It is perfectly reasonable to approach biblical narratives with skepticism. It is completely unreasonable to accuse a Christian apologist of being a liar without offering factual rebuttal. Unless you correct that, it is you who is being deceitful.
I think skeptics of Acts tend to use arguments from possibility rather than arguments from probability. It’s possible that the author of Acts was not Luke, used Josephus, used Paul’s epistles, etc. but none of these explanations are argued well enough to show that they are probable. When considering the Patristic witness to Luke’s authorship, the discrepancies between Josephus and Paul’s epistles, the repeated casual mention of historical details that are very difficult to get correct, etc. it becomes clear that the explanation which explains all of these pieces of data most easily is that the author of Acts was indeed Luke, a traveling companion of Paul who wrote down events from his memory that he witnessed directly or heard from Paul himself. Thinking about it now, I think this explanation also has fewer assumptions than the skeptical explanation/hypothesis. For example, the skeptic will also need to posit that the author of Luke-Acts had accurate name statistics data which he got from scouring Josephus. This assumes that an ancient forger would even care about name statistics which is hilarious considering no one even really thought about it until Richard Bauckham. Also, the author of Luke-Acts would need to be so precise when reading Josephus so as to not include instances of names of the same person that are mentioned twice or more all while just flat out disagreeing with the date of the revolt involving Gamaliel among other instances or disagreement. All this goes without mentioning that a second century forger writing Luke-Acts would also need to be a competent historian himself with all of the tiny and insignificant historical details he mentions. It’s much easier to say that the author lived through these events and accurately records them. The skeptical scenario simply strains credulity and anyone who holds it frankly needs a vivid imagination to make it work.
Why do people love to just ad hoc outright reject what was unanimously understood by church fathers when it comes to authorship and times of writing??? Matthew came first, and Luke wrote Acts.
When it comes to Markan priority, the evidence isn’t ad hoc. You may disagree with it or find it inconclusive, but the textual criticism is not ad hoc.
@@ReflectionsofChristianMadman The fact is all textual criticism is subjective unless it is based on scientific criteria. Also confirmation bias to confirm evidence in favour of markan priority instead of proving it by attempting to falsify it is not wise. Markan prioritists are committing the fallacy of cherrypicking.
Early attestation to Matthew says it was in Hebrew. We don't have a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I hold to the view that Matthew wrote first in Hebrew, then Mark wrote in Greek, and then Matthew's Greek Gospel was made as a joint effort between him and the other apostles.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 congrats on the series. One question though: someone was asking in the comment section for where did you get your church father quotes and where did Papias and Andrew quote Luke and supposedly found it a stretch to say that they quoted. Are there any answers to these ?
One reason that Luke might have been ignored by many early church fathers is that he was part Greek, not fully Jewish. Once the rabbis started creating Judaism and excluding Christian Jews from worship sometime around 120 AD, the church lost a lot of Jews, and the non-Jews gained prominence among Christians.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that the gospel of John contradicts Luke indicates that he he had never heard of Luke's Pentecost: [Jhn 20:19-23 NASB95] 19 So when it was evening on that day, the first [day] of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace [be] with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace [be] with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, [their sins] have been forgiven them; if you retain the [sins] of any, they have been retained." Ditto for the Synoptics. Luke is complete fiction.
Which web sites are you using to get those quotes from church fathers? I looked for the Papias quote in Andrew of Caesarea and it feels quite a stretch to claim it quotes Luke.
Really enjoyed this video a few months back - wondering if you're alright since you haven't posted in a while? Really miss your content, but want to make sure you're okay above anything.
Partially due to time constraints (I only had a very brief opportunity to make this video in between switching stages for my new job). And partially because this video was primarily intended to build the positive case for the reliability of Acts. I would refer those interested in this issue to Hemer and Boyd for a discussion of Luke's and Paul's supposedly different theologies.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19 18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
@@ryanrevland4333 … that’s why I said Luke would have mentioned those two events because up to the point I was at the video he didn’t address that… pretty simple bro🤣
Acts is an historical sources - this does not mean it is reliable on everything it says. Did someone really drop dead because they did not give Peter enough money, for instance. Some of Acts is clearly either reported traditions or out and out fiction.
@StudentDad-mc3pu Responding to one of your other comments. Actually, there is archaeological scientific proof that all 4 Gospels were written before 70 AD. In the last of the 4 Gospels, in the Gospel of John, chapter 5 verse 2, John casually mentions the sheep gate existing in the present tense with the Greek word that translates "is". See the fact is we know exactly when the sheep gate in Jerusalem was destroyed. It was destroyed exactly in 70 AD when the Romans besieged Jerusalem and when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple during the siege. So if the sheep gate in Jerusalem is standing while John is writing his Gospel, then that means that he wrote his gospel prior to 70 AD. And if John wrote his gospel prior to 70 AD, then so did the synoptic gospel authors- Matthew, Mar,k and Luke because the gospel of John was written last of 4 gospels.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I thought you were faith because of REASON. I'm not sure what belief in divine judgement has got to do with scepticism about the historical accuracy of Acts/Luke.
Sorry guys, if there were historical reliablity in Acts, Biblical scholars would be the first to know. So your argumentation is on a weak foundation from the beginning.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19 18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
@@thevulture5750 I am not impressed. This is nothing but propaganda, a rhetoric trick to isolate oneself from criticism. I go for the facts and Acts is without facts.
"Biblical scholars would be the first to know" If they used a scientific methodology, they would know. However none of these scholars used any scientific methodology.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I learnt from people who have studied the topic all their life. It's people who have studied the topic all their life versus other people who have studied the topic all their life. What matters is who is right and who is using a scientific methodology. Don't use the sunk cost fallacy to shame me. It only puts you in bad light.
“Classic Christian apologists lying.”
- Internet SkEpTiC
It is perfectly reasonable to approach biblical narratives with skepticism. It is completely unreasonable to accuse a Christian apologist of being a liar without offering factual rebuttal. Unless you correct that, it is you who is being deceitful.
I think skeptics of Acts tend to use arguments from possibility rather than arguments from probability. It’s possible that the author of Acts was not Luke, used Josephus, used Paul’s epistles, etc. but none of these explanations are argued well enough to show that they are probable. When considering the Patristic witness to Luke’s authorship, the discrepancies between Josephus and Paul’s epistles, the repeated casual mention of historical details that are very difficult to get correct, etc. it becomes clear that the explanation which explains all of these pieces of data most easily is that the author of Acts was indeed Luke, a traveling companion of Paul who wrote down events from his memory that he witnessed directly or heard from Paul himself.
Thinking about it now, I think this explanation also has fewer assumptions than the skeptical explanation/hypothesis. For example, the skeptic will also need to posit that the author of Luke-Acts had accurate name statistics data which he got from scouring Josephus. This assumes that an ancient forger would even care about name statistics which is hilarious considering no one even really thought about it until Richard Bauckham. Also, the author of Luke-Acts would need to be so precise when reading Josephus so as to not include instances of names of the same person that are mentioned twice or more all while just flat out disagreeing with the date of the revolt involving Gamaliel among other instances or disagreement. All this goes without mentioning that a second century forger writing Luke-Acts would also need to be a competent historian himself with all of the tiny and insignificant historical details he mentions. It’s much easier to say that the author lived through these events and accurately records them. The skeptical scenario simply strains credulity and anyone who holds it frankly needs a vivid imagination to make it work.
Luke clearly had quite a different view of Theology from Paul, then!
@@StudentDad-mc3puIf their theology is indeed quite different, wouldn’t that favor the view that Luke did not use Paul’s epistles?
@@sammybonasso6769 Maybe. To be honest, no one knows. However, you can't argue that Luke was a disciple or companion of Paul either.
Why do people love to just ad hoc outright reject what was unanimously understood by church fathers when it comes to authorship and times of writing??? Matthew came first, and Luke wrote Acts.
When it comes to Markan priority, the evidence isn’t ad hoc. You may disagree with it or find it inconclusive, but the textual criticism is not ad hoc.
@@ReflectionsofChristianMadman
The fact is all textual criticism is subjective unless it is based on scientific criteria. Also confirmation bias to confirm evidence in favour of markan priority instead of proving it by attempting to falsify it is not wise. Markan prioritists are committing the fallacy of cherrypicking.
Early attestation to Matthew says it was in Hebrew. We don't have a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
I hold to the view that Matthew wrote first in Hebrew, then Mark wrote in Greek, and then Matthew's Greek Gospel was made as a joint effort between him and the other apostles.
The evidence for Markan priority is solid and easily demonstrated.
@@ryanrevland4333 The cherry picking fallacy is fallacious.
Great video my friend. God bless you and your channel!
Its been like 3 months, when is a new video coming?
Currently working on a series defending substance dualism. I don't know when it will be released yet.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 congrats on the series.
One question though: someone was asking in the comment section for where did you get your church father quotes and where did Papias and Andrew quote Luke and supposedly found it a stretch to say that they quoted.
Are there any answers to these ?
One reason that Luke might have been ignored by many early church fathers is that he was part Greek, not fully Jewish. Once the rabbis started creating Judaism and excluding Christian Jews from worship sometime around 120 AD, the church lost a lot of Jews, and the non-Jews gained prominence among Christians.
Great video.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that the gospel of John contradicts Luke indicates that he he had never heard of Luke's Pentecost:
[Jhn 20:19-23 NASB95] 19 So when it was evening on that day, the first [day] of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace [be] with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace [be] with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, [their sins] have been forgiven them; if you retain the [sins] of any, they have been retained."
Ditto for the Synoptics.
Luke is complete fiction.
Which web sites are you using to get those quotes from church fathers? I looked for the Papias quote in Andrew of Caesarea and it feels quite a stretch to claim it quotes Luke.
It does not.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu which sites were you using?
Really enjoyed this video a few months back - wondering if you're alright since you haven't posted in a while?
Really miss your content, but want to make sure you're okay above anything.
Appreciate the concern. I've been busy with my new job plus studying a lot for my new series on dualism.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I'm looking forward to seeing the dualism videos!
That's a topic I'm not well studied on but interested in
Why didnt you go over the arguments about how luke's theology seems different from paul's?
Partially due to time constraints (I only had a very brief opportunity to make this video in between switching stages for my new job). And partially because this video was primarily intended to build the positive case for the reliability of Acts.
I would refer those interested in this issue to Hemer and Boyd for a discussion of Luke's and Paul's supposedly different theologies.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 fair enough
1st person plural 4:15
Yes, that's what I meant. My mistake.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
I typed “Luke would have mentioned Jerusalems destruction and Paul’s death” and quickly deleted it once I heard you say it 🤣🤣
Why would Luke mention the destruction of the Temple if he's writing an account from 30 years beforehand?
@@ryanrevland4333 … that’s why I said Luke would have mentioned those two events because up to the point I was at the video he didn’t address that… pretty simple bro🤣
Acts is an historical sources - this does not mean it is reliable on everything it says. Did someone really drop dead because they did not give Peter enough money, for instance. Some of Acts is clearly either reported traditions or out and out fiction.
@StudentDad-mc3pu Responding to one of your other comments. Actually, there is archaeological scientific proof that all 4 Gospels were written before 70 AD. In the last of the 4 Gospels, in the Gospel of John, chapter 5 verse 2, John casually mentions the sheep gate existing in the present tense with the Greek word that translates "is". See the fact is we know exactly when the sheep gate in Jerusalem was destroyed. It was destroyed exactly in 70 AD when the Romans besieged Jerusalem and when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple during the siege.
So if the sheep gate in Jerusalem is standing while John is writing his Gospel, then that means that he wrote his gospel prior to 70 AD. And if John wrote his gospel prior to 70 AD, then so did the synoptic gospel authors- Matthew, Mar,k and Luke because the gospel of John was written last of 4 gospels.
What do you mean in that money case... please clear...
This sounds like you are assuming that miraculous events such as divine judgement cannot occur
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I thought you were faith because of REASON. I'm not sure what belief in divine judgement has got to do with scepticism about the historical accuracy of Acts/Luke.
Sorry guys, if there were historical reliablity in Acts, Biblical scholars would be the first to know. So your argumentation is on a weak foundation from the beginning.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
@@thevulture5750
I am not impressed. This is nothing but propaganda, a rhetoric trick to isolate oneself from criticism.
I go for the facts and Acts is without facts.
"Biblical scholars would be the first to know"
If they used a scientific methodology, they would know. However none of these scholars used any scientific methodology.
@@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond
Ah, I see, you know the topic better than the people who have studied the subject all their life.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I learnt from people who have studied the topic all their life. It's people who have studied the topic all their life versus other people who have studied the topic all their life. What matters is who is right and who is using a scientific methodology. Don't use the sunk cost fallacy to shame me. It only puts you in bad light.