Probably one of the best pieces of evidence is this. The deciples were scared after the crucifixion, kept their heads down and these who fished went back to what they knew. The last three years was now a busted flush as far as they were concerned...and yet those very same frightened and disillusioned men went on to take the message as far afield as India (that was Thomas). Many of them died brutal deaths; indeed Peter asked before being crucified that it be done upside down as he felt he was not worthy. So...some concrete and extremely powerful an undeniable experience had happened to them in order to have completely reversed the frightened rabbits they had become. That somthing was a personal encounter with the supra cosmic intelligence; the shap-shifting, supernatural Creator of the universe. Raising the Messiah from the dead? Not a problem, ye of little faith.
Presenting a story is not evidence. What evidence is there that this happened? The disciples are like shadowy extras in a play in the Gospels, which clearly were also not written by eye witnesses, The notion of Peter being crucified upside down is a complete myth. Do the executioners say "Upside Down? Certainly Sir. The customer is always right. How would you rate your execution today? Excellent, Good, Average or Poor? Would you recommend to friends?" Apart from which, crucifixion is a method of slow asphyxiation by hanging the body from the wrists. It doesn't really work by hanging from the feet. It is like a carrying out a hanging by putting the rope around the ankles instead of the neck. The martyrdom of the disciples is a fantasy, not a fact.
@@93Current Ha ha! What "is" fantasy is your anti-theist gibberish. In order to refute the resurrection you have to; 1) Prove the resurrection is logically impossible, or 2) Propose an alternative mechanism that is a more powerful & case evident explanation for the empty tomb & subsequent appearance of Christ to many different people at different times. After 20 centuries, none of the atheist rebuttals to the resurrection do this. The main attempt from atheists is focused on trying to discredit the possibility that God can be the explanation.
I'm a retired Assistant District Attorney. In Criminal Trials there would invariably be minor inconsistencies in the Testimony of the witnesses for the State. In closing argument after the Defense pointed them out, I would argue to the jury that "Minor inconsistencies rang of truth. People make their best attempt in recollection. Sometimes the account varies. If they all marched up there and each gave an exact precise account as to every event that took place it would look suspect. This is a very reasonable explanation when the inconsistency is MINOR!!
Once again, I've blocked someone from this channel because they don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. Is it really that hard to understand?
This was an excellent short video and should be compulsory viewing for those who claim that the so called 'contradictions' or 'discepancies ' prove that the gospel accounts are unreliable.
But if there are discrepancies because "eye witness account can vary," how can anyone claim it was "inspired by God"? Another thing, if Roman soldiers witnessed the "empty tomb" or "the resurrection," why weren't they publicly converted?
Well, I'm not completely satisfied with the explanations given. There are great explanations, sure, but I would like to hear more explanations, hence I'm not completely satisfied. Maybe more concrete examples? Sometimes it is useful to listen to explanations by scholars. Other times you could simply just look at the gospels and see if they contradict. And, I have done that. I decided to put gospels side by side in a table in OpenOffice Writer and tried to put the events in chronological order. Some Christians might say, "Sure, they do line up, there are no contradictions there!" Well, it seems like they do line up, but it requires more work than you would actually think. No contradictions this far, one just has to keep in mind a few things. Here are some examples: - Mention of one person does not mean there were no other persons present (like with the angels in the tomb). - Just because one gospel does not mention a particular event, that does not mean it did not happen at all. - Gospels may not be describing events in chronological order. For example, in the Gospel of John, the writer generally explains the purpose of that gospel in between two events (John 20:30-31). - Just because one person did not say something at a particular moment, that does not mean he did not say it at all (maybe he said that a little earlier or later on). There are other things to keep in mind, just can't think of them at the moment! Still arranging the events in order! :D
Henri Korpela One must also remember the Gospels are written and accounts of four different people. The fact there are some discrepancies goes to show how honest they really are. Take a car accident viewed by several witnesses, chances are there will be discrepancies in their testimonies. Secondly, the discrepancies found in scripture change absolutely nothing to the base account being recalled.
@@bobthebuilder9553 : True. But witnesses to any event tend to focus on different details and give their own perspective. This is true of the gospels. They give their own perspective. The very fact that the accounts have remained as they are argues against later Church redaction.
The gospels are anonymous. The authors are not named, nor do they claim to be eyewitnesses, nor do they give sources for the supposed facts that they relate. The Jesus miracles related are copies of miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings and by Dionysus. The nativity story recounted in Luke is totally different and incompatible with the nativity story recounted in Matthew, and neither author lists a source for their nativity tale. The empty tomb story in Mark is not believable. Jewish women would never go near a corpse that was three days old - and why in the world would they want to anoint it? Matthew and Luke copied Mark and then set about embellishing Mark's stories. Believers should give up. The New Testament is fiction.
Well you certainly took a shotgun to that video! If you'd like to choose one of these points to talk about, I'm happy to discuss it with you, but I'm not going to try to reply to all of them at once.
You are absolutely right. God doesn't sit around and write books, knowing you people just going to change it. God has never instructed man to write books. This is why in so many near death experiences,the believers of the Bible come back and say God is just love and he doesn't endorse the Bible. God is not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu,or any of that. Once you realized that,the better off you'll be.
Galatians 6 : 6 - 9 " Don't deceive yourselves ; no one can make a fool of God; whatever a man sows this he will also reap. He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap Life eternal."
Most all "alleged" contradictions can be explained away....View on UA-cam; Timothy McGrew-Who wrote the Gospels and the other videos in the series, there are 6 in total. F3
Yes, like 99.9% are explained. There are approx 14 'actual' contradictions that are still argued, but I'm sure there are explanations for those also. With that said, one must remember if any contradictions cannot be resolved, they take nothing from the message or 'Doctrine' from scripture. The massage God expected to get out has gotten out. If you are interested you may want to watch several videos by Timothy McGrew as I stated above, starting with; Who wrote the Gospels. He has a series of videos covering many things including alleged contradictions and alleged historical errors in the Bible. Six videos in all, Lots to view, but well worth the effort if you truly want the truth.
+ Steve Kennedy If there are no contradictions at all, would you not say that 'Well, this is funny, all historical accounts have contradictions. This one does not. This must is a conspiracy where all authors simple conspire or copy each other?'
Peter Klok - obviously you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. But I am fairly sure that if you ask any practising Christian - Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, what the central message of Christianity is, this is not what they will reply.
1 Cor. 15:1-8. Look at what is considered "of first importance" to Paul.
5 років тому
Are you believers saying their cannot be a logical explanation for the missing body of Jesus? Did anyone actually see the dead body got up and walked out of the tomb, even that would not justify saying he was raised from the dead, as he could simply not have been dead in the first place, and consider this how can God raise Jesus from the dead if they’re the same being, for god to raise Jesus from the dead he must be a completely separate being, if Jesus died then god died, and from my recollection of the bible God and Jesus are the same being. or have I got it wrong?
You are tangling up several different questions here. If you want to choose one of them, I'm happy to talk about it. Not even going to try to respond to the scatter-gun approach.
@ As I said before, I'm happy to discuss any one of these questions at a time, but I am not even going to try to engage with this approach. If you are serious, choose a question. If you are just trolling, this is the wrong place.
@ Just hypothetically, if God *did* exist, what makes you think that we would be capable of understanding what he is like? I ask this as a serious question, not trying to be sarcastic - because I think that how you answer this is fundamental to whether I can or cannot answer your third question.
5 років тому
@@godnewevidence, well according to all the attributes given to him, it should be no problem for him to make us understand him, and for us to be assured that it's him. Or isn't he that powerful!
@ I think what you're saying is that it would be up to God to make himself known to us - to reveal himself to us. I agree with this. But also, there's no way we can say in advance what such a God would or wouldn't do - *how* he could, or couldn't make himself known. If God knows everything, and is infinitely smarter than we are, there's no way we can guess in advance what he will or won't do.
When the Titanic sank, some *eyewitnesses* reported that the ship broke up before it sank; others not. So there was a direct contradiction - but no-one thinks that this means the Titanic did not sink. See this video: ua-cam.com/video/hA6g46R-adg/v-deo.html This is just the nature of historical testimony.
Matthew is almost a verbatim copy of mark. Also the walking dead scene. That event would have been a world sensation. The anscient world was buzzing with historiographers for the simple reason of not having had other formes of communications. No one seem to have noticed hundreds of dead ews climbing out of a cave and walking freely except the author of a gospel. Luke 2:1-52 Joseph and mary travel from nazareth to bethlehem to register for a world-wide census which according to our records never took place under any governor. But Matthew has it otherwise; Joseph and Mary flee to egypt and wait until Herod dies before returning. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore either one or the other or both are hearsay myths. Sorry academics I would place my bet on the gospels being fiction.
The accounts of Josephus have always been a topic of debate and controversy among biblical scholars. He was known to be a liar and a bragart. He coluded with the Romans to save his life and a good many are convinced his reference to Jesus of Nazareth was added later by Christian scribes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
A fundamental tenant of modern American Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The clear message of this video is that the Gospels were written by human historians and were subject to their own biases and memory, making the Bible an "... ordinary historical document." I concur that the differences among the Gospels are minor. The glaring discrepancy is between how Christians assert divine inspiration for everything except the accounts of the resurrection.
I'm sorry, I genuinely do not understand the last part of your comment - a discrepancy between 'how Christians assert divine inspiration for everything except the accounts of the resurrection.' Christians assert divine inspiration for all of the accounts, including the resurrection.
@@godnewevidence I spent many, many years as an active Christian: adult Sunday school teacher, lay worship leader, elder, deacon, etc. The background message in this video is that it's natural for the accounts of the resurrection to differ so much because since the Bible is an historical document written by people then of course they will differ. This is a decidedly different view of scripture than I was taught and held. If human hands were guided by God when writing, then the differences between accounts are striking and cast serious doubt on the use of accounts as proof the resurrection actually happened.
The answer you get depends on the question you ask, doesn't it? The Bible claims for itself that it is God’s word to us, that it is authoritative and reliable for the purposes for which God gave it . (‘All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.’ 2 Tim 3:16) I don’t think it claims that it is always technically precise in a modern sense. ‘Inerrant’ is more of an Enlightenment idea, which has to do with being technically precise. If you asked the writers of the Bible ‘Is the Bible inerrant?’ I am not sure whether they would have understood what you were asking.
You are taking it for granted that what God does has to fit in with your ideas about what he ought to have done - for example that what God thinks about 'inspired' is the same as what you think about 'inspired.'
Problem? Only people who are biased will have problems, not people who read with an open mind, and we are not obligated to give you any "excusing" take it or leave it.
Why should there be contradictions when the Bible claims that the book is God inspired? Could these contradictions of the same story be proof that the Bible is a book of tales, and not God's inspired word?
For what you are saying to make sense, you would need to establish two things: First, that there are actual contradictions, rather than just independent reports, things that we do not understand correctly, different points of view, etc. And second, that God's inspiration means that this kind of contradiction is not possible. In other words, we would be dictating to God what it means to say that the Bible is inspired. But we don't get to do that.
No deity would create such a fine tuned universe and then give us such a confusing mess of a revelation for our salvation. Like the moral law, he would make the plan for salvation instinct and not rely on a book and a religion. That settles it for me.
Isn't it just a little bit presumptuous to think that a very finite, limited creature such as you or me could figure out what God would or wouldn't do?
Use you brain. Can you not see any valid point in what I said? A deity thought it best to use a book to communicate with us. Seriously. I'm not being snarky. Why not imbed the knowledge of the plan for salvation in us like the moral law? How would atheists argue with it if every child without being taught knows the plan for salvation just as they begin to talk?
Well, three questions, more or less at random: (1) You mentioned the moral law. What is that, and where did it come from? (2) Your argument might make sense, if God's priority is that we should know that he is there, whether we want to or not. But what if God's priorities include leaving us scope not to believe in him, if we are so inclined? (Once again, what you say presupposes that we can guess in advance what God would or would not do, and why.) (3) Communicating with words in a book doesn't seem to be intrinsically a problem: millions of authors, and thousands of publishers, go down this route every year. Surely they think they are achieving something?
(1) Christians believe there is a moral law. But I don't. (2) Even if everyone knows that Yahweh is real, it doesn't take away our freedom to choose to follow or not. (3) And yes, there are millions of human authors. But no one can know the mind of the author until he writes down his thoughts. Kind of like the time before the Bible existed. Come on friend, this stuff is clearly man made. This is stuff is the writings of men with a pen name of "God".
Ok, let's talk about the first point here: if you believe that there is no moral law, you are basically saying there was nothing *really* wrong with that guy shooting those people in Texas? Or that it's OK to torture a baby for fun, if you feel like it?
I'm a cristian and for me the fact that there're some contradictory acaunt in the gospels, and they're, (Jesus can't die in the day of Passover like the synoptic say and the day before like John say at the same time) in the narrative is not a problem because the real message is intact and in nothing change the message of salvation. PS. The Titanic argument is a very weak and unconvincing one.
Hello Luis. Why is the argument about the Titanic weak and unconvincing? It shows that it's possible to have eyewitness testimony about something that really happened, and yet for there to be differences in the details.
Yes, it shows that two person can witness the same event and remember it different but one of the two is sitll wrong. It can't be both ways. That's precisely what professor Ehrman says, it's a contradiction.
Hello Luis - I think you are missing the point here: there can be contradictions between eyewitness accounts of an event, but this does not mean that the event itself didn't happen (and we can still know some things about it).
Yes I noted the point, what I don't understand is, what is the problem with what Dr Ehrman says? He point this discrepancies & contradiction, wish are true, and they them self admitted and says that gospel should be subject to the same scrutiny we put on other manuscripts of antiquity like Tacitus and others. No body takes this rider's account at face value and nor we should. I have read two of his books and I found no problem with his approach to scripture. And again, is the same criteria we use in any other texts: multiple atestament, dissimilarity, and contextual. Another arguments that I found not to be particularly convincing is the one that if you compare the writing styles of the time against the gospel they are no that bad. But no doby is asking haw they stack against biographys of time, the question is if the gospel are reliable sources. And the final objection I have against the arguments express here is that the gospel writer's ware eyewitnesses them self. For years we have now the the gospel writer's ware highly educated Greek spiking Christians and the apostle ware Aramaic spiking illiterate from Galilee.
Hello Luis. I would not want to trust all that Bart Ehrman says. By coincidence, I have just been reading the new edition of 'Evidence that demands a verdict' by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. This has a whole chapter called 'Responding to the challenges of Bart Ehrman,' which points out that his scholarship is very selective, he ignores scholars who disagree with him, and he is seriously biased in his approach. There is much more that could be said, and there are many youtube videos of people debating him.
None of the authors of the four gospels claim to be eyewitnesses, nor do they identify themselves, nor do they identify their sources. Long ago, scholars familiar with the Old Testament, specifically the Greek Septuagint, have shown that the birth, miracles, sayings, and death of Jesus are rewrites of events in the Old Testament that apply to the lives of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. If the miracles and resurrection of Jesus were historical, all historians in the Levant would have reported this, not just four Greek writers who chose to remain anonymous. It also needs to stated that the Epistles of Paul never mention Jesus' birth, baptism, ministry, or details of his death. Paul said that he knew Jesus through scripture (meaning, Old Testament promises of a Messiah) and through revelation, meaning apparitions (hallucinations). The Gospels are fiction.
This seems like a preconceived idea that being the word of God must mean that there can't be even the slightest contradiction in it... but setting that aside for a moment, the claim in this series of videos is just that we need to take the accounts seriously as history.
But the whole point is that there is a doctrine of biblical infallibility and the real author ultimately is supposed to be God who can’t be contradicting himself if he’s perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. If there are any discrepancies at all that doctrine falls. It’s not as if the account of the resurrection is the only area of discrepancy. There are also clear contradictions in the accounts of the crucifixion and the death of Judas. I stopped believing in the Bible when I saw that it is absolutely cross meshed with contradictions and anomalies and in the end you can make it say practically anything you want.
He didn't rise from the dead at all. Worst case scenario is he passed out due to blood loss, was placed in the tomb probably entered into a short coma, then came round after a few days.
@@andymanser1 Unfortunately I have a physiotherapy degree. Medical facts that were not known then. That are more than well known now. You sir talk utter bollocks.
Godnewevidence. I believe in God. I do not believe, however, that any human being has the right to tell us what God has "said". That is incredibly child like in its concept.
Today scholars have recognized that certain verses in the new testament are spurious and have removed them or highlighted that they need to be seen as spurious. Proof that man tampered with Gods word and what we have today is the word of man more than the word of God. Read the gospels horizontally and compare the same events in each gospel and see the improvement upon the "word of God" by man for theological purposes. Read the events in the garden of gethsemane. Jesus in John suddenly becomes God like and more willing to die compared to the other Gospels. Is this history or faith?
I agree Ethen....I have the Holy Spirit living in me...I breathe and live by Him....I have been told by the spirit that the word has had things removed, changed, and added to it...God would have no reason to tell us this in verse if He didnt already know that it was going to happen...We are not to live by man's word, but by the spirit of God which IS the word
Incorrect. If you really take all the accounts that attribute some God-like sayings and actions attributed to Jesus...there are more in Mark and the Synoptics than in John.
Dion Sanchez mark has been tampered with as well. Hence having a short and long ending of Mark. The problem is right at the very beginning of Christianity. The actual worlds of Jesus were never memorized or written down close to the time he spoke and this what allowed interpolations. It's not all rubbish I respect the Bible however one has to recognize that man has had a hand in it for theological reasons.
Ethen Underwood I think you’ve made an overstatement look at page 252 of Misquoting Jesus Bart Herman says that he agrees with Bruce Metzger that no significant doctrine has been affected by the variants and then again if man tampered with the Gospels they did a bad job by leaving these alleged contradictions in there why not make them all word for word the same to make the point of inerrancy
Ethen Underwood also the key story of Christianity was written down before the death of Paul ie 1 corinthians 15 not only does Paul say the Gospel but he says he received it meaning this has been going on before him and Paul also runs the story by the apostles to see if he’s correct
Have you read about the death and resurrection of Jesus in the book of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Clearly you could see many contradictions. One says there was one angel, other say two. One says two women went to the tomb, other say three, other say two and group of ladies. One say Jesus was given a bitter drink and rejected it while on the cross, other say he given a wine and drunk it, other say a mixture of bitter sweet and Jesus rejected it. Look there are soo many contradictions and unrelated stories in the 4 Gospels. If it claims that God inspired people to write scriptures, should that scriptures be contradictory, confusing, unrelated, definitely not - 1 Corinthians 14:33. Mind u the 4 Gospels was never written by the respective apostles. Even if there were written by them, there would be no contradictions because they were witness of Jesus work and ministry on earth
I can't think that it's slightly foolish to have different and non-compatable apologetics in the same video. We get WLC making what is actually a valid point about judging the historicity of the text followed by the chronology defense which can only be done by ignoring what WLC has just said. It's also a bit foolish to use the Titanic example. We know the Titanic existed as we have ample records of many different types from many differerent sources. We have records of icebergs in the are at the time. We know the ship sank and we have found the wreck broken in two. We use our scientific understanding of a variety of fields to calculate how the ship sank, including computer modelling to ascertain the most likely time the ship splt in two, but none of these studies claim to have proved it as the models are only as good as the data. The best model so far shows that the most likely mode of failure was a fracture as the bow section sank. The majoriry of the fracture would have been below the waterline and the maximim angle between both sections was 17 degrees. None of this relies on eye witness testimony, all of which was obtained at the time and well documented in a variety of sources. What the Titanic example shows is just how useless eyewitness testomony is in establishing the truth of an event, even when there is plenty of it recorded at the time from people who we have evidence from different sources saying there were actually there. It shows that even with all that evidence and study we can't claim to know absolutely whether the ship broke before or after sinking (a poorly defined dichotomy anyway) and yet Christians claim it is absolutely true that Jesus was resurected. Can you imagine if we only had circumstancial evidence that a ship called the titanic existed but we thought it was probably a passenger ship of some sort but knew nothing else. Now imagine that even though this is all we know, someone unearths two anonymous accounts of it sinking, supposedly from a story heard from eyewitnesses. Imagine that the supposed cause of the ship sinking was not an iceberge but that godzilla rose from the deep and sank it. The wreck of the ship has been hunted for years with no sign of a wreck. Do you really think it matters that much if the accounts don't both describe the sinkong in the same way? What would you think if some people tried to argue that it broke in half both before and after it sank by claiming it could have submerged, split, crashed back together, resurfaced, split again at the surface and then sunk to the bottom of the sea? This is not meant to be directly analogous in every detail but to show how ridiculous some of christian apologetics looks to non-believers. What's more, I think you know it. It's the same view you have of other religions justifications, in some cases of the views of doctrine of different christian denomonations.
I think you're missing the rather obvious point that Mike Licona makes: 1. The Titanic sank 2. There were eyewitnesses 3. The eyewitnesses disagreed about some of the details But... the Titanic still sank :-)
All of this is confusing to me. I used to be told the Bible is God's perfect word, no contradictions and all consistent with reality. And it seems to me that I'm being told in this video that it's God's perfect word and doesn't have any IMPORTANT contradictions. I dunno. It really makes me wish there was, oh I dunno, some magic potion that all of the authors of the Bible could have sipped that would have snapped their memories into perfection as they were writing their accounts. Even the details. Dang... I know I'm dreaming. But yikes. That would have been cool.
Contradiction Acts 9:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but SEEING NO MAN. Acts 22:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 And they that were with me SAW INDEED the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me.
@@charlitoadams777First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. ” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8. The flexibility of phone is very clear in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways. These examples show how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul HEARD the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? YES, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not UNDERSTAND what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound-in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus. The ESV clears up the seeming "contradiction" nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice-but hearing the sound-is a good description of what happened.
If every account was identical, then people would be accusing the witnesses of collusion. That's why it's important that witnesses not interact with each other before a court case. How many times have you been certain something was said or done a certain way while someone else remembers the same event differently? In situations like that, there is usually someone who is so insistent that they can't be wrong that they influence those who second-guess themselves to see things as the more confident person sees them. Some people just doubt their own perceptions on what they have seen more than do others. Also, if people wanted to make up a story, they would all sit down and get their story "straight", which is collusion. They'd be like, "OK, this is what we are going to say." The differences in details are not consequential in relation to the story. If I put on my coat and go somewhere, the point of the story is that I went somewhere. The color of my coat, what was in the pockets, what kind of coat it was is not relevant unless one is looking for evidence in a crime. But if one is just relaying an outline of events, the details are not as important. Memory is a strange thing. I have certain scenes (usually funny ones) from old TV shows or movies that I can act out, complete with accents. I have quoted the dialogue from these scenes aloud hundreds of times over the decades, just for my own entertainment. But when I watch those scenes again, I suddenly realize that I got a word wrong. I could have sworn she said, "Blah, blah, blah," but I have video evidence that I remembered that exact line wrong. But the scene still WORKS, even if my memory doesn't recreate it perfectly. It's still just as hilarious.
minor discrepancies... minor discrepancies... minor discrepancies... But no, the discrepancies are major! Matthew reports just one appearance by the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples. It takes place on a mountain in Galilee. Luke reports just one appearance by the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples. It happens in Jerusalem. It's very difficult to mix up a city like Jerusalem with a mountain in Galilee. And what did the risen Jesus have to say to his disciples? In Luke, he tells them to wait in Jerusalem until they're endowed with power from on high (that is, the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). In John, there's no mention of waiting in Jerusalem. Instead Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit to his disciples immediately by "breathing" on them and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit." Which way does Matthew go? He simply doesn't mention Pentecost or anything like it. Reminder: the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, as in God. He's a big deal. Mark's gospel has a quirky ending so maybe the dog ate the last page, but what excuse does Matthew have? He relates a single appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples. But in Acts 1, it says the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of forty days. Sounds like quite a few appearances. Why would Matthew mention just one? Matthew doesn't know or doesn't share any of these: * the appearance to disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) * the appearance that convinced doubting Thomas (John 20) * the appearance that involved miraculous fishing (John 21) So Matthew wrote 28 chapters but at the end, he sort of lost interest in the risen Christ. Really?
@@godnewevidence Thanks for your reply. I looked at the article. It's full of phrases like "contain mistakes in the details," "being technically precise about all the details," and "minor differences." But my comment focuses only on major differences.
@@mytwocents7481 Do you have a specific example that is a definite contradiction, not just a difference, where the writers have chosen to include different information?
@@godnewevidence "just" a difference? If you have written witness accounts of a bank robbery and one person says the bank was robbed by two little old ladies and another says it was a teenage guy and his dog, that's not "just" a difference. That's a good reason to toss out those accounts. On the other hand, if you really want a contradiction, how about the one between Pentecost happening after the ascension (Acts) and the one that happens while Jesus is standing there (John 20:21).
Also... the more I look at Matthew's mountain appearance of the risen Jesus, the more it sounds like a FIRST meeting with the disciples which contradicts the first meeting in Luke/John. " When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." For a first meeting, it makes sense that some doubted, but not at any meeting after the first.
godnewevidence Here's just a bunch of very smart scholars that repeat in a scholarly fashion old things that don't really refute the Christ-myth theory... the theory they argue against is just mocked, but not presented in its proper meaning. For example, 1. the real problem with "the discrepancies" in the Gospels about the resurrection is not that "you have multiple independent accounts that present in a different way the same historical event which they have witnessed". The problem is that in that accounts you have real evidence about how Christian writers could take older "accounts" and reinterpret them in the light of their theological purposes. They are not four witnesses that talk about an event with differences accounts, in fact they are theological accounts that add more and more material as the time passes by. And there seems to be an obvious revolution in the resurrection accounts. The early epistles' accounts are more vague different than that of the gospel of mark. Luke and especially Matthew prove to "falsify" the "historical event", and John seems to be pure allegory beyond the shadow of a doubt. And as William Craig says, the older resurrection accounts get more and more mythologized, which really proves my point (EVEN THE LATER INTERPOLATIONS IN THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS OF MARK, LUKE, AND MAYBE JOHN). And this is just the first point. I really appreciate N.T. Wright, and Licona and Craig are also amazing thinkers, but their arguments simply don't seem compelling to me...
Go to Inspiring Philosophy's UA-cam channel for more answers on the theory that Jesus was a myth. The real problem with it is that there was not enough time for the story to be made up. Paul talks about the resurrection in 57 CE and uses language that indicates the resurrection was part of the early creeds. Further, the Christ-myth bs is based on a fallacy: argument from silence.
People can basically spin "tailor made" explanations to account for the bible inconsistencies AFTER THE FACT. The fact is that the inconsistencies are still in the bible and still require extreme verbal gymnastics to explain them. Some Christians explain the bible inconsistencies by comparing them to differences in modern day crime scene testimonials. This is stupid as the Bible deals with the most important event in history - the Resurrection of Christ - so it should be accurate unlike crime scene testimonials which have no bearing on world humanity.
Still, the evidence is historical evidence, and it is the nature of historical evidence that it doesn't always fit neatly together. 'extreme verbal gymnastics' is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
So this undoubtedly claims that the 4 Gospels and the whole new testament is not God's word but humans opinions. God is not a human that he contradicts his scriptures but humans scriptures does. Even in 1 Corinthians 14: 33 clearly clarifies that. If God inspired those people to write the 4 Gospels, would there be any contradictions and unrelated stories, absolutely never. Mind u the 4 Gospels was never written by the respective apostles. Even if so they would never contradicts the events because they themselves were witnesses of the events
What's your point? There are many contradictions between the Gospels. Are you saying that because there are contradictions, they can't be inspired? The contradictions are there. Arguing they aren't there just makes you look intentionally ignorant, like a kid who plugs his ears and says, "La la la... I can't HEAR you!" Eye witnesses OFTEN report different things. As one fellow stated, some survivors said Titanic broke in two and others said she sank as one piece. Just because they say something different doesn't mean Titanic never sank! It wasn't until Titanic was found 70+ years later that the truth was discovered. She did break in two. Does that mean the witnesses who said she didn't were lying? No. It means that even with something as big as Titanic breaking apart in a shared traumatic event, people recalled what happened differently. And how many people have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony only to be, after decades in prison, proven innocent based on DNA evidence not available at the time of conviction? You seem to suggest that to prove that there are no contradictions makes the Bible story more reliable and contradictions make it less reliable. The whole point of studying the New Testament as an historical account is to prove the reliability based on the same criteria as used with other documents.
@@godnewevidence Are these contradictions? Thanks for any input. 2 Kings 24:8 King James Version (KJV) 8 Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 36:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. Acts 9:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but SEEING NO MAN. Acts 22:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 And they that were with me SAW INDEED the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me. And also why is Matthew speaking in 3rd person? Are there any other instances in the new testament like that? Matthew 9:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him
@Zeal! 😂🤣 WHERE THE BELIEF SYSTEM OF CHRISTIANS STOLE SOME OF ITS MATERIAL FROM HINDUISM (2300-1500 BCE)- Has three deities that go by the"Great Trinity" Buddha (5th century BCE ) fasted for 30+ days and was tempted by a demon. Origin of Amen ua-cam.com/video/_khX6-iQieQ/v-deo.html CODE OF HAMMURABI (1754 BCE)-HAMMURABI RECEIVED 282 LAWS ON 12 TABLETS FROM THE SUN GOD SHAMASH. "EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH" CAME FROM THESE LAWS. MOSES MENTIONS "EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH" IN VERSES DEUTERONOMY 19:21 AND EXODUS 21:24. GOOGLE THE STELE OF HAMMURABI AND YOU CAN SEE THE 7FT ARTIFACT DEPICTING HAMMURABI RECEIVING THE LAWS. HERON (HERO) OF ALEXANDRIA (10-70 AD)- CAME UP WITH THE TRICK OF WATER TO WINE IN A JUG AMONG MANY OTHER INVENTIONS. WHAT A COINCIDENCE THAT THE JESUS CHARACTER PERFORMED THE SAME TRICK. JESUS BEN ANANIAS PREACHED THAT THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WOULD BE DESTROYED IN JOSEPHUS'S WRITINGS(66 ADE). THEY GAVE THIS PROPHECY TO THE JESUS CHARACTER. EVEN IN ACTS 5:5, ANANIAS IS MENTIONED (GAVE UP THE GHOST) WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN JOSEPHUS'S WARS OF THE JEWS BOOK 6, CHARTER 5. HERCULES WAS SWALLOWED BY A WHALE AND STAYED IN HIS STOMACH FOR 3 DAYS. JUST LIKE JONAH. THE SAME WHALE THAT SWALLOWED HERCULES WAS KILLED BY GREEK HERO PERSEUS AT JOPPA. JOPPA WAS ALSO WHERE JONAH DEPARTED. SARGON OF AKKAD (BIRTH STORY)- HIS MOTHER CONCEIVED HIM IN SECRET. SET HIM IN A BASKET AND CLOSED THE LID, PLACING HIM IN THE RIVER. AKKI, THE DRAWER OF WATER TOOK HIM OUT OF THE WATER. SARGON WOULD RISE TO BE KING. NOT ONLY LIKE THE BIRTH OF MOSES. MOSES NAME MEANS TO 'DRAW OUT OF WATER'. SARGON WAS TAKEN OUT BY AKKI, THE DRAWER OF WATER. TOWER OF BABEL IS A REHASH OF A SUMERIAN STORY OF ENMERKAR AND THE LORD ARATTA (2100 BCE). SUMERIAN ACCOUNT OF “CONFUSION OF TONGUES” CIRCUMCISION ORIGINATES IN AFRICA Egyptian mummies and wall carvings record the practice of circumcision over 4000 years ago.For example, it is depicted in a wall relief from Saqqara in Lower Egypt, dated about 2300 BCE OSIRIS (AUSAR)(2400 BCE)- KILLED, RESURRECTED AND SITS ON A THRONE IN THE AFTERLIFE.(ON PYRAMID WALLS) HORUS LEADS PEOPLE TO HIS FATHER OSIRIS IN THE AFTERLIFE. CHRISTIANITY TOOK THAT CONCEPT WITH "NO ONE CAN GET TO THE FATHER BUT BY THE SON"(ON THE SAME PYRAMID WALL THAT SHOWS HIS FATHER ON THE THRONE. 2000+ YEARS BEFORE THE JESUS CHARACTER. (ATUM)-1ST EGYPTIAN GOD TO BE WORSHIPPED IN LOWER EGYPT.ALSO PART OF THE EGYPTIAN (CREATION STORY) WHO APPEARED AS A (SNAKE) PTAH CONCEIVED THE WORLD BY THOUGHT OF HIS HEART AND GIVES LIFE THROUGH THE MAGIC OF HIS (WORD). I THINK THE EGYPTIANS GOT IT RIGHT. BEFORE SOMEONE CREATES SOMETHING, IT STARTS OFF AS A THOUGHT. AS OPPOSED TO "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD". THE SCALE THAT WEIGHS THE HEART AND FEATHER. IF THE HEART WEIGHS MORE THAN THE FEATHER YOU WILL GET PUNISHED. (HEAVY HEART). THAT CORRELATES TO THE BIBLE BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T FORGIVE (HEAVY HEART) THAN YOU WILL NOT BE forgiven for your sins. THERE WAS ALSO AN EGYPTIAN GOD WHO MADE HUMANS OUT OF DIRT. MINOS (GREEK MYTHOLOGY) RECEIVED LAWS FROM ZEUS INANNA(SUMERIAN, 4,000- 3000 BC) GOD INANNA DESCENDS IN THE 7 GATES OF THE UNDERWORLD AND RETURNS (3) DAYS LATER. (HISTORICAL ARTIFACT (2450 BC) - ANCIENT SUMERIAN STATUETTE OF 2 GALA PRIESTS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE OF INANNA AT MARI. The first king known to use the title "king of kings" (šar šarrāni) wasTukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (13th century BCE).
@Zeal! 🤣😂 Josephus was an elite Jew, born in Jerusalem a few years after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. He served as a Jewish military leader in Galilee, the very place alleged to have been home to Jesus. Josephus’ father, MATTHIAS, was of Jewish royalty and lived during the alleged life of Jesus, in Jerusalem, the very town in which many of Jesus’ main events were supposed to have transpired. It is curious that Josephus’ father NEVER MENTIONED A MIRACLE WORKER BY THE NAME OF JESUS OF NAZARETH. Also, Matthias followed his paternal ancestors and served as a PRIEST IN THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. He was an aristocratic priest. One of his duties was to oversee the affairs of the Jewry in Jerusalem and Palestine during the Roman occupation. Forgery The problems with this passage should be obvious to anyone with even a casual knowledge of Josephus…. He was thoroughly and ineluctably Jewish and certainly never converted to be a follower of Jesus. But this passage contains comments that only a Christian would make: that Jesus was more than a man, that he was the messiah, and that he arose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures. In the judgment of most scholars, there is simply no way Josephus the Jew would or could have written such things. So how did these comments get into his writings? Jesus would of rotted on the cross and not taken down. Josephus and Philio wrote how all crucified people rotted on the cross and mentions how ruthless Pontius Pilate was. Not the portrayal in the bible. Not to mention there's nothing historical of Herod killing the first born. I think only 1 author mentions that.
@Zeal! 😂🤣 The Amarna letters(Actual historical artifact)alone disproves the bible. Feel free to verify, but most likely you will dismiss because of your programmed beliefs. Amarna letters (14th -13th century bc),written in cuneiform. Phoenician and Hebrew written language didn't exist yet.Also most of the letters came from Canaan(so called promise land) The letters show that Egypt held considerable power over these Canaanite kings. One letter written by a king of Babylon named "Burra-Buriyas" complains about the killing of Babylonian merchants in Canaan and reminds Egypt's pharaoh that "the land of Canaan is your land and its kings are your servants." Most letters were sent from rulers of city-states in Canaan, so Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province that was closely controlled. In the bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles with Canaan. (Historical evidence refutes that) The princes of the Canaanite cities (described in the book of Joshua as powerful enemies)were, actually pathetically weak going by the Amarna letters. These letters mention biblical places such as Hazor, Jerusalem,Gezer, Megiddo and Lachish. But NONE of them show that the biblical Hebrews are in possession of those cities by the 1300s BCE, as should be the case. An Egyptian amulet bearing the name of the Egyptian ruler Thutmose III was found in Israel dating back around 1200 bc. Here are some sources: (Jerusalem Post, Biblical Archaeology Society, The times of Isreal, Breaking Isreal News, Isreal National News).There are many more ancient Egyptian artifacts in Israel. Asked how the Egyptian amulet could have reached so far as Jerusalem, Dr. Barkay told the City of David, “For more than 300 years, during the Late Bronze Age, Canaan and the city state of Jerusalem were under Egyptian dominion.” basalt stele( currently at the Israel Museum) excavated at Beth Shean( Northern Israel) depicts the victory of the pharaoh Seti I, who reasserted Egyptian rule over Canaan in the 13th century B.C. Also had the battle of Kadesh (1274 Bc) which a treaty was signed between the Egyptians and Hittites who lived in current Turkey. This proves Egypt again at this time, had full control of what is now Israel because they would of gone through Isreal. (Kadesh Treaty tablets are displayed in Istanbul Archeology Museum)
I might even agree with you! But this is a commitment based on faith. There are certainly some things that look as if they could be contradictions, and it is worth examining these, for the sake of all the people who do not share this faith commitment.
I totally understand your point. And I would have thought the same thing, but I have worked in the criminal courts for over 30 years and what actually happens is that when 2 or more witnesses give identical details of an event in a trial, the opposing attorneys become very suspicious that the story has been fabricated. It's just almost impossible for 2 witnesses seeing the same event to give the same account. I know, it's counterintuitive, but it's true. When two witnesses accounts are identical it's very likely that they got together and agreed on what to say. Especially when they have an ulterior motive.
@@timhiatt8848 I agree. That is why Luke and Mathew copying from Mark word for word is a major problem. Also where they differ from Mark they use the exact same wording. 3 sources using the exact same wording while translating from Aramaic to a high form of Greek. It's obviously a legend
I'm shocked that Christian scholars would come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the Gospels,and they are all in harmony with each other...what a bunch of B.S...also,none of the Gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts,and there sure is a bunch of copying going on
Jesus simply did not die.... he was put in the tomb, healed by Mary Magdalena and kept hidden because of some Jews didn't want him to become a martyr. This is the only plausible explanation regarding the contradictions.
Probably one of the best pieces of evidence is this.
The deciples were scared after the crucifixion, kept their heads down and these who fished went back to what they knew. The last three years was now a busted flush as far as they were concerned...and yet those very same frightened and disillusioned men went on to take the message as far afield as India (that was Thomas).
Many of them died brutal deaths; indeed Peter asked before being crucified that it be done upside down as he felt he was not worthy.
So...some concrete and extremely powerful an undeniable experience had happened to them in order to have completely reversed the frightened rabbits they had become.
That somthing was a personal encounter with the
supra cosmic intelligence; the shap-shifting, supernatural Creator of the universe. Raising the Messiah from the dead? Not a problem, ye of little faith.
Really.
@Larry Cavalli How do you know much of recorded ancient history is true?
Can you cite any evidence for what you claim happened to the disciples.
Presenting a story is not evidence. What evidence is there that this happened? The disciples are like shadowy extras in a play in the Gospels, which clearly were also not written by eye witnesses,
The notion of Peter being crucified upside down is a complete myth. Do the executioners say "Upside Down? Certainly Sir. The customer is always right. How would you rate your execution today? Excellent, Good, Average or Poor? Would you recommend to friends?" Apart from which, crucifixion is a method of slow asphyxiation by hanging the body from the wrists. It doesn't really work by hanging from the feet. It is like a carrying out a hanging by putting the rope around the ankles instead of the neck.
The martyrdom of the disciples is a fantasy, not a fact.
@@93Current Ha ha! What "is" fantasy is your anti-theist gibberish. In order to refute the resurrection you have to;
1) Prove the resurrection is logically impossible, or
2) Propose an alternative mechanism that is a more powerful & case evident explanation for the empty tomb & subsequent appearance of Christ to many different people at different times.
After 20 centuries, none of the atheist rebuttals to the resurrection do this. The main attempt from atheists is focused on trying to discredit the possibility that God can be the explanation.
I'm a retired Assistant District Attorney. In Criminal Trials there would invariably be minor inconsistencies in the Testimony of the witnesses for the State. In closing argument after the Defense pointed them out, I would argue to the jury that "Minor inconsistencies rang of truth. People make their best attempt in recollection. Sometimes the account varies. If they all marched up there and each gave an exact precise account as to every event that took place it would look suspect. This is a very reasonable explanation when the inconsistency is MINOR!!
Can I quote this?
godnewevidence Sure! It’s an old effect logical argument!
Thank you.
Even if the word is suppose yo be from a perfect being?
Thank you very much to godnewevidence for sharing. GBU and greetings from Indonesia.
Once again, I've blocked someone from this channel because they don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. Is it really that hard to understand?
This was an excellent short video and should be compulsory viewing for those who claim that the so called 'contradictions' or 'discepancies ' prove that the gospel accounts are unreliable.
Thanks so much for this upload. I'll be watching all of them, time permitting. :-)
But if there are discrepancies because "eye witness account can vary," how can anyone claim it was "inspired by God"?
Another thing, if Roman soldiers witnessed the "empty tomb" or "the resurrection," why weren't they publicly converted?
www.focus.org.uk/mistakes.php -- here is an article that responds to this question in a bit more detail than is possible in a UA-cam comment.
Well, I'm not completely satisfied with the explanations given. There are great explanations, sure, but I would like to hear more explanations, hence I'm not completely satisfied. Maybe more concrete examples?
Sometimes it is useful to listen to explanations by scholars. Other times you could simply just look at the gospels and see if they contradict.
And, I have done that. I decided to put gospels side by side in a table in OpenOffice Writer and tried to put the events in chronological order. Some Christians might say, "Sure, they do line up, there are no contradictions there!" Well, it seems like they do line up, but it requires more work than you would actually think. No contradictions this far, one just has to keep in mind a few things. Here are some examples:
- Mention of one person does not mean there were no other persons present (like with the angels in the tomb).
- Just because one gospel does not mention a particular event, that does not mean it did not happen at all.
- Gospels may not be describing events in chronological order. For example, in the Gospel of John, the writer generally explains the purpose of that gospel in between two events (John 20:30-31).
- Just because one person did not say something at a particular moment, that does not mean he did not say it at all (maybe he said that a little earlier or later on).
There are other things to keep in mind, just can't think of them at the moment! Still arranging the events in order! :D
Henri Korpela One must also remember the Gospels are written and accounts of four different people. The fact there are some discrepancies goes to show how honest they really are. Take a car accident viewed by several witnesses, chances are there will be discrepancies in their testimonies. Secondly, the discrepancies found in scripture change absolutely nothing to the base account being recalled.
Good job respected God's people🙏
Glory To The Holy Trinity
You have to still have faith that the Gospels are a work of non-fiction.
If we put the accounts together, we get a fuller, more rounded account.
And you lose the message each individual author tried to share.
@@bobthebuilder9553 : True. But witnesses to any event tend to focus on different details and give their own perspective. This is true of the gospels. They give their own perspective. The very fact that the accounts have remained as they are argues against later Church redaction.
The gospels are anonymous. The authors are not named, nor do they claim to be eyewitnesses, nor do they give sources for the supposed facts that they relate. The Jesus miracles related are copies of miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings and by Dionysus. The nativity story recounted in Luke is totally different and incompatible with the nativity story recounted in Matthew, and neither author lists a source for their nativity tale. The empty tomb story in Mark is not believable. Jewish women would never go near a corpse that was three days old - and why in the world would they want to anoint it? Matthew and Luke copied Mark and then set about embellishing Mark's stories. Believers should give up. The New Testament is fiction.
Well you certainly took a shotgun to that video! If you'd like to choose one of these points to talk about, I'm happy to discuss it with you, but I'm not going to try to reply to all of them at once.
You are absolutely right. God doesn't sit around and write books, knowing you people just going to change it. God has never instructed man to write books. This is why in so many near death experiences,the believers of the Bible come back and say God is just love and he doesn't endorse the Bible. God is not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu,or any of that. Once you realized that,the better off you'll be.
Galatians 6 : 6 - 9 " Don't deceive yourselves ; no one can make a fool of God; whatever a man sows this he will also reap. He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap Life eternal."
divergences between acconts prove the truthful witnesses????
The Bible is suppose to be the inspired word of God. Why should it contain any contradictions?
Most all "alleged" contradictions can be explained away....View on UA-cam; Timothy McGrew-Who wrote the Gospels and the other videos in the series, there are 6 in total.
F3
Most? I am suspicious of that word.
Yes, like 99.9% are explained. There are approx 14 'actual' contradictions that are still argued, but I'm sure there are explanations for those also. With that said, one must remember if any contradictions cannot be resolved, they take nothing from the message or 'Doctrine' from scripture. The massage God expected to get out has gotten out. If you are interested you may want to watch several videos by Timothy McGrew as I stated above, starting with; Who wrote the Gospels. He has a series of videos covering many things including alleged contradictions and alleged historical errors in the Bible. Six videos in all, Lots to view, but well worth the effort if you truly want the truth.
+ Steve Kennedy
If there are no contradictions at all, would you not say that 'Well, this is funny, all historical accounts have contradictions. This one does not. This must is a conspiracy where all authors simple conspire or copy each other?'
dubunking, According to believers, the Bible is not a historical account. It is the revealed word of God.
Nice explanations God bless them 🙏❤
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the most event in all of human history.
The most event…..?
too many people talking....
I would contend that the central message of the Christian teachings is in the Sermon on the Mount, where there is no mention of any resurrection.
Peter Klok - obviously you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. But I am fairly sure that if you ask any practising Christian - Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, what the central message of Christianity is, this is not what they will reply.
1 Cor. 15:1-8. Look at what is considered "of first importance" to Paul.
Are you believers saying their cannot be a logical explanation for the missing body of Jesus? Did anyone actually see the dead body got up and walked out of the tomb, even that would not justify saying he was raised from the dead, as he could simply not have been dead in the first place, and consider this how can God raise Jesus from the dead if they’re the same being, for god to raise Jesus from the dead he must be a completely separate being, if Jesus died then god died, and from my recollection of the bible God and Jesus are the same being.
or have I got it wrong?
You are tangling up several different questions here. If you want to choose one of them, I'm happy to talk about it. Not even going to try to respond to the scatter-gun approach.
@ As I said before, I'm happy to discuss any one of these questions at a time, but I am not even going to try to engage with this approach.
If you are serious, choose a question. If you are just trolling, this is the wrong place.
@ Just hypothetically, if God *did* exist, what makes you think that we would be capable of understanding what he is like? I ask this as a serious question, not trying to be sarcastic - because I think that how you answer this is fundamental to whether I can or cannot answer your third question.
@@godnewevidence, well according to all the attributes given to him, it should be no problem for him to make us understand him, and for us to be assured that it's him.
Or isn't he that powerful!
@ I think what you're saying is that it would be up to God to make himself known to us - to reveal himself to us. I agree with this. But also, there's no way we can say in advance what such a God would or wouldn't do - *how* he could, or couldn't make himself known. If God knows everything, and is infinitely smarter than we are, there's no way we can guess in advance what he will or won't do.
No mention of the earthquake that caused the stone to roll away?? Imagine that
What is the point you are making?
That it only gets mentioned in one gospel
Should this be a problem? There are a lot of things that are only mentioned in one of the Gospels.
Yeah that was kinda my point..there are too many inconsistencies in the gospels in order to take them seriously
When the Titanic sank, some *eyewitnesses* reported that the ship broke up before it sank; others not. So there was a direct contradiction - but no-one thinks that this means the Titanic did not sink. See this video: ua-cam.com/video/hA6g46R-adg/v-deo.html
This is just the nature of historical testimony.
Weren't the writers inspired by God?
Did you actually watch the video?
Luke didnt know Jesus. He wrote afterwards from eyewitness accounts. K
Precisely.
Matthew is almost a verbatim copy of mark. Also the walking dead scene. That event would have been a world sensation. The anscient world was buzzing with historiographers for the simple reason of not having had other formes of communications. No one seem to have noticed hundreds of dead ews climbing out of a cave and walking freely except the author of a gospel. Luke 2:1-52 Joseph and mary travel from nazareth to bethlehem to register for a world-wide census which according to our records never took place under any governor. But Matthew has it otherwise; Joseph and Mary flee to egypt and wait until Herod dies before returning. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore either one or the other or both are hearsay myths. Sorry academics I would place my bet on the gospels being fiction.
The accounts of Josephus have always been a topic of debate and controversy among biblical scholars. He was known to be a liar and a bragart. He coluded with the Romans to save his life and a good many are convinced his reference to Jesus of Nazareth was added later by Christian scribes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
A fundamental tenant of modern American Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The clear message of this video is that the Gospels were written by human historians and were subject to their own biases and memory, making the Bible an "... ordinary historical document." I concur that the differences among the Gospels are minor. The glaring discrepancy is between how Christians assert divine inspiration for everything except the accounts of the resurrection.
I'm sorry, I genuinely do not understand the last part of your comment - a discrepancy between 'how Christians assert divine inspiration for everything except the accounts of the resurrection.' Christians assert divine inspiration for all of the accounts, including the resurrection.
@@godnewevidence I spent many, many years as an active Christian: adult Sunday school teacher, lay worship leader, elder, deacon, etc. The background message in this video is that it's natural for the accounts of the resurrection to differ so much because since the Bible is an historical document written by people then of course they will differ. This is a decidedly different view of scripture than I was taught and held. If human hands were guided by God when writing, then the differences between accounts are striking and cast serious doubt on the use of accounts as proof the resurrection actually happened.
I agree, they don't discredit the accounts. Surely they make the Bible the word of man ABOUT God, and not in errant though?
The answer you get depends on the question you ask, doesn't it?
The Bible claims for itself that it is God’s word to us, that it is authoritative and reliable for the purposes for which God gave it . (‘All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.’ 2 Tim 3:16)
I don’t think it claims that it is always technically precise in a modern sense. ‘Inerrant’ is more of an Enlightenment idea, which has to do with being technically precise. If you asked the writers of the Bible ‘Is the Bible inerrant?’ I am not sure whether they would have understood what you were asking.
The simple answer is, if the the bible was truly inspired by God then you wouldn't have this problem and having to be excusing the bible period.
You are taking it for granted that what God does has to fit in with your ideas about what he ought to have done - for example that what God thinks about 'inspired' is the same as what you think about 'inspired.'
you would have a different one - people claiming that the accounts are so alike that they must have been invented
Problem? Only people who are biased will have problems, not people who read with an open mind, and we are not obligated to give you any "excusing" take it or leave it.
Why should there be contradictions when the Bible claims that the book is God inspired? Could these contradictions of the same story be proof that the Bible is a book of tales, and not God's inspired word?
For what you are saying to make sense, you would need to establish two things:
First, that there are actual contradictions, rather than just independent reports, things that we do not understand correctly, different points of view, etc.
And second, that God's inspiration means that this kind of contradiction is not possible. In other words, we would be dictating to God what it means to say that the Bible is inspired. But we don't get to do that.
hundreds of contradictions don't matter?
No deity would create such a fine tuned universe and then give us such a confusing mess of a revelation for our salvation. Like the moral law, he would make the plan for salvation instinct and not rely on a book and a religion. That settles it for me.
Isn't it just a little bit presumptuous to think that a very finite, limited creature such as you or me could figure out what God would or wouldn't do?
Use you brain. Can you not see any valid point in what I said? A deity thought it best to use a book to communicate with us. Seriously. I'm not being snarky. Why not imbed the knowledge of the plan for salvation in us like the moral law? How would atheists argue with it if every child without being taught knows the plan for salvation just as they begin to talk?
Well, three questions, more or less at random:
(1) You mentioned the moral law. What is that, and where did it come from?
(2) Your argument might make sense, if God's priority is that we should know that he is there, whether we want to or not. But what if God's priorities include leaving us scope not to believe in him, if we are so inclined? (Once again, what you say presupposes that we can guess in advance what God would or would not do, and why.)
(3) Communicating with words in a book doesn't seem to be intrinsically a problem: millions of authors, and thousands of publishers, go down this route every year. Surely they think they are achieving something?
(1) Christians believe there is a moral law. But I don't.
(2) Even if everyone knows that Yahweh is real, it doesn't take away our freedom to choose to follow or not.
(3) And yes, there are millions of human authors. But no one can know the mind of the author until he writes down his thoughts. Kind of like the time before the Bible existed.
Come on friend, this stuff is clearly man made. This is stuff is the writings of men with a pen name of "God".
Ok, let's talk about the first point here: if you believe that there is no moral law, you are basically saying there was nothing *really* wrong with that guy shooting those people in Texas? Or that it's OK to torture a baby for fun, if you feel like it?
I'm a cristian and for me the fact that there're some contradictory acaunt in the gospels, and they're, (Jesus can't die in the day of Passover like the synoptic say and the day before like John say at the same time) in the narrative is not a problem because the real message is intact and in nothing change the message of salvation.
PS. The Titanic argument is a very weak and unconvincing one.
Hello Luis. Why is the argument about the Titanic weak and unconvincing? It shows that it's possible to have eyewitness testimony about something that really happened, and yet for there to be differences in the details.
Yes, it shows that two person can witness the same event and remember it different but one of the two is sitll wrong. It can't be both ways. That's precisely what professor Ehrman says, it's a contradiction.
Hello Luis - I think you are missing the point here: there can be contradictions between eyewitness accounts of an event, but this does not mean that the event itself didn't happen (and we can still know some things about it).
Yes I noted the point, what I don't understand is, what is the problem with what Dr Ehrman says? He point this discrepancies & contradiction, wish are true, and they them self admitted and says that gospel should be subject to the same scrutiny we put on other manuscripts of antiquity like Tacitus and others. No body takes this rider's account at face value and nor we should. I have read two of his books and I found no problem with his approach to scripture. And again, is the same criteria we use in any other texts: multiple atestament, dissimilarity, and contextual. Another arguments that I found not to be particularly convincing is the one that if you compare the writing styles of the time against the gospel they are no that bad. But no doby is asking haw they stack against biographys of time, the question is if the gospel are reliable sources. And the final objection I have against the arguments express here is that the gospel writer's ware eyewitnesses them self. For years we have now the the gospel writer's ware highly educated Greek spiking Christians and the apostle ware Aramaic spiking illiterate from Galilee.
Hello Luis. I would not want to trust all that Bart Ehrman says. By coincidence, I have just been reading the new edition of 'Evidence that demands a verdict' by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. This has a whole chapter called 'Responding to the challenges of Bart Ehrman,' which points out that his scholarship is very selective, he ignores scholars who disagree with him, and he is seriously biased in his approach. There is much more that could be said, and there are many youtube videos of people debating him.
None of the authors of the four gospels claim to be eyewitnesses, nor do they identify themselves, nor do they identify their sources. Long ago, scholars familiar with the Old Testament, specifically the Greek Septuagint, have shown that the birth, miracles, sayings, and death of Jesus are rewrites of events in the Old Testament that apply to the lives of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. If the miracles and resurrection of Jesus were historical, all historians in the Levant would have reported this, not just four Greek writers who chose to remain anonymous. It also needs to stated that the Epistles of Paul never mention Jesus' birth, baptism, ministry, or details of his death. Paul said that he knew Jesus through scripture (meaning, Old Testament promises of a Messiah) and through revelation, meaning apparitions (hallucinations). The Gospels are fiction.
We have a whole series of videos on these points, starting with this one: ua-cam.com/video/EsJWNrqqpO8/v-deo.html
WHEN CLAIMING TO BE THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, AND MY ETERNAL EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DISCREPANCIES
www.focus.org.uk/mistakes.php -- here is an article that responds to this question in a bit more detail than is possible in a UA-cam comment.
Yeah but the Titanic is not declared as the word of God.
This seems like a preconceived idea that being the word of God must mean that there can't be even the slightest contradiction in it... but setting that aside for a moment, the claim in this series of videos is just that we need to take the accounts seriously as history.
But the whole point is that there is a doctrine of biblical infallibility and the real author ultimately is supposed to be God who can’t be contradicting himself if he’s perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. If there are any discrepancies at all that doctrine falls. It’s not as if the account of the resurrection is the only area of discrepancy. There are also clear contradictions in the accounts of the crucifixion and the death of Judas. I stopped believing in the Bible when I saw that it is absolutely cross meshed with contradictions and anomalies and in the end you can make it say practically anything you want.
He didn't rise from the dead at all. Worst case scenario is he passed out due to blood loss, was placed in the tomb probably entered into a short coma, then came round after a few days.
Think you talk bollocks mate
@@andymanser1 Unfortunately I have a physiotherapy degree. Medical facts that were not known then. That are more than well known now. You sir talk utter bollocks.
Contradictions .... because it's written by human beings, not God!
Dianne Houlli the standard claim is that it's written by humans under inspiration of God.
Have you actually watched the video? Just wondering :-)
Godnewevidence. I believe in God. I do not believe, however, that any human being has the right to tell us what God has "said". That is incredibly child like in its concept.
Oh no, because if I had, I would know that God sits in the clouds dictating to his "chosen" secretary on what to write. Please dont be so silly!
SixStringStrumming that is a claim I do not personnally belive and it takes us away from really understanding the real concept of God and life.
Today scholars have recognized that certain verses in the new testament are spurious and have removed them or highlighted that they need to be seen as spurious. Proof that man tampered with Gods word and what we have today is the word of man more than the word of God. Read the gospels horizontally and compare the same events in each gospel and see the improvement upon the "word of God" by man for theological purposes. Read the events in the garden of gethsemane. Jesus in John suddenly becomes God like and more willing to die compared to the other Gospels. Is this history or faith?
I agree Ethen....I have the Holy Spirit living in me...I breathe and live by Him....I have been told by the spirit that the word has had things removed, changed, and added to it...God would have no reason to tell us this in verse if He didnt already know that it was going to happen...We are not to live by man's word, but by the spirit of God which IS the word
Incorrect. If you really take all the accounts that attribute some God-like sayings and actions attributed to Jesus...there are more in Mark and the Synoptics than in John.
Dion Sanchez mark has been tampered with as well. Hence having a short and long ending of Mark. The problem is right at the very beginning of Christianity. The actual worlds of Jesus were never memorized or written down close to the time he spoke and this what allowed interpolations. It's not all rubbish I respect the Bible however one has to recognize that man has had a hand in it for theological reasons.
Ethen Underwood I think you’ve made an overstatement look at page 252 of Misquoting Jesus Bart Herman says that he agrees with Bruce Metzger that no significant doctrine has been affected by the variants and then again if man tampered with the Gospels they did a bad job by leaving these alleged contradictions in there why not make them all word for word the same to make the point of inerrancy
Ethen Underwood also the key story of Christianity was written down before the death of Paul ie 1 corinthians 15 not only does Paul say the Gospel but he says he received it meaning this has been going on before him and Paul also runs the story by the apostles to see if he’s correct
Have you read about the death and resurrection of Jesus in the book of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Clearly you could see many contradictions. One says there was one angel, other say two. One says two women went to the tomb, other say three, other say two and group of ladies. One say Jesus was given a bitter drink and rejected it while on the cross, other say he given a wine and drunk it, other say a mixture of bitter sweet and Jesus rejected it. Look there are soo many contradictions and unrelated stories in the 4 Gospels. If it claims that God inspired people to write scriptures, should that scriptures be contradictory, confusing, unrelated, definitely not - 1 Corinthians 14:33. Mind u the 4 Gospels was never written by the respective apostles. Even if there were written by them, there would be no contradictions because they were witness of Jesus work and ministry on earth
I urge you to study law and witness testimony.
I can't think that it's slightly foolish to have different and non-compatable apologetics in the same video. We get WLC making what is actually a valid point about judging the historicity of the text followed by the chronology defense which can only be done by ignoring what WLC has just said.
It's also a bit foolish to use the Titanic example. We know the Titanic existed as we have ample records of many different types from many differerent sources. We have records of icebergs in the are at the time. We know the ship sank and we have found the wreck broken in two. We use our scientific understanding of a variety of fields to calculate how the ship sank, including computer modelling to ascertain the most likely time the ship splt in two, but none of these studies claim to have proved it as the models are only as good as the data. The best model so far shows that the most likely mode of failure was a fracture as the bow section sank. The majoriry of the fracture would have been below the waterline and the maximim angle between both sections was 17 degrees.
None of this relies on eye witness testimony, all of which was obtained at the time and well documented in a variety of sources.
What the Titanic example shows is just how useless eyewitness testomony is in establishing the truth of an event, even when there is plenty of it recorded at the time from people who we have evidence from different sources saying there were actually there.
It shows that even with all that evidence and study we can't claim to know absolutely whether the ship broke before or after sinking (a poorly defined dichotomy anyway) and yet Christians claim it is absolutely true that Jesus was resurected.
Can you imagine if we only had circumstancial evidence that a ship called the titanic existed but we thought it was probably a passenger ship of some sort but knew nothing else. Now imagine that even though this is all we know, someone unearths two anonymous accounts of it sinking, supposedly from a story heard from eyewitnesses. Imagine that the supposed cause of the ship sinking was not an iceberge but that godzilla rose from the deep and sank it. The wreck of the ship has been hunted for years with no sign of a wreck. Do you really think it matters that much if the accounts don't both describe the sinkong in the same way? What would you think if some people tried to argue that it broke in half both before and after it sank by claiming it could have submerged, split, crashed back together, resurfaced, split again at the surface and then sunk to the bottom of the sea?
This is not meant to be directly analogous in every detail but to show how ridiculous some of christian apologetics looks to non-believers. What's more, I think you know it. It's the same view you have of other religions justifications, in some cases of the views of doctrine of different christian denomonations.
I think you're missing the rather obvious point that Mike Licona makes:
1. The Titanic sank
2. There were eyewitnesses
3. The eyewitnesses disagreed about some of the details
But... the Titanic still sank :-)
it all works out really well as long as you don't read the gospels.
All of this is confusing to me. I used to be told the Bible is God's perfect word, no contradictions and all consistent with reality. And it seems to me that I'm being told in this video that it's God's perfect word and doesn't have any IMPORTANT contradictions. I dunno. It really makes me wish there was, oh I dunno, some magic potion that all of the authors of the Bible could have sipped that would have snapped their memories into perfection as they were writing their accounts. Even the details. Dang... I know I'm dreaming. But yikes. That would have been cool.
Contradiction
Acts 9:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but SEEING NO MAN.
Acts 22:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And they that were with me SAW INDEED the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me.
@@charlitoadams777First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. ” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is very clear in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples show how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul HEARD the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? YES, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not UNDERSTAND what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound-in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming "contradiction" nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice-but hearing the sound-is a good description of what happened.
If every account was identical, then people would be accusing the witnesses of collusion. That's why it's important that witnesses not interact with each other before a court case. How many times have you been certain something was said or done a certain way while someone else remembers the same event differently? In situations like that, there is usually someone who is so insistent that they can't be wrong that they influence those who second-guess themselves to see things as the more confident person sees them. Some people just doubt their own perceptions on what they have seen more than do others. Also, if people wanted to make up a story, they would all sit down and get their story "straight", which is collusion. They'd be like, "OK, this is what we are going to say."
The differences in details are not consequential in relation to the story. If I put on my coat and go somewhere, the point of the story is that I went somewhere. The color of my coat, what was in the pockets, what kind of coat it was is not relevant unless one is looking for evidence in a crime. But if one is just relaying an outline of events, the details are not as important.
Memory is a strange thing. I have certain scenes (usually funny ones) from old TV shows or movies that I can act out, complete with accents. I have quoted the dialogue from these scenes aloud hundreds of times over the decades, just for my own entertainment. But when I watch those scenes again, I suddenly realize that I got a word wrong. I could have sworn she said, "Blah, blah, blah," but I have video evidence that I remembered that exact line wrong. But the scene still WORKS, even if my memory doesn't recreate it perfectly. It's still just as hilarious.
There are no contradictions. It is all equally false and deceitful.
minor discrepancies... minor discrepancies... minor discrepancies...
But no, the discrepancies are major!
Matthew reports just one appearance by the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples. It takes place on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke reports just one appearance by the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples. It happens in Jerusalem.
It's very difficult to mix up a city like Jerusalem with a mountain in Galilee.
And what did the risen Jesus have to say to his disciples? In Luke, he tells them to wait in Jerusalem until they're endowed with power from on high (that is, the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). In John, there's no mention of waiting in Jerusalem. Instead Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit to his disciples immediately by "breathing" on them and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit." Which way does Matthew go? He simply doesn't mention Pentecost or anything like it. Reminder: the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, as in God. He's a big deal.
Mark's gospel has a quirky ending so maybe the dog ate the last page, but what excuse does Matthew have? He relates a single appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples. But in Acts 1, it says the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of forty days. Sounds like quite a few appearances. Why would Matthew mention just one?
Matthew doesn't know or doesn't share any of these:
* the appearance to disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24)
* the appearance that convinced doubting Thomas (John 20)
* the appearance that involved miraculous fishing (John 21)
So Matthew wrote 28 chapters but at the end, he sort of lost interest in the risen Christ. Really?
Here is an article that responds to some of your comments: www.focus.org.uk/mistakes.php
@@godnewevidence Thanks for your reply. I looked at the article. It's full of phrases like "contain mistakes in the details," "being technically precise about all the details," and "minor differences." But my comment focuses only on major differences.
@@mytwocents7481 Do you have a specific example that is a definite contradiction, not just a difference, where the writers have chosen to include different information?
@@godnewevidence "just" a difference? If you have written witness accounts of a bank robbery and one person says the bank was robbed by two little old ladies and another says it was a teenage guy and his dog, that's not "just" a difference. That's a good reason to toss out those accounts.
On the other hand, if you really want a contradiction, how about the one between Pentecost happening after the ascension (Acts) and the one that happens while Jesus is standing there (John 20:21).
Also... the more I look at Matthew's mountain appearance of the risen Jesus, the more it sounds like a FIRST meeting with the disciples which contradicts the first meeting in Luke/John. " When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." For a first meeting, it makes sense that some doubted, but not at any meeting after the first.
not compelling, sorry...
Zarathustra Reborn So what is it, specifically, that isn't compelling about this video?
godnewevidence Here's just a bunch of very smart scholars that repeat in a scholarly fashion old things that don't really refute the Christ-myth theory... the theory they argue against is just mocked, but not presented in its proper meaning. For example,
1. the real problem with "the discrepancies" in the Gospels about the resurrection is not that "you have multiple independent accounts that present in a different way the same historical event which they have witnessed". The problem is that in that accounts you have real evidence about how Christian writers could take older "accounts" and reinterpret them in the light of their theological purposes. They are not four witnesses that talk about an event with differences accounts, in fact they are theological accounts that add more and more material as the time passes by. And there seems to be an obvious revolution in the resurrection accounts. The early epistles' accounts are more vague different than that of the gospel of mark. Luke and especially Matthew prove to "falsify" the "historical event", and John seems to be pure allegory beyond the shadow of a doubt. And as William Craig says, the older resurrection accounts get more and more mythologized, which really proves my point (EVEN THE LATER INTERPOLATIONS IN THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS OF MARK, LUKE, AND MAYBE JOHN).
And this is just the first point. I really appreciate N.T. Wright, and Licona and Craig are also amazing thinkers, but their arguments simply don't seem compelling to me...
Zarathustra Reborn I recommend James Patrick Holding's book, "Shattering The Christ Myth".
Go to Inspiring Philosophy's UA-cam channel for more answers on the theory that Jesus was a myth. The real problem with it is that there was not enough time for the story to be made up. Paul talks about the resurrection in 57 CE and uses language that indicates the resurrection was part of the early creeds. Further, the Christ-myth bs is based on a fallacy: argument from silence.
People can basically spin "tailor made" explanations to account for the bible inconsistencies AFTER THE FACT.
The fact is that the inconsistencies are still in the bible and still require extreme verbal gymnastics to explain them.
Some Christians explain the bible inconsistencies by comparing them to differences in modern day crime scene testimonials.
This is stupid as the Bible deals with the most important event in history - the Resurrection of Christ -
so it should be accurate unlike crime scene testimonials which have no bearing on world humanity.
Still, the evidence is historical evidence, and it is the nature of historical evidence that it doesn't always fit neatly together. 'extreme verbal gymnastics' is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
So this undoubtedly claims that the 4 Gospels and the whole new testament is not God's word but humans opinions. God is not a human that he contradicts his scriptures but humans scriptures does. Even in 1 Corinthians 14: 33 clearly clarifies that. If God inspired those people to write the 4 Gospels, would there be any contradictions and unrelated stories, absolutely never. Mind u the 4 Gospels was never written by the respective apostles. Even if so they would never contradicts the events because they themselves were witnesses of the events
What's your point? There are many contradictions between the Gospels. Are you saying that because there are contradictions, they can't be inspired? The contradictions are there. Arguing they aren't there just makes you look intentionally ignorant, like a kid who plugs his ears and says, "La la la... I can't HEAR you!" Eye witnesses OFTEN report different things. As one fellow stated, some survivors said Titanic broke in two and others said she sank as one piece. Just because they say something different doesn't mean Titanic never sank! It wasn't until Titanic was found 70+ years later that the truth was discovered. She did break in two. Does that mean the witnesses who said she didn't were lying? No. It means that even with something as big as Titanic breaking apart in a shared traumatic event, people recalled what happened differently. And how many people have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony only to be, after decades in prison, proven innocent based on DNA evidence not available at the time of conviction? You seem to suggest that to prove that there are no contradictions makes the Bible story more reliable and contradictions make it less reliable. The whole point of studying the New Testament as an historical account is to prove the reliability based on the same criteria as used with other documents.
So then the word is not inspired by God?
Have you actually watched the video?
@@godnewevidence
Are these contradictions? Thanks for any input.
2 Kings 24:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 36:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
Acts 9:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but SEEING NO MAN.
Acts 22:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And they that were with me SAW INDEED the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me.
And also why is Matthew speaking in 3rd person? Are there any other instances in the new testament like that?
Matthew 9:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him
@Zeal!
😂🤣
WHERE THE BELIEF SYSTEM OF CHRISTIANS STOLE SOME OF ITS MATERIAL FROM
HINDUISM (2300-1500 BCE)- Has three deities that go by the"Great Trinity"
Buddha (5th century BCE ) fasted for 30+ days and was tempted by a demon.
Origin of Amen
ua-cam.com/video/_khX6-iQieQ/v-deo.html
CODE OF HAMMURABI (1754 BCE)-HAMMURABI RECEIVED 282 LAWS ON 12 TABLETS FROM THE SUN GOD SHAMASH. "EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH" CAME FROM THESE LAWS. MOSES MENTIONS "EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH" IN VERSES DEUTERONOMY 19:21 AND EXODUS 21:24. GOOGLE THE STELE OF HAMMURABI AND YOU CAN SEE THE 7FT ARTIFACT DEPICTING HAMMURABI RECEIVING THE LAWS.
HERON (HERO) OF ALEXANDRIA (10-70 AD)- CAME UP WITH THE TRICK OF WATER TO WINE IN A JUG AMONG MANY OTHER INVENTIONS. WHAT A COINCIDENCE THAT THE JESUS CHARACTER PERFORMED THE SAME TRICK.
JESUS BEN ANANIAS PREACHED THAT THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WOULD BE DESTROYED IN JOSEPHUS'S WRITINGS(66 ADE). THEY GAVE THIS PROPHECY TO THE JESUS CHARACTER. EVEN IN ACTS 5:5, ANANIAS IS MENTIONED (GAVE UP THE GHOST) WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN JOSEPHUS'S WARS OF THE JEWS BOOK 6, CHARTER 5.
HERCULES WAS SWALLOWED BY A WHALE AND STAYED IN HIS STOMACH FOR 3 DAYS. JUST LIKE JONAH. THE SAME WHALE THAT SWALLOWED HERCULES WAS KILLED BY GREEK HERO PERSEUS AT JOPPA. JOPPA WAS ALSO WHERE JONAH DEPARTED.
SARGON OF AKKAD (BIRTH STORY)- HIS MOTHER CONCEIVED HIM IN SECRET. SET HIM IN A BASKET AND CLOSED THE LID, PLACING HIM IN THE RIVER. AKKI, THE DRAWER OF WATER TOOK HIM OUT OF THE WATER. SARGON WOULD RISE TO BE KING. NOT ONLY LIKE THE BIRTH OF MOSES. MOSES NAME MEANS TO 'DRAW OUT OF WATER'. SARGON WAS TAKEN OUT BY AKKI, THE DRAWER OF WATER.
TOWER OF BABEL IS A REHASH OF A SUMERIAN STORY OF ENMERKAR AND THE LORD ARATTA (2100 BCE). SUMERIAN ACCOUNT OF “CONFUSION OF TONGUES”
CIRCUMCISION ORIGINATES IN AFRICA
Egyptian mummies and wall carvings record the practice of circumcision over 4000 years ago.For example, it is depicted in a wall relief from Saqqara in Lower Egypt, dated about 2300 BCE
OSIRIS (AUSAR)(2400 BCE)- KILLED, RESURRECTED AND SITS ON A THRONE IN THE AFTERLIFE.(ON PYRAMID WALLS)
HORUS LEADS PEOPLE TO HIS FATHER OSIRIS IN THE AFTERLIFE. CHRISTIANITY TOOK THAT CONCEPT WITH "NO ONE CAN GET TO THE FATHER BUT BY THE SON"(ON THE SAME PYRAMID WALL THAT SHOWS HIS FATHER ON THE THRONE. 2000+ YEARS BEFORE THE JESUS CHARACTER.
(ATUM)-1ST EGYPTIAN GOD TO BE WORSHIPPED IN LOWER EGYPT.ALSO PART OF THE EGYPTIAN (CREATION STORY) WHO APPEARED AS A (SNAKE)
PTAH CONCEIVED THE WORLD BY THOUGHT OF HIS HEART AND GIVES LIFE THROUGH THE MAGIC OF HIS (WORD). I THINK THE EGYPTIANS GOT IT RIGHT. BEFORE SOMEONE CREATES SOMETHING, IT STARTS OFF AS A THOUGHT. AS OPPOSED TO "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD".
THE SCALE THAT WEIGHS THE HEART AND FEATHER. IF THE HEART WEIGHS MORE THAN THE FEATHER YOU WILL GET PUNISHED. (HEAVY HEART). THAT CORRELATES TO THE BIBLE BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T FORGIVE (HEAVY HEART) THAN YOU WILL NOT BE forgiven for your sins.
THERE WAS ALSO AN EGYPTIAN GOD WHO MADE HUMANS OUT OF DIRT.
MINOS (GREEK MYTHOLOGY) RECEIVED LAWS FROM ZEUS
INANNA(SUMERIAN, 4,000- 3000 BC)
GOD INANNA DESCENDS IN THE 7 GATES OF THE UNDERWORLD AND RETURNS (3) DAYS LATER. (HISTORICAL ARTIFACT (2450 BC) - ANCIENT SUMERIAN STATUETTE OF 2 GALA PRIESTS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE OF INANNA AT MARI.
The first king known to use the title "king of kings" (šar šarrāni) wasTukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (13th century BCE).
@Zeal!
🤣😂
Josephus was an elite Jew, born in Jerusalem a few years after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. He served as a Jewish military leader in Galilee, the very place alleged to have been home to Jesus. Josephus’ father, MATTHIAS, was of Jewish royalty and lived during the alleged life of Jesus, in Jerusalem, the very town in which many of Jesus’ main events were supposed to have transpired. It is curious that Josephus’ father NEVER MENTIONED A MIRACLE WORKER BY THE NAME OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
Also, Matthias followed his paternal ancestors and served as a PRIEST IN THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. He was an aristocratic priest. One of his duties was to oversee the affairs of the Jewry in Jerusalem and Palestine during the Roman occupation.
Forgery
The problems with this passage should be obvious to anyone with even a casual knowledge of Josephus…. He was thoroughly and ineluctably Jewish and certainly never converted to be a follower of Jesus. But this passage contains comments that only a Christian would make: that Jesus was more than a man, that he was the messiah, and that he arose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures. In the judgment of most scholars, there is simply no way Josephus the Jew would or could have written such things. So how did these comments get into his writings?
Jesus would of rotted on the cross and not taken down. Josephus and Philio wrote how all crucified people rotted on the cross and mentions how ruthless Pontius Pilate was. Not the portrayal in the bible.
Not to mention there's nothing historical of Herod killing the first born. I think only 1 author mentions that.
@Zeal!
😂🤣
The Amarna letters(Actual historical artifact)alone disproves the bible. Feel free to verify, but most likely you will dismiss because of your programmed beliefs.
Amarna letters (14th -13th century bc),written in cuneiform. Phoenician and Hebrew written language didn't exist yet.Also most of the letters came from Canaan(so called promise land)
The letters show that Egypt held considerable power over these Canaanite kings. One letter written by a king of Babylon named "Burra-Buriyas" complains about the killing of Babylonian merchants in Canaan and reminds Egypt's pharaoh that "the land of Canaan is your land and its kings are your servants." Most letters were sent from rulers of city-states in Canaan, so Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province that was closely controlled.
In the bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles with Canaan. (Historical evidence refutes that) The princes of the Canaanite cities (described in the book of Joshua as powerful enemies)were, actually pathetically weak going by the Amarna letters.
These letters mention biblical places such as Hazor, Jerusalem,Gezer, Megiddo and Lachish. But NONE of them show that the biblical Hebrews are in possession of those cities by the 1300s BCE, as should be the case.
An Egyptian amulet bearing the name of the Egyptian ruler Thutmose III was found in Israel dating back around 1200 bc. Here are some sources: (Jerusalem Post, Biblical Archaeology Society, The times of Isreal, Breaking Isreal News, Isreal National News).There are many more ancient Egyptian artifacts in Israel.
Asked how the Egyptian amulet could have reached so far as Jerusalem, Dr. Barkay told the City of David, “For more than 300 years, during the Late Bronze Age, Canaan and the city state of Jerusalem were under Egyptian dominion.”
basalt stele( currently at the Israel Museum) excavated at Beth Shean( Northern Israel) depicts the victory of the pharaoh Seti I, who reasserted Egyptian rule over Canaan in the 13th century B.C.
Also had the battle of Kadesh (1274 Bc) which a treaty was signed between the Egyptians and Hittites who lived in current Turkey. This proves Egypt again at this time, had full control of what is now Israel because they would of gone through Isreal. (Kadesh Treaty tablets are displayed in Istanbul Archeology Museum)
This is Incredible. God bless
BUT the Bible is said to be the INFALIBLE WORD OF GOD! God himself TOLD these writers what to write.
There are no contradictions in the Bible
I might even agree with you! But this is a commitment based on faith. There are certainly some things that look as if they could be contradictions, and it is worth examining these, for the sake of all the people who do not share this faith commitment.
@@godnewevidence It's a comment based on study.
If this was told in a court of law, and all four gave four gave different accounts to the same thing, the judge would throw out the case.....
I totally understand your point. And I would have thought the same thing, but I have worked in the criminal courts for over 30 years and what actually happens is that when 2 or more witnesses give identical details of an event in a trial, the opposing attorneys become very suspicious that the story has been fabricated. It's just almost impossible for 2 witnesses seeing the same event to give the same account. I know, it's counterintuitive, but it's true. When two witnesses accounts are identical it's very likely that they got together and agreed on what to say. Especially when they have an ulterior motive.
@@timhiatt8848 I agree. That is why Luke and Mathew copying from Mark word for word is a major problem. Also where they differ from Mark they use the exact same wording. 3 sources using the exact same wording while translating from Aramaic to a high form of Greek. It's obviously a legend
I'm shocked that Christian scholars would come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the Gospels,and they are all in harmony with each other...what a bunch of B.S...also,none of the Gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts,and there sure is a bunch of copying going on
No. No. No. The central claim of the Christian message is that Jesus is God incarnate, and that He is part of the Trinity.
Really? Where does it say that Jesus is part of a trinity? Perhaps you should read John 20 :31.
@@ewankerr3011.
@@reginaldking9906 :What?
Jesus simply did not die.... he was put in the tomb, healed by Mary Magdalena and kept hidden because of some Jews didn't want him to become a martyr. This is the only plausible explanation regarding the contradictions.
No there is no historical proof for your claim.
@@reginaldking9906 Historical????? Are you joking?