Luke's Theudas Blunder? Supposed Biblical Error #23

Skeptics often assert Luke made an error in Acts 5:36-37. But we examine the evidence see their caseis overblown.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilosophy.locals.com/

[@mitrydatespruski9359]

Ah, my favorite kind of critical scholarship - the Bible is always wrong but every other ancient source is always right, especially if it seems to contradict the Bible.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

@@tomasrocha6139 The real problem most Christians have with this sort of statement is it doesn't seem genuine. Most Christians can quickly admit they will defend the Bible even when unsure why the trust every detail, but rarely will i hear an atheist say they will not trust the Bible because of their presupositions.

[@Apollo1989V]

@@tomasrocha6139 ah. The favorite tactic of atheists and Muslims. Since the author of an ancient narrative text does not say “my name is x, and this is about y”, it means that they were anonymous. Early 2nd church tradition identifies the writers, and there are narrative indicators. Matthew uses his Greek name during his call and has more money terms. Luke was more knowledgeable about the Greek language, used more medical terms, and was a companion of Paul, who identifies him as a physician. John calls himself the disciple Jesus loves. Mark has hallmarks of Peter being used as a source, and Mark was closely connected to Peter. Josephus has been known to have made mistakes in his writing, so error on his part are not out of the question.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Apollo1989V The texts don’t have named authors, so they are anonymous. Later speculation about authorship doesn’t alter that.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Apollo1989VWe don’t know any of that about the author of Luke/Acts. Luke isn’t even suggested as an author until a hundred and thirty years after the events of Acts.

[@austindeveaux642]

Except for the fact that we know Luke wrote it ​@@tomasrocha6139

[@benjaminwatt2436]

It’s funny how when you have two ancient documents many scholars immediately assume the Bible must be wrong but never seem to consider the other documents could be wrong

[@thadofalltrades]

​@@tomasrocha6139who was contemporary to the events written about and spoke directly to eyewitnesses. Very little Luke wrote required access to historical records.

[@Sicilianus]

@@tomasrocha6139jews are liars

[@fushumang1716]

I can write about the war in Ukraine since its well-known and within my lifetime. Someone born 20 years from now, a scholar PhD dude, may write about it too... Where minute details matter, whose more reliable?

[@Michael-bk5nz]

​@@thadofalltradesexcept that Luke is an incredibly precise and accurate historian, especially in Acts in which he correctly indentifies the title of dozens of local officials, knows the correct location of cities and their distances from each other, and his account of the shipwreck of Paul at the end of Acts even accurately describes the wind, which he correctly calls a "noreaster", this is all evidence that he had the absolute best sources. On the whole, Luke is far more accurate than Josephus, who often gets basic facts wrong

[@JabberW00kie]

@@tomasrocha6139 Luke clearly had access to witnesses that Matthew and Mark did not, or did not utilize. For example, it seems certain that he interviewed Mary, since he recorded things that only she would have known. There are also others he mentions in passing, but when reading the surrounding text, it can be reasonably assumed that the name dropping was to inform the reader that it’s where he got that particular information.

[@euanthompson]

I was talking to non-Christian friend once and Josephus came up. The guy had studied history at uni with a specialism in Roman history. The Bible had not been mentioned. His comment was, and I quote "yeah, but you can't trust Josephus all that much. He is notoriously unreliable, especially on dates." If my mate is correct, then it is actually entirely possible that all these errors involving dates are being pitched by atheists the wrong way around. They are assuming Josephus must be correct and the Bible wrong because they contradict him. However, if Josephus is known to be unreliable, then it would actually make sense to take the Biblical dates as correct since they are generally reliable on information like this, and Josephus is unreliable.

[@davethebrahman9870]

He’s wrong. Josephus is very reliable, particularly on dates. He exaggerates other numbers sometimes, but all ancient historians did so, with the exception of Thucydides.

[@toomanymarys7355]

​@@davethebrahman9870 Josephus was wrong on the date of one of the conquests of Antioch by about 10 years. Or else dead people were issuing coinage. What's more likely? He also seemed to get muddled about the date of the execution of the vizier of Nabataea.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@toomanymarys7355 Do you realise how much he wrote? The Loeb editions stretch to 13 volumes. Inevitable he will make a few mistakes. No one thinks he was infallible.

[@ronallens6204]

The intro to josephus talks about the errors he has and that it could be he used a source and not first hand knowledge

[@Archaeonauts]

One thing I've learned from this Supposed Biblical Error series is there are a lot of supposed Biblical errors that are so obscure I doubt most Bible readers ever notice them. Like how many average Bible readers would ever stop to think if this Theudas was the same one Josephus was talking about lol.

[@davethebrahman9870]

What you should have learned is that anything can be reconciled if you torture the texts.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

@@davethebrahman9870You're approaching this subject in bad faith. It will only make you miserable, since you're wrong.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I’ll just have to risk that. I think I’ll stick with the analysis of the texts, not having your miraculous ability to read minds.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

@@davethebrahman9870 the analysis of the texts MEANS understanding what the author most likely meant, not what "the modern english translation of that passage would mean, if it was spoken like this today". What's inerrant is what the authors assert to be true.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Mate I read the ancient texts in four languages.

[@DLAbaoaqu]

Never, ever be charitable to an atheist’s claims about Biblical error, their motives are obvious.

[@davethebrahman9870]

No one wants you to be ‘charitable’, just honest.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

As a christian something that does bother me is with deutronomy The virgin test. Stone to death. Here's the issue. Hymens dont always bleed and nor do they always break. They where away with time. They can break they can bleed. But about half of girls in Islamic nations. Which u can imagine have no freedom. And are kept from sports. Or running. Tampons in the surveyed areas illegal. Half of surveyed girls who were virgins on first encounter did not bleed. ... what do we make of that. The hymen can stretch open. And should be attempted to not tlcuase tearing. 😅 So deutronomy is a 50 percent accurate at best test. 👌 awesome. So girls may have been innocent. What's stranger is there are no records of such stoning. Infact there are records of parents faking hymnal blood. So what exactly is occurring in these passages. It is the one true mistake I know. Cuase I see. Genises as part allegory and part history. And proly a perfect mix of both.😅

[@ItachiUchiha-qx7xo]

@@davethebrahman9870we are honest we just disagree with you 😮

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@ItachiUchiha-qx7xo Not really, Christians frequently claim in these discussions that atheists are motivated by a desire to avoid the truth. This is dishonest, and simply a way to excuse the failure of all the Christian arguments.

[@jameswoodard4304]

IP is being kind to Josephus. It is known that Josephus occasionally duplicated, conflated, or misdated events. It seems as likely that he simply got the dates wrong as that there was a second Theodus.

[@thadofalltrades]

It's possible there were two censuses too. I do agree though that it is weird to hold Josephus higher than the Luke account when Josephus is writing about events he didn't see and is verifiably wrong about other events. But Luke either saw the events or was able to directly ask witnesses.

[@deutschesvaterlandfankanal]

​@@thadofalltradeslenin's fault

[@seanhogan6893]

It is strange though, that when it comes to the region of Palestine the author of Luke / Acts only knows of significant people and events which are in Josephus. Out of all the unrecorded censuses he just happens to tag one to Quirinius. And of all the unrecorded rebels he mentions another Theudas. What are the odds?

[@jameswoodard4304]

@@seanhogan6893 , Yeah, I agree. That's one reason that I feel it is more reasonable to think that Luke and Josephus are talking about the same person, but Luke, who is earlier and generally more reliable concerning details, has the correct timeline whereas Josephus is simply mistaken.

[@seanhogan6893]

@@jameswoodard4304 if "Luke" is such a good historian why don't we have (or even know of) any of his other histories / biographies?

[@luisr5577]

Thanks for the information!

[@khalifrhodes9503]

How? This just got posted lol

[@whaleyes6573]

How did he comment 4days earlier than the video

[@yeetingpotato2934]

@@whaleyes6573 Members I assume. They get access to videos earlier than others.

[@whaleyes6573]

​@@yeetingpotato2934 Thanks

[@luisr5577]

@@whaleyes6573Patreon gives you early access.

[@rebelresource]

The idea that Luke used Josephus demonstrates the major error in thinking in NT scholarship

[@euanthompson]

I find it weird that we have to assume Acts copied Josephus and aren't allowed to have the idea it might have been the other way around if at all.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

I could have sworn I'd read multiple times that the name Theudas is sometimes interchangeable with Judas and thus this Theudas was probably the Judas son of Hezekiah Josephus mentioned as leading a revolt when Herod dies.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I find it interesting that every time Luke has a disagreement with Josephus, Luke is the one in error. Outside these contradictions, Luke tends to be more accurate, and Luke is earlier. It seems to me, "Luke has errors this I know, for Josephus tells me so."

[@imikewillrockyou]

Also, it is highly unlikely Luke had access to a copy of the works of Josephus, there were no printing presses and books back then were not widely available. Not to mention the works of Josephus are massive, just making one copy would take a scribe a couple years. Furthermore, Luke was stickler for small details, he most certainly wouldn't have misquoted a passage from Josephus even assuming he had access to a copy.

[@mysotiras21]

Good point.

[@Apollo1989V]

It is likely that multiple scribes would be used to copy a large work such as Josephus’s writings. Before the invention of the printing press, only government officials and extremely wealthy individuals had access to such a collection of writings. One scribe made 12 denarii a week. Just the copying work alone would put the cost at least 1800 denarii.

[@mysotiras21]

@@Apollo1989V , yep. Very unlikely that a modest man like Luke would have access to the works of Josephus.

[@Apollo1989V]

@@mysotiras21 We don’t know how rich his patron was or if his patron had connections. The preface his gospel notes that he did an extensive investigation, talking to eye witnesses and some secondary sources.

[@Greyz174]

Libraries were a thing

[@JabberW00kie]

I’ve been waiting on this one. For whatever reason, until now no one has really taken on this “issue“ in depth. Much appreciated.

[@Panwere36]

The false "position of authority" that those who try to "deconstruct the Bible as wrong/erroneous/fake" always shows how little they really know. Another good video, Michael.

[@davethebrahman9870]

An extraordinary conclusion. We know that Luke was a terrible historian, unlike Josephus.

[@Panwere36]

@@davethebrahman9870 , um, not if he only wrote what his patrons wanted. That is what he did.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Panwere36 What is your evidence for that? In fact Josephus is extremely critical of the Romans in both the Antiquities and BJ.

[@Panwere36]

@@davethebrahman9870, If you do get how common it is even today with how historians work, I feel for you. There is always something they leave out either deliberately or by accident. The problem is that Josephus STILL includes a lot of evidence that validates the New Testament as well. Also Josephus didn't know everything about everything either, while Luke was much more well versed in what happened in that area. That happens even today. with modern historians not "going into all the details that didn't affect us". For all of his criticism of the Empire, he still had bias just like any other historian. You just choose to give Josephus more credibility because you like he "validates" your own predisposition against certain things, events, and people.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Panwere36 We don’t know who wrote Luke/Acts, or when it was written. All we have is guess-work from the late 2nd century. Josephus identifies himself as author, was an accurate and careful historian within the limits of ancient practice, and frequently names his sources. Except where he has a particular barrow to push (such as praising the Flavians), he is streets ahead of the anonymous gospel authors.

[@achristian11]

Excellent video IP! Thanks brother ❤

[@dashriprock5720]

Great job as always. I found something else that needs your refuting, A William Donahue who claims Abraham and Sarah never happened because of Pau's use of the word Allegory in Galatians.

[@Henry-xs3mc]

wow dude, you know what you’re talking about

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you

[@BrotherTris]

Often he does. But never when it’s regarding a trinity, which is easily proved as unbiblical.

[@Reformed_Borzoi]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Golden showers! Golden showers! You see!! And we’re proud of that! 👆🐭☝️

[@humbirdms2784]

​@BrotherTris why does so youre tongue speak so loosely about something that's described over and over in the gospel. This makes you look very silly and childish.

[@samichjpg]

​@@BrotherTrisno it's not

[@thejohnwhiteproject5202]

Once again, thank you and great work

[@leakythinktank9072]

Great vid Ip

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I’d love a video on your research methods. I enjoy amiture research but have a hard time locating scholarly works. Do you purchase a scholarly search library or some other method to find information?

[@eternalbattle1438]

Please pray for all the victims of today's terrorist attack in Moscow!☦️

[@DerMelodist]

I’m checking my Greek New Testament, and Theudas is spelled with a theta/θ for θευδας. Is there a specific reason why you spell it as ευδας for the video? Is regarding scholarship about Greek names?

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

the Greek lettering around 2:40 needs correction, a theta is missing before the epsilon in both 'Theudas' and 'Theodotus'

[@mariemilycraig]

I was here to say the same thing! The thetas must be too shy to be on camera and have run away 😅

[@davethebrahman9870]

These apologists are relying on second hand knowledge from Christian commentaries. They barely know the Greek alphabet.

[@negativedawahilarious]

​@@davethebrahman9870you need fedora hat

[@user-ki5uw3ji9t]

@@davethebrahman9870 Not really just a simple error that can be easily corrected and good apologists rely on actual historical evidence which this guy does. Being hypercritical and jumping on any potential minor mistake to discredit someone’s point fully without analyzing that point is just intellectually dishonest.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@user-ki5uw3ji9t Are you seriously trying to suggest that any of the apologists read Greek fluently? Leaving letters off the beginning of words is not a small error.

[@darkblade4340]

0:37 There is no such thing as 0 AD, 1 BC is followed immediately by 1 AD

[@Orthosaur7532]

Thanks

[@truthmatters7573]

Another one bites the dust !

[@swordaxe6517]

Hello, I was wondering if you would do a video comparing biblical and Koran passages about similar things and the differences and failures between them

[@SuperCodemeister]

How do you have time to read all those books?!?

[@grizzly8296]

IP breakdance in ???

[@Reformed_Borzoi]

Farfour breakdance is better,you seee! Now my imam is stronger.

[@vannyke3749]

Hi IP. Just wondering if you can do a video explaining about verses in Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 7? Do they connect or contradict one another? Thanks.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmWUdKRsaZiVsKcsi=8oa7z65a-o5Xyn-L

[@whenindoubtgrenadeout]

Amen

[@mysotiras21]

Thanks. I never even realized that people considered this a Biblical error. Why assume that Luke was wrong? Josephus could easily have been mistaken. Or there may have been two different men named Theudas. BTW, in English this name would be pronounce "Thyoo-das". In Biblical Greek, it would be pronounced "Thev-das".

[@imppro]

@@tomasrocha6139and yet there is no evidence for anonymous gospel authorship

[@wshurricanes]

@@tomasrocha6139 even if they were named, would skeptics believe it was wrote by them? Of course not.

[@mysotiras21]

@@tomasrocha6139 , give SCHOLARLY EVIDENCE that their titles use to be different". I dare you.

[@mysotiras21]

@@tomasrocha6139 , there was NEVER a time in history when Luke's name was not attached to that Gospel. Healthy skepticism has its place, but hyper skepticism just reveals your own bias.

[@mysotiras21]

@@tomasrocha6139 , so? Many other scholars will say that the Gospels are NOT anonymous. BTW, calling one of the accounts "the Lord's Gospel" IN NO WAY means that it wasn't written by Matthew. It just means that this Gospel account is ABOUT our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[@dawsonnell8595]

You wouldn't mind responding to belief it or not by Trevor poelmen would you? I just don't see any one responded to him

[@Liodegrance]

Why not assume that Jo copyed Luke? Moving the date closer to the the Jewish War to illustrate the tension of the time? That would paint the Jews in a more favourable light than suggesting that they were perpetually on the brink of rebellion like a race of indomitable savages.

[@whenindoubtgrenadeout]

❤ 0:59

[@thepyramidschemepodcast]

Michael, how would you respond to the claim that the suffering servant in Isaiah 52 and 53 is referring to Israel and could not be referring to Jesus?

[@dennisravndal]

Are you gonna respond to the recent paulogia video about gospel authorship?

[@Fassnight]

I think IP did like a 2 hour love stream

[@wshurricanes]

Pretty sure he is, or Testify was referencing something else but a day or two ago Testify mentioned that IP would be having a video on paulogia soon.

[@Desh282]

You’re a humongous blessing

[@jansvarz3522]

Sounds like something from Monty Python. I immediately imagined the chapel scene from The Meaning of Life.

[@daviydviljoen9318]

This video is the same old song and dance of apologetics. But, I've got a little challenge for you: why not dive into Greek yourself and uncover the truth first hand from the texts? Let's up the ante challenge! Who can grasp Koine Greek quicker, you or me? I've got a head start, as I've started a few lessons. My toolkit includes: "Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook" by Rodney J. Decker, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" fourth edition by Walter Bauer and of course the "Greek New Testament" third edition published by the United Bible Societies. Let's settle this once and for all! (And by the way the Greek doesn't read Theudas or Theodotus there, both read Eudas and Eodotos respectively. There's no theta in those your transcriptions.)

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

Is this related to Kipp Davis' video or just a really cool coincidence?

[@daviydviljoen9318]

@@Canaanitebabyeater I've had a copy of the Greek NT for a few years, and then Kipp Davis made the video, and I decided to take the challenge... I've also added some textbooks after getting advice from someone who teaches Latin and Ancient Greek. So Athenaze and other textbooks are on my list now. But if IP is really interested, I'm sure he can find all of necessary stuff here on YT.

[@jojogodtier]

Christ is 👑

[@onvogmasaj]

Christ is King

[@theapexfighter8741]

@@onvogmasaj cing is khrist

[@bigboi_tony]

Can the next one you do be the no one has seen God apparent contradiction?

[@CooperTheGoosebumpsGuy]

Amen❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊

[@JacquesMare]

Apologists are my favorite people: the mental gymnastics is deserving of a gold medal..... 😂😂😂😂

[@midimusicforever]

Skeptics, but they are not sketical of their own assertion that the Bible must be false.

[@rebelresource]

He did it on purpose to separate Jesus movement from violent movements. Luke fudged stuff on purposes, Josephus does it too.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

Birth of Jesus is in 2 BC, that fits way better with the data.

[@JaylenIrving]

Michael Jones can you please do a video on the exodus project, there are some videos I want you to react to some of them are about the prophecies that are concerning Jesus, like Isaiah 53, and Isaiah chapter 50 to this KZbinr claims that these verses in chapters are not about Jesus

[@logicaldude3611]

How about just the simple fact that “books” were not mass-produced until recently. It’s very unlikely that one person is copying from the other in a very short timespan over 2000 years ago. Is Luke copying from Josephus or did he just get a date wrong? Or is he talking about a different event? Honestly, don’t know and don’t care. All these guys got stuff wrong and it has zero impact on the story I understand.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Hmmm...to be fair if it were us against say the Mormon bible, we'd probably see this as a contradiction. It seems likely Josephus was referring to the same events. Luke probably has the dating correct, Josephus writing many years later would be the one to question. I find it highly unlikely Luke was written after Josephus, even some liberal scholars would not date Luke (Acts) past 70 AD....I think its a fair objection.

[@Fassnight]

It's a fair objection, which is why this video looks at the options rather than just hand waving it away

[@flamingswordapologetics]

@@Fassnight I agree, we need to take these things head on, let the chips fall where they may.

[@ryankohnenkamp8946]

0:36 There is no 0 AD

[@tryme3969]

When Christ was born, it was either 0 AD or 1 AD.

[@nathanielbrill1523]

​@@tryme3969 he was born in 4 BC. The Catholic daters messed up.

[@iagoofdraiggwyn98]

You cant really stare definitively that either are the case. You can offer a suggestion based on evidence, but you truly can not state it as absolute fact.​@@nathanielbrill1523

[@tryme3969]

@nathanielbrill1523 The BC and AD eras are based on what?

[@nathanielbrill1523]

@@tryme3969 I'm telling you that the Catholic Church that made the calendar misdated Jesus's birth and put the BC/AD transition in the wrong spot.

[@IQPlays392]

@InsoiringPhilosophy I need help about Ezekiel 14;9-11 beacuse muslims says that God deceive his people.

[@user-tj5mi5bb9m]

Mark, Luke and John, disciples of Jesus, brought him a donkey to ride on, but Matthew speaks of 2 donkeys, so how many donkeys were there really, 1 or 2?!

[@PhokenKuul]

This channel should really be called InspiringApologetics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but this has nothing to do with philosophy in any real sense.

[@matthewschardtii1338]

Philosophy is involved in interpreting science. For example, when arguing that Quantum Mechanics points to Theistic Idealism, that's a philosophical conclusion based on where the evidence points to. Even atheist use philosophy to interpret evidence

[@PhokenKuul]

​@@matthewschardtii1338 Not exactly. Philosophy is not "used" to interpret science. Philosophy is a multifaceted discipline with the aim of identifying proper understanding of concepts like existence, knowledge, ethics, etc through rigorous inquiry and critical thinking. Maybe you mean reason, but that doesn't seem to fit a model of trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with any sort of idealism. Again, it sounds more like apologetics to me.

[@matthewschardtii1338]

@@PhokenKuul There is something called Philisophy of Science. Springer defines it as such "Philosophy of science is concerned with philosophical questions that arise from reflection upon the scientific enterprise. The term encompasses both general philosophy of science, which deals with the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the empirical sciences, and philosophical study of particular sciences, such as philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of cognitive science." - Citation: Cunningham, A. (n.d). Philosophy of science. In Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions. Springer.

[@matthewschardtii1338]

@@PhokenKuul "Philosophy of science is concerned with philosophical questions that arise from reflection upon the scientific enterprise. The term encompasses both general philosophy of science, which deals with the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the empirical sciences, and philosophical study of particular sciences, such as philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of cognitive science." - Citation: Cunningham, Arthur. “Philosophy of Science.” Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_1536.

[@PhokenKuul]

@@matthewschardtii1338 Yep, there is. But this is not to be interpreted to mean that philosophy is "used" to reconcile current scientific models with religious doctrines. It has much more to do with how science is done. How to go from evidence to proof, how to use proof to establish theory, etc.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Poor old Christian ‘scholars’ don’t know much. ‘Theudas’ is probably the hellenised form of ‘Todos’, itself an Aramaic version of the Greek name ‘Theodoros’. I liked Paul Barnett, but he was very weak on semitic languages.

[@RowanShek]

Amazing video, is there a chance you might discuss Pilate sending Galileans to intermingle with the Jews historical evidence or the Tower of Siloam?

[@Avocab0.-1]

can i ask something, why did people said bible keep "updating" each year and people that own the old bible is hiding it from public? I need explaination

[@JayWest14]

Luke is writing fiction, whereas Josephus is a historian.

[@somethingrandomyt8367]

Luke’s contributions to the New Testament, the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, comprise almost one quarter of the entire text of the Bible. If we can be sure that Luke is a conscientious and trustworthy historian, we can be confident in his depiction of Jesus as well. This is the basis of the idea of Luke as a historian. The consensus among contemporary scholars is that Luke, historian and theologian. is indeed a careful, reliable recorder of history. In fact, over the years, scholars have asserted that Luke was mistaken about certain historical facts only to be proven wrong by archaeological findings. For example, many scholars saw Luke’s reference to Lysanias as the tetrarch (governor) of Abilene in 27 AD as a disqualifying error-Lysanias ruled Chalcis 50 years before; he was no tetrarch. An inscription found on a dig, however, later proved Luke right. One study from the early ’90s reviewed each of Luke’s references to physical places and found not a single mistake. It stands to reason that if Luke was assiduous enough to get the ancillary details correct, it’s likely he got the really big stuff-like Jesus’s resurrection-right as well.

[@tryme3969]

In my book, Josephus is a very credible New Testament writer.

[@bobSeigar]

Josephus is the source of all this fairy tale. Why do you think Joseph disappeared? It's his self insert.

[@Egyptian_moslem_1]

👈 الحمد لله الرحمن الرحيم Explain to me Why jesus not exist.... not God..... fake cult

[@AthanSMaliakkal]

Ya, islam is a fake cult. There is no need for explaining it

[@davethebrahman9870]

I love it! The Bible is never wrong, even if we have to tap dance and special plead for days!

[@valentino3228]

Jesus was not born in 4 B.C., he was bron between 2 B.C. and 1 B.C.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Possibly, but that is a minority view among scholars. I was not convinced of that when I read up on it.

[@valentino3228]

@@InspiringPhilosophy According to the research he was born during the census of Cesar Augustus carried out to commemorate his accolade as Pater Patriae between 3 B.C. and 2 B.C.

[@mysotiras21]

The jury is out on the exact date of Christ's birth. He was born before Herod the Great died; Herod's death was somewhere between 4-1 BC.

[@michaelwittkopp3379]

Two points; 1) Which version of Flavius Josephus's writings are you quoting? The Vatican's copies are known to be corrupt, and not authentic. They should not be considered. There is an Arabic source that is far more reliable. 2) Not sure if complete, but there is a Sepharad _(original Hebrew)_ copy of the Book of Acts. _(Can't find the file number, but it's listed in the Vatican Ebr. Which was cataloged by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2009 to 2018. _(It is online.)_ Trying to decipher Greek names back to their original Hebrew; is a waste of time & effort. And so far as I've studied, every mistake or contradiction, every odd and abnormal grammar, that the Greek has, the Hebrew doesn't have... never had. Ps. Those _"false messiahs"_ of that era; killed Greek speaking Jews. They considered them traitors. They themselves, would not have had Greek names.

[@mysotiras21]

Some evidence for these claims would be helpful.

[@michaelwittkopp3379]

@@mysotiras21As far as the Vatican's copies of Josephus's writings having been _"altered,"_ a simple Google search will get you that verification... Even from the Vatican itself. While the Vatican Ebr. library doesn't have *all* of the New Testament, here too, Google it. That internet library has free access. There is also a group, I think from Australia, that is doing translations of them. _(Can't post a link, so just Google; Hebrew Gospels.)_ The history of that era of _"false messiahs,"_ and the Hellenizing of Judaism, you can also Google. But, not sure how extensive of information you can get in one place. _(It's more of an academic study.)_ As far as those two false messiahs, from Galilee, and before Jesus's time, I can think of at least three. But, important to know, is the names Luke states in the original Hebrew version of his Gospel. _(It's up on Hebrew Gospels btw. Just haven't looked. Got other things to do today.)_ So, a little elbow-grease, and good hunting. 😁

[@karlhuber1210]

Did you consciously omit the Θ in the Greek form of the name Theudas? You wrote only ευδᾶς that is: eudas.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

A mistake from the editor. Must have been a copy and paste error.

[@karlhuber1210]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Thank you, and also for your good work!

[@whenindoubtgrenadeout]

Amen