5 Times Archaeology Silenced Critics of the Gospels
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лют 2021
- #apologetics #biblearchaeology #gospels
Skeptical critics love to try to poke holes in the Gospel narratives, claiming they’re full of historical blunders. But in recent times, many of these so-called holes have been filled by the shovel of archaeology. In this video, we’re going to run through the top 5 examples of critics looking bad in the light of new archaeological discoveries.
Help support me: / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Sources: The Gospels and Acts as History by Dr. Timothy McGrew, • The Gospels and Acts a...
Digging For Evidence, Peter S Williams, www.peterswilliams.com/publica...
Photo credit: White Synagogue, EpicArchaeology.org
The heel bone and nail from the ossuary of Yehohanan. (photo credit: Courtesy the Israel Museum, photographer: Ilan Shtulman)
(Ossuary Courtesy the Israel Museum, photographer: Ilan Shtulman)
Ruins of the ancient Great Synagogue at Capernaum (or Kfar Nahum) on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, Northern Israel, Eddie Gerald - This file has been provided by UNESCO (unesco.org) as part of a GLAM-Wiki partnership.
Most common prutah of Agrippa I (Obverse). The inscription "of king Agrippa", Fiddler7 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0
Ehrman photo credit: Dan Sears, CC BY 4.0
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Skeptics used to say that King David was fictional, until recently when they found a Babilonian tablet that mentions a King David of Judea.
Slight correction, it was the Tel Dan Stele which was from the reign of either Hazael or Ben-Hadad of Damascus, both of whom are also mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings 19-20). It commemorates Syria's victory over the House of David. This is very significant because it has been dated somewhere in the 9th or 8th centuries BC, which would put it only 100-200 years within David's lifetime.
Excellent point, both of you. Do either of you have sources for the critics or criticism?
I'm working on a study of indoctrination and I have found several times that people have talked about archeology verifying the details of the Bible (like this video) after criticism that this or that detail of the Bible was fictional, but I haven't been able to find the actual names or sources about the criticism of most, until this video.
I am going to write these examples and document them.
Do either of you know the source of criticism for King David or any other examples? I have heard that critics have said that the Hittites as well as the Philistines did not exist and now no one doubts the vast evidence to the contrary today. I still haven't found the source of criticism of either ancient civilization today. I was hoping to find the source for the King David criticism too.
Anyway if either of you know any of the sources for Biblical criticism debunked later by archeology, I would genuinely appreciate that information.
A rare 3,000-year-old seal, from the time of King David in the 10th century BCE, was discovered sometime around 2015 at a dig on the Temple mount. The inscription on it reads ביתדוד "the House of David". Other seals with similar stylistic designs have been found at sites in Tel Beit Shemesh, Tel Gezer and Tel Rehov - and were dated to the 11th-10th centuries BCE. That obliterates any arguments David was a myth.
@@lovesickforone Unfortunately, most people that are proven wrong tend to stray away from admitting such. Finding evidence that specific people used to think a certain way or held certain beliefs is very difficult in retrospect for that reason, even if the belief was considered correct or mainstream for the time.
@@stevej71393 and the problem with the Tel Dan Stele is that it doesn't prove events of the David's life. All it does is say that the House of David existed and that's it.
I've read that atheists used to mock the Bible's account of the Hittites as being fabricated by the biblical writers simply because there was no other evidence outside the Bible that the Hittites existed (stated logically, they mistakenly thought that "the absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence").
Of course, the Hittite capital was eventually discovered and the skeptics never again made the mistake of assuming the Bible was wrong simply due to lack of corroboration!
(Okay, I made up that last part, LOL!, as they continue to repeat the same mistake today!)
@@danielburger1775 "A rose by any other name..."
Dear@@danielburger1775 ,
Are you are trying to say the "Hittites" were actually the "Lydians" ?
Be Well,
DZ
Dear@@danielburger1775,
Sorry, but that is just silly.
I could go to The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and study the Hittite culture and language, They are the ones compiled a bilingual Hittite-English dictionary.
The Lydians' ancestors were contemporaries to the Hittites with sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile relationship. The Lydians continued to thrive in the central west Asia Minor during the Iron Age after the demise of the Hittites.
Time
The Hittite kingdom was predominantly a Bronze Age kingdom (before 2000 BC -1100 BC)
The Lydian Kingdom was primarily an Iron Age Kingdom. (1000 BC ?? - 546 BC)
Location
The Hittites occupied almost all of the Anatolia, except the far western part, and they also held parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia.
The Lydian Kingdom was in the ancient Anatolia, extending east from the Aegean Sea and occupying the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster rivers (more in the eastern part of the Anatolia)
Language
Hittites Language - the language of Neša", or nešumnili, also known as Nesite, was an Indo-European language that was spoken by the Hittites. We commonly refer to it as the Hittite language. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has compiled a bilingual Hittite-English dictionary.
Lydian Language - an extinct Indo-European Anatolian language spoken in the region of Lydia, in western Anatolia.
Capital
Hittite - Hattusa, Tarḫuntašša
Lydian - Sardis
I would be very skeptical of the assertion that "the people of the "Hittite capital" referred to themselves as "Lydians"... because they were two different cultures living at basically different times at the height of each's kingdom. I would like to see some documentation for your assertion. It doesn't make much sense.
Be Well,
DZ
Dear@@danielburger1775 ,
Sorry, but I will have to stand by the veracity what I wrote.
I don't know what your point concerning Merriam-Webster is about, or what it's relevancy is.
The primary time period for the Hittite Kingdom is during the Bronze Age (specifically MBA II to LBA II).
Wikipedia says: Established c. 1650 BC - Disestablished c. 1178 BC.
The primary time period for the Lydain Kingdom is during the Iron Age.
"The Kingdom of Lydia existed from about 1200 BC to 546 BC. At its greatest extent, during the 7th century BC, it covered all of western Anatolia." (Wikipedia)
I do believe the earlier Hittite culture did have an influence upon the latter Lydian culture because of the close proximity of location of their people (Hittites in East Anatolian - Lydians in West Anatolian However, the two kingdoms were not contemporaneous at the height of each's kingdoms, and the Lydian culture was probably more influenced by Hellenic culture than eastern Anatolian culture.
As for the existence of the Hittite culture, I think it would be a good idea for you to call the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute and ask them about their curriculum of study concerning the Hittite culture and language.
Be Well,
DZ
Dear@@danielburger1775 ,
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of Hittite
1: a member of a conquering people in Asia Minor and Syria with an empire in the second millennium b.c.
2: the extinct Indo-European language of the Hittites
- see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES TABLE
Daniel when do you think the Bronze Age occurred ??
Merriam-Webster says second millennium b.c.. Do you not know the Bronze Age was in the second millennium b.c. ??? That means 2000 BC to 1200 BC.
Apparently you do not understand that what I said is in agreement with what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says.
The Hittites were unquestionably mentioned in the Biblical Scriptures and they were mentioned as being a power during the events as the Biblical Scriptures describe during the Bronze Age, which was during the 2nd millennium BC as Merriam-Webster says.
Facts - the Hittites did exist, and are mentioned in the Scriptures and existed at the time the Scriptures and biblical archaeology say the existed. Also the Hittites were emphatically not the same as the Lydians.
The Problem is not in anything the 1. Scriptures says, or 2. Merriam-Webster says, or Wikipedia says, or in what I am saying, because all four of these are in agreement !!
It seems the problem is that you do not understand Biblical Chronology and what it says about the Hittites and what Biblical archaeology says.
Be Well,
DZ
One common one I get is the ‘Luke was wrong about the census’ but archaeology has helped with that one to. That evidence shows Quirinius could have governed twice.
I definitely plan on going there at some point. Jonathan McLatchie has a good answer. crossexamined.org/the-nativity-defended/
@@TestifyApologetics thanks for the link
inspiring philosophy has an excellent video or two on this topic
Not that he governed twice, he was a military official, higher ranking, and the term used that is translated governor also applies to any higher ranking office, which Quirinius had as consul. This is confirmed by the Qunitus secondus inscription
Yeah... give that one up. He COULD have governed twice. Didn't though, and would have to have governed at different levels/positions. Seriously, that horse be dead.
Luke was very wrong about the census. Luke never even met Jesus.
I like the idea that the evangelists made up a village that was supposed to not only exist but be so notorious that a potential disciple is able to repeat a derogatory expression about the village.
Gosh. Who would have guessed that 2000 year old accounts are more accurate about 2000 year old events than bloviating academics trying to make a name for themselves ?
Important lesson here for sceptics:
A lack of archeological evidence is not proof of anything.
But the archeological evidence that we do have is of course awesome!❤❤
The religiously skeptical among us do not doubt the accuracy of many of the biblical historical references to persons, places and events. Many works of fiction include verifiable references to the real historical things of the time the story is set. What we are skeptical about are the claims of supernatural events in the bible. There is no evidence whatsoever for Joshua having "fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls come a'tumblin' down." or for people being turned into salt pillars or someone named Jesus magically walking on water, multiplying bread and fish or curing the sick and raising the dead.
@@stevepierce6467 You question the historicity of NT. Many skeptics[sic] think it is an ahistorical fable. I appreciate if you personally are willing and able to tone down your disbelief according to historical evidence. But you can't expect a photograph of Jesus walking on water though, can you? Best you get is eyewitness testimony which you have in NT. But you a-priori dismiss it as eyewitness testimony. How can one be convinced of miracles if they start from disbelief in God and the assumption that miraculous things cannot happen. At the very least, they would have to be truly neutral to be able to fairly weigh indications. Otherwise, you have a situation from the theistic meme video called "William Lane Craig Thug Life - Hallucinations".
@@stevepierce6467There is evidence of a number of miraculous accounts, the contention is whether it constitutes proof or not. I think some of the strongest support comes from the reception of these tales.
The letters of the Apostle Paul (making up numerous New Testament “books”) were written to people who were still alive and could easily be debunked by contemporaries, but the question was largely about who followed and who didn’t rather than whether these things occurred or not. The disciple were also almost all executed for their beliefs, which is an odd thing for fanciful storytellers and charlatans to do rather than recant their lies, plus it’s a pretty poor recruitment strategy if the early church members were at liberty to make up whatever story they wanted.
Also, most storytellers portraying a mythical or made-up story do so like they’re telling a ghost story, with loosy-goosy dating like “once upon a time” or “many years ago” instead of providing precise times and places or citing their sources, practically inviting readers to check it out themselves. Similarly Old Testament accounts of the plagues or Egypt and such could certainly be made-up to prove the superiority of the God of the Jews over the Egyptians, but if it were just boasting and grandstanding, then the VERY consistent humiliation and calling out of the Hebrew leaders and heroes would be very out of place. The story of Abraham, for example, includes a following pharaoh of Egypt calling out Abraham as a pretty terrible husband badly in need of some class, which is an odd anecdote to include about the father of the Jewish people.
I don’t expect my comment to change your mind all of a sudden, but I would like you and others to consider the very peculiar nature of these texts and the possibility that their power and longevity (especially early on before there was any political gain in following them and plenty of living people who could ask their neighbors and family to confirm or deny) comes from the confirmation of contemporaries and self-evident truths. It’s a deep well, but I want to further challenge the popular notion that blind faith and religious fervor are the only thing holding up these stories.
@@stevepierce6467 The scientific definition of evidence rests on the premise that it is concrete, measurable, reproducible, and consistent with theoretical expectations. The definition of supernatural is "phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature". Don't be so purposefully dull-witted that you can't understand what the very point of supernatural things are. With a divine being, anything can happen. Additionally, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absense.
@@sparrow3026 Yep, you defined evidence, and also supernatural. Don't be so purposefully dull-witted that you can't understand that there has never ever been a single verifiable case of anything supernatural, therefore there is no conclusion we can possibly draw about anything supernatural. With an imaginary being, anything can be imagined. Since there has never ever been a single indication of the existence of a "divine being," we can't even guess what might happen. Absence of evidence for a god merely means that we cannot conclude that one exists. We atheists never assert that a god does not exist, because we don't know that to be a fact.
Remember, archeologists claim the Israelites couldn't have come from Egypt because there's no Egyptian buildings in Israel. Discounting the 40 years of living as nomads, and everyone who lived in Egypt died before moving to Judea.
I personally know some of the top archeologists in Israel. Some of them are atheists but think scholars who are skeptical of the archeology or the biblical geography is wrong are idiots. This is pretty telling isn't it.
Check out Marc Turnage's work. They are excavating biblical Beit saida
@christianne1985 not saying you should. But people who reject the Bible becuase the geography is wrong are very mistaken.
The fact is many archaeologists use the Bible to help them with figuring things out. Nice comment. I have a wonderful Day of Discovery where they proved the story of ??? Getting old…brain freeze. I’m thinking it was Nebucchadnezer invading Israel.
@christianne1985, there is evidence for Jesus and none for the gods of the greeks, romans, or Maya/Inca. They are the created gods. Yeshua proved Yahweh
Dear @Mage Knight Wizard,
My Egyptian archaeology professor was Dr. Reinhold Englemeyer, (an associate of Egyptologist Manfred Bietak, both from Austria). He claimed to be an agnostic. I once asked him what he thought of the historicity of the Old Testament Documents.
He explained that he was skeptical of the miraculous portions of the text but otherwise, "the Bible tells us where to dig."
I always thought that was a very interesting comment from a professing agnostic who has a good understanding of the issues in Middle Eastern Archaeology.
Be Well,
DZ
I love the use of memes in this video.
As do I! Yay memes!
Being 20 centuries removed from the writers of the gospels, I kind of feel it would be rather silly of me to try to correct them about what their lives were like and whether there were synagogues or if Herod would be called King. Even if I had a different ideas about God then they did...what sense would it make to argue with them? Rather I think the motivation in the "skeptics" case is that they are too presumptuous and not nearly skeptical enough about what they themselves know in an effort to undermine things in the Gospels which they do not like.
@christianne1990 Well Mohammad is the only source of the Quran and he lived 6 centuries from the writers of the gospels, and unlike modern scholars he was uneducated and confused even on basic details of what was written and seems to have gotten only bits and pieces of the scripture from people that knew more.
@christianne1990 I did not say he wrote the Quran. He was illiterate. I said he was the only source of the Quran. He dictated it. I don't believe Mohmmad was a real prophet, but I don't see why on Earth anyone would think they know more about what happened during his time than what was written by people that were there. Why do maintain this ridiculous principle?
Well it's not quite things in the gospels that they don't like, they hate God in general. It's more so everything else in the bible that they don't like; primarily that God is the arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil not Man and God is the one who gets to decide the necessary requirement for the sins committed against Him.
They like to focus on trying to discredit the gospels because they contain the story of Jesus' ministry on earth and they are the primary source for our knowledge of His resurrection, which is the foundation that Christianity is built upon.
When people don't believe the Gospel, they believe literally anything.
There were multiple King Herods and Jerusalem and Israel's status at those times was a puppet, vassal, or client kingdom. Rome would at times keep the governing officials in office and partial power to not have to spend money on a governor and garrison. Corporations and governments still do this today. They just call them subsidiaries or autonomous zones.
Jesus being allowed to be buried in accordance with Jewish custom, is also logical, as Pilate was reluctant to condemn him to death, so he would likely be more amenable to a request for the body for burial, as well, i.e. for Jesus' body not to be treated like trash, upon request
It also makes sense if he allowed this just to spite the jewish leaders who would have prefered him not buried just to show them they arent calling the shots. Of all the parts of the crucifixion narrative, the decision by Pilate to allow Jesus to be buried is the detail that seems the least deniable to me personally.
@@jacobhargiss3839 I may be remembering wrong but doesn't the Bible explicitly say they placed Jesus's body in the tomb and placed the stone and guard in front of it because they feared Jesus's followers would steal his body and claim he had been resurrected? So it was less about giving him a proper burial out of respect and more trying to prove he was not God and he really was dead.
Edit: Matthew 27:57-66. Seems like they freely gave Jesus's body to Joseph of Arimathaea who placed it in the tomb, but the tomb was guarded at the request of the Pharisees to ensure the body wasn't stolen
@@limprooster3253 But the Roman guards made themselves scarce when Jesus busted down the stone in front of the doorway. They were long gone by the time the Mary's showed up in the wee hours to check on Jesus.
Joseph of Arimathea donated his own tomb for Jesus burial. The first book printed by Gutenburg was the Bible. Few know the second was a biography of Joseph of Arimathea. He wasn't just some guy. He was a high ranking official in the Roman Empire. Don't remember the Latin title, but translated he was the Minister of Mines. As such he had control of a lot of ships for getting ore and metal to the needed places in the empire. He used his power to transport many fellow Christians to safe places away from Jewish persecution. Some were sent to Britain, as Rome mined tin to make bronze wit there. That's why when Jerusalem was destroyed by Tiberius? no Christians were left there to be killed. The road from Jerusalem to Rome was lined with crucified Jews as a warning to other subjugated nations.
I'll trust Luke any day over the 'I don't want to believe" people. That's an example of faith (trust) due to the record of evidence.
I’ve never met someone who “doesn’t want to believe”.
@@scottgodlewski306 There’s usually hoards of ‘em in comment threads dealing with Christianity or faith. Many drive-by atheist comments who will give you every lousy excuse to not believe.
@@CiscoWes I’m an atheist and consume quite a bit of atheist content and have never heard anyone say they were an atheist because they didn’t WANT to believe. That person may exist but I’ve never come across them. But it is a common narrative among believers regarding non-believers.
@@scottgodlewski306 I doubt they would admit it.
@@CiscoWes I also doubt they would actually hold that position which would be why they wouldn't admit it.
That's what I love about archaeology. It's not merely about philosophical argumentation, but hard solid empirical facts in the ground that you can verify.
If only geologists could catch on to that empiricism when it comes to the Flood.
It seems that these five points of archaeological evidence would be a good way to support the maximal data approach.
A lot of people, whether serious atheists or trolls, claim archaeology and history debunk our faith. I find it very funny that actual archaeologists and historians who know their stuff say the exact opposite lol.
Archaeology and history do indeed confirm many of the claims about people, places and events in the bible. What they do not confirm are any of the claims about supernatural events, like walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, manna from heaven, parting of the Red Sea etc. Every work of fiction, apart from sci-fi and fantasy, have references to real people, places and events associated with the time period and location of the novel.
@@stevepierce6467 First of all, you seem to have missed my point, or the video's. These findings alone don't definitively prove the Gospels no, that's not the point. But it debunks the argument from skeptics of the opposite. See, as this video illustrates, it's always common for atheists to make strong claims about how the Gospels are completely wrong on certain details about history, and then later when they're proven wrong and the Gospels are vindicated by actual evidence, they're the ones acting defensive, like you are right now. There are plenty of arguments and other forms of evidence for debate about the faith. This in particularly is a response to claims of those against it that are proven invalid, which many skeptics today are ignorant of.
Second, the Gospels are written not as works of fiction but testimonies by either eyewitnesses or those connected to them, which the Gospels themselves assert in their opening and/or closing. Now whether you believe the traditional authors or early or late dating is a whole other thing, which this channel actually has many videos for. Either way, real people from around that time and place truly did believe in these things, despite having every reason not to. Thousands were persecuted by not only the Romans but their fellow Jews, and yet they did not relent.
Again though, this by itself is not a complete argument for the faith, there's 2000 years worth of people from around the world far more intelligent with more time and investment in giving that. It's up to your own free will and responsibility whether to look into them honestly or not. If it is true, you'll know for sure after your life ends. Praying for you that you'll believe before that friend.
First of all, you seem to have missed my point, or the video's. These findings alone don't definitively prove the Gospels no, that's not the point. But it debunks the argument from skeptics of the opposite. See, as this video illustrates, it's always common for atheists to make strong claims about how the Gospels are completely wrong on certain details about history, and then later when they're proven wrong and the Gospels are vindicated by actual evidence, they're the ones acting defensive, like you are right now. There are plenty of arguments and other forms of evidence for debate about the faith. This in particularly is a response to claims of those against it that are proven invalid, which many skeptics today are ignorant of.
Second, the Gospels are written not as works of fiction but testimonies by either eyewitnesses or those connected to them, which the Gospels themselves assert in their opening and/or closing. Now whether you believe the traditional authors or early or late dating is a whole other thing, which this channel actually has many videos for. Either way, real people from around that time and place truly did believe in these things, despite having every reason not to. Thousands were persecuted by not only the Romans but their fellow Jews, and yet they did not relent.
Again though, this by itself is not a complete argument for the faith, there's 2000 years worth of people from around the world far more intelligent with more time and investment in giving that. It's up to your own free will and responsibility whether to look into them honestly or not. If it is true, you'll know for sure after your life ends. Praying for you that you'll believe before that friend.
@@rcbmmines4579 Strawmen much? Who are these sceptics? Are they named or have they merely been invented to try to prove a point.
@@petergaskin1811
Ignore evidence much? You didn't watch the video did you?
More great stuff.
Also when you said 'mythbusted,' I thought of a mutation of the famous line. Here it goes:
"I reject your reality and substitute... actual reality!"
The problem with that is...
Apologetics reality on the one side gain, what, actual reality?
Works both ways sonny.
When will they learn that the Gospel is a history book.
Skeptics refute that Johannan skeleton with, "Yeah, but that was a hundred years before Jesus. That doesn't mean Jesus was given a burial."
Noted, but it does show that the Jews were at least at times allowed to take crucified victims and give them a proper burial, just as Josephus says in Jewish Wars Book 4, chapter 5:317.
"Yeah, but that text was about a war with the Edomines, not the Romans, and besides, Josephus would have wanted to make the Jews look good by keeping their Law, but also wanted to make the Romans look good by being compassionate enough to let the Jews keep their law." -As people like Bart Ehrman and Paulogia have argued.
The Edomine reference is a red herring. The verse in question clearly mentions it was the Jews taking down crucified victims in a time before the Edomines attacked, which would be during Roman occupancy. The Josephus trying to make both the Jews and Romans look good is just a desperate attempt to disprove the burial narrative and avoid the implications of an empty tomb. If Josephus made this up, and it was as unlikely the Romans allowed exemptions as skeptics say, then why wouldn't people from Josephus' time argue against his position? "They Jews used to bury crucified victims? That's ridiculous! The Romans would have never allowed that! We all know; we are living through the Roman rule right now." Josephus would have risked his entire credibility on this one passage where it was not even necessary to try to make the Jews or Romans look good. And if we can dismiss a passage like this so easily and call this an extreme claim more likely than actual truth, then we really can't trust most of ancient history.
But if keeping the land holy by not allowing a corpse to stay unburied over nightfall was really as significant to the Jews as we have reason to believe, then why did the Jews tolerate it so regularly, as crucifixion was so common. Every crucified victim in Judea was a curse to their entire land. We know the Jews rioted, rebelled, and rose up against the Romans very many times before the First Jewish Roman War from 67-73. The Romans often tried to settle the matter by allowing the Jews varying degrees of religious freedom. The Romans' willingness to let the Jews practice their traditions shows that Rome was willing to fudge their rules when necessary to keep Judea peaceful. Not allowing crucified victims to be buried by nightfall would have been one of the most effective ways of insuring the Jews will never stop revolting.
But there is one last piece of evidence that the burial narrative is at least probable: nobody for the last 1900 years has refuted it until now. If it was so unlikely that a crucified victim would have been taken down and given a proper burial before nightfall, then why wasn't this the focal point of criticism against Christianity from the Gekko? It is without a doubt that the most known and historically accepted fact about Jesus is that he died of Roman crucifixion and that his immediate followers were claiming he had risen again. It is unlikely that the thousands of people living under Roman control heard the empty tomb narrative and ignored this trivial fact, unless it was common knowledge that Rome did give exemptions and allow crucified victims to be buried.
So, between the archeological record of Johannan, the text of Josephus, the implications of the political state of the Jews/Roman affairs, and the lack of this argument throughout history, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Rome allowed crucified victims in Judea to be taken down by Sunset, and that they figured out the method of breaking their legs specifically for this purpose. Considering the four Gospels are four different historical records of a crucified Judian being given a burial, then this idea is multiply attested, and fits right along with a slew of evidence. To continue to argue otherwise is just sheer desperation.
Awesome post
Well said 👏🏿
Adding a bit here: The Romans had a lot of trouble in Judea, and yes - it is reasonable to have allowed the local governement to exrcise certain autonomy. The narrative that Christ was dead before sundown is amplified by the gospel account of the Romans breaking the legs of the thieves, but when they got to Jesus, found him already expired. The spear thrust into his heart resulted in coalgulated blood, seperated from the water-like plasma coming from the wound. That is a dead man. Thus, the prophesy that "...not a bone of Him would be broken."
Crucifixion was a slow death, in most cases, taking up to three days to die of exposure, shock, thirst, and eventually heart failure from the lack of ability to raise ones' self on the spike through the heel bones to be able to take a full breath.
Not to mention that both Joseph of Arimithea and Nicodemus were prominent Jews and friendly to the followers of Jesus, and may have intervened behind the scenes to recover the body of Jesus.
It never ceases to amaze me that modern people argue with the people who lived at the time. Why would the story about a man from Nazareth be accepted at the time if Nazareth didn't even exist? Certainly, you would have expected that criticism to be contemporary to the text.
It would be like scholars arguing in a thousand years that no one could come "straight out of Compton" because it was a myth.
Jesus was a Nazarene, not a person from Nazareth. People back then knew that.
Why doesn't the mainstream media ever report these facts? It's important to report the truth.
I have stood on the floor of the excavated synagogue of capernaum. That was there at the time of Jesus.
This deserves more views. 👍🏻
@christianne1985
Hinduism is a curse
@christianne1985
Yes,🕉️ blessings with caste system, occult rituals, sati, female infanticide etc...
@christianne1985
Baseless argument .
Lol abortion is banned in Christianity.
Dear@christianne1985 ,
I think everyone on this post understands that you make many assertions without any objective evidential support.
You bias against scholarship is noted. There is a lot of "hasty generalizations", "straw man arguments", with some "red herrings" thrown in.
People would be more open to your assertions and take you more seriously if you didn't exhibit so much emotionalism in your assertions and present some objective, evidential documentation for your your assertions.
Be Well,
DZ
Dear@christianne1985 ,
It's not about you personally. It's not about assertions, those kind of opinions are a dime a hundred.
Assertions with scholarly, objective, evidential, support is what matters. That is the criteria. Give some sound, rational, evidence, not just words and opinions.
Be Well,
DZ
I love the thumbnail!
Wow, this channel needs more views for sure
Well done. I wish Christopher Hitchens, would see this!!!
He was cientificist and idiot. Nothing understand about metaphysics.
He knows better now, one way or another.
This reminds me of what I call "the scepticism of the gaps".
When Sceptics object to arguments for god that they are just "god of the gaps arguments", what they mean is that there is a gap of knowledge in naturalistism and that this gap is filled with god.
But when those same sceptics argue that there is a gap of knowledge in the Christian worldview, and therefore it is false - how is that not the same thing?
I could write on and on about this topic, but will keep it short for the sake of the UA-cam commentsection
It’s not about a “gap,” it’s the general lack of evidence for their positive claims that there is a god that performs miracles, etc
@@amt4653 yeah those people are kinda cooks, Jesus almost certainly did exist
4:02. You managed to sneak a “Happy Gilmore” reference into a Biblical Archaeology video. Mad props. 🔥🔥🔥🔥
0:36, 0:47 - Is King Herod a myth?
1:02, 1:14, 1:24, 1:38 - Did Nazareth exist?
1:58, 2:20, 2:36 - Was the pool of Bethesda an actual place?
2:55, 3:07, 3:24, 3:31 - Did synagogues exist in Galilee prior to 70 AD?
Luke 7:1-10
4:06, 4:26, 4:33, 4:48 - The burial of Jesus
5:21 - 5:36 , Millar Burrows
5:51 - Testify’s ending statement, “Our faith is a historical faith, and archaeology proves it.”
Top-tier timestamping
The biggest surprise was when, in the ‘90s, archaeologists found writing talking about King David.
Your testify videos are a great resource.
@christianne1985 historical events that are in the NT are also in secular writings. Even events like the three hours of darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion.
@christianne1985 nah, it’s secular historians of the day which write about these events. They even use different wording which shows they didn’t use the New Testament as a source.
Dear@@farmercraig6080 ,
Yes, there is external evidence that adds to the historicity of the Biblical Scriptures. Most of it is so well known that it is overlooked and taken for granted.
Compare the external evidence for the historicity of the Biblical documents against a religious text that has no external supporting evidence such as the Book of Mormon. The contrast is extremely obvious.
The vast majority of archaeologists and historians working in the academic disciplines related to the middle east historiography agree that Jesus of Nazareth was not a mythological person, but instead a historical person. Even the famous atheist Bart Ehrman has defended the historicity of Jesus in debates against the mythicism.
I think christianne1985 has some kind of "ax to grind" and she reveals her bias against scholarship by making many unsupported assertions. She may be a very wonderful person, but the comments she posts exhibits many misunderstandings.
Be Well,
DZ
@@Silverheart1956 thanks for your comment.
I think that what this really shows is the weakness of reasoning in certain situations. That synagogue thing made sense to me, but despite the use of reasonable historical logic, the synagogue existed anyway.
Internal evidence and reasoning indeed seems strong to us in isolation but can never guarantee truth or debunking of truth. External evidence is far stronger and more objective.
That's the ting about history, it is often not logically intuitive.
Hello great video! Congrats! May I use and translate the clip for my German Achso Kanal?
Sure you have my permission.
Ngl this is my favorite apologetic channel. Learning so much, so many new tools. Thanks for your confidence and truth my friend 😃
What animation program do you use for your presentation?
Elsewhere Erik had said he uses VideoScribe to do these videos.
Man,What a channel.
This deserves more likes.
Brother,you are doing a Great work👏👏👏✨
@White Wizard what’s your problem brother?
@White Wizard That’s our belief, how is it bullshit? If we’re giving facts and evidence, then what’s the problem? We’re not doing anything wrong or hurting anyone in anyway. I mean you just came on to here saying “spreading the delusional brainwashing buybull book of lies and filth bullshit is doing great work? Are you insane?” Your comment came off pretty hostile, so again what’s the problem with what we’re talking about, is it hurting you in anyway if I may ask?
They said that there was no such thing as Righteous Gentiles who were not only Roman and soldiers but also Roman Centurions. Until they found synagogues in Italy, ancient ones that had names not only of Roman Soldiers but also Roman Centurions who went to the Gentile section of the Synagogue to hear the weekly parshat, of course Norman Finkelstein didn't want to see the evidence and said he didn't believe it.
Great video!
Well done!
You can also add Nineveh to the list. The city was claimed to have never existed by the so-called higher critics of the late 18th and 19th centuries. But now we have discovered vast royal libraries of the Assyrian kings most of whom are mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Do you have information about the old testament?
what kind of information are you looking for?
Frank Zindler was my high school biology teacher. Very colorful guy, an imaginative and creative teacher, Definitely challenged my young faith, enough that, even though I loved biology and got an “A” from him, I decided it would be a pretty ugly experience to continue in it, so went in a different direction. Always felt a bit sad about that, though I’ve had a wonderful life. Nonetheless, he did instill in me a desire to study apologetics (got an “A” there, too😊), so, weirdly, my belief in Jesus Christ, long term, was greatly strengthened because of Mr. Zindler. So, --thank you, Mr. Z, for backhandedly encouraging my faith in Jesus. There are some great fossils in my neighborhood, even better than in Grand Ledge!
The pool of Bethesda gets its water source from the once "mythical" Hezekiah's tunnel.
As someone who has taken doctorate classes, it is frustrating that people are given higher grades for, as you say, “poking holes in the gospel.” Such behavior is actively encouraged. I even had a professor in seminary say the “Son of man” in the gospels wasn’t Jesus. Imagine how he rewarded his students for denying the truth in scripture.
Awesome video. God bless you, Erik.
It would be nice to have let Dr. Price and other scholars speak and defend their position after the apologist accusations....
TL;DR: ``Highly educated men think you can prove a negative".
This video is amazing bro
Love the video but trying to research the archeology expert you referred to at the end. The video says his name is Miller Beryls but I'm sure that's a misspelling on my part. What is his correct name?
There is a TV series from a few years ago called Lost Worlds, where they reconstruct the past, from the lost Chicago of Al Capone to ancient times. They have had shows about the Hittite Empire, the world of King Herod, the world of Jesus, and other fun stuff. While I wouldn't claim the shows to be absolute truth, there seem to be no shortage of scholars who have no difficulty in believing that Herod, the Hittites, and the world of the New Testament to be true.
The problem with loats of historical scholars, including those who stull work today, is that so many of them make massive leaps based on the tinieat of fi dings in order to make sweeping declarations of fact. You find a pot with suggestive image on it and suddenly the entire culture was hedonistic pagans. You find a single aword and the entire culture were warriors. You find a human remain with an apparent weapon wound, and suddenly, it was murder and crime was rampant in that region. Its great to see people going back and doing their own work on theae subjects.
Thank you for this video. Very good stuff.
nice job
It's interesting that almost all of these objections are based on.... nothing. They are nothing but rank speculation, yet are passed off as sober fact.
In any other area of archology, they would be dismissed by the academic community as merely arguments from silence, *_at best_* , but when it comes to criticizing the Bible, somehow they are substantive scholarly opinion.
This is why I pretty much dismiss archaeological objections to the Bible these days. I remember in 2016 when I was going down to Atlanta Georgia to Attend William Lane Craig‘s Defenders class with a couple of friends, one of whom lived down there. We were talking about the recent news that they were probably no camels an Abraham’s day contrary to what the Bible says. I brought up the fact people have repeatedly said that some detail of a biblical narrative couldn’t have been historical, because there was no extra biblical evidence for it, only for archaeology to later discover evidence for it, and to silence them. So, I’m just waiting on evidence for camels an Abraham’s day to surface and silence the critics once again. The skeptics’ arguments from silence which have repeatedly been proven wrong has created a boy-who-cries wolf situation for me.
I remember the camel thing! That one seems to have been dropped pretty quickly. If I recall correctly, a more careful examination of the evidence shows that camels were absolutely domesticated by Abraham's day--just that no evidence that they had yet been domesticated in Canaan. Again, I think I'm recalling correctly so forgive me if I'm not, but there's evidence that camels were already domesticated farther east such as places like Ur.
There's a great magazine out there, Let the Stones Speak, that focuses on the archaeology that proves the Bible correct. It's well worth a subscription (and it's free).
Now do a video of archaeology silencing supporters of the gospels. Then do one of biology silencing critics of the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution doesn't disprove Christianity. Please do tell how archaeology disproves the Gospels.
@@TestifyApologetics I didn't say it did. Well we know that Jews of the time didn't create tombs like it was described in the NT. Or how about we don't have any contemporary historian from the region even mentioning Jesus.
@@TestifyApologetics Oh and evolution does disprove christianity, if Adam and Eve never existed, there is no original sin and if there is no original sin, there is no need for Jesus' sacrifice. By the way, Jesus' sacrifice wasn't really much of a sacrifice considering he is supposed to be god. What's paradise compared to a few hours of anguish and torture.
Skeptics use to claim that the Gospel of John was written around 175 CE until P52 was discovered. 😆
There was never a Hittite empire . I remember hearing this for years
LOL don't ya love those experts who criticize 2000 year old eye-witnesses?
God will always have the last laugh.
Ive spoke to archeologists who had the motto of 'carry a Shovel and a Bible'
They’re so adamantly against Christianity because they have a skewed view of it. Christianity today is mostly not even christianity. It’s just islam and judaism. They say that the gospel necessitates good works which no one wants to do, when the true gospel is just to believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and God incarnate, that he died paying in full for our sins, and rose again the 3rd day. That’s it, that’s the good news. Nothing more nothing less, and if it was, it wouldn’t be good news.
What is really sad is that people create conflict over 'books' instead of spreading the 'truth' that Jesus taught about.
You do not have to judge someone that is sinning as the sin will bring it's own lessons, that God's law is working 24/7 and cannot be 'broken'. A person can 'try' to break God's law, but what actually takes place is that the law then breaks the person.
Paul talks about this in Romans 2:12-14 and is the whole context of being baptized by 'fire' and Jesus' asking why Paul was 'kicking the goads'.
The 'scales' that fell from Paul's eyes were the 'scales of judgement'... when he could see God's sovereignty, and that he didn't have to take the role of the accuser, and thus the rights to judge from God himself.
You just denied Jesus as God.
@@user-hh3cz1km6h So? Je is NOT God... He is in the 'likeness of', 'nature of'... God. He is a 'Son of God'... and God has many sons. Have YOU ever seen Jesus? I haven't. So I've never 'seen the Father'... if that is going to be your arguement. And if you are 'seeing' Him becsuse of what 'someone else' wrote. Then I guess - as per Jesus own words - I am MORE BLESSED than YOU!!!
Hmm.... maybe that's why I've prayed for the dying and they were cured of her INCURABLE DISEASE and left her doctor's scratching their UNBELIEVING HEADS!!!
Prayers of a RIGHTEOUS MAN I guess.
Shalom.
🤗
great job.
Honestly, it comes down to this:
Obey and Believe (Speak up)
Or
Don’t (Shut up)
Please, we're discussing Bible, which commands us to debate and learn and then teach. You see this in every yeshiva and Bible churches. You'll never see it among atheists.
Historian, philosopher, writer (author of an 11-volume work "The Story of Civilization) Will Durant once stated, "... the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies ... who fade into legend."
The Myth Brained desperately need an audience to purchase their drivel to stroke their fragile egos, and the Sam Harris acolytes who accept his butchered and contorted view of history fit the bill here. The New Testament just has to be fiction, or they lose all purpose and meaning in life - facts be damned- trading the next life that matters much more for a cheap thrill ride in this one.
Thank you for all the videos, they are great. I wish some of the other channels would promote your channel as well. Can you try to get on David Wood's channel?
I have been blessed to have had Inspiring Philosophy and Red Pen Logic share my videos. I have only been consistently uploading since the beginning of the year.
Two things. First, is the predictability of archeological proofs which almost as a rule only affirm scriptures. We are yet to come by any that assertively contradict the bible. In my books, that says a lot!
Secondly, I'm told any serious archeologist excavating in the biblical Middle East goes first into a deep study of all biblical reference to the area to be excavated. So far, as I'm told, not one of them has been disappointed. In my book, that again says a lot about the bible's veracity.
The Elephantine papyri (around 400 BCE) pre-date all extant Torah manuscripts, and describe a polytheistic Hebrew population in Elephantine.
Some of the papyri suggest Deuteronomic law was not enforced in Jerusalem at that time, as the folks in Elephantine wanted and received support from Jerusalem to rebuild their Elephantine temple.
There is active debate regarding the Elephantine Hebrew population being an isolated sect.
The "House of David" on the Moabite Stone could also be "House of Daodoh". Both translations depend on missing symbols.
The 40 year reference on the stone is a bit wonky, Omri and his son Ahab didn't rule anything for 40 years.
The account in kings says it's Ahab's son Joram that lost to king Mesha, and also contradicts a few details on the stone.
The "altar hearth of David" reference is a bit of a stretch.
It could also mean the city defender "El is my light", or a statue of the city god.
El being the king of the gods in bronze age Canaanite mythology, or any god.
Some have translated El to YHWH, as both can be a general word for a god.
Kings also mentions that Omri and Ahab were polytheistic.
Even if the cultural memory of the Hebrew kings is correct in the bible, the transition from polytheistic to monotheistic is a hard nut to crack.
You can’t prove a negative. If I tell you there are leprechauns buried in the biblical Middle East and that you could dig them up perfectly preserved, and you wanted to see for yourself so you go digging, you may never find one but you’ll never be able to prove there aren’t any there. Besides, serious atheists and agnostics don’t care about the archaeological record, that has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists
Beautiful!
Awesome
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it. Consider subbing if you haven't already! 🙏
Excellent video, I have less respect for Bart Erhman because he made those claims after the archeological discoveries in 1968… he’s either lying or straight ignorant
His stance is more of an act; he has a pattern, "Moody Bible motto" spot, work to the "it depend on which gospel you read" along with bizarre sing-song voice cadence during delivery. We all find ourselves through the characters in the gospels like a "which character are you" Facebook quiz; he knows Jesus and has accepted the silver coins because he wants Jesus to be something different like a military leader or a genie. Some want God/Jesus to be a wish granting Sky Daddy instead of The Nature Author who weaves all things into a Grand Scheme.
There could literally be pictures of Jesus, and “skeptics” would still deny Him. It’s not absence of evidence that convinces some to disbelieve, it’s that they love their sins.
Modern skeptics go one better that modern scientists.... they never apologise.....🥴
We live in a wondrous time where science and archaeology iron out parts of scripture. Truly remarkable to see some evidence that busts some myths.
So basically, skeptics will claim every line of the bible is a fairytale, until they are just *not*.
Nazareth was so insignificant it isnt mentioned at all in the OT. It was the ancient equivalent of a 'one horse ' town . " Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
The same ACADEMIA of Archeologists and Historians claimed that Pontius Pilate does not exist (just a myth)... but recently they found an ancient stone wall bearing (inscribed) his name... Just because they could not find something, it does not mean it does not exist...
Analogy... just because an orphan can not find their true biological parents, it does not mean they did not exist at all... Even Adam/Eve has a creator... the same analogy...
The Bible said, in God's TIME, everything HIDDEN will be UNCOVERED (made known), and everything SECRET (concealed) will be brought out to LIGHT (open)... (ref. Luke 8:17).
Facts and Truth of the Matters. Biblically and Logically speaking... Glory, Praise, and Thanks be to God in Christ Jesus' name... Amen and Amen...
For more than a century, logicians have warned against trying to build knowledge or certainty from a lack of evidence, if, for no other reason, evidence may yet prove forthcoming. This applies to all knowledge domains. Perhaps the surviving gospel critics would like to take on ... [censored].
These so-called scholars have destroyed the lives and faith of many with their incomplete scholarship, without the humility admitting that perhaps we do not know everything about what happened in a distant country in a distant past.
This is what happens when you start with a conclusion and try to work backwards.
Modern experts know so much more about the ancient world than the people who actually lived there.
the Garden Tomb is held by Protestants to be the tomb of Christ but archaeological study shows that the Holy Sepulchre is the actual burial site of Christ. The Garden Tomb was established in the 19th Century because some Protestants were put off by the iconography, vigil lamps, incense and liturgies at the Holy Sepulchre
sacre bleu! 😂🤣😂
I've been to that synagogue in Capernaum
A common one today is that most modern scholars hold the belief the Exodus never happened/the Israelites never lived in Egypt. But yeah..absolutely no evidence to prove it didn't happen either.
There’s something very arrogant with modern critics. No evidence that a large group of people wandered in the desert for any period of time? There are several answers to this: nomads aren’t known to leave huge amounts of trash around; we are only gradually finding stone buildings 2000 years old; archaeology isn’t a closed book - it is ongoing. We may not have found evidence- yet.
There were several Herods.Are you sure you and Paine are talking about the same one?
You really need to cite your sources !!!
In the description. Also these things don't really require sources, like you don't need a source when the pool of thesda (is that how it's pronounced??) was unearthed just google it.
I wouldn't call Paine the philosopher of the Revolution. He wrote an inspiring pamphlet, but the more clear it became how radical he was, the less popular he became. He didn't have anything to do with leading to the Revolution, and he had a brief moment of fame before fading away. He was more in tune with radical France, where he moved.
Eh. "Common Sense" remains the best selling book in US history when adjusted for population.
@@jdotoz Yes, and that's what I am talking about. When he started publishing more obviously radical stuff he didn't sell like he did.
@@ryanmckenzie3627 Which doesn't take away from his influence on the independence movement.
I don't want to say he had nothing to do with it, just remember that the war started in 1775, most of a year before the pamphlet was written, and Americans were already overwhelmingly opposed to Parliament. The question is not if Americans are going to resist. The question is if Americans are just resisting until Parliament gives up overreaching, or if the king will be completely rejected for failing in his duty to his subjects.
The Old Testament referred to the mighty Hittite Empire. The empire was long thought to be just some tribe that the Hebrews had run into. This was until they found the Hittite capital and deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphics that mentioned the Hittite and it was readily clear that this empire was on par with Egypt.
There were no Hittites they said a hundred years ago...Yea, even the rocks cry out..
It seems that many archaeologists have a certain agenda.
I read a fantastic book recently called Where God Came Down about Biblical archaeology by Joel P Kramer
Critic: Ummmm... aaaa, well, your God is old, he has the receipe for dirt.
Christian: Well, yea! He made it!
I wonder how many of these experts spend the same amount of time publicly criticising Islam and the accounts of Mohammed's life? My guess zero.
They do, but generally Muslims don't care about, and so their criticism of that side is met with a "but the Quran is true because it says it is true, nothing more is needed"
Tyre still exists despite Ezek. 26:3-14. Back at ya.
So how did that archeologist know that it was indeed Nazareth? You are skipping some very important steps here.
You didn’t even leave any sources and I had to reverse search the image of the archaeologist to find anything. And the only thing I could find was an article about the finding that said that it “could be” the village of Nazareth. It has not been confirmed.
Wait until they enter the afterlife and find out for themselves whats waiting for them on the otherside. I wish the athiests good luck spending their whole life trying to disprove something they don't believe exists.
1:07
more right than he knew lol
Weird how Thomas Paine didn't understand that considering the gospels were written within living memory of the life of Jesus surely many of the people reading them would remember the government structures of Roman Palestine. The gospels were not actually written by King James. haha
It seems like they were already dead before they were silenced