I absolutely think what you're doing is very useful, both for folks who might buy into the speculations of these authors who make denigrating speculations about the Bible to the degradation of their faith, and folks like me, who figure the "scholar" is wrong, but would have to study for a couple of days (at least) to rebut their assertion's. In other words: Thank you, sir!

Wow I did not expect you to drop that information on the last slide. That completely caught me off guard. I never want to assume alterior motives for biblical skeptics cause I consider that to be arguing in bad faith, but this is not one of those moments.

Nah Luke was an eyewitness. No doubt. Bro went out of his way to give us an account, as if we were there lol. Madlad.

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

Well, Luke was Paul's physician. He likely learned about Jesus from both Paul and the eyewitnesses that witnessed Jesus' ministry. After all, that's why he became a believer.

@frogtheprincediaz510

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwolf7740right you are

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

@@yurigagarin7182 Probably. I would say this would add more credit to his testimony since in those days, a women's testimony was worthless compared to a man's.

Keep it up Erik. God is with you always.

I've said this many times, but there is literally nothing about Luke that screams "late date" to me. After building so much anticipation for the outcome of Paul's trial in Rome, the book just ends abruptly, completely failing to mention whether he was released or not. On top of that, Rome in general is portrayed in a surprisingly positive light... Cornelius receiving Peter's preaching with open arms and a Roman solider defending Paul from the angry Jewish mob just to give a few examples. If Acts was written after the Nero persecutions, we would certainly not expect to see Rome represented in such a positive light. In light of those details, there is no way Acts could have been written any later than 62 A.D at the latest.

@whatsinaname691

Жыл бұрын

@@trevornunn3285Tacitus, as reliable as Romans come, said Nero persecuted the Christians. I trust him pretty highly

@jaredgilmore3102

Жыл бұрын

@trevornunn3285 Some think certain accusations against Nero were exaggerated, such as his indifference when the city burned. His persecution of Christians isn't something I think is exaggerated, he's basically called an antichrist in Revelation.

@whatsinaname691

Жыл бұрын

@@trevornunn3285 Tacitus did ascribe miracles to emperors as a sign of reverence.

@jaredgilmore3102

Жыл бұрын

@@trevornunn3285 I'm not sure what your point is, we were talking about Nero and if he persecuted Christians. We have no reason to think Tacitus made up the persecution of Christians and tacitus is hardly the only source that suggest his reign was particularly bad for the early christians, many of the early church fathers reference this as well such as Iranius. Its bad research to assume sources are lying or false, you need a reason to doubt them, either some other contemporary source disputing claims or evidence of tampering/forgery. Even if Josephus is a fictional character (try saying that at a historical conference I think it would be hilarious) there are many other sources including governmental letters, decrees and archeological evidence that demonstrate persecution and prejudice against Christians in the first and second century. So why in the world we have any reason to doubt Nero was bad for Christians, he was hardly the only emperor that was.

@legodavid9260

Жыл бұрын

@@trevornunn3285 Excuse me? With all due respect, but your prejudice against Christianity really shows. People don't pay money to hear stories about magic, they pay money to support various causes, in order to respect what Jesus taught us about being generous and helping the poor. What's so bad about that?

You think Pervo, (what a name) had reasons for hoping Christianity wasn’t true.

Once again another great video.

Appreciate your work. After seeing a number of these videos, I feel like these skeptical critiques are just grasping at straws for reasons to doubt.

Another great video, appreciate the hard work brother. May the love and grace of God be upon you always.

Thank you again! Your work for the kingdom of Christ is so important!

Glad Erik included the kiddie porn stuff at the end

@TestifyApologetics

Жыл бұрын

IDK if this is sarcastic or for real but yeah Pervo was not a good guy. hate even mentioning his name.

@chasevergari3669

Жыл бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Not sarcastic at all. Glad you included it. I know it fits the definition of ad hominem, but people should know where he was coming from in his theories.

Your information about Pervo at the end was interesting for a number of reasons: 1.) You always hear about the sexual crimes of Christian theologians, but never hear about the sexual crimes of Christian opponents. 2.) Given point #1, do we weaponize this against other critics of Christianity? That seems a little fowl in itself. But then is it any different when critics of Christianity weaponize it against Christians? 3.) Does the ethical practice of a person presenting an argument really contribute or discredit any merit to the argument being made? How do we square away with such things? 4.) We should be careful not to let the failings of our personal life not get in the way of our message. (By that I mean don't do dumb stuff, not do a better job covering it up.)

@TestifyApologetics

Жыл бұрын

I shared it mostly because I was sorry to have to mention his name at all, and someone was going to point it out so I wanted to get ahead of it. And I wanted people who reference his work to be more sensitive going forward. I felt pretty conflicted about the whole thing, tbh.

@grubblewubbles

Жыл бұрын

​@@TestifyApologeticscould you try rebutting the scholarly myth (I believe their was a myth vision podcast episode about it) making the claims that Acts plagiarized Greek myths? Or that the narrative shifting shows it to be 2 books mashed together? Or the point of Timothy's circumcision being against by Paul in his letters, yet happening in Acts? Forgive me if you've touched on these before.

I have been looking into this theory (and some related theories ) quite a bit and while it seems plausible, it doesn’t seem substantially MORE plausible than that Josephus copied from the author of Luke/Acts. The second part of the theory I assume you are referring to is that the synoptics basically made up most of the narratives in the Gospels based on material from Paul and Josephus with maybe some fragmentary “traditions” that passed along for decades.

The irony of his last name being Pervo.

The point about 1 Clement becomes more interesting if you consider the early date for 1 Clement, in the 60s. Since 1 & 2 Corinthians and Romans were all written in the 50s. It's possible 2 Corinthians just didn't travel to Rome like the other two by that time.

@stephengray1344

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. It is very odd for a letter supposedly written as late as 95 AD to refer to the temple rituals in the present tense. So the internal evidence definitely supports an early date for 1 Clement.

It seems to require more mental gymnastics believing Luke copied from the letters than simply independent works. And it doesn't help the Bible critics case either in the bigger scheme of things; are they admitting Paul's letters were authentic since Luke so wanted to 'copy' from them?

Then there's James Smith's book on Paul's shipwreck as described in Luke. It would be very hard to forge Luke's experience there.

Very good video. I think you are spot on with calling out special pleading on the part of Pervo and most critics of undesigned coincidences. The test for most critics is that every individual case MUST stand on it's own to wholly prove the validity of the argument, instead of allowing for a review of the totality of the evidence. This is a requirement that is not put upon any other ancient document that is widely accepted as true and accurate by the same individuals. Also, Pervo's history, in my opinion, does provide some context for his potential motivations. People who cling to their sins very often are motivated to find reason to disbelieve that there is ANY hard moral code for us as a species. This doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments, but certainly opens the door for motivated reasoning.

Thank you

Can you do a video about the prophecy of jesus being from Nazareth please? Ehrman claims it’s due to a mistranslation but I don’t buy it

@stormchaser9738

Жыл бұрын

My understanding is it doesn’t rest on a mistranslation so much as a pun. So many messianic prophecies say the messiah will be a “branch” (nazer/nezer), and Nazareth is like calling your town “branch-ville.” Matthew is in essence saying “c’mon guys we should’ve seen this coming all along, that the branch would come from branch-Ville.” Another fact to note is that many scholars, including atheists, think that Nazareth was named after the “branch” because it was a settlement of Davidic descendants post return from exile.

Thanks, Tes.

Excellent video - and example of how to respond to skeptics and atheist arguments. Thinking is required beyond superficial assertions.

I think it's important for everyone to be aware of the fact that Luke's Gospel predates Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians: The Apostle Paul quotes Luke's version of the Lord's supper from Luke 10:6-7 in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 1 Corinthians is dated to around 53-57 AD. Here is Luke's version of the Lord's supper which is in Luke 22:19-20- 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise, the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. And here is Paul's quotation of Luke's version of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So, reasonably and conservatively we can date the Gospel of Luke to 53 AD.

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

Luke wrote his Gospel after Paul wrote to the Corinthians, so this at least shows that Luke was written no earlier than 53 AD.

@hilohilo9539

Жыл бұрын

But Luke traveled with the Apostle Paul, and I would say that Paul was a source for parts of the information in his gospel. Luke probably got that text from Paul rather than the other way around.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

@@hilohilo9539 Paul was not one of the disciples of Jesus Christ in any of the Gospels. Paul only became a Christian much after Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected. Why should Luke require Paul for information for his gospel? Edit: Also maybe you can argue for the book of Acts that Luke used Paul as a source for the book of Acts. Yeah but it's important to note that Luke travelled with Paul.

@legron121

Жыл бұрын

@@sabhishek9289 Paul said he received this “from the Lord”, not from any Gospel.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

@@legron121 Yeah, the Gospel is from the Lord. It is inspired by God. Paul meant that Luke's Gospel is from the Lord as it is inspired by God.

Wasn't Luke the travelling companion of Paul and could have been his scribe for some letters ,then couldn't he knew about the content of the letters.

I am amazed at how ignorant our current generations are now. God’s people documented everything because God was important to them. Their lives weren’t filled with constant distractions which the devil uses to keep us away from God. The things they were witnessing were so profound and unbelievable they felt future generations needed to know the details and that’s why things are written they way they are. Just the observation of the AI generated web of the scriptures is enough to blow our minds. Not one human could have done that let alone a group of humans who argue and disagree about everything. Not to mention the long distances of time between the books. It’s literally unbelievable but yet it’s right there for everyone. God’s Holy Spirit is the author of such a magnificent story and it’s for us all to learn.

Commenting for the algorithm. Well done, Testify. I want God to use me like how he is using you. Thank you for what you do.

Would you do a video on professor david

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

Now that would be wild 😂

@TestifyApologetics

Жыл бұрын

no I'd rather drop a car battery on my big toe than listen to him speak

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

​​@@TestifyApologetics Why not both? Could be an exciting adventure!

@TestifyApologetics

Жыл бұрын

that's one way to go viral

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

​​@Testify Exactly, I challenge you to do it, and if you do... I'll give you some.... free food or something, idk... maybe cake if you do it on your 1st attempt

I think this NT scholars last name is repulsive, and I think he was also referring to "felix the cat".

Why cant we all be honest and just say no-one actually knows when the gospels were written and by whom,. Just coz a piece of paypyrus says "written by Stefan" dont mean it wus written by Stefan In fact even the "originals" we have may have been copied from other material

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

Well, a person who is ignorant of the internal evidence and external evidence for dating the Gospels will honestly believe that nobody knows when the Gospels were written.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

For example, there is internal evidence in the gospel of John that it can date the Gospel of John prior to 70 AD. In John 5:2, John writes: Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. (John 5:2, ESV) Take note how John mentions the city of Jerusalem and how he describes the pool of Bethesda. John casually mentions Jerusalem as though it has not been destroyed yet as Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. And John also describes the pool of Bethesda with the word "is" instead of "was" as though it still exists when he wrote it proving that the Pool of Bethesda was not destroyed yet along with the City of Jerusalem. This means that the Gospel of John was written prior to 70AD. And since the Gospel of John is the last of the 4 Gospels, this means that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke predates the Gospel of John and they also predate 70AD.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

Also, another evidence is the fact that Luke's Gospel predates Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians: The Apostle Paul quotes Luke's version of the Lord's supper from Luke 10:6-7 in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 1 Corinthians is dated to around 53-54AD. Here is Luke's version of the Lord's supper which is in Luke 22:19-20- 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise, the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. And here is Paul's quotation of Luke's version of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So, reasonably and conservatively we can date the Gospel of Luke to 53 AD.

@christianhayter

Жыл бұрын

This proves nothing except that one dude wrote all this stuff and remembered what he'd written elsewhere, or that a bunch of dudes collaborated to write some tall tales

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

@@christianhayter Well, your claims can only work if they were written long after the death of all the 1st century eyewitnesses of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. For example, your claims can work for books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas etc which were written long after the death of the eyewitnesses of the 1st century.

What’s with the message at the end? Was pervo’s book written before or after his charges?

@therottingstench

Жыл бұрын

Before.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

The Early dating of Pervo's book lol.

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

@@sabhishek9289 I'd date Pervo at 4030 BC, written by Mohammed Ali 🔥

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwolf7740 hahaha

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

​@sabhishek9289 Hey, you can't prove me wrong, so it must be true!

These videos and explanations are lily pads which these “skeptic” reprobates run away from, but which also bring baby Christian’s to higher understanding

"Seems like Pervo misunderstood the argument he's trying to criticize." I don't think it's just this one guy. I've seen people try to criticize the argument from undesigned coincidences, and every time, every single time, they demonstrate that they don't understand the argument. I consider this evidence of the strength of the argument from undesigned coincidences. If it had weaknesses, then the people who oppose it and do understand it would try to exploit those weaknesses. This either means that everyone who understands the argument agrees with it because it's strong, or it means that everyone who understands it and doesn't agree with it doesn't dare try to argue against it because it's strong.

*anything in the bible is proven reliable* Skeptics : hmmm it cannot be...it must be made sometime later Moving the goalposts again and again

The Gospels of Luke was written after Paul died in about 64 AD. Since Luke warns of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem of 70 AD as a future event, it's unlikely there was enough time for Luke to even copy Paul word-for-word since the Gospel of Luke would've been written about 64 - 69 AD. Even if he did, he was his travelling companion, so wouldn't it make sense for him to quote him indirectly 🤷‍♂️

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

The Apostle Paul quotes Luke's version of the Lord's supper from Luke 22:19-20 in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 1 Corinthians is dated to around 53-57 AD. Here is Luke's version of the Lord's supper which is in Luke 22:19-20- 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise, the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. And here is Paul's quotation of Luke's version of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So, reasonably and conservatively we can date the Gospel of Luke to 53 AD.

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

​@S Abhishek Pretty good argument for an early date. This would mean that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 53 AD, placing the Gospel of Luke somewhere between 53 AD and 64 AD (Paul's death) but not necessarily exactly 53 AD.

@sabhishek9289

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwolf7740 1 Corinthians is actually dated to around 53-57AD so dating Luke to between 53 AD and 64 AD is unwarranted. Also this means that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul.

@darkwolf7740

Жыл бұрын

​@S Abhishek Thinking about it, Luke did write Acts so you're probably right there.

@305thief8

Жыл бұрын

@@sabhishek9289 but Paul says “For I received from the Lord *what I also delivered to you*

"risk necks" - Paul probably means that literally. A Roman citizen could not normally be executed except by the sword, a fact that Paul himself used.

I don’t believe in coincidences because God uses His sovereignty over all aspects of His creation to sway our decisions. We’re all free will agents and God will always respect His decision. So anything that is a random coincidence is an action taken by God to get us to do or not do a certain thing immediately or down the road. Undersigned coincidences are God proving to us He’s in charge and the plan is still going strong.

If you do not believe, you have no alternative but to come up with other explanations.