsinaname691 The problem is that to Christians these stories aren’t just historical embellishments that look to claim what movies do (based on real life events). Christians claim these stories are inerrant and 100% true, they believe that this isn’t a person really speaking… it’s God. But God apparently likes his truth muddled with literary fluff. Trying to defend this as god inspired and inerrant makes the claim of a divine book come off as silly. And channels like IP now only exist to help the completely devoted try to keep the quasi Christians from abandoning the sham.
As a former pastor I get home much you want to believe this is true and how much you have altered your entire life around it, but it’s really blind and misinformed hope. Take off the blinders, the world is not as evil as you’ve been led to believe.
@@mbselsing I’m legit a convert, so you can just keep on projecting, but if you’ve never read Jung you’ll never understand. There’s a reason people use literary devices, and it’s to further elucidate, not to obscure. If each book says the exact same thing you would just say they all were copy-pasted and unreliable so it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
@Excuse me but You’re not trying to express a fundamental truth about reality. My threshold for you is low
If the Bible wasn't compressed it would likely take 10 or more years to read it completely rather than 1 year and master it.
Luke and Acts are inconsistent in a way that's incredible. In Acts, we hear about the 40 days, but in Luke, comments made by the risen Jesus are summarized in just a couple paragraphs. So either Jesus was extremely repetitive during the 40 days and his remarks are fairly summarized in a couple paragraphs or Luke's "compression" was more like a deletion where he threw away almost all the sayings of the risen Lord. Neither one sounds likely.
Also the topics discussed by Jesus mismatch. In Luke, it's the fulfillment of scripture; in Acts it's the Kingdom of God. In each case, we're told the general topic and nothing more. Guess it wasn't important.
As Professor Woland put it: "You of all people must realize that absolutely nothing written in the gospels actually happened. If you want to regard the gospels as a proper historical source..." He smiled again and Berlioz was silenced.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 IP's explanation of the importance of the narrative flow reminded me of Woland's words. I gather you're not a Bulgakov fan.
@mysotiras 05 Alternatively, you could check who Woland is, and thereby discover one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. The reward for curiosity.
@mysotiras 05 It's your decision of course, but I don't think you should comment on a novel you didn't read. It can only lead to embarrassment.
@@lauterunvollkommenheit4344 i wont lie i misunderstood what you said completely and knew nothing of the context i tried to save myself there but i feel rather embarresed. i thought you had come here to argue and thought you were an atheist. ive also been sick so you caught me on a bad day. i had no idea Bulgakov was a christian and no idea woland was a fictional character and im deeply sorry for my statements and misunderstanding. but i must tyank you for directing me towards Bulgakovs works because i shall hopefully soon read them. also sorry for any mispelling i have mild dyslexia
@@somebodysomewhere5571 No need to apologize, I hope you feel better. As to Bulgakov: he probably considered himself a Christian, while the Orthodox Church probably considers him a heretic. Fortunately, the Master and Margarita stays the same in either case.
Harry Potter happened because London is real. Also why would they call Madelyn his sister if it was a fiction! Please consider making a video that debunks all these Harry Potter skeptics.
so you're saying they edited the story to make it more palatable? xians always want their cake and eat it. contradictions that aren't contradictions.
lol. This one is funny as hell
So you are just here to troll..pathetic
@@OldSlyEyes no. To keep people from falling for something some idiot is trying to pass off as scripture. Hello there. .. idi.
@@OldSlyEyes got your pathetic hanging right here!
Thise who claim this is a contradiction did not read acts
Cope
All authority has been given to me ( says Jesus)
BY WHO? 😳😁😂
By His Father and that’s God in heaven.
@@chriszekableyat9886 but- isn’t Jesus God? And the son?
That’s the claim from Christianity ✝️!!!!!
And just because I claim something. Or you. That doesn’t mean it’s true now does it?
Where’s it recorded he said that?
The Bible??
lol. Sure thing bud. You got it down. 😂😂😂😂😂👌🏿
@@hellwithit Observe what’s going on in the world today, especially the river Euphrates is drying up(see revelation 16:12) and people like you were mentioned in the Bible that during at the end times(it’s happening right now) people like you still refuse to know the truth even they’re right in your face. And what’s coming is not a 🤣😂 matter, it’s a spiritual battle not of the flesh.
@@chriszekableyat9886 not any type of 'god,'deity'' or any small 'G' but..,
*'FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD"*
WHEN JESUS MADE THIS STATEMENT IN JOHN 17:3,,
-CAN THERE BE OTHER GODS WHEN THE WORD 'ONLY' IS USED?
#TRINITY IS AN ANTI CHRIST MAN-MADE FAKE BELIEF/DOCTRINE#
@@chriszekableyat9886 yeah yeah so freaking what?
Rivers come and go. Doesn’t mean anything. And people like me. You mean those people who speak the word of God which is given to us and are going to be shunned and persecuted , looked upon as crazy,- by the majority of people who are deceived?
Those people?
Yep. That’s me alright!
Pagan religion is and has closed your eyes so you can no longer gaze upon the truth!
You were given the capability to think for yourselves. Yet thoughts become Numb in your presence!
Your ears were made so to listen to the harmony and God’s creation and live in all its splendid glory for all your days.
But you only dwell upon death. Wait for it to come within your walls of ignorance., so you may revel at all that comes with it!
Never giving a chance to live life without fear of failure. Hopelessness is what life is for you. Relying upon someone else to be responsible for the evil one does.
Jesus was a Jew. Do you know what he believed?
Maybe it’s time for you to get up off your lazy astonishment and LOOK 👀
Acts 1:3 is a prime candidate for a later addition. Despite the reference to 40 days, the first chapter of Acts describes just one appearance of the risen Jesus and that appearance sounds like the same one outlined in Luke 24. Both include Jesus telling his disciples to stay in Jerusalem in anticipation of Pentecost; both end with the Ascension. The dozen words outlining the 40 days were probably added later to lessen the tension between the simplicity of early stories such as Luke 24 and the later proliferation of appearance reports.
proof?
@@danielesorbello619 You only believe things for which you have "proof"? Most people have to settle for what seems most likely or most probable. After all, there's no surveillance video.
@@mytwocents7481 ok so give me some evidence that probably the 40 days were added later other than: the stories are very similar it would be strange if they weren’t the same. There are no textual variants that could help you, and i’ve searched around and you are the first one to say that.
@@danielesorbello619 I have given you the evidence. That one sentence says 40 days but then the passage continues and nothing else in the chapter supports there being more than one appearance. If you read that Jesus appeared during a period of 40 days, then you would reasonably expect to hear about several appearances. But then you only hear about one that sounds like the one you already heard before. If that doesn't make you suspicious I don't know what more I can tell you. It makes me suspicious. And if I'm the first one to say that, good for me.
@@mytwocents7481 Bro you are not putting in context a lot of things:
1) the forty day narrative fits perfectly with the passage
2) Luke doesn’t necessary implicate that Jesus resurrected and ascended in the same day: in fact it seems pretty odd: Jesus would’ve: appeared to the woman, appear to the disciples and do this kind of Sermon to them on how his death and resurrection was according to the scripture, and Jesus’s death was around passover so it would be dark by the 7. It seems a bit odd.
3) your assumption is based in the fact that a story starts and ends in the same way? For your own reasoning Luke couldn’t have added details to his Gospel? Luke made great time skips in his works so it seems pretty normal. Like what’s the logic behind this: you don’t have textual variants, you don’t have any clear evidence, the only thing you have is that the stories are very similar and so that verse must’ve been added later? That’s pretty weal evidence. So, no that’s not a probable explanation.
Nothing actually historical or biographical about the gospels. They were written well into the second century, by Greek authors, who were familiar with Greek thought and philosophy. They were far removed from Jerusalem, which by that time had been destroyed. Any potential eye witnesses to Jesus were long dead. There was very limited means of travel and communication to Palestine. The gospels were written to push a certain theological narrative, when all kinds of ideas about Jesus, like whether he actually came into the flesh, etc. swirled around. Gospels mainly fiction and legend (especially the resurrection), so no need to try and smooth out contradictions.
Source of information?
lol. Bye bye Jesus. As they nailed him down. He died in pain and rotted in the ground
@Orthodoxprince4ever what makes you assume that this is in anyway factual? Who said that he rose? Paul? Or maybe you believe that one of the 3 different versions of this lie is actually true?
So you tell me. What is the proof of Jesus rising? Because Christianity says it is??
Lol. Seriously you tell me what you have as far as proof! And why is it, that he only appears to Christians?
Just like the virgin Mary seems to only appear to catholics.. and you don't find that odd?
Odd that only people who have a vested interest in the stories of their own religious beliefs, say such things?
If you say that the newtestament is true. Well, Jesus said, some of you will see the kingdom before you pass away. Was that true?
Jesus said not to change anything of the laws of Moses. But Christianity did. So is that making Christianity true and following his words?
Does it not bother you that you follow beliefs which were not the same as your Jesus?
Who was Jewish by the way?
And as a jew, who was trying to be the JEWISH MESSIAH, WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE that Jesus was there for us, the gentiles?
Didn't he say that he was here for the children of God, the Israeli the jew?
And not to give his message to the gentiles. It was like throwing your dinner out to the dogs?
Lol. Seriously you should actually wake up and use your head my heart.
And no one ever said anything about the messiah doing miracles, except for the Christian religion. Pharoahs magicians did miracles too. Were they Devine also?
Why can't apologists just accept that the gospels were written by 4 different people, each with their own theology to espouse? Of course there are contradictions, the 4 gospels aren't meant to tell one coherent story. Come on, each subsequent author looked at the previous work, copied some bits and deliberately changed other bits, to tell THEIR story, with THEIR theology, contradictions be damned. John's authors basically chucked the lot and contradicted almost everything, making up a whole lot of nonsense "Mark" had never heard of. Get over it. There are contradictions. It is dishonest to try and harmonise them away, and create your own mega gospel. Appreciate them for what they are, what they are trying to say, and stop trying to create some grand narrative. It isn't there.
Bro's mad IP nailed this contradiction to the coffin lmaoooo
WAHHHHH WHY CAN'T APOLOGISTS JUST ACCEPT MY OPINIONS!!!! WAHHHH!
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8Except he didn’t nail it to the coffin…
Everything's going to hell in a handbasket. Buy yourself some Shiba Bitcoin so you have some money that's not in the dollar if and when the dollar collapse.