The luke-acts 1-2 punch will KO any skeptics. From the details, to the events he mentions are top notch

@Electricalpenguin

Ай бұрын

In the minds of those who already believe, yes.

@downenout8705

Ай бұрын

Yep, if you presuppose that the Bible is true and inspired by the actual creator of the universe then obviously anything that you read is going to be "top notch". There is no problem that can't be fixed with Hebrews 11: 1 faith.

@adamstewart9052

Ай бұрын

​​​​​​​​@@ElectricalpenguinIf they already have it in their heads that the books of both Luke and Acts get tricky details right which tells us they wanted to be an accurate historian which is also what they claimed to be thus externally confirming their work? Sounds pretty biased to say it's just because they're already Christians.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

electrical penguin decided to ad hom instead of talk about evidence

@Electricalpenguin

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Not seeing the ad hominem. I’m responding to the silliness of saying that these things will “KO any skeptics”. People on the skeptical side say the same kind of things in the comments to videos from Paulogia or Rationality Rules or whoever. And those people are equally silly. Nobody is getting KO’d by what the other side believes is amazing evidence that no one can ever rebut. They continue to disagree and respond.

I got mad respect for Luke when I first understood his reporting of Judas's death. He reported it with the forensic eye of the doctor that he was. 😅😅😅

@achannel6664

Ай бұрын

M

@modernatheism

Ай бұрын

You are joking right? If anything, his ridiculous writing created one of the most well known contradictions in the gospels.

@valkyrie3493

Ай бұрын

@@modernatheism You weren't invited here. Go learn what counts as a contradiction first. Olodo ràbàtà.

@modernatheism

Ай бұрын

​@@valkyrie3493I must have missed the "by invitation only" sign

@valkyrie3493

Ай бұрын

@@modernatheism You did. God-deprived people aren't wanted here. So kindly take your nonsense elsewhere. Go sulk on another comment.

But John was cooking with the intro tho i cant lie 🤷🏽‍♂️🔥 dawg started with the coldest opening sentence out of the 4 gospels “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” like that intro is so fye ❤️‍🔥 (im biased cause thats my favorite verse 🤣)

@Annoitedpastorlewiswalkin

20 күн бұрын

Amen but frl its hard dawg amazing. Praise YAH amen halleluyah amen.

@aleksejsruy

13 күн бұрын

Yet some people will still say that Paul invented Christianity

But skeptics still gonna move goalposts further

@Boundless_Border

Ай бұрын

Do you care about the discussion or is it fun just to laugh at atheists? I'm honestly just curious.

@auburnfan4life589

Ай бұрын

​@@Boundless_Border this video literally is the discussion

@Boundless_Border

Ай бұрын

@@auburnfan4life589 I am aware and responded to the video. But this is a copy paste response and they weren't really able to explain what they meant before along with the fact that this video wouldn't make an atheist shift goalposts even if every part was accepted.

@mgvilaca

Ай бұрын

@@Boundless_Border why does it trigger you so much. There's no real discussion. The video is spot on, just as Luke's account

@Boundless_Border

Ай бұрын

@@mgvilaca Not really. I just saw the repeated comment that seems closer to a mantra now then actually representative of the video and what is presented. Your immediate pivot to my question somehow representing that I'm triggered exemplifies that your comments are just memes that your fellow Christians would get a kick out of. I didn't want to assume that was all your comments amounted to but maybe that is the case.

Jesus before Herod Antipas also makes perfect sense because of a political structure of Jesus' time

Wasn’t there an Athiest who tried to falsify the book of acts for 30 years and after he kept on finding the evidence written in the Bible, he decided to become a Christian because he trusted Luke that he believed what was written in the gospel of Luke?

@JuhoPurola

Ай бұрын

There were also bunch of Christians who tried to truly know God by studying the Bible and ended up becoming atheists due to problems in the Bible.

@glennjoshuamangabat2750

Ай бұрын

@@JuhoPurola let me guess. They decided to not ask God why these are in the Bible and focus on atheism instead of what Christians have talked about it? It’s usually about the Old Testament most likely. If that is most likely, I just want people to read judges 21:25.

@JuhoPurola

Ай бұрын

@@glennjoshuamangabat2750 They did ask God and listened to the Christian sources. Why would they ”focus on atheism”, whatever that means, if they were Christians when studying the Bible?

@glennjoshuamangabat2750

29 күн бұрын

@@JuhoPurola basically they decided to keep on listening to atheists and only think about “yeah you are right” without philosophizing what they say and compare it to the Christians and do the same. I view new atheists that talks a lot and have a lot of viewers the same way I see politicians trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Society is not going to affect them because they have money to go through the storm. Most people don’t. Perfect example would be schools. You think they are going to send them to public schools where it’s being taken over by “woke” ideology? They are just going to send their children either to private schools or get a tutor.

@aaronharlow2137

24 күн бұрын

@@JuhoPurola did they spend 30 years studying it?

Alex O'Connor tried questioning the historicity of Mark on Peterson's podcast. You're doing excellent work establishing that the NT is indeed history

Adam Kubiś’ paper "Jesus’ Trial Before Herod Antipas" convinced me of Luke’s historical reliability in regard to his reports of these events.

This is a great series, I've binged them all this morning. Keep them coming! And I'm not sure if you've noticed, or if it was intentional, but the three most recent videos in this playlist are unlisted.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

yep you found the not so super secret early release backdoor

@RobbieG17

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics 😅 Well I'm glad I did, made for a good morning! Thank you for making them

I started this conversation

Love your words over your pictures 😂

@SERVCE_F_HpE

Ай бұрын

Amen, goats get hell, sheep go to there shepherd.

Luke had no history degree yet he'd be hired over any college kiddo if he were alive on earth today

@BhikPersonal

Ай бұрын

Well, Luke was a physician. He had a scientific mind that focuses on details. And God used that.

@Electricalpenguin

Ай бұрын

Probably not given that he never bothers to do things like cite his sources much less critically evaluate them.

@Electricalpenguin

Ай бұрын

@@BhikPersonalFirst century medicine was not a particularly scientific endeavour.

@mgvilaca

Ай бұрын

@@Electricalpenguin which sources would he cite? How do you cite oral tradition? Back then 9 out of 10 people couldn't read nor write

@BhikPersonal

Ай бұрын

@@Electricalpenguin Although the modern scientific method did not exist in the 1st century, the traditional scientific method was in place at that time.

Really Brilliant Textual Criticism-Apologetic! You deserve to go Viral! DEUS VULT!!! ✝️

Thank you for these. I love the goofy pictures along with the analysis. Golden stuff, my friend!

Please do you have a video reconciling the virgin birth in Matthew and in Luke? I really love the work you are doing

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

yeah look back in december and see my responses to Dan McClellan

Where do you get all your information from, brother? Can you mention some of the books you've read on the subject matter of the nt narrative? Thank you. Lord bless you.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

A View of the Evidences of Christianity by William Paley Lydia McGrew Testimonies to the Truth Peter J. Williams Can We Trust the Gospels?

Excellent work brother

very educational stuff thank you

There can be no Q-source, because there is no Marcan priority.

@tudorstancut9332

Ай бұрын

True. Also, the Synoptics are not as Synopyic as some think. They have very different point of view, and turn out to be very reliable

@keatsiannightingale2025

18 күн бұрын

Mark was written first. Cry about it

@keatsiannightingale2025

18 күн бұрын

@@tudorstancut9332Yes, and some of those points of view come into conflict with each other.

You have a really good channel. Keep it up. You're like the Gospel Writer Luke. Very meticulous. I'm like the Gospel Writer Mark, very much want to get to the good stuff, and leave everything else out. :)

Thank you

Commenting to boost the algorithm.

Despite being friends with Paul, Luke describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself and his relationship with the other Apostles. He also differs with Paul's letters on important issues. He writes two contradicting accounts of Paul’s resurrection experience. So reliable.

@Some_Deist

Ай бұрын

Different person has a different view of yourself because that person is not you, common sense.

@josephhamilton6724

Ай бұрын

@@Some_DeistLuke would've been intimately acquainted with Paul's life and teachings. The author of Luke and Acts clearly wasn't.

@Clashingthanos

Ай бұрын

​@@josephhamilton6724Most people see their friends differently than what the friend sees himself is not too rare

@iggy9226

27 күн бұрын

@@josephhamilton6724 i’m interested , can you cite what Bible verses these are?

@josephhamilton6724

27 күн бұрын

@@iggy9226 1. Different Descriptions of Paul and His Relationship with Other Apostles: Paul’s Description: Galatians 1:11-12: Paul emphasizes receiving the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ, not from human sources. Galatians 2:1-9: Paul describes a visit to Jerusalem where he meets with James, Cephas (Peter), and John and asserts his independent authority. Luke’s Description (Acts of the Apostles): Acts 9:26-28: Luke describes Paul trying to join the disciples in Jerusalem and being initially distrusted until Barnabas vouches for him. Acts 15:1-29: The account of the Council of Jerusalem presents Paul more as part of a collective decision-making process. 2. Differences on Important Issues: Circumcision: Paul’s Letters: Galatians 5:2-4: Paul vehemently opposes the requirement of circumcision for Gentile converts. Acts: Acts 16:3: Luke records that Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews who were in those places," which seems more accommodating to Jewish customs. Law and Grace: Paul’s Letters: Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Galatians 2:16: "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Acts: Acts 21:20-24: James and the elders in Jerusalem instruct Paul to take part in purification rituals to show that he observes the law, indicating a more positive stance toward the observance of the Mosaic law. Apostolic Authority: Paul’s Letters: Galatians 1:1: Paul asserts his apostleship directly from Jesus Christ and God the Father, not from men. 1 Corinthians 9:1: Paul defends his apostleship by his direct encounter with the risen Jesus. Acts: Acts 1:21-26: The selection of Matthias to replace Judas as an apostle is through communal decision and casting lots, emphasizing a group process rather than individual divine calling. Interaction with Gentiles: Paul’s Letters: Galatians 2:11-14: Paul recounts his confrontation with Peter (Cephas) in Antioch over Peter’s withdrawal from eating with Gentiles. Romans 15:16: Paul sees his ministry to the Gentiles as a priestly service, emphasizing his distinct mission. Acts: Acts 10:9-16: Peter receives a vision that leads to his acceptance of Gentiles, indicating an earlier and more collective acceptance of Gentile converts. Acts 15:7-11: Peter speaks at the Jerusalem Council in support of the Gentile mission, showing a more unified approach. 3. Contradictory Accounts of Paul’s Resurrection Experience: Acts 9:3-7: Verse 7 (ESV): "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." Acts 22:6-9: Verse 9 (ESV): "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me." Acts 26:12-14: Verse 14 (ESV): "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language…”

My assurance of the veracity of the Gospel of Luke and therefore Acts is found in the first 4 verses of Luke 1. It clearly states how he received it: from "above". KJV translate this "from the very first" but it is the word 'anothen' literally 'from above'. This word is the same one used when the Lord tells Nicodemus he must be born 'again'..anothen..from above. Simply put Luke received his gospel by revelation from the Holy Spirit.

This did not appear in my notifications... And I have the bell on.

A question I have for anyone who wants to answer is this, a lot of skeptics/atheists claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and the apostles and people were brainwashed that’s why they died for their faith. I don’t believe that to be the case. They then claim that the miracles and resurrection story was added after the fact to keep the message and that many other religions have done the same for people dying for that they believe. What is a good way to debunk or disprove this theory with outside and inside biblical claims?

@darkwolf7740

Ай бұрын

Well, there's a bunch of ways, but I'll sum it up for you. Aside from non-Christian sources affirming that Jesus was a preacher who gained a large following before being crucified under Pilate, the NT documents were written only within a few decades after Jesus' death, which includes the Corinthian creed written just a few years after Jesus died. The core message, preached from the start, didn't change at all, not even when the entire NT had been written and started to circulate. The NT aligned well with Jewish apocalyptic expectations at the time, and the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles aligned well with these expectations, with the core message addressing universal themes of love, forgiveness and redemption. Given this belief system often contradicted both the religious and political authorities of the time, leading to persistent persecution, and eventually martyrdom, there appears to be no logical motive for any kind of fabrication in regards to their testimonies. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that what they preached did actually happen since they could've easily been deceived themselves, only that it rules out the motive of deception, and makes it unlikely that Jesus was just a 'failed apocalyptic Prophet'. Given the historical data, it doesn't make much sense to affirm that theory.

@ferrari.michael

Ай бұрын

@@darkwolf7740 I appreciate the response and you helped me with that. I made a video recently that I made going over inside and outside claims of Jesus and it’s fairly long and it hasn’t gone well with the atheist community lol. Can you take a look at it whenever you have a chance and tell me what I should have done differently or if I did something wrong? It’s the most recent video on my channel that’s almost 50 minutes long.

@darkwolf7740

Ай бұрын

​@@ferrari.michaelSure, I could take a look sometime. I'm not particularly interested in what the atheist community says. They bash anything and everything they can at any opportunity.

@Boundless_Border

Ай бұрын

Out of curiosity, where do you hear brainwashing from. It just isn't something I've heard as a skeptic.

@gthompsonbjj

28 күн бұрын

@@darkwolf7740 I would even like to add on that the accounts of the Gospels are verified by a multitude of early non biblical sources who hated Jesus. Mara Bar-Serapion recorded Jesus was unrighteously killed, and the Jews were involved, Thallus and Phlegon recording the earthquake and darkness (as they try to do this, they unironically prove it's supernatural), Pliny recording that Jesus had claimed to be God, Celsus recording that he did miracles, etc. This was all written within 150 years (on the early side), which is incredible for ancient history. They wouldn't have adopted these beliefs from Christians, as in their narrative, they attempt to paint jesus in a bad light. Instead, they record it as actual history. It's incredibly difficult to discredit those accounts when they've established themselves as reliable, too.

He is NOT a goat, Luke was a lamb of God!

@ImpocZsK

Ай бұрын

No mate, the Lamb of God is Jesus Christ.

@jessehernandez8616

Ай бұрын

​@ImpocZsK I agree. We are called sheep, but never lambs. 😊

2:08 GET UP OFFA THAT THING AND DANCE TILL YOU FEEL BETTER

5:39 aint no way Mark had glasses; this is all fake loooool Im joking - great stuff!

Luke was a physician, so an eye for observation and detail as well as careful documentation would have been second nature for him.

Luke was also a physician

have you done a video on the objection that luke and acts are copying from Josephus or to much correlated to the writings of Josephus ?

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

Yeah sorta touched on it. Not a dedicated video though. It's a bad theory

@Mike00513

Ай бұрын

I know IP addressed this to some extent and showed the idea that Luke relied on Josephus is based on flimsy evidence.

Can you make a video or post about the two different mentionings of the thieves on the cross in Matthew and Luke? Matthew says both thieves mocked Jesus, whereas Luke says one thief repented on his cross and Jesus himself promised him paradise. Which account is correct?

@TestifyApologetics

25 күн бұрын

why can't one thief mock him on the cross, and then have remorse after he sees the kind of person is next to him? Or....what if one Matthew just had a source who got mixed up about what was said, like maybe he was at a distance or just inferred something that wasn't true. That would hurt the doctrine of inerrancy, and I'm not endorsing this harmonization, but if true that wouldn't make the gospels unreliable. it would just be a good faith mistake.

here are the notes i took and if its fine i will post to tiktok and give credits. Is Luke’s gospel reliable? Luke shares a story about a tax collector named Zukus climbing a sycamore tree in Jericho. New Testament scholar Peter J Williams notes that the tree FAS sycamoris Wasn’t found in northern Mediterranean areas like Italy Greece and turkey, it doesn’t have natural pollinators in those places. But the tree was known to be a characteristic site in Jericho as second century rabbi, abash noted in the talet. So how did Luke know there were sycamoris in Jericho? The best explanation is that he had either been there himself or talked with somebody who had. You might be saying to yourself, so what Luke knows about some trees big deal. But remember a lot of small clues might not seem important but all of these little things add up. In luke 9:51 Jesus starts his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Luke 9:52-53 shows that Jesus sent messengers ahead to a town in Samaria. Normally you’d go through Samaria to get from Galilee to Jerusalem but the village they stopped at didn’t welcome them because Jesus was dead set on heading to Jerusalem so.. what gives? Josephus explains in Jewish war II.12.3-7 that samaritans were not happy about Jewish pilgrims from Galilee and other northern areas cutting through their land on the way to Jerusalem for the feast. Years later they even killed a pilgrim causing a clash with the Galileans and a legal fight of who is to blame. The jews disagreed with the samaritans saying that the only place to go to worship god was at Jerusalem but the samaritans disagreed and when the jews pit stopped there the samaritans were not going to be thrilled and you may not be impressed with Luke knowing about the “beef” between them and he made up a story about that expecting us to fill in the blanks but it goes deeper than that. In Lukes gospel there is a moment where Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem and a couple pharisees give him a warning that Herod antipas might try to kill him if he doesn’t leave the area but Jesus isn’t phased by their warning and it probably was more like a taunt but he is determined to continue his journey to Jerusalem where he knows he will eventually face his fate and he even calls Herod a fox and remarks with a touch of bitterness that a prophet can’t perish outside of Jerusalem this passage is apart of a long stretch in Lukes gospel that’s that is a little tricky to pin down chronologically. From Luke 9:51 to about 18:35 it seems like Luke is telling different stories and sayings from Jesus’s life without any clear timeline. In this section Luke is pulling together accounts from various sources, but he doesn’t know exactly when these events happened. He keeps mentioning Jesus being on the road to Jerusalem but its not really one continuous journey. The way Luke presents these events shows he is not trying to give us a strict timeline he is going for more thematic or topical approach while not changing the facts. But Luke 9:51 does suggest that this verse is marking the start of a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem towards the end of Jesus’s life. Seems likely that this is the last time Jesus leaves Galilee before his death and it could easily align with his trip to Jerusalem for the feast of tabernacles which is mentioned in John chapter 7. This would put it in about six months before Jesus’s death. Now… the incident in Luke 13:31-5 where the pharisees give Jesus a a warning about Herod seems to happen outside of Galilee closer to the end of jesus’s life. This matters because Luke often points out that Herod antics was the tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1-2, 23:5-12) but if Jesus isnt in Galilee during Luke 13:31, why would the pharisees be talking about herods threat? For the threat to make any kind of sense wouldn’t Jesus need to be in heroes jurisdiction? But there is a detail about Herod antics that Luke doesn’t bring up. According to Josephus antipus was not only the tetrarch of Galilee but he also ruled over the region of Pera, a strip of land east of the Jordan river. All three of the other gospels mention Jesus spending time east of the Jordan of Pera right before his death even though they don’t use the name specifically (Matthew 19:1, mark 10:1, John 10:40-4, and John 11:54) Luke doesn’t specify where the pharisees warning takes place but, given the other gospels and the fact that Herod antipas ruled Pera it all checks out. It is a good combo of facts that backs up Lukes gospel. Maybe Luke didn’t even realize that antics was the tetrarch of Pera and Galilee since he does not mention it. Still he likely includes the pharisees dialogue in 13:31 because that’s what’s sources told him and since Herod governed the region east of the Jordan river where the other gospels spent his last weeks the pieces of the puzzle all come together. From small details and observations like the sycamore tree in Jericho to the touchiness of the samaritans Luke demonstrates that he knows his stuff. It shows that he is not just copying foremother gospels or skimming other sources. And if he is hearing these stories the reports he is getting are focused on specifics not just the broad strokes of the message.

0:23 *Anatolia, there was no Turkey at the time.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

just using modern day terms so ppl understand

@valkyrie3493

Ай бұрын

*Asia Minor

Luke had no reason to include the detail of the sycamore tree if he invented the story; he could have just said tree. We know this tree grows tall, which is not common for trees in that area.

Right at the very beginning the author of Luke(an anonymous writer and NOT an apostle) describes how he isn’t an eyewitness. It’s right there in the beginning admitting that he’s not an eyewitness. 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

This isn't some kind of heavy revvy, he says he has investigated and written down what he believes are eyewitness accounts. He was a traveling companion to Paul, he was in Jerusalem with him and had an opportunity to talk to the apostles while he was there, including some of Jesus' family members. (Acts 21)

@SalemK-ty4ti

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Thank you for proving my point. The author of is not an eyewitness and not an apostle. And who are these eyewitnesses? This is terrible evidence .

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

It says that all the elders (read apostles) and James were present in Acts 21:8. He would have had the opportunity to interview Peter, know about how Mark's gospel was composed, and interview other apostles. Having firsthand up close witnesses is not terrible evidence, this doesn't prove your point at all. And there ware multiple ways we can corroborate Luke as someone who is honest, knowledgeable and close to the facts. You're seemingly jumping the gun.

@ash9280

Ай бұрын

​@@SalemK-ty4ti A piece of work that contains multiple eyewitness accounts can easily be aruged to be superior to an account that is only a first-person eyewitness account of the author.

@SalemK-ty4ti

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Let me show you another way to prove the gospels are false. Matthew 4:8 "Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" The world would have to be flat for this to happen, unless you are one of those who think the world is flat. So instead of accepting the truth that this never happened because it would be impossible you instead make excuses(which you call your own interpretation) because you can't accept what the verse actually says. Sorry if going by what the verse actually says offends you but this is proof positive we can't accept the claims of the Bible.

He was a doctor a professional witness and there is many witness of Jesus Christ God they been martyr because witness means in Greek was Martus

All of The King James Bible is the accurate inerrant Word of God.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

Dost thou considerest the falsity of thine statement?

@downenout8705

Ай бұрын

You definitely need to read a book on the origins of KJB. Why are you so trusting of the dictates of a Medieval English King? Haven't you read Matthew 7: 15-20?

Strange how if WAYYYYYY fewer supporting facts are found most people would consider it history, but because they don’t like what that would imply apparently these many points and so on apparently mean nothing…

Bit of a random note but I've been studying Marco Polo lately and I noticed how the arguments historians make in favour of his authenticity (which is the majority consensus) against the claims that he never went to China is to argue he got a lot of small details that Westerners shouldn't normally know right and is far more reliable than other contemporary travellers to China. Which is awfully similar to the case you make for the Gospel of Luke.

Testify!! Soy un creyente, pero el censo sobre el nacimiento de jesus se me hace algo irreconciliable, no se si tengas algún video hablando al respecto... Te lo agradecería, Saludos desde Argentina!!

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

aquí tienes mi amigo. espero que esto ayude. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZZ-hp7OCktO2ZZs.html

@JoaquinOlcese13

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Muchas gracias!!

bUT LUke dIDnT eVeN wRItE lUkE!😊

Herod Coomtipast.

What ever has an old goat got to do with anything- don’t get it twisted

This one is fairly interesting. You imply (accidently or not) that the account in John that you referred to as a hard detail to get right, was indeed somewhat well known (or much easier to uncover) as Jews would've been regularly traveling through the region, interacting with the populace, and disagreeing on theological beliefs. This illucidates the fact that while it may not apply to all things, some proposed hard to get facts could've been significantly easier to get at times than it first appears and the authors wouldn't have needed to verify all these things themselves to get it right. This doesn't address the current video but I thought it would be interesting to bring up. I'll make a separate comment directly on the video.

The Bible largely can and should be taken as historical text in my opinion. There are exaggerations from time to time like people proclaiming "Saul has killed his thousands and Davids his tens of thousands" after killing only one guy. The accounts of Christ are historical. He died, came back and went to Heaven. To deny Jesus Christ as a real, historical person would be like denying that Napoleon Bonaparte or Julius Caesar ever existed

Bro. Luke isnt an A+. Its an A++.

Doesn’t the book of Luke show Jesus saying you must “hate” your parents???

@TestifyApologetics

28 күн бұрын

Doesn't reading things uncharitably and out of context lead to faulty and dishonest conclusions?

@TheShutterbug1968

28 күн бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics my point is Luke is different than Matthew where Jesus says you must love Him more than parents or spouse or children. Just making a point of Luke’s writings. He did get second hand knowledge of what he wrote. So a close interpretation of hate rather than love more seems correct to me.

@obiwanian2774

26 күн бұрын

Hate because people following Jesus Christ dont need 120years(livemaxing) on earth...😂 But not hate to the point killing or acting weird! Just to the point willing to seperate (like Abraham)

@obiwanian2774

26 күн бұрын

God test Abraham about the samething

Jerusalem....Jer ru sa lem Of course you may prefer to say it as.. Je roos alum. . Lol.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

pedantic.

@Human-hs8sp

Ай бұрын

🎉 it's pronounced jersey-lamb! 🎉

@Testify "the goat" is a reference to bafilment which is a refernce to the devil, satan or the demonic entity represented in the book of Danial which very will may be a reference to the anti-Christ. This is widely represented in a cultic and satanic symbolism. It can also be a reference to the glorification of the rebellious goat in dishonor to the virtue of the sheep who Christ Jesus said would stand at His right hand while the wicked goats would be put to stand on His left. Left and right.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

not all slang has to be taken as demonic. God made goats 🐐 just relax.

@easyguyitsajoke

Ай бұрын

If you're referring to the thumbnail, GOAT in this context simply refers to "Greatest.Of.All.Time". Just because a symbol or word has bad uses doesn't mean we have to exclude using it for innocuous purposes. Bonus fact: Early Christians used the pentagram, known "satanic" symbol, as a symbol of the 5 wounds of Christ suffered on the cross. Another example of this is the upside-down cross. Now widely seen as satanic, it was originally referred to as St. Peter's Cross because that's how we believe he was martyred.

@Electricalpenguin

Ай бұрын

Erik must be a secret satanist! Thank goodness you cracked the code!

@jahovashalom17

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics 1.) At the very least we cannot ignore the scripture where it says: Romans 14:16 “Let not then your good be evil spoken of:” 2.) God Also made satan, should I relax about representing pentagrams and satanic imagery? Also, no offence but don't be like the world and not take warnings seriously. That is the whole point of what we understand in our day to be the way of the wicked man. He always assumes that there is nothing to worry about and that the system and the world is fine as it is. He can hardly be convinced of sin. He says that what people bring to his attention is just conspiracy or extreme without at the very least being charitable to examine the logical consequences of why his view is necessarily the case rather than the opposite. Are we to believe that something as perverse as satanism and its wicked influence, has no effect on the words ideas and symbols we *knowingly* repeat? Are we to believe that in a world where people in holywood openly worship bafilment and satan that we should carelessly reflect ideas which could inadvertently effect other venerable people to seeing the demonic as harmless? Why a goat? and why so insistent upon glorifying such an idea so constantly? greatest of all time? so what? a goat is not a majestic animal. Its not a clever pun. How about Cow instead? Captain of Winners. or Pig Perfect In Game. Look I just easily came up with two more acronyms literally off the top of my head. with all the that is so steeped in demonic ideology today and how a satanist would obviously have no other meaning when they use such a term (which is why it would be likely constantly repeated by those in fame) why should we not as serious people have at least some pause about what we could be involving ourselves with as Christians? I implore you to reconsider. "2 Corinthians 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 4) also: 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. *Finally even if I was completely wrong about all this, the scripter advises to still take the matter seriously:* 5)1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: With Love. God Bless you and I love your stuff.

@jahovashalom17

Ай бұрын

@@easyguyitsajoke So are you saying its ok to where a Pentagram or an upside-down cross in our day?

But, but but... mah Bart Ehrman.

I feel sorry for you that your pastor didn't teach you the truth about what we really know about biblical authorship. I am so very sorry.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

I feel sorry for someone who calls themselves muggles mc cake sniffer and makes dorky condescending comments like these

@downenout8705

Ай бұрын

Of course he knows. I do however give credit to Testify that he allows so many negative comments, although I don't know how many, if any, he blocks. I have nothing good to say beyond that, so I will remain silent.

@Some_Deist

Ай бұрын

They’re from Matthew mark luke and John, sure it’s passed down and there wasn’t a name at the beginning but it’s still from them.

@downenout8705

Ай бұрын

@@Some_Deist "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". As you cite no sources for your assertion, it's dismissed without further comment.

@Some_Deist

Ай бұрын

@@downenout8705 as far as I remember testify and inspiringphilosophy both discussed this with other apologists, you can find it, they responded to paulogia. Also I dismiss that statement by using its own logic.

More undesigned coincidences in Old Testament videos?

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

Maybe someday. There are more for sure.

A+? I can list a bunch of things he got wrong starting with The Messiah had to be of the line of David (Jeremiah 33:15-17; Isaiah 9:7), so two gospels provide genealogies of Jesus to validate this requirement. The problem is that we only need to go back one generation, to Joseph’s father, to find a problem. Jacob [was] the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16). Jesus . . . was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). There is just one unique male biological line that would terminate in Joseph, so at least one of these genealogies is wrong. And it’s hard to imagine that an ordinary Joe like Joseph would have a reliable record of his genealogy going back generations. Worse, Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus, so his genealogy is irrelevant. If being in the line of David is a requirement, then having a god for a father makes you ineligible. The most common rebuttal is to say that the Luke genealogy is for Mary, but the text makes clear that it’s for Joseph.

@TestifyApologetics

27 күн бұрын

If Luke received a genealogy that was for Mary, and he mistakenly thought it was Joseph's because he couldn't verify it at the moment, that would be a rather minor mistake. At worst that would mean inerrancy is false, but that would not undermine his overall reliability or erase the evidence I'm bringing forth here. I have discussed this in my response to Holy Kool Aid before.

@4everseekingwisdom690

27 күн бұрын

@TestifyApologetics inerrancy is absolutely false but regardless, I defy you with today's technology and access to records to trace your own genealogy back 1000 years. I've got a fairly large family name and can only "reliably" trace mine back to the 1500's yet we are to believe that in the beginning of the 1rst century they were able to trace not one but 2 genealogies back 1000 years? (The time of david) what's going on here is very simple.. you have a guy who is trying to make this guy Jesus fit the Jewish messianic prophecies so he writes the story using those details... in fact Luke and Mathew both did this and did it differently.. take the 2 different birth narratives.. one of them tried to make him look like a recognized king the other more humble but my favorite has to be the very obvious mistake made by Mathew and Luke. who couldn't read Hebrew so the only scripture they knew was the septuagent mistakenly translates the word for young woman into "virgin" not to mention that the particular verse in Isaiah wasn't even remotely talking about any messiah is taken completely out of context .. the Bible was never univocal my friend . It's exactly what Dr Richard carrier says it is.. a Jewish version of the Greek mysteries. . Btw just because I write a story and include actual historical people , times and places in no way means my story is true..

@TestifyApologetics

27 күн бұрын

Richard Carrier is not a good source at all, he's a parallel-o-maniac quack who isn't even well-respected within his own tribe. They are not meant to be complete genealogies, as Luke and Matthew have a different amount of generations. Luke has 41, Matthew has 28. But it’s no requirement that either genealogy has to give us each and every link from father to son. You see a similar practice in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5. 1 Chronicles lists 22 generations that trace the high priestly line, while Ezra includes only 16. Matthew’s purpose is to authenticate Jesus’ legal descent, not to give every single step. To know the tribe from which one was descended was a matter of great significance to the Jews. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, shows his own lineage and then writes: “So have I set down the genealogy of our family as I have found it described in the public records, to put an end to any would‐be detractors.” Josephus, Autobiography 1.1 (#6) And if you think about it, how else could they choose priests if they did not know that their lineage came from Aaron? Did you go back and watch my response to Holy Kool-Aid. I discuss the genealogy thing in a lot more detail there, I can't really re-hash it all in the comments and start from square one.

Ah. "Since that's what the sources told him." But how did he know the sources were reliable in other regards, or in any regards? How does he know that the stories themselves weren't simply made up? Besides, I thought the fundie position was that these were direct eyewitness accounts. Which is it?

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

Have you ever read the first four verses of Luke before?

@KenCunkle

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Fair enough! I will cop to carelessness and ignorance on that one! On the other hand, his claim about "careful investigation" doesn't really hold up very well, depending on what you mean by that. Roughly when do you think this Gospel was written? Because, to take just one early example, if he carefully investigated all the stories, then presumably Luke (or whoever) would have had to have had access to somebody who was around when John the Baptist was born and when Mary got pregnant, etc., and who presumably heard the songs sung by Mary and Zechariah, and who in general could confirm the events described in chapter 1. So who do you figure he spoke to about this, or how did he confirm it for himself? Do you think Luke had easy access to eyewitness Galilean Jewish peasants 70 years after the events to confirm this stuff for himself? Because he says he carefully investigated everything from the beginning, right? Perhaps you figure the lyrics from Mary's song made the hit parade and were passed down? Or do you suppose it rather more likely that he simply gathered info from various sources (like for instance Mark's gospel, or the hypothetical Q) that he may have had at hand, and cobbled something together that told the story as he thought it should be related? And in this case, if you admit that Luke wasn't really there and is just passing on all this stuff, then apart from the unlikeliness of his boast to have confirmed everything, what's so special about him not screwing up details--like for instance, he didn't declare that Zaccheus climbed a giant redwood rather than a sycamore tree? Not that there's anything very special about that anyway. (Assuming Luke lived in the same general area, it's sort of unlikely he or his informants would mention trees they had never seen.) And realistically, it could have been in any number of tree species that were local. The point is, you can't both praise somebody for their accuracy in reporting details and then also admit that he's only gathering info from other sources.

Derek Lambert and Co. after seeing this: "Why Christian apologists are LYING to YOU about Luke's Gospel."

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

lol

@jacquesalbert8942

Ай бұрын

Interesting. This is a type of rhetoric is akin to the loaded question. The claim that is truly being made is simply assumed (i.e., that apologists are lying), and emphasis is placed elsewhere (explaining why). I really dislike this type of rhetoric.

I think it is unremarkable that people who lived in the first century AD Levant would get details about life in the first century AD Levant right. None of this amounts to evidence that the supernatural claims in the tale are true.

@jasonlowther5700

Ай бұрын

These videos are responses to skeptics who think Luke is writing at a distance in space and time without eyewitness details. This used to be a common belief that Luke was a later forgery. If you don't know about that theory this video doesn't make sense.

@hansdemos6510

Ай бұрын

@@jasonlowther5700 You said: _"These videos are responses to skeptics who think Luke is writing at a distance in space and time without eyewitness details."_ If we are talking about his gospel, he was. If we are talking about the parts in Acts about Paul, he may have been there. You said: _"This used to be a common belief that Luke was a later forgery. If you don't know about that theory this video doesn't make sense."_ From what the creator says, it seems to me that he tries to address criticism that applies to the supernatural claims in Luke's writings by insisting that Luke is right about mundane things. That doesn't work.

@jasonlowther5700

Ай бұрын

@@hansdemos6510 so you don't think he had eyewitness accounts from which to write his gospel?

@hansdemos6510

Ай бұрын

@@jasonlowther5700 You said: _" so you don't think he had eyewitness accounts from which to write his gospel?"_ He was not an eyewitness to the events described in his gospel, therefore his account is not an "eyewitness account". If he retells what he heard from others, who may or may not have claimed to have been eyewitnesses, then his account should be classified as "hearsay". This is not controversial.

@jasonlowther5700

Ай бұрын

@@hansdemos6510 It is controversial. If you treat all history like this every part of it becomes hearsay. You wouldn't know the causes of the battle of Thermopylae without Diodorus, who was writing more distant in time and place from the facts than Luke. Nor would you know the battle tactics or date of the battle of Agincourt. Without trusting eyewitness accounts the Gettysburg Address and the US Bill of Rights might be late forgeries. The same is true of many other historic events of which we lose up to 99% of the information on if we cannot trust eyewitness accounts. I don't think this is a good way of looking at history, to be honest.

The GOAT? Is this even a Christian channel?

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

why are ppl so superstitious about a phrase that clearly stands for greatest of all time?

@vict0ree

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics superstitious? Again, is this even a real Christian channel?

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

​@vict0ree are you afraid if I put a goat with sunglasses in a thumbnail I'm gonna get a demon?

Ha ha, you actually believe Luke is reliable? Compare his account of Jesus reading Isaiah 61, and you'll notice a couple things missing, meaning that Jesus couldn't even read properly, how nice of Luke to point this out for us... BTY Josephus had his hands all over the NT. Don't believe me? Watch Ceasars Messiah and you'll learn the truth about Jesus/Titus. Then talk about your Messiah with the same arrogance you just did in this video.

@TestifyApologetics

Ай бұрын

You're laughing at me while citing a documentary that is based on a conspiracy theory

@Grayraven777

Ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics not a theory pal, cold hard proof.

For Jewish Christians the Gospel has never been a written book. Only the Greco-Roman erroneous scholarship mistakes Jesus' boography for the Gospel ... Hence the whole confusion in the West !

Ok. As for the video. I once more will appreciate the limitations to your claims. There's a bit going on. Unfortunately, for much of it, you're fundamentally asking the listener to presume that the Gospels will be able to meld into an accurate narrative. I say this because you acknowledge that there is a lot of ambiguity in the proposed order and timing of the events (in a section of the gospel) and you agree this isn't an account from the author but several gathered from other sources. This isn't to say that these other sources didn't get it right and can't cohere. But the issue is that you're asking us to be credulous that they did and do. And with that to presume that they do in the way you describe. Now, obviously, we can presume without your speculation regarding the warning, that maybe the author of Luke was aware of Herod's domain of influence. I don't think this does much if anything to pin down where the author has been or when they have been there. As we already have to consider some familiarity with the region. The sycamore tree would be a better attempt at that and I'm glad you acknowledge in that example that the author could get that knowledge from an unnamed source that visited at some unmarked time. All in all. You seem to have two disconnected ideas that you're connecting. One that the assortment of passages can be inferred to indicate something based on other things we know and melding some of the information. With the second thing being establishing that the author was aware of Herod's domain of influence. Interesting video. I do think you run into the notable issue that if we question the accuracy slightly then the warning could be when they know Jesus plans to go back to Galilee and it is one of the first times Jesus leaves for Jerusalem rather than the last. This isn't a route I went primarily because there were a lot of interesting beats to talk about beyond criticizing whether or not the author was aware of the full domain of influence of Herod.

@mgvilaca

Ай бұрын

The first text we have about Alexander the Great dates back to 300 years after he lived. There's absolutely nothing suspicious about Luke writing about something that had happened 30 years ago

@Boundless_Border

Ай бұрын

@@mgvilaca Suspicious no. I don't think I mention suspicious anywhere. So I don't know why you bring that up.

Good stuff. Only critique is that your graphics do not support your narrative, instead they act as a distraction. YHWH bless.