Historical Evidence For the Feeding of the 5000 🍞🐟

[@aonion37]

I had seen a few examples of undesigned coincidences, but I never realized there were so many within the feeding of the 5000 alone. Thanks! Great video.

[@TestifyApologetics]

If you're coming from Godless Engineer's channel I'd recommend you read this series defending undesigned coincidences from Jonathan McLatchie. It's a response to Richard Carrier. Also, GE has kindly agreed to have a discussion about the argument from undesigned coincidences in mid-September. jonathanmclatchie.com/is-redaction-usually-the-better-hypothesis-responding-to-richard-carrier-part-4/ BTW, feel free to give this video a thumbs down and leave a mean comment, because it really helps me with the KZbin algorithm. 😃

[@ITelefonmanI]

Kudos for actually having a discussion rather than running away like most of your peers. Will definitely watch it.

[@gospelfreak5828]

Anakin showing up when you underline women and children… I see what you did there lol 😂

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm so glad someone noticed!

[@gospelfreak5828]

@Pepper Anakin Skywalker is a character in Star Wars. In the movies he gets revenge on an alien race for killing his mother by killing their village. In the process he kills both the women and the children too. So he took an angry lego version of Anakin when they mentioned women and children making a little cute joke in his animation. It’s was a cute way of including a reference without distracting from the overall picture that those who don’t know Star Wars will probably miss.

[@gospelfreak5828]

@Pepper oh lol

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@gospelfreak5828 This comment has successfully convinced me to watch star wars, i’m missing out on so many glorious hidden references

[@dobrien51]

@@gospelfreak5828 w

[@krishnarjunmukherjee7987]

Jesus is LORD. Period.

[@j.gstudios4576]

@Sir Isaac Newton is your head okay? You know from the whole apple thing lol Hint: next time don't stand so close under the apple tree :)

[@j.gstudios4576]

@Pepper hey pepper any idea where salt went?

[@alfzepo9976]

Jesus Christ is truly Lord

[@j.gstudios4576]

@Sir Isaac Newton also I'm confused by your comments are you athiest?

[@TheRonBerg]

Apparently to skeptics Ockam's razor only applies selectively, and more specifically it does not apply when they need a gazillion different explanations in place of just one.

[@martinecheverria5968]

This is awesome. I need that book! Keep uploading videos of Undesigned Coincidences!

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

AND NOT JUST THE MEN BUT THE WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN TOO ----- *ahem* Keep up the great work!

[@tam_chris20]

Excellent.. completely new... Thanks for sharing

[@kennylee6499]

Loved it! It’s so interesting and amazing to see these coincidences

[@user-ym5is9zy4b]

You need to make a video titled “undesigned coincidences in the gospels” and just list all that you have found so me an others can share them in our defense of the gospel against skeptics. This is so hard to argue with. The gospels seem like they may have been designed by a supernatural hand.

[@wesleybasener9705]

Get lidya mcgrews book. Its pretty short

[@calebjore3295]

Second recommendation for Lydia McGrew's book. I'm reading it now and it's quite eye-opening.

[@regpharvey]

@@wesleybasener9705 Who is this "Lydia McGrew" of whom you speak?

[@2l84me8]

The gospels were written by anonymous people, decades after jesus supposedly died and they don’t even agree with on another. How many women were at Jesus’s temple again?

[@fatstrategist]

@@2l84me8 Wow, amazing, every single thing you just said was false!

[@brandonp2530]

Thanks for this video. God bless

[@pigzcanfly444]

Undesigned coincidences are great when it's as simple as reading the source material and thinking objectively about what they said. Instead many are trying to disprove them constantly because they have sins that thay are holding onto and refuse to humble themselves for such an endeavor. As Frank Turek says its not a truth problem, it's a heart problem.

[@thatgirlray2765]

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” ― G.K. Chesterton

[@littleredpony6868]

Frank Turek would know. Frank has a less than ideal relationship with the truth

[@2l84me8]

You cannot disprove something that was never proven to begin with. People challenge your ideas because they’re outrageous and unfounded in reality. This has nothing to do with morality and you’re insisting you know what goes on in their minds shows your ignorance.

[@2l84me8]

@@littleredpony6868Frank turek wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him.

[@chidumebiekeator8262]

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that bread doesn't multiply like bacteria. Miracle claims shouldn't be believed just because someone said so. It's perfectly logical to try to disprove them. If we can't, then we can conclude that a 'miracle' actually happened.

[@indianasmith8152]

Very nice summation of a strong supporting hypothesis for the historicity of the NT!

[@au8363]

Glory To The Triune GOD

[@TestifyApologetics]

A special thank you to all my Patreon supporters and channel members. You can join me on Patreon and get early access and more starting at just $1 per month. www.patreon.com/isjesusalive

[@matthewwinter7660]

I'm glad to see more support of Lydia's work from a fellow Chapter director. ;) Thank you for the work you do!

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@matthewwinter7660 Gotta love the McGrews

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Very interesting.

[@Tyl3r_B]

Very helpful video!

[@macwade2755]

Great video, Testify! God bless you!

[@BibleLosophR]

6:25 *Accidental mistake in the audio* . The speaker says "many scholars think that Matthew [sic] is the first gospel and then Matthew and Luke copied Mark". The video probably meant to say, ""many scholars think that [MARK] is the first gospel and then Matthew and Luke copied Mark".

[@TestifyApologetics]

Doh. Nothing I can do about it now. I definitely got my wires crossed, that isn't what I wrote in my script

[@BibleLosophR]

@@TestifyApologetics I thought there's a way for video creators to tack on small notes [like a sticky note] onto videos for corrections without having to redo the entire video or upload anything new. Ask around. I think I've seen it done on other videos.

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@BibleLosophR you can trim or blur stuff out but that is about it, outside of reuploading. Makes me miss blogging where it was so easy to fix my mistakes.

[@VicCrisson]

Commenting for algorithm

[@bayuindroputranto7922]

Gr8 job, HaleluYAH

[@MurraySwe]

Undesigned coincidences are cool. The more I learn, the more interesting it gets.

[@bible1st]

I found atleast 11 so far, criss crossing the gospels. Amazing

[@sathviksidd]

This was very interesting

[@dynamiteshadows1384]

In glad the feeding of the 5000 didn't include... dare I say it, *PINEAPPLE PIZZA* 🍕😱🍍

[@TestifyApologetics]

If it was I'd be trying to invent time travel

[@dynamiteshadows1384]

@@TestifyApologetics I'm glad 😌

[@yndsu]

@@TestifyApologetics indeed. I would love to have a slice or a few of pizza with pineapple on it directly from Jesus and the Apostles.🤤

[@dynamiteshadows1384]

@@yndsu *WHAAAAA*

[@aericabison23]

@@yndsuLEGEND

[@calebjore3295]

I love the evidence for this one. Great work.

[@zekdom]

3:41 3:55 - Mark 6:31 4:07, 4:14 - How John 6:4 clarifies Mark 6:31, by noting Passover was at hand. 4:27 - John 6:10 and grass 4:29 - Mark 6:39 and the color of that grass 4:36 - How the color of grass and the time of Passover connect. 4:49 - Eyewitness testimony 6:19, 6:38 6:53 - Lydia McGrew on Matthew and Luke containing “independent information”

[@AndyZach]

I'm in a men's small group and I think I'll show your video. We just completed the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus walking on the water in The Merged Gospel by Gary Crossland.

[@addersrinseandclean]

Just want you to know testify I have ordered the book Hidden in Plain View. Keep up the good work

[@josuegonzalez5576]

Not just the men, but the women and the children'

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Including women and children, the number could easily have been 10-15,000!

[@marvalice3455]

true, but it could also have been quite close to 5000. it really eould depend on what demographics he attracted in that area, and we don't really know for sure. we know he attracted a lot of women in some places, but that doesn't necessarily mean his demographics were always the same. regardless, the point of this miracle is clear. that the kingdom of God is a place were no one need go hungry

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@marvalice3455 true, true!

[@captainobvious2435]

​@@marvalice3455people go hungry in this world. But in God's world there is plenty. Yeshua return soon.

[@AmericanActionReport]

In another video, Testify points out that one of the Gospels said the boy had loaves of barley bread. In Palestine, the barley harvesting season occurs just before the Passover.

[@BrianBlais]

The response to "maybe these details were part of a separate source the gospels were drawing on"? We have no text for that separate source. To quote our friend McLatchie -- "It is true that we have no independent direct documentary confirmation for such a [source], but the absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, since much of the first century literature from Palestine has been lost." I still think the three most "obvious" interpretations of most undesigned coincidences are 1) that there is a separate source (written or oral or both) or 2) that the coincidence is designed by the author -- details introduced afterward or 3) coincidence is read-in by the apologist, where there really isn't a coincidence (e.g. 5000 is such a round number, and has many textual parallels, so there is no counting but the apologist looks for ways that it could have been counted).

[@supayakamupercaya]

Bro, you would make an awesome DJ or voice actor/narrator in Audible.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I wish!

[@supayakamupercaya]

@@TestifyApologetics Amen

[@hydrofake9574]

Epic as always

[@jamiehudson3661]

Great job on this!

[@austinlincoln3414]

Hey testify do you believe a young earth and universe or old earth and universe?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Here is my thinking: I have my opinion but if Jesus is dead, it doesn't matter what the age of the earth is. So I don't focus on it, I focus more on just arguing for NT reliability.

[@austinlincoln3414]

Okay cool!

[@Altair1904]

I love your channel

[@gzsaliga]

Wow, mind blowing

[@LANDRYPHYNO]

now I see why in Matthew 14:16 Jesus says to the disciples "You give them something to eat" 🤨

[@noahboughdy2648]

The argument can only show that there is some historical core to which the Gospels refer, rather than the historicity of the miracle itself. A “historical basis” or “strong historical foundation”, as you say at the beginning of the video, can be shown, but not, as the video description notes, “a historically reliable account” (i.e. that it really happened) over and against a “legend.” Let’s agree that Jesus fed large numbers of people near the Passover in Bethsaida, the hometown of Phillip. Perhaps the miraculous nature of the feeding is a legendary embellishment, or simply a misunderstanding of the event. 5000 is a round number and easy to remember, which cuts either way in the legendary vs historical debate, as do details about who sat down (men vs the people at 5:54). I think we’d either need a lot more details about the event to determine its historicity, or a large cumulative case in support of the Gospel’s historicity over and against legendary embellishment. All that’s to say, I don’t think much is lost in not being able to show the historicity of the feeding of the 5000. There is at least some historical core, but one can come up with plausible alternative explanations of how people came to believe this miracle occurred. That being said, belief in other miracles, most chiefly the Resurrection, are much more difficult to explain away.

[@TestifyApologetics]

One large cumulative case in support of the Gospel's historicity is what this channel is basically about. But in response here is what McGrew has to say about undesigned coincidences and miracle reports: "...by mentioning miracles, and it is a fair question whether I am taking the reliability of the Gospels to apply to claims of the miraculous as well as to the non-miraculous. The answer to that question is slightly complex. On the one hand, I do not want to be misconstrued as saying something quite so simple as, “We can see from undesigned coincidences that the Gospels are historically reliable. Therefore, they are reliable when they recount miracles as well as when they give non-miraculous facts. Therefore, probably, all of these miracles happened.” On the other hand, I do not want to concede an artificial separation between the miraculous claims in the Gospels and the non-miraculous ones, as though the former were prima facie false or dubious. I grant that claims of miracles are legitimately held to a higher evidential standard than non-miraculous claims, for many reasons. If nothing else, there are many ways for honest people to be mistaken about some miracles, especially healing miracles. Mere credulity is not a posture I recommend. It is, however, noteworthy that the internal marks of accuracy in the Gospels cut right across the miraculous/non-miraculous divide. From a purely evidential point of view, there is no general pattern according to which miracle stories are vague while non-miraculous facts are related with circumstantial detail. Nor do we find that the non-miraculous accounts in the Gospels fit together by way of undesigned coincidences while the miraculous do not. On the contrary, several of the coincidences I discuss relate directly to miracles, and I have noted this in my discussion and coded it in the tables. Another important point relating this argument to the miraculous is this: If the Gospels are indeed truthful memoirs from those close to the facts, including those who had opportunity to interview the disciples themselves, then they represent not late traditions or “story-telling.” Rather, they represent what the alleged eyewitnesses themselves claimed, for which they suffered severe, early persecution. This point is presumably why propositions about the dating and authorship of the Gospels are treated by critical scholars as controversial. For if they are early and reliable memoirs of the life and death of Jesus, if they show us what the disciples themselves claimed about his resurrection, if they make it clear that these accounts came from people in a position to know, and if the disciples were willing to face death for their testimony, this pulls the rug out from under a gentle-sounding but skeptical theory that nobody told a lie, exactly, but that the miraculous claims about Jesus “grew up” among credulous people telling each other stories. One is instead forced to ask whether the disciples lied about these matters, and if so, why they would do such a thing. Even when the undesigned coincidences among the Gospels do not directly support a miracle, they support the argument for their earliness and origins. If the disciples risked their lives to attest that Jesus was risen, not in some vague, spiritual sense but in the robust, bodily sense described in the Gospels, what does this tell us about the truth of those claims?"

[@andres.e.]

@@TestifyApologetics Very interesting, thank you! This section in particular: "Mere credulity is not a posture I recommend. It is, however, noteworthy that the internal marks of accuracy in the Gospels cut right across the miraculous/non-miraculous divide. From a purely evidential point of view, there is no general pattern according to which miracle stories are vague while non-miraculous facts are related with circumstantial detail. Nor do we find that the non-miraculous accounts in the Gospels fit together by way of undesigned coincidences while the miraculous do not. On the contrary, several of the coincidences I discuss relate directly to miracles, and I have noted this in my discussion and coded it in the tables."

[@lereseauamitie6349]

That one is powerfull!

[@jayfeather0946]

Is feeding of 5,000 a separate event from feeding of 4,000?

[@victorpk]

Really cool

[@Aiden-fz5yv]

Thats a surprisingly great argument! Quick question why do you provide links to amazon (which is a very anti-Christian and pro choice place?)

[@HatsoffHistory]

From the video: _"If you had to invent a gospel story, would Philip really be your go-to guy? He's barely mentioned in the gospels. Peter is featured prominently in all four gospels, with James and John not far behind. And we know that Judas kept the money bag. And I think we'd also assume that Matthew the tax collector would be pretty good with money, too."_ Well there are a couple of things to keep in mind, here. First of all, John didn't invent the story---it was circulating as early as the 60s CE when Mark wrote. And Mark doesn't mention Philip in this story. Also, the Gospel of John never talks about James, John, or Matthew. Instead, Philip plays a more prominent role there than in the synoptics. In fact, when looking at John's gospel, we find that Philip is the second only to Peter in how often he shows up in the narrative. And so yes, for the author of John, the apostle Philip would definitely be his "go-to guy".

[@marvalice3455]

if mark doesn't meantion Phillip, than mark's account being earlier doesn't affect this point.

[@HatsoffHistory]

@@marvalice3455 Thanks for the reply! The reason I find relevance in Mark writing the story first is that he never mentions Philip. So, for the inventor of the story, Philip was _not,_ contrary to Testify's suggestion, his "go-to guy", thereby undercutting Testify's argument. See what I mean? Now, Testify may want to tweak the argument a bit by saying that since John introduces the detail involving Philip, that _detail_ (and hence the core of the story itself) is more likely to be true. But Philip is a prominent character in the Gospel of John, so it would make sense for him to be fictionally introduced into Mark's story as well. In other words, for the author of John, Philip really _is_ his standard go-to guy! And so even this alternative form of the argument doesn't seem to work.

[@marvalice3455]

@@HatsoffHistory I see what you mean, it's just not a strong argument. it's primary weaknesses are caused by it's wonky construction and the secondary ones by the fact that you are arguing for something that is not especially believable.

[@joshmatthews8828]

@@marvalice3455 you didn’t even responded to his message just said it’s wonky and not believable . Phillip is the second most prominent apostle is John, why is it such a far reach that he would be added to the story. Especially when the other gospels don’t account for him, aswell as John not being written till 20-30 years after mark. ( who contains the original story)

[@marvalice3455]

@@joshmatthews8828 i find it floompy that you think they would just added into a ln existing story after several decades. but, I guess if you think it's not real anyway thsn you probably think differently from me

[@Ju.mender]

So how would you debunk the claim that the Story was just copied from the old testament without using undesigned coincidences

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Hi, Godless Engineer just did a video attempting to debunk your argument here. Could you do a response perhaps? Thanks.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I invited him to have a conversation and it's scheduled for mid-September on Adherent Apologetic's channel.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Great, thanks. I know I posted two comments, I haven’t been receiving replies on my notifications lately, I don’t know why.

[@Nai61a]

@@Nameless-pt6oj I posted this elsewhere, but I just wanted to make sure that you received it: Why has our entire discussion on the Testify vid about the feeding of the 5000 disappeared? I wanted to share this with you: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpDchImFmM2GpK8 in order to encourage you to repent for your tattoos. [This is a humorous remark, but there are plenty of others who think as he does.] Your decision to delete the thread is ... regrettable. It is actually more than "regrettable". The more I think about it, the more dishonest it seems. I spend a lot of time thinking about and writing my responses to people because I think they deserve that much respect. You should think about what your deletion of the entire thread says about you.

[@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349]

this skepticism doesn't even make sense when you consider that each gospel is a independent witness

[@marvalice3455]

@@ramigilneas9274 can you demonstrate that than?

[@Awwfulclasher]

Wouldn't such miracle break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[@TestifyApologetics]

If the occurrence of miracles constitutes evidence that energy can be created or destroyed then it will not do to dismiss reports of them on the grounds that there is no evidence that energy is ever created or destroyed.

[@anunknownentity1637]

I've heard some claim Luke plagiarized Josephus, do you know if there is any truth to this?

[@TestifyApologetics]

If Luke plagiarized Josephus he contradicted Josephus a couple of times, notably with the census. Also there's good reasons to think he wrote his Gospel before Paul died, I made a video on it.

[@anunknownentity1637]

@@TestifyApologetics yeah I was thinking the same thing. The hypothesis requires a very late date for both Luke and Acts. I had only heard about it today so I asked you and a few other KZbinrs on your view. I was reading an article dismantling this argument when I got the notification so I'm a bit more confident now.

[@Renttroseman]

Erik back at it again with the mental gymnastics meme. Atheists weren’t to happy the last time he exposed their flawed argumentation.

[@zoliozgamer7008]

I wish you would have elaborated on the special source objection as it's probably the best objection to un-designed coincidences.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I think it might be the worst but for more elaboration here's a post by Lydia McGrew whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/05/the_ursource_theory_of_undesig.html

[@danaharper9708]

It’s not the synoptic problem. It is the plagiarism problem. Luke is copying-often word for word-and makes a blundering error; referring to Bethsaida as a “remote place.” Bethsaida is prominent throughout the New Testament and is not a remote place. Matthew and Mark depict the 5,000 being fed in some solitary or remote place. The dumb plagiarist Luke, attempts to hide his crime by changing “remote place” to “Bethsaida.” Bethsaida; however is a prominent populated village mentioned throughout the New Testament. Luke- being a nitwit- forgets to delete the bit about a “remote place” and copies it directly into his plagiarized Gospel. Put the fables of Mark Matthew and Luke’s feeding the 5,000 side by side and highlight the word for word matches. They are copying each other. It’s obvious.

[@TestifyApologetics]

In terms of its location, Bethsaida was a fishing village located on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was a relatively small body of water. From a modern perspective, Bethsaida might not seem particularly remote, as it is located near several other towns and villages in the region. However, in the context of the time and place, Bethsaida may have been considered remote for a few reasons: The author may have used language that reflected his own perspective. Luke is the only one who calls The Sea of Galilee 'a lake' as he's not from the area and is a Gentile familiar with the Mediterranean. The author may have used the term "remote" to emphasize the solitude or desolation of the area near Bethsaida, rather than its actual distance from other settlements. Also, the roads and paths between towns and villages were often rough and difficult to navigate. As a result, even relatively short distances could take a long time to travel, which could make a location seem remote. Moreover, in the context of the time and place, Bethsaida was located in an area that was predominantly Jewish. However, it was also near the territory of the Decapolis, which was a group of ten cities that were largely Hellenistic in culture and religion. This could have made Bethsaida seem remote or isolated from the broader cultural and religious trends of the region. Finally, don't leave derogatory and insulting language in my comments. I don't care if it's about ancient people or people today, it's unnecessary and rude. I don't appreciate it at all, and I will ban you if you keep it up.

[@danaharper9708]

@@TestifyApologetics Most often the discourse between theists and atheists is respectful. My sincere apologies for posting inappropriate and rude comments on your channel. Your explanation does contain a series of potentials, not absolutes. If one thing is possible, then another thing is also possible. It is still possible Luke errored while copying text from Matthew and Mark. Copying in ancient times was a long arduous process. Luke could simply have been suffering _editorial fatigue_ and wrote down “a remote place” when he should have left it out. It is possible Luke’s investigation consisted of simply copying Mark and Matthew, adding his own legendary enhancements to quell doubters, and to promote his particular religion. Copying and legendary enhancements are commonplace. Miracles are rare, if at all. My explanation is more likely than yours. IMHO.

[@Charles-tv6oi]

Why not? Evolution says matter can multiply without God. Why not with the SCIENCE of GOD?

[@vladd415]

Godless Engineer's response to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oH26lmebprtgqa8&ab_channel=GodlessEngineer

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

He and Testify are going to talk in mid-September on Adherent Apologetics. What did you think of the response video?

[@vladd415]

@@Nameless-pt6oj I think he knows what he's talking about, and makes good counter-arguments to those apologetics. He should keep up the good work

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

I’d say the same for Testify.

[@lereseauamitie6349]

I have watch half of it, this guy is acting too much. I don`t like his vulgarity. His assumption seems to be that all evangelists were wicked, liars who loved to make up stories and falsify. If he had said that they often tend to reproduce earsays withouth checking, I would be OK with that; after all, I was an atheist during 35 years. But when he came to Philip, it was the nail on the coffin. So John chose to use Philip because he knew from Mark that this was in Betsaida but one has to go back to the begining of John gospel to discover the link between Philip and Betsaida ? 99.9% of the people wouldn't do that. It's undesigned coincidences , as Eric Said.

[@mysticia4582]

If you cite the Gospel to prove that Jesus did this, can you cite the Hadiths to prove Muhammad split the moon?

[@TestifyApologetics]

The hadiths have neither undesigned coincidences nor were they written within even a hundred years of Muhammad's life. I made a video about how to examine miracle claims here kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqXJdJ-gaJdnpKs

[@sandycarr22]

The gospels are not independent. What?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I never said that they totally independent. GE and I will be in conversation on Adherent Apologetics channel on September 21st, 7PM EST

[@2l84me8]

We have absolutely no reason to assume their was a literal, biblical jesus. Let alone all the supposed miracles associated with him. The only way you’re feeding that many people like that is with microscopic bits.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

Try checking with academic historians of antiquity. 99% of scholars will explain it to you. Or, you can continue in ignorance getting your "information" from FB or nonacademic internet sites.

[@takoja507]

You still can't prove the bible with the bible. Even in bible the stories don't match even if you claim they were eye witnesses, places are different etc. I don't get it why people would think this as a good video when it has no evidence what so ever, nor logic.

[@marvalice3455]

please define "evidence". I ask because you clearly are not using the common definition, but a special 9ne so you can exclude the evidence found in this video. and don't even get me started on your abuse of the word "logic". just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have no evidence or logic.

[@takoja507]

@@marvalice3455 That's not what I said tho. It's ok to disagree but there is no evidence for the bible story of feeding the people with few fish and bread, none at all. We only have the bible story and you can't prove the story with the story, that's not how evidence works. And by using bible to prove the bible it also shows that there is no logic used at all. And the one who uses a book to prove the same book, doesn't understand logic. It has nothing to do with disagreeing. That's one more illogical thing to say. I'm sorry if you don't understand logic. if I write a story saying I flew to the moon and saw green one eyed alien and he told me that earth will end in 1000 years, and my evidence was my story, would you accept that as an evidence that supports my story? Then again my story is as true as bible or any other religions scripture is, so...I swear it all happen just as I said it did. I even wrote it down here, so it must be true.

[@marvalice3455]

@@takoja507 read your comment. you said "this video has no evidence or logic". I am not responding to "you can't prove the bible with the bible". I am responding to what I said. if you wanted it to be "this video doesn't have evidence specifically that the 5000 was a historical miracle that happened exactly how the gospels say" then you would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be a gross violation of the definitions of the word. you still haven't defined evidence. until you give me your definition, I could literally show you God in a test tube and you could claim it isn't evidence. tell me the definition you will accept for evidence.

[@takoja507]

@@marvalice3455 Well because it doesn't have evidence or logic. You can't say you have evidence when you try to show a story in a book to be true with the story from the book. That's not how it works. Why is that so hard to understand? Evidence is something that is outside of the book. I thought that was pretty clear thing tho. I said you can't use the book as evidence for the book, what didn't you understand in that? It's different question if the evidence is good or not, after you show the evidence. So simply put, Book - Story - Evidence for Story is The Book it's in (fail). Book - Story - Another text telling the same story by none believer (would be the best, so no bias) - Then we would examine that outside text and its claims if it's convincing enough or not - Conclusion, real happening or just a story. Then again extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, without those they can be just dismissed as there is no way to show that evidence. Do you understand now what evidence is? Even in court video in itself ain't good enough evidence, you need other evidence to support that video etc.

[@marvalice3455]

@@takoja507 so, you want a text by someone who is not a Christian, to verify that christ preformed miracles? why on earth do you think someone who believed the miracle would not convert to Christianity, and thus have their account become scripture? okay, let's go further. do you honestly believe that, if I were to find such a document, you wouldn't immediately accuse the early church of forging it for exactly the reason I put earlier? that's exactly what people say about Josephus. why wouldn't they say it about any other account? and unbiased? what world view exactly, which existed in 1st century judea, would be "unbiased" about the prophecied king of the Jews, said to conquer the whole earth (which Christianity subsequently did do btw)? the romans? the samaritans? maybe the Jews he was calling hypocrites, surely _they_ would be unbiased right? just... think about what you are asking. put yourself in a neutral position, and think, "are my standards for this reasonable?" or even "if my standards were actually met, would it actually change my mind?"