Skeptics Look for ERRORS in the Gospels, Look Foolish

In this series, I've been exploring how non-biblical sources support the Gospels. In this video, I examine three instances where critics accused the Gospel authors of historical blunders but were proven wrong.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.com/recommended-...

[@dodrian]

There's also the issue that historians are often much less critical of other historical sources than they are of the Biblical texts - they will insist that any contradictions must be the fault of the gospel writer and not the ancient historian, despite the gospel records being much earlier known and better preserved (we have complete gospels dating to the 3rd century, but nothing complete by Josephus until the 11th!)

[@ratthechicken]

Not many other books make such extraordinary claims or have such a massive cultural importance.

[@stephengray1344]

@@ratthechicken Lots of ancient books claim that miracles happened. And there are some which seem to have a similar frequency of miracles as the gospels. And the cultural importance of a work is not a good reason to treat it significantly mroe sceptically than any other comparable work.

[@GhostScout42]

not many other books are taken seriously and have thier claims tested as much ​@@ratthechicken

[@BeaudaciousFilms]

We have the original Greek manuscripts dating back to 130 AC even! It's astonishing!

[@Gouka07]

@@ratthechicken got it, double standards are okay when they get you out of admitting that Christ is Lord.

[@NickNui]

My GPS wants me to go North, then southwest across the roads, but I can save time by going off road a little bit and driving through the mountain.

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

As i keep saying, skeptics are master of goalpost shifting

[@redknight8215]

They will never critique anything as hard as the Bible because they don't want it to be true. If the gospels get details correct, it doesn't matter. But if they get something wrong, it must mean it's all bunk.

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

@@ButConsiderThis indoctrination? Skeptics have been going crazy saying places and events mentioned in the bible werent true or never existed... Every time pproven wrong. Try harder

[@Pyr0Ben]

maybe if they studied the rest of the bible as hard as they studied the "errors" they'd become Christian

[@davidstrelec2000]

@@michaelsbeverly And honestly every single ex Christian atheist just makes similar if not the same faulty arguments that Erik has disproven in the video.

[@davidstrelec2000]

@@michaelsbeverly When atheists attack the bible they always ignore context; historical, cultural, textual. 1, Take one verse to interpret it the way you want and ignore the surrounding context. 2, only read the modern English translation and ignore the original language it was written in. 3, if a verse sounds goofy/evil/illogical, ignore the cultural or historical context behind the phrase. 4, if a bible passage SEEMINGLY contradicts an ancient historian who wrote on the same subject the bible author mentioned, ignore the possibility that the historian may be wrong or there’s more underlying beneath the surface waiting to be unearthed. 5, if a bible passage mentions a subject and the bible is the only source for the said subject, always assume the subject must be something made up that never happened/existed because something can only be a historical fact if it is mentioned by an extra biblical source (this strict and rigid historicity criteria only applies to the bible and of course no other text in history). 6, always assume the bible is guilty until proven innocent. Even if the bible was proven innocent just ignore it pretend it never was proven innocent and keep insisting on the faulty argument until it universally gets acknowledged as faulty.

[@TestifyApologetics]

michael is banging the bandwagon drum again....

[@merrickc1876]

There are skeptics that turned to Christians. Ex-Christians and Ex-Sceptics are alot. Lee Strobel and CS Lewis are probably the most widely known. Also there are others like Anthony Flew Rosalind Picard Given this the understanding the bible correctly while considering the historical background and the person of Jesus is a great way to remain Christians and turn people into Christians as its a great case in defense of it.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Say what you want to about Strobel but stay out of his personal life, plz

[@UrsahSolar]

How can Bart Ehrman say that hand-washing isn't a part of Jewish tradition, when Jews still perform that ritual TO THIS DAY.

[@derrickbonsell]

Also it shows that Bart doesn't know Jewish history and doesn't care to research it. I mean going back hundreds of years to Exodus and Leviticus to point out that scripture didn't require handwashing for average Jews entirely misses the point. The Gospel writers had access to the Septuagint and would have been able to read these passages for themselves. If they were fakers you'd at least expect them NOT to claim that average 1st century Jews washed their hands.

[@jacquesalbert8942]

@@derrickbonsell Additionally, in Mark 7, Jesus quotes Isaiah specifically to criticize the Pharisees for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," such as the washings and the example that He gives of Corban. His criticism would be consistent with not finding those types of washings (applying to all at least) in the Old Testament laws and statutes. That seems obvious, right? Or am I missing something?

[@walleras]

Hey so I'm an orthodox Rabbi. Bart Ehrman is right actually. hand washing was instituted in Yavneh. Over 40 years after the death of Jesus. Conclusive proof that Mark is a lier.

[@logicianbones]

@@jacquesalbert8942 I think you're right. That sort of thing was how I read that verse about the hand washing too.

[@stephengray1344]

What Jews do today isn't evidence of what Jews did in the first century. A steelman version of his argument on this point would be that Jewish hand-washing traditions only began after the New Testament period.

[@irritated888]

In my lifetime we have gone from "this is as much evidence for King David as their is for Arthur" to "he was just a small chieftain" to "well Jerusalem was just a tiny village" to just a few weeks ago "Jerusalem had a substantial population in David's time according to new radio carbon dating"

[@Lurkingdolphin]

Soon it will we don’t know how many hairs david had .

[@Spartan322]

@@Lurkingdolphin Not to mention we have record of one of a pagan king 300 years after David conquering most of Israel reporting that he was fighting a dynastic decedent of David and conquered only up to the second biggest city in Israel. (which clearly suggests for some odd reason he wasn't able to conquer Jerusalem, I wonder...)

[@marvalice3455]

To be fair, I also believe in king Arthur.

[@RustyWalker]

Can you give a citation for that Jerusalem one? I'd like to read that.

[@MrCmon113]

What's your argument here? Following the actual evidence is bad? The OT is still totally wrong about a myriad of things and the authorship of texts is complete bollocks.

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

Imagine thinking you know the people and locations better than the writers living in the region in the 1st century.

[@jonathandutra4831]

Jews were performing a bunch of other stuff that was not in the law of Moses around that time because they believed "cleanliness was next to godliness" man made traditions so washing their hands is definitely not so far-fetched at all.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Continuously throughout history, archeology backs up the Bible: it never contradicts it. Folks even used to argue Pilate didn't exist until archeology backed the Bible up there, too.

[@thadofalltrades]

and over and over critics have alleged that certain Bible facts are false only for archeology to eventually uncover evidence to support. It's happened so often that I know we just have to wait awhile and evidence will be found. I have a feeling some bombshell archaeology will be coming in the next 5 years. The time seems right for it.

[@smidlee7747]

@@onlylettersand0to9 You mean like Pilate having it written on Jesus cross in three different languages "The King of the Jews"?

[@christiancrusader9374]

​​@@onlylettersand0to9Moses we don't have direct archeological evidence for, yet. But the others. There's at least one site that might he Noah's ark, the rubble from Jericho's walls are still there, we have multiple foreign sources that mention the house of David, including that of the Assyrian King who went up against Hezekiah. Also, Pilate only caved because the Jews threatened to accuse him of treason.

[@fluffysheap]

​@@christiancrusader9374nono, the archeological evidence for David was a conspiracy between the Israelites and their worst enemies, so that when they invented David 400 years later they would have a challenging puzzle for 21st century scholars

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

No. The Taylor Prism contradicts the story that an angel killed 185,000 Assyrian troops overnight. It relates how Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib and he went away and carried on another campaign.

[@Placeholderhandle1]

I was an atheist in my youth. I did not understand, I was blinded by arrogance. As I began to let go of that, I was brought to the only truth. That of Jesus Christ.

[@MrCmon113]

Anyone can write this garbage.

[@peepmmm8995]

very true anyone can be accepted by Christ, even you. Please don’t disrespect your neighbour in such a way. If you have an argument make it if not then don’t make yourself look foolish by posting this kind of pointless nonsense.

[@DanielApologetics]

Not many are aware of this, but there are even 2 Daniel's in the Bible. (David's son, 1 Chronicles 3;1). It's truly INCREDIBLE that people up through history have same names!! No? Well, ifs something relatable to the Bible, then yes, it must be because its fake-ah!!

[@darkwolf7740]

Your name is Daniel too. It can't be a coincidence!

[@SDsc0rch]

how many jesuses are there??

[@IsaiahINRI]

More proof the Bible is fake. Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel because Daniel is right here in the comment section.

[@eian_]

@@SDsc0rch well, the name Jesus derived from Yeshua, which is a different spelling of the names Jeshua and Joshua, of which there were multiple prominent holders of those names. Joshua for whom the book was named, Joshua/Jeshua, first high priest of post-exile Jerusalem.

[@lighthousenetwork.tv-media]

three! if you also include the patriarchal 'daniel' meantioned by Ezekiel that if he was in the land he would only deliver his own soul.

[@InterDylan]

I like that you took the time to make the Wojaks look like the authors you're critiquing.

[@thadofalltrades]

I laughed out loud at the Bart Ehrman one. Also that he didn't use his name

[@Pyr0Ben]

incoming spooderman comments

[@aidenrodgers681]

Well you see, spiderman is a book and the bible is a book therefore spiderman is real christanity = destroyed

[@logicianbones]

He will forever be enshrined as spooderman.

[@MrCmon113]

At least no one was ever enslaved or murdered by spiderman followers.

[@Nov_Net]

​@@MrCmon113hitler was a spiderman fan

[@dw5523]

"Skeptics hate him for this one weird trick..." of actually looking at all the data and coming to a conclusion based on critical thinking and reason instead of blind faith in scholarly consensus.

[@ryankohnenkamp8946]

1:46 "How do I say it's Bart Ehrman without saying it's Bart Ehrman..." - Eric, probably

[@darkwolf7740]

Waiting for someone to come along and say "BuT tHiS dOeSnT pRoVe ChRiStIaNiTy iS tRuE". Here's the thing. It doesn’t, but that doesn't matter because it's besides the point. If getting things wrong is evidence against something, then getting things right is evidence for something. People need to be more generous and open to the opposing side, whichever side they lean on.

[@Mike00513]

Exactly! It's like every time they see this the either miss the point completely or they move the goalposts when met with evidence that the Gospels are historically accurate.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@Mike00513Likewise, Christians should take it on the chin when things go against their worldview. Given, most people I've seen here do that, which I respect, but this should be encouraged more in the wider circle. Getting things wrong is a learning opportunity.

[@Boundless_Border]

Hmm. Is it besides the point? If the point is to verify that some event took place. Presuming the best case that so far every time a skeptic looked at the available evidence, found it lacking for a claim, and then concluded that the author messed up but was found to be wrong later. This does nothing to verify that the event that someone is trying to affirm took place. As I have said to others. Getting stuff wrong only affects inerrancy. Something many Christians still propagate. Getting some details wrong or right makes it just like every other text made by humans. Something that can be analyzed and hopefully verified. Testify can make his case however he wishes. But this is largely a tangent unless he's trying to fight for inerrancy.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

​@@Boundless_BorderThe Bible is only known to be inerrant through the church's teachings. The Gospels don't need to be of divine inspiration to provide an agnostic with sufficient evidence that miracles happened at the hands of Jesus of Nazareth

[@Boundless_Border]

@tafazziReadChannelDescription You don't need to make the case of divine inspiration to demonstrate inerrant. You seemed to indicate that somehow one needs to first be Christian before inerrancy can be demonstrated regarding all the testable claims. And you don't need evidence of divine inspiration to provide sufficient evidence that the miracles (or some form of magic) were performed by Jesus. I agree. But as I have yet to see sufficient evidence for the claim, I think it is safe to assess that people don't have it at the moment given that I have interacted with many trying to present what evidence they do have.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

AFAIK, the first rule of textual criticism is that the benefit of the doubt goes to the document, _not the skeptic._ Well done, Erik. Hammer away, ye rebel bands Your hammers break God’s anvil stands.

[@BygoneT]

Can you explain to me how this should make sense? Then, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the document universally? I don't see this ending well.

[@MrCmon113]

Absolutely not. I don't even know wtf that's supposed to mean. When an ancient text says "he became a wolf and ate their children", a critical scholar doesn't simply assume that the guy actually turned into a wolf. That's not even on the table. The questions are whether people believed that and when and where and what other stories it might be inspired by and what it tells us about their culture and so on.

[@ShinAk1raSama]

Basically, they don't try to see why that is but instead go straight to a conclusion to attack Christianity. Sad, really.

[@ShinAk1raSama]

@ButConsiderThis The same can be said about yourself, except I read about other religions and atheistic philosophy, both of which I doubt you do, considering you come straight with an ignorant accusation. Not only that, you claim that your channel is for reasonable discussion, yet you begin with ad hominem and mud-slinging. Your channel shows how much you dislike other KZbinrs; however, you never have the galls to debate any of them. You just react to them.

[@martisendrell9305]

I liked the part where you proved the guy you insulted right.

[@MrCmon113]

You mean they don't bend over backwards to make excuses for your religion, but instead draw plausible conclusions.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

The more crazy part to me is how critics (especially Ehrman) like to appeal to Josephus and invisible sources we have 0 mention of in any text, to refute the gospel accounts. Ignoring that the Gospel accounts even if later (unlikely as you've outlined) are just factually better preserved than Josephus's works.

[@walleras]

Your source is, I MADE IT UP!

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

I don't know if Testify has done a video on this, but can we please get a longer form video on the abuse of non-existent source in biblical scholarship? The idea that for an argument you can use a document that only exist as a theory and CITE THAT THEORETICAL DOCCUMENT AS A SOURCE is absolutely insane. Theoretically God exist, Do I now get to cite my divine revelations for the sake of argument? Obviously not, if someone did that they would be rightfully laughed out of the room. Apparently however critics can do what is essentially atheist divine revaluation and nobody seems to bat an eye? Maybe I'm just an uppity person but that seems like some minimum scholarship basic stuff we should be enforcing even if atheist scholars outnumber Christian scholars. At the very least we should be responding to their arguments in kind "Well actually Q says Jesus is God and he claimed to be God" next time Ehrman tries to say Q never mentioned Jesus as God.

[@MrCmon113]

The gospels contradict each other and show evolution over time. I don't think you've listened to Bart or ANY non apologist on the topic.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

@@MrCmon113 except "contradictions" have been largely answered, as for the supposed evolution of the gospels that has been refuted many times. It only works when you cherry pick the gospels.

[@nicholascarver1]

Nailed Bart erhlman

[@Ranchy_Ranch]

I'm ashamed I have never found this channel sooner. Thank you..

[@EzioAuditoreDaFirenze99]

The most serious critique today is the whole census of Quirinius thing. Basically they argue Quirinius wasn't governor or overseer of Judea at the right time and that the census took place later than specified according to our boy Josephus, and was done so according to Roman custom, not Jewish custom, meaning no return to birthplace necessary. Though, frankly, I support the idea of an earlier Jewish style census when Israel still had more autonomy from Rome. My guess would be, it was a poor census because trying to get everyone to follow that law would be a debacle. But mostly, I don't see how after 70 years max, that if the gospel writers were so wrong that they could not have been called out on it given that it would have been within living memory, especially given the accuracy of every other account which was documenting things that we know are true prior to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70ad.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I address the census here. I'm sure I'll address it more in the future too kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZzQdoR_l9WDa5o

[@fluffysheap]

I think the common apologetic argument about Quirinius is wrong, but so are the critical scholars. The passage in Luke is exceptionally awkwardly written, especially by Luke's standards. There is *no* way of reading it that makes complete sense. The best way to interpret it is to mean "before Quirinius was governor" rather than "while Quirinius was governor." This makes sense as it now contrasts with the parallel passage in Acts 5.

[@walleras]

What Jewish custom? What are you on about. Also how do you know they weren't? At first theyw ould have been insignificant. Then theyw ould have started burning the writings of their opponents.

[@Mattt5]

Wild take, but I'm more likely to believe the ancient Jewish writers than the "biblical scholars" to get all of the details right about being an ancient Jew in Palestine.

[@austingeorge6659]

That 1:39 Windows error SFX got me 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@TJBowman-vr1co]

Imagine if these athieats tried to Steelman the other side first.

[@nah8699]

Good content as always Eric. But I got confused with philo's period you mentioned ?

[@Strider1Wilco]

gotta say. critics of the Bible are useful idiots. they do all the work by bringing to our attention a lot of important things.

[@MrCmon113]

You mean the contradictions in the texts that make up the core of your religion? The clear signs that claimed authors weren't the authors? You continue to harm others based on biblical texts having special authority.

[@csmoviles]

May God bless your ministry ❤❤❤❤

[@AnHebrewChild]

Erik - this video is GREAT. Thanks for all your hard work to encourage people in the faith. The most surprising of these three examples, for me, is the one on Mrk7:31 - it's hard to believe a certain 'famous critic' actually argued against the widespread tradition of hand washing in the first century. Among historians of second temple Judaism, this Rabbinic-sourced hand washing practice ("fencing the Torah") has long been common knowledge. I mean, Orthodox Rabbis contemporary to Bart's _Jesus, interrupted_ openly discussed the reasons for it. Dr Ehrman has since retracted it, but this is not an isolated misstep by him. I continue to hear him make claims which are prima facie false, and even flatly contradicted by other 'Mythvision scholars.'

[@Christian_Maoist.]

What do you think about Mike Licona's views about gospel authors using literary devices and certain liberties when retelling the Gospel?

[@darkwolf7740]

Consistent with most ancient historians. There is no harm in using the literary skills at your disposal to spread your message in a clear and concise way.

[@TestifyApologetics]

read Lydia McGrew's The Mirror or the Mask. Mike's an good guy, but I think he's wrong about what Greco-Roman historians did (or at least broadly wrong) and he's wrong about what kind of authors the gospel writers are.

[@thadofalltrades]

do you post this on every video?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Oh boy, here comes some credentialism. Golly, if you can’t read Greek, you should shut up and listen to the experts. When are you gonna start addressing arguments instead of… oh, I don’t know, people’s motives or supposed lack of expertise when you haven’t even read what she’s said? And I mean why would biblical studies need help from an expert epistemologist when they got their act so together?

[@thadofalltrades]

@@TestifyApologetics only those with credentials that are critical to the Bible are "objective," so they say.

[@One_voice369]

@1:35 Any atheist that says “Palestinian Geography” is a crazy person. At the time of Mark it was called Judaea (Matt 2:1) and NOT Palestine

[@koikuix]

Ah yes, because referring to an area by its modern name is crazy behaviour. Same as talking about ancient Japanese people. No, they were from Yamato or Wa, not Japan/Nippon/Nihon because Japan/Nippon/Nihon was not the name of that area yet. Lunacy.

[@One_voice369]

@@koikuix thanks for the false equivalency. But Judea is no where near Palestine (Japan / Nippon) Jews lived there at the time of Jesus and it’s my understanding that NO OTHER NATION have ever lived in Japan / Nippon Again thanks but you need to understand before you write

[@koikuix]

@@One_voice369 You’re the one in need of a history lesson. Judea is entirely within the area of what is and was considered to be Palestine for a over a century. Now, whether to call it Palestine or Israel in modern day is a different thing, but for a good part of the last century and before it was Palestine. And there have been multiple ancient nations in Japan, even more if you count the revolutions and shogunates.

[@One_voice369]

@@koikuix so which nation lived in Japan besides the Japanese ? Was it the Russians or the Chinese? Or am I missing a nation? Please do tell Like I said, Jews have always lived in Judea as Mark says. So you are putting up a false equivalency

[@One_voice369]

@@koikuix “Judea is within the area of Palestine” No it’s not. It was called “Syria-Palaestina” (NOT PALESTINE) in 133 AD by the Romans look it up

[@TimothyChapman]

If they're going to point out errors, they should at least make sure that they themselves are factually correct. Oh wait, "skeptics" aren't interested in the truth. That's why they take the first thing that looks like an error and run with it, and keep running even when their own error is exposed.

[@clevelandfan295]

This channel is incredible. This is my first comment but I’ve been watching for awhile. I especially loved the king David video but the Acts/Gospel breakdowns are also awesome. Maybe you could do a video debunking claims about Luke 2:1 where he supposedly goofs on who was in charge during the census

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for the kind words. I have discussed it here in an older video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZzQdoR_l9WDa5o I will probably cover it again with the new style sometime.

[@redschannel6527]

is it just me or are the dissidents in this comment section especially insane lol

[@Spartan322]

Its because Bart fans are almost as insane as LF are against Calvinists.

[@logicianbones]

It's an internet thing.

[@CCoburn3]

As a Christian, I object to people using sloppy scholarship in defense of the Gospels. For instance, you presented evidence of ritual baths to show that Jews washed their hands before eating. But a ritual bath has nothing to do with washing hands before eating. No one is claiming that all Jews took a ritual bath before eating. That is not the question. The text about Jews in Alexandria washing their hands was the only evidence on the issue. What I am saying is that you should be careful when you present a case because you can do more harm than good if you are sloppy.

[@TestifyApologetics]

If I'm being sloppy then why did Ehrman correct himself over the issue in a blog post when presented with the info ? ehrmanblog.org/dont-trust-what-you-read/

[@ericacuna7485]

​@@TestifyApologetics Thanks man, you do excellent work But these guys must fulfill the scriptures in their unbelief If you know what I mean.😉

[@logicianbones]

Water. Water is in common. Cleaning is in common. Come now.

[@CCoburn3]

@@logicianbones I don't doubt people washed their hands. But do YOU wash your hands in a bathtub? Of course not. And neither did the Hebrews. So evidence that there were ritual baths in a few places in the area does NOT provide any data on the question of whether they washed their hands before eating.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Well explained!

[@expressoevangelism80]

I do have a niggling question which no-one seems to have any answer. There seems to be a real paradox on the account of what Joseph did after the birth of Christ. Did they go north directly after Jesus’ circumcision, or did they hang around for a couple of years, waiting for the ‘wise men’ to arrive before he had a dream telling them to go to Egypt and then stay there until Herod’s death. These obviously seem to create some sort of conflict between, Matthew and Luke, which I just cannot reconcile enough to be able let it rest in my mind. Any suggestions?

[@dumbsimpleton207]

Getting the mileage out of the npc meme huh? Lel. Good video testify.

[@modernatheism]

One error in the gospels is when Luke places the census during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which did not happen until 6 AD.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I've addressed this already here kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZzQdoR_l9WDa5o

[@modernatheism]

@@TestifyApologetics I have left a response in that video. You have so many mistakes.

[@johnnylollard7892]

Disregarding anything else, what historical source do you have to say it happened 6 AD? Why do you consider it ironclad and certain?

[@modernatheism]

@@johnnylollard7892 The source is Josephus. There are also coins issued by Quirinius as governor of Syria, dated 5/6 AD, which confirm this position.

[@TestifyApologetics]

no, I really didn't make the mistakes you claim. put the red pen down or maybe make a response video

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@ZeroutlawRBLX]

Your videos are always bangers. God bless you.

[@Thomas-bq4ed]

Bart actually corrected his mistake over 5 years ago now. And agreed that that is evidence of hand washing, I know your audience couldn’t care less, because it’s not really about what’s true, but good thing to bring up I think, if you are going to depict him as both uninformed and dishonest.

[@olekcholewa8171]

"The evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine" First of all, Mark wouldn't even know what "Palestine" is.

[@camillewilliams3185]

I just want to say I love the graphics. They're hilarious

[@anglosaxaphone672]

Hey I would like to mention that numbers 31 would be a really interesting one to take on. The scholarly consensus all make assertions that the war never took place, at least not as described.

[@anglosaxaphone672]

As well as the origin of the Israelite nation. And the origin of El, the Israelite God. And the gods surrounding

[@Thundawich]

I don't get the point of bringing up what you brought up in response to Ehrman. His claim was that jews didn't wash their hands before eating, but the 3 sources you bring up don't mention handwashing prior to eating at all, just general cleanliness. Are there any sources that talk about washing with regards to food specifically?

[@kevinturley4943]

Critical thinking about Bart Ehrman’s books is what lead me to faith. I started agreeing with him and eventually it made no sense.

[@MrCmon113]

No one believes that BS.

[@EnHacore1]

Do you have a list of all incidental facts, like a Wikipedia of all these kind of mentions that prove the gospels were authentic and written by people living in Judeah around that time?

[@autisticneetgaming]

I'm glad you included the chad wojak otherwise I wouldn't know who to side with

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Testify is one of the best places to find biblical fact checks, when sceptics critique the Bible. Also, like the duck quack sound effect

[@williamrice3052]

At least those Gospel skeptics will never go hungry (with all that egg on their face)

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

Jesus Christ succeeds at what he sets out to do! Matthew 10:34-36 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Congratulation Jesus Christ! You have done what you said you would do! I worship my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for bringing a sword to the world. Thank you Jesus!

[@LuisHernandoDavis]

Hey brother I recommend you dont mock or laugh at the skeptics in those graphics cause you might turn some ppl off. God Bless

[@thewestisthebest6608]

Skeptics: Mark is not aquatinted with the region of Palestine 😏 Mark: No, you are not aquatinted with the region of Palestine 🤦‍♂️

[@nukeplatine]

Can you please make a video about luke talking about the roofs in the episode of the paralytic

[@AnHebrewChild]

You mean this episode? And, behold, men brought in a bed a paralytic man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling... - What's the critic's criticism of this one?

[@nukeplatine]

@@AnHebrewChild the problem is 'through the tiles', since according to archaeology, tiles weren't used there in that time, but rather in Antioch

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@nukeplatine ok, got it. thanks.

[@UnremarkableMarx]

Luke is actually so on the ball it's not even funny. He was a diligent person, we could use some Lukes in 2024

[@iyad0102]

Eric the videos of this series are not showing up not even in notifications. My brother contact KZbin.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

Mate, it’s not listed yet because he hasn’t listed them yet. It’s all good. Free early access.

[@trentitybrehm5105]

nice

[@michaelman957]

Clearly they never heard of King Louis the 5000th

[@mcfarvo]

✝️ 👀

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

Guys, confirmation bias is not a virtue. In scholarship, you should be grateful for those who criticise your work.

[@alexanderjosephross]

The arrogance of modern scholars regularly astounds me- presuming they know better about historical people and places than the people themselves.

[@Zevelyon]

Eric, master of memes.

[@jezbread8111]

More like Bart D Errorman

[@nukeplatine]

I confirm. Anyone going on the phoenician littoral would find a practically desertic climate, very harsh sun, practically no trees, very rocky. Only enjoyable for a day at the beach. You need to make a small trip through the mountains by water sources that travel exactly how mark described: north then east to Sidon, then south to Tyre, to avoid the desert part (Tyre/Galilee)

[@protochris]

Jews cleansed their hands, just as they brought their own matt to sit on for fear of contamination in public places. If they're picking up the matt, a hand washing would be sure to follow.

[@johngregory4801]

I love the willful ignorance of the second one, that Jews didn't wash hands before eating. Does not the verse end with, "holding the tradition of the elders"? Therefore no verses pulled from the Law of Moses have anything to do with this in any way. Everything on this subject afterwards proves it was a tradition imposed on the Jews by the elders. As for Lysanius... How many men who ruled in Galilee were called Herod? Did not Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa occupy the same throne several decades apart? People annoy me.

[@walleras]

Dude, no. I'm an orthodox Rabbi and hand washing before eating BREAD!* came about in Yavneh. That is after 70 CE. Meaning if that event actually happened, all Jesus had to say is hold on, since when do we have to wash our hands? This isn't tahor? And if you say that Jesus didn't keep taharah, then he wouldn't have been given tahor produce but tamei. We had a certification process. Because Jesus didn't point out that it wouldn't have been tahor food and thus he didn't have to wash his hands we know that Mark isn't refering to that. (He also could have said my hands are tahor, I don't need to wash or any number of excuses. I am not an expert on taharah however.) This therefore mean that Mark went out and saw us Jews washing our hands before bread. He then thought it was silly and put it in his gospel. A historical error and dates Mark to probably around 75 CE. Finally imposed? Tell me you are completely ignorant without saying such. Are you not aware that the elders were instituted by the Almighty? My opinion of christians dips ever lower.

[@johngregory4801]

@@walleras Deuteronomy 18 says God was going to send a prophet like Moses and that anyone who refused to hear him would be removed from the rolls of Abrahams seed. Jesus was and is that prophet. If you haven't bowed your knee to him... Your opinion doesn't matter to God or me.

[@walleras]

@@johngregory4801 Christianity doesn't hold Jesus as a prophet. You hold that he is god chvs. Ergo he cannot be the prophet like Moses. It is also said that in Deuteronomy 13 if a prophet says to worship another god that your father did not know even if he gives signs he isn't from Hashem. Hashem is merely testing us. As a matter of fact my fathers did not mention Jesus. Ergo he cannot be the prophet like Moses. Scripture condemns him. As it is written, "Do not fear him." Uhhh who is the prophet like Moses. Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, around 1.2 million men and women actually.

[@johngregory4801]

@@walleras Shows how little you know. He walked as a prophet and the Son of God. When John Baptist was asked if he was the prophet Moses spoke of, John pointed to the one he came to introduce, Jesus, who was also the King that Father God so happily told Israel of is Psalm 45. He also came as the Lamb of God Zechariah prophesied of in 11:10-11, Beauty, who was sacrificed by God "to break the covenant he made with the people". Your understanding of the New Testament is typical in its ostentatious refusal to understand what God prophesied about the Messiah who was to come.

[@walleras]

@@johngregory4801 How in the world can you be a prophet and god at the same time. That is impossible. Ohhhh god can do anything. Well he cannot simultaneously be not god and god. The definition of a prophet is one who experiences prophecy which is a certain awareness of the Almighty where He can give you messages. Now it is quite impossible for someone who is god to reach this state. Much like it is impossible for me to be a messenger for myself. I am myself. Patently ridiculous. Zechariah 11:10 is about the annauling of the covenant between the Almighty and the goyim. Not sure how that helps your Jesus guy at all. Psalms 45 cannot be about Jesus because well, none of that has happened. Where is his throne? Same place Shabtae tzvi. Ohhh second coming. Then don't bother my dude. Ngl I could see this Psalm applying to King Solomon. Afterall, it fits him more then Jesus. It is amazing how you christians accuse us Jews of ignoring prophecies yet it is you that ignore them by proclaiming a second coming which the scripture is silent upon. Let us make a compromise. If Jesus comes and fulfills Zechariah 9 and Isaiah 2, Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14, etc etc, then I will become a Christian. Until then seeing as how we have unfulfilled prophecies, why don't you come and embrace Torah?

[@universalflamethrower6342]

I made a poem about my favorite Jesus Mythisist Carrier Cult a Cargo Cult Carries Carrier's Career Carrier Cult a Cargo Cult A Cult with science veneer Carrier Cult a Cargo Cult Contraptions crushed by peers Carrier Cult a Cargo Cult All PhDs steer clear

[@derrickbonsell]

This starts off absurd. Tyre and Sidon weren't minor unknown cities. Knowledgeable people as far way as Spain would have a good chance of knowing where they lie in relation to each other, let alone someone writing as close as Asia Minor, where merchants from those cities would have sailed to ply their wares. If Mark (or the author credited as Mark to give the skeptics benefit of the doubt) describes travelling from Tyre to Sidon before then travelling to the Decapolis there's probably a good reason. Which of course you spelled out.

[@ieattwiceaday4116]

Skeptics would have a better use of their time searching for kitchen sink installation tutorials

[@TestifyApologetics]

yes

[@MrCmon113]

"Skeptics" are just scholars and historians. Your religion is at odds with all knowledge and science, not just history and archeology. That's not the fault of scholars or scientists.

[@kiwisaram9373]

Men csn only make s name for themselves by saying something controversial, otherwise they have to get jobs.

[@eugenetswong]

FEEDBACK: Your title is wrong, because the anti-Christians will never regret this mistakes until the distant future when they repent or until judgement day. It's very clickbaity.

[@darkwolf7740]

Let's be honest. Some people would still reject it even then. A lot of people in this world are closed-minded to the possibility.

[@eugenetswong]

@@darkwolf7740 Even when? Which situation? For the record, I am just upset that people use clickbait that is too far from reality. Christians should be truthful.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'll consider changing it

[@eugenetswong]

If you haven't seen Vertasium's video on when to use clickbait, then check it out. It seems that you're doing us a favour, when you do use at least a little. It seems that some clickbait can still be honst.

[@TestifyApologetics]

yeah it's a good vid. I changed it.

[@TrevorSTL79]

I just saw worst take on Jesus that ive ever seen it was minutes of every possible fallacies i could think of i couldnt even pause the video enough to comment on every fallacy it was worse than even a middle school new atheist rant. It was called "was Jesus even that great" by The Left Wing. I wanted to see if Testify would react to it but not sure if he could handle that much intellectual pain in one video

[@bman5257]

Dr. Ehrman you have already lost. You see I have depicted you as the NPC and myself in sunglasses.

[@theepitomeministry]

I'm so here for the Timothy McGrew content. Make his content popular!

[@j.dieason7527]

It’s always cracks me up when ppl of today state the ppl of 2000 yrs ago got something wrong. As if they know more than the actual person writing the scripture. As if they lived back in that time to actually make statements like they do.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Speaking of Mark 7, Jesus complains there to the Pharisees that they allow for the possibility that a person could make a solemn vow to God that their own property may not be used to benefit their father or mother, despite the command, "Honor your father and mother" (see also Matt 15:3-6). And yet, according to Matthew 8:21-22 and Luke 9:59-60, when a man tells Jesus that he wants to follow him, but he just needs time to go bury his own father who has passed away, Jesus replies, "Let the dead bury their dead," despite the command, "Honor your father and mother." So it's not so much that nothing can supercede the commandment to honor parents, it's that Jesus just wanted to place himself above the honor of parents.

[@Boundless_Border]

Hmm. I may skip out on this series as this would require me to actually verify the context of all the things you say instead of taking your claims largely at face value and indicating the issue with how you're trying to evaluate it. Take the channel wherever you will. I'm just sharing.

[@darkwolf7740]

Could just verify the claims. Easy and quick to do. 🤷‍♂️

[@Boundless_Border]

@darkwolf7740 It's substantially longer and more involved in comparison to watching his videos a few times and paying attention. But I'll think about it.

[@TestifyApologetics]

thanks for your permission?

[@Boundless_Border]

@darkwolf7740 I'll note I did this for one of his videos regarding how the Gospels can be tied to Tacitus and that response was ignored despite it taking me longer to read through the appropriate work and formulate a response. It isn't his duty to respond but I don't relish the idea of him spitting out several things for me to fact check for multiple videos and for it to be either ignored or dismissed when this is largely tangential to the primary topic.

[@Boundless_Border]

@TestifyApologetics Not permission. Simply acknowledgment and an explicit statement so my comment won't be taken in the wrong way.

[@RustyWalker]

There's no evidence the mountain was impassible and Mark doesn't have Jesus make this 22 mile detour on his trip north from Genneserat in chapter 6. I don't know of any mountains that only block your route in one direction but not the return trip.