Sneaky Good Evidence in The Triumphal Entry

[@TestifyApologetics]

For you Bart Ehrman lecture watchers, I discuss the Matthew's two donkeys thing here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXeUoouOhbuXq6s Michael Jones also does so here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIqxmGebaZiGa6M&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy If you want to bring up the supposed contradiction between the Synoptics and John on what day Jesus died, see my response to Useful Charts here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZzVqqKMqNCZbKM

[@darkwolf7740]

Let's coin the term 'Bartman (Bart + Ehrman) fallacy' for those who appeal to Bart Ehrman solely on his nature as a figure of authority in order to support an argument, rather than the evidence itself.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@solidstorm6129"Joseph having 2 different Dads" Ancient Jewish genealogies commonly included non-biological ancestral fathers (broader ancestry), separate from biological lineage. Matthew's genealogy traces the ancestry of Jesus through King David, whereas Luke tracks it through Adam. The implication here is that the genealogies are serving a theological purpose, rather than a strict biological lineage. This is perfectly in line with their culture, and the audience would've recognised it. So... why exactly are you applying a strict 21st century understanding of a concept to a 1st century understanding of a different concept?

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@solidstorm6129That's not a response. What I have stated is factual information that you can verify for yourself. Do you not care for accuracy in critiques?

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@solidstorm6129 Berthelot, K. (2020). Genealogy versus Merit? On the Role of Lineage in Ancient Judaism. Introduction. Journal of Ancient Judaism, 11(1), 1-9. doi.org/10.30965/21967954-12340001 *"A passage of the Mishnah that ranks Jews according to their lineage affirms that a mamzer who is a disciple of the sages is greater than a high priest who is ‘am ha-aretz (ignorant of the Torah) (m. Horayot 3:8). Here, the genealogical hierarchy appears to be subordinated to a hierarchy based on Torah knowledge. Alternatively, a passage from the Mekhilta de-Arayot in Sifra claims that a righteous Gentile who observes the Torah (i.e., a convert) is equal to a high Priest. From a moral and religious perspective, the value of Torah knowledge and practice may thus erase genealogical distinctions."* Journal of Ancient Judaism 11 (1), 26-44, 2020 *"By contrast, Josephus’ definition of the kinship (oikeiotēs) that unites the members of the Jewish people as based either on birth/common ancestors or on choice (the choice to live under Jewish laws, implicitly characterized as virtuous) in Against Apion reflects the impact on the Judean historian of Roman citizenship grants and the pro-Roman discourses that praised this policy."* This is why you do your research!

[@cugeltheclever3766]

@@darkwolf7740 the problem is your massageing 1 century understanding into 21 century understanding so you end up cherry picking to navigate our modern understanding of the physical world.

[@interiorattack]

Thanks for the work you're doing for the Kingdom.

[@midimusicforever]

Hosanna, Jesus is Lord!

[@teachertimm]

Every knee will bow.......make your decision.

[@claysdogtraining9702]

Just watched this whole playlist! Awesone quality and explanation! Also, you have a great narrating voice! Thank you! God Bless You!

[@DavidTWGoliath]

Another great video! Love seeing the dots connected through this series. I can’t wait for OT examples!

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

Skeptics : okay guys time to move the goalposts

[@TestifyApologetics]

Or time for some whataboutism Or something something while copying Mark

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@TestifyApologetics*"Matthew copied Mark here, and here, and here, even though what he wrote here, and here, and here is not the same!"*

[@kingvinoda3896]

To be fair there will always be skepticism until Jesus himself appears to the world. But maybe then it will be too late to change one's mind.

[@Yipper64]

@@darkwolf7740 "Mathew copied Mark basically completely, but also here its not the exact same thing so the bible contradicts itself, how can you believe this?"

[@chrisazure1624]

Skeptics you can deal with. It is the Cynics that waste your time. We need to discern the difference.

[@jakejones4801]

Always praying for you, I can’t thank you enough for videos like these, keep it up brother!!

[@Acts.Chapter1.6--7]

Thanks my Brother in Christ. - Awesome commentary.

[@Joanne-t6j]

Nicely done! Thank you.

[@israelperez-sg8er]

This one caught me by surprise, nice surprise! Thanks! Israel Perez viewing and learning from Guatemala, C.A.👌🙏

[@jazzed2b]

Love these type of confirmations. They are so settle and only when one studies the scriptures in detail would the reader realize the truth of them. J Warner Wallace also has a fantastic analysis which proved to him the scriptures were real and ended up coming to faith in Christ as a result. Thank you!!!!!

[@glennwiebe5128]

Should also have mentioned the prophecy in Daniel about the number of days it would be for the king of the Jews to ride triumphantly into Jerusalem on a horse. Down to the day!

[@keith6706]

Except the story doesn't have Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a horse. A donkey isn't the same as a horse.

[@thadofalltrades]

Which prophecy are you referring to?

[@glennwiebe5128]

@@thadofalltrades Daniel 9.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@glennwiebe5128 what verse talks about him riding in on a horse?

[@glennwiebe5128]

@@keith6706 Daniel talks specifically about the date of His arrival. Zechariah 9:9 details His triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding on the foal (an untrained young offspring) of a donkey. Jesus’ purpose in riding into Jerusalem was to make public His claim to be their Messiah and King of Israel in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Matthew says that the King coming on the foal of a donkey was an exact fulfillment of Zech 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Jesus rides into His capital city as a conquering King and is hailed by the people as such, in the manner of the day. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies.

[@ekabahenda]

I live for such content!!!!! God bless you for putting it out there

[@macwade2755]

Great video Testfy! God bless you!

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Thanks for what you do!

[@lukeman4566]

These videos are brilliant, you discuss such cool and niche connections in a simple and easy to follow manner/timeline. It is always wonderful to see people walking in a purpose God clearly has for their life. Do you find these connections in your own research/reading or explain them as known connections about the bible from other sources (or some of both)? love the content man, keep it up

[@TestifyApologetics]

They are from a book called Hidden in Plain View by Lydia McGrew

[@lukeman4566]

@@TestifyApologetics wonderful, your telling of it and minimalistic visuals are quite delicious, remember Jesus loves you homie. If I die tonight I'll see you in the life after this life, we ain't got nothin to worry about❤️🙏🏻

[@minizimi3790]

This reminds me of Dr. Craig Blomberg’s scholarship. Pretty well done.

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@steveocvirek6671]

Good logic and reasoning - you certainly know your Bible well. Thanks for making this video.

[@kathyern861]

Oh, how humble are thou, genius.

[@enanguko2237]

Thank you very much dear Brother

[@Ike-un6mc]

Not sneaky, in plain sight for those with eyes to see. Great observation of the historicity details of the Gospel accounts.

[@dennisravndal]

Hey Testify, I love your content, and I was just wondering what you think about Matthew 26.29 "I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”?

[@mikeutube82]

This is very interesting, however John's general timeline of events varies quite wildly from the synoptics . I'm not sure precise timing correlation is all that important. People usually remember events differently when writing several years after events and John seems to be writing his version with more of a theological agenda than an effort to keep the precise diary like history alive.....which is fine too as long as you understand that.

[@thebear6521]

this exact topic is addressed very well in J Warner Wallace's book Cold Case Christianity

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

John does not seem to be showing a wildly different timeline from the synoptics. Both John and the synoptics seem to be generally chronological and can be easily harmonized into one narrative. The wedding at Cana takes place three days after Jesus' baptism, and so before the forty days in the Desert. The cleansing of the Temple in John is different from the one in the synoptics, and the Passover journey has to be placed before the return from the Desert to Galilee because it mentions John as still free. Jesus returns through Samaria in John and ends up in Capernaum. The synoptics also say this, but skip over the Passover journey. We now have an undesigned coincidence: Luke 4:23 mentions a prior miracle in Capernaum, but only John 4:46-54 describes it. The next narrative in John, the pool of Bethesda, best fits during the time Jesus spent in lonely places (Luke 5,:16). The next narrative in John is obviously the first feeding of the multitude, almost perfectly fitting with the synoptics. The ending of the narrative of the feast of the tabernacles fits very well with the synoptic mention of the journey to Transjordan (Matthew 19:1-2). The raising of Lazarus and move to Ephraim fit well with the synoptics. After that, the only difference between the accounts is that John places the anointing of Jesus right after mentioning Bethany, while the synoptics place it at its actual time. There are actually no chronological contradictions between the two accounts, aside from, as said before, John recording the time of Jesus arriving in Bethany while the synoptics record the time of the actual anointing.

[@bradyholmok8124]

Ty for what you do Testify

[@AlphonsoFrett-xz6pi]

Thanks to David wood's scuby doo and the case of the silly scpitc video I believe that nonbelievers will keep making excuses not to believe however God will appreciate our effort if our hearts are praying to him

[@lostfan5054]

These aren't excuses. Non believers like me are genuinely not convinced because the evidence isn't compelling. Present compelling evidence and I will sincerely believe.

[@AlphonsoFrett-xz6pi]

Please look up David wood's video Scuby doo and the case of the silly scpitc please ​@lostfan5054

[@cugeltheclever3766]

Why dont you believe in Hinduism, islam, zoroastrianism, bhuddism, or judaism?

[@AlphonsoFrett-xz6pi]

No body in the name of the religions listed helped me out of a very painful 💔 situation however People in Jesus Christ name did help me out.

[@AlphonsoFrett-xz6pi]

@lostfan5054 I ask again please look up David wood's scuby doo and the case of the silly scpitc video and the list of David wood's testimonials

[@JacobGosnell-el5ku]

Testify can you make more Jesus pagan parallel satire videos? Those are always great.

[@nilan3294]

Check out InspiringPhilosophy, he has an entire series of short videos like that

[@michaelhowell2609]

The large majority of New Testament scholars agree that Jesus was a historical person, was crucified, died and was buried, including leading New Testament scholar Bart Erhman. Everyone argues over the validity and accuracy of the Bible, but the fact is if he rose out of that grave it’s game on. I have hope and so does everyone else on this comment section. I never get all the vitriol and rudeness between believers and nonbelievers.

[@lifeintheriver342]

Maybe not enough for a whole video, but a few weeks back, I finally figured why James and John were mending their nets when Jesus called them.... Their nets had been broken by the miraculous catch of fish before they forsook all to follow him!

[@Doughy_in_the_Middle]

Our priest always describes it like of someone witnessed something happening in the middle of a street intersection, but with each of the Gospel writers standing on a corner. The perspectives may all be slightly different when they're questioned, but the core details would match enough to line up with the truth of the incident.

[@walterdaems57]

Jump into your nearest police station and ask the first detective about the value of ‘eye witnesses’.

[@TheVlasac]

So when gospels converge it is proof of historic truth, but when they diverge it is not proof of fantasy writing? If it were real events shouldn't gospels be almost completly aligned and not so contradictional at parts?

[@TestifyApologetics]

The evidence supporting the reliability of these stories is much stronger than the evidence against it. The little discrepancies between the stories don't outweigh all the other evidence we have. Think of it like this: imagine you're trying to figure out if something is true or not. You look at all the facts that support it (like the puzzle pieces fitting together), and then you look at the things that seem to go against it (like pieces that don't quite fit). When you weigh it all up, the evidence that supports the truth is much stronger than the evidence against it. So, even though there are some differences between the stories, when we compare all the evidence, the case for their reliability is still really strong. Moreover, even a basic understanding of historical documents reveals that reliable historians, including eyewitnesses, often exhibit selectivity and emphasis, and they frequently directly contradict one another. However, this doesn't erode their credibility concerning the main events they describe. For instance, Herodotus and other ancient historians don't agree on the number of troops Xerxes assembled for his invasion of Greece, yet no one disputes that the invasion happened and ended disastrously. Similarly, Florus's account of the troop numbers at the Battle of Pharsalia differs significantly from Caesar's own, but it doesn't cast doubt on the fact that the battle occurred and Caesar emerged victorious. Likewise, Josephus and Philo offer conflicting timelines for the embassy of the Jews to Emperor Claudius, yet historians generally accept that such an embassy occurred. Since the theory that a collection of historical documents is largely reliable predicts minor discrepancies between accounts (as observed in other documents deemed substantially reliable), the presence of these variations can't be considered substantial evidence against the reliability of these documents.

[@burrahobbithalf]

But if the gospels are not independent they would have the same timeframes in their head while writing. From Mark it's obviously several days; landing on 6 isn't that much of a coincidence.

[@zeroknowledge2446]

Here is the timeline of the Mark and John passages, heavily summarized but with all key dating references included.. (Mark 11.1) Approach Jerusalem/Bethany Get colt/Hosanna The next day... First fig tree event / Driving out of temple Evening comes Go out of the city Morning comes Second fig tree event Arrive again in Jerusalem Vineyard parable / Caesar/Taxes story / Bother's wife story / Christ is the son of David story / Teachers of the law story / Poor widow story Leaving the temple Destruction of Jerusalem story (Mark 14:1) Passover only two days away John (John 12:1) Six days before the Passover Approach Bethany Lazarus/Martha/nard story Large crowd, plans to kill Jesus The next day... Get colt/Hosanna [Oops, John, you've got the wrong day - see Mark] Pharisees discuss / Philip wants to speak Kernel of wheat story / Voice came from heaven story / Son of man story / Miraculous signs [what miraculous signs?! Has something been edited out here?] / Isaiah the prophet story / Pharisees faith story / When a man believes in me story (John 13:1) It was just before the Passover Feast. I'm not saying that the writer of John wasn't thinking of a 5 (6?) day period but concluding that from the scant dating information in the passages is deeply disingenuous. In fact, the majority of the two passages does not align in the slightest. This is not an undesigned coincidence, it is just undesigned.

[@hansdemos6510]

I don't quite understand how your conclusion follows. If the gospel according to John was written last, and the writer(s) had access to copies of the other gospels you mention, it would be easy to coordinate the timeline in retrospect, wouldn't it? And the writer(s) of John wouldn't even have to have any nefarious motives either; they could just be making sure they didn't say anything that was obviously contradicted by the narratives they already knew existed.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Though this explanation of paying really close attention is possible, it seems highly unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, Mark condenses the story in Mark 11 and doesn't mention that Jesus entered Bethany the evening before His triumphant entry into Jerusalem. If you solely rely on Mark's account, you might assume that Jesus went to both Bethany and Jerusalem on the same day. However, John's version provides additional details, indicating that Jesus actually stayed overnight in Bethany before going to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Mark 13 doesn't clearly indicate that the Olivet Discourse happened in the evening. However, considering that Jesus stayed in Bethany overnight (a detail mentioned in John but not in Mark) and that the Mount of Olives is situated between Jerusalem (where Jesus had been all day) and Bethany (where He stayed overnight), it's reasonable to infer that the discourse likely occurred in the evening. Another point that goes against the idea of John relying on Mark is that John seems to place the event of Jesus' feet being anointed at Bethany on the Sunday before Passover (John 12:1-8), whereas Mark suggests it happened on the Wednesday before Passover. There are ways to harmonize this if you're an inerrantist, but at the very worst this would be a good faith mistake on John's part. It shows that he's not probably copying. So no, this explanation doesn't work very well.

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@TestifyApologetics Thank you for replying to my comment. I know you are very busy, and you can't reply to all comments. You said: _"If you solely rely on Mark's account, you might assume that Jesus went to both Bethany and Jerusalem on the same day. However, John's version provides additional details, indicating that Jesus actually stayed overnight in Bethany before going to Jerusalem."_ If the writer of Mark's account gives leeway for the account of the writer(s) of John, then I don't see why your interpretation should be more plausible than mine. You said: _"Furthermore, Mark 13 doesn't clearly indicate that the Olivet Discourse happened in the evening. However, considering that Jesus stayed in Bethany overnight (a detail mentioned in John but not in Mark) and that the Mount of Olives is situated between Jerusalem (where Jesus had been all day) and Bethany (where He stayed overnight), it's reasonable to infer that the discourse likely occurred in the evening."_ Again, see above; if Mark only "doesn't clearly indicate" X, then later authors who know of this account have the freedom to fill in the blanks. The reasonable inference if you accept that the writer(s) of John probably knew at least some of the contents of Mark is that they would adapt their narrative to be at least compatible with what they knew of the earlier account. You said: _"Another point that goes against the idea of John relying on Mark..."_ I wouldn't say "rely" though, because the writer(s) of John may have had their own theological intentions, but IF they had knowledge of at least some of the contents of Mark, then it would make sense for them to make sure their own narrative remained at least factually compatible with what they knew was out there already. You said: _" ... is that John seems to place the event of Jesus' feet being anointed at Bethany on the Sunday before Passover (John 12:1-8), whereas Mark suggests it happened on the Wednesday before Passover. There are ways to harmonize this if you're an inerrantist, but at the very worst this would be a good faith mistake on John's part. It shows that he's not probably copying. So no, this explanation doesn't work very well."_ Or it could be a deliberate departure from what the writer(s) of John knew was in Mark, for reasons we don't understand anymore, or it could be that they just didn't have or did not know of, or had forgotten, that particular passage in Mark. Or they thought they had good reason for thinking that the writer of the gospel according to Mark had made a mistake. I am not trying to be flippant, it's just that I really don't see why your interpretation should be preferred over more skeptical interpretations. Let me ask you this though; do you think it is likely that John (or whoever wrote the gospel attributed to him) had a copy or a version of the gospel according to Mark, or at least had heard passages from it recited or read out?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I enjoy replying to thoughtful comments like yours, even though I can't always do so. It's better than the majority of silliness that I get from most people who disagree. "If the writer of Mark's account gives leeway for the account of the writer(s) of John, then I don't see why your interpretation should be more plausible than mine." I'm not saying he has leeway to make things up or change the facts; I'm just saying that you have to do quite a bit of detective work in order to cross-check John's accuracy on this particular point. "Again, see above; if Mark only "doesn't clearly indicate" X, then later authors who know of this account have the freedom to fill in the blanks. The reasonable inference if you accept that the writer(s) of John probably knew at least some of the contents of Mark is that they would adapt their narrative to be at least compatible with what they knew of the earlier account." So the evangelists are being very careful to ensure some mundane detail about how many days it was when Jesus came into Bethany, while also apparently sloppily contradicting Mark on other points, such as when he was anointed, and failing to make the small, subtle points match up in those larger moments? That doesn't present a very unified picture of the author. You're dealing with a very schizo author in your view, and that is one reason why your view is not to be preferred. "I wouldn't say "rely" though, because the writer(s) of John may have had their own theological intentions, but IF they had knowledge of at least some of the contents of Mark, then it would make sense for them to make sure their own narrative remained at least factually compatible with what they knew was out there already." Wait, so now they are just relying on memory for this small, whether tacitly or explicitly very easily forgettable detail, and ensuring they invisibly craft it into their narrative without drawing any attention to it? Maybe that's possible, but you realize there are dozens of instances like these in the Gospels, right? And that they criss-cross in multiple directions? This isn't the way I'd bet. "Or it could be a deliberate departure from what the writer(s) of John knew was in Mark, for reasons we don't understand anymore, or it could be that they just didn't have or did not know of, or had forgotten, that particular passage in Mark. Or they thought they had good reason for thinking that the writer of the gospel according to Mark had made a mistake. I am not trying to be flippant, it's just that I really don't see why your interpretation should be preferred over more skeptical interpretations. Let me ask you this though; do you think it is likely that John (or whoever wrote the gospel attributed to him) had a copy or a version of the gospel according to Mark, or at least had heard passages from it recited or read out?" So now John is purposefully contradicting a very well-known Gospel that was in circulation and being read in churches; a gospel that he had heard. Again, this portrays quite the schizophrenic author. At one turn, he's being very crafty and meticulous to match things up, but then when he feels like making stuff up or changing the facts, he just bull charges into it. I'm not trying to make a caricature here, but again, this does not present a very unified picture of the author. He's all over the place, and your theory has zero falsifiability. Anything can fit through it. It's ad hoc. Because of this, I think my theory is far superior. Consider this for just a moment. Do scholars really doubt that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansed the temple? No, not many of them do. This is as mundane of a claim as can be. The only thing supernatural in this account is that he curses a fig tree and it dies, and John doesn't even mention that particular detail. I am not even arguing for a miracle here. I'm just arguing for the fact that both Mark and John independently knew when Jesus rode into the temple and that he came to Bethany the day before. I understand that challenges the "if it was originally in Mark, then they all got it from Mark and just redacted from there" kind of idea that is popular, but this is a pretty low stakes issue if you want to say the Gospels are historical. If I were a skeptic, I'd just say "OK, I'll give you this one." But my argument in the playlist is that we don't just have this one undesigned coincidence; we have dozens, and the best explanation for this fact is that the Gospels are based on memory, and this counts against the idea that they are highly embellished works. But again, just kind of tangential here. What is so prima facie implausible that both John and Mark had independent info of when Jesus strolled into Jerusalem on a donkey?

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@TestifyApologetics You said: _"I enjoy replying to thoughtful comments like yours, even though I can't always do so. It's better than the majority of silliness that I get from most people who disagree."_ Thanks. I like this kind of back and forth as well, although I tend to be rather verbose. You said: _"I'm not saying he has leeway to make things up or change the facts; I'm just saying that you have to do quite a bit of detective work in order to cross-check John's accuracy on this particular point."_ Perhaps that is not the kind of "leeway" I meant. If the writer(s) of John had some knowledge of what was in Mark, then all they needed to do was make sure they maneuvered in the leeway of what they knew was already there, if that was their goal. If the writer of Mark was working off a blank slate, he or they would have far more freedom. You said: _"So the evangelists are being very careful to ensure some mundane detail about how many days it was when Jesus came into Bethany, while also apparently sloppily contradicting Mark on other points, such as when he was anointed, and failing to make the small, subtle points match up in those larger moments? That doesn't present a very unified picture of the author. You're dealing with a very schizo author in your view, and that is one reason why your view is not to be preferred."_ Or with people who had a rather slap-dash approach, or with people who did not have all the documents at hand that we nowadays can summon at the press of a button, and who had to work from memory at least for parts of it. Or we are dealing with people writing down the traditions as they have come to know them, with some bits from earlier accounts that they liked or also believed, and other bits they didn't. These are all plausible explanations, and I don't see why your interpretation should be particularly more plausible. "I wouldn't say "rely" though, because the writer(s) of John may have had their own theological intentions, but IF they had knowledge of at least some of the contents of Mark, then it would make sense for them to make sure their own narrative remained at least factually compatible with what they knew was out there already." You said: _"So now John is purposefully contradicting a very well-known Gospel that was in circulation and being read in churches; a gospel that he had heard. Again, this portrays quite the schizophrenic author."_ I don't think it does. It could just portray people who don't agree with everything they hear in church. I think we can all relate to that. You said: _"At one turn, he's being very crafty and meticulous to match things up, but then when he feels like making stuff up or changing the facts, he just bull charges into it."_ Or, to put it in other words, he or they have no problem with, or have been told compatible stories regarding some parts of the texts read out in communal gatherings, but they disagree with or have received a different tradition regarding other bits. You said: _"I'm not trying to make a caricature here, but again, this does not present a very unified picture of the author. He's all over the place, and your theory has zero falsifiability. Anything can fit through it. It's ad hoc."_ I would say the same goes for what you are saying. You said: _"Because of this, I think my theory is far superior. Consider this for just a moment. Do scholars really doubt that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansed the temple? No, not many of them do."_ I don't think those stories as they appear in the gospels are plausible. If the donkey bit did happen, it certainly did not happen as described. Riding into Jerusalem only takes a few minutes, and getting a crowd together, cutting branches off palm trees, and having people spoil their clothes to lay before him would need preparation and organization time. Presumably, people were riding on donkeys into Jerusalem all of the time, and if Jesus had been such a well-known figure, that he would have been able to draw a crowd just by showing up on a donkey, then the Sanhedrin would not have needed Judas to point him out later on. So that narrative is suspect from the start. He may have entered Jerusalem on a donkey in a bit to quasi-fulfill some obscure prophesy, but the cheering crowds are implausible. The rumble in the Temple likewise is implausible to have been a grand affair. If it happened at all, it is unlikely to have been a big brawl. There was a Roman garrison nearby, and at Easter, the authorities, both the Jewish as well as the Roman, would have been extra watchful. If whatever Jesus did in the Temple itself had been anywhere near significant, he would have been taken into custody right there and then. You said: _"This is as mundane of a claim as can be."_ It may be possible, but that does not make it plausible. You said: _"The only thing supernatural in this account is that he curses a fig tree and it dies, and John doesn't even mention that particular detail."_ Good for John (or whoever wrote the gospel we know under his name). You said: _"I am not even arguing for a miracle here."_ Good for you! You said: _"I'm just arguing for the fact that both Mark and John independently knew when Jesus rode into the temple and that he came to Bethany the day before."_ That depends on what you mean by "independently knew". I would have no problem with the proposition that the writer of Mark and the writer(s) of John both knew versions of this story, and if that is what you are proposing, I won't stop you. If you mean that Mark and John both had personal, independent, firsthand knowledge of this fact happening, then I will have to protest. You said: _"But my argument in the playlist is that we don't just have this one undesigned coincidence; we have dozens, and the best explanation for this fact is that the Gospels are based on memory, and this counts against the idea that they are highly embellished works."_ I haven't watched all your stuff, so I will just take your word for it, but the explanation that these "undesigned coincidences are based in intertwined but separate narrative traditions is at least as plausible, I would argue. You said: _"But again, just kind of tangential here. What is so prima facie implausible that both John and Mark had independent info of when Jesus strolled into Jerusalem on a donkey?"_ Nothing. As long as you acknowledge that such "independent info" does not necessarily mean that they had gained this info as eyewitnesses. So here's my counter proposal... What is so prima facie implausible that both the author(s) of John and the author(s) of Mark knew versions of stories of Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey that would have been compatible in some aspects, divergent in others, stories that were based on a real event, but that got embellished (perhaps in different ways) along the way?

[@patrickjoseph-q4k]

Jesus. Holy righteous Name above all names. We give the Lord Jesus Christ all the reverence and respect He's due. He is the One, true God. Gospel Good News that inspired and saved so many in Britain. Christian culture, our history & heritage, is rooted in Scripture. Love God, love your neighbour as yourself. Who is my neighbor? Anyone God brings across my path. Refugees the mission field The true salt: men and women walking the straight, narrow path living for Christ alone stopped the decay brought by sin for over 2000 years. Respect ! Good to see so many Christian men in boxing, like Joseph Parker and members of the Fury family

[@corundergroundreligion8190]

These are very cool

[@martinlakeuk]

So John read Mark, that’s all. Easy to assume, as Mark comes first, and Johns gospel is the latest. All of the gospels knew and read Mark.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I explain why that's an extremely poor explanation here kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4Coh52Gn8d3a7c

[@martinlakeuk]

@@TestifyApologetics I watched the video, thanks for the pointer. However, I still don’t describe the fact that Luke and Matthew base their gospel on Mark as an extremely poor explanation. It’s been demonstrated almost beyond doubt by excellent biblical scholars like James Tabor that M and L are based on M. Christian theology developed in the decades after Jesus, especially through Paul’s massive influence, and the gospels show a progression of thought. Even Mark was gone back to and a new ending added. I’m not familiar with your channel, but if you’re basing your faith on the gospels being historical documents you’re on very shaky ground. Christianity is the religion of Paul, who was not an eye witness.

[@esromzerihun3572]

These undesigned coincidences, I love them❤❤❤❤ I have one question that i got from an atheist today. It is not about this topic, but the question reads as follows When you read the gospel of mark(the earliest account)you see that there are no post resurrection apperances of jesus, but when you read Matthew(the second earliest)there is,and then you read luke there are, and in the latest account of jesus/john's gospel the number of times jesus appears after his resurrection is greater So isn't it reasonable that these apostles or writers of the gospel inventing a story as time goes?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for the question. This is a common objection. I recently saw a short of Alex O'Connor (aka Cosmic Skeptic) saying the same thing. I wrote a FB post on it, and I'll just copy and paste it here: 1. We probably don't have the original ending of Mark. But many scholars, like the late Bruce Metzger, think it was lost or that Mark was unable to finish. We don't know what they were like. Mary saw an angel. Jesus physically walked to Galilee. It's not like you guys think that's more reliable because it's earlier. 2. Mark, as we have it, says Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee. Matthew has two appearances. Luke has 4 or more. John has four or more. We can't just do math here and assert development based on a sample like this. Especially when our earliest account (1 Corinthians 15) has appearances to Peter, the Twelve, James, "500 brethren". 3. John has Thomas touching Jesus' wounds. Nifty. Matthew has a shining angel scare away guards at the tomb and the women touching his feet. Both have an equal amount of strong physical details that can serve as alleged apologetic motifs. In Luke-Acts, Jesus hangs out for 40 days and then ascends into heaven in front of everyone. Sorry, no strong pattern of development here. This is basically a tie. 4. John has Thomas say "my Lord and my God". Ooh, high Christology. The problem: Mark, Matthew, and Luke have arguably very high Christology already, and Matthew has a very developed-looking trinitarian baptism formula in the Great Commission smack dab in the appearances. If you're gonna assert "the resurrection appearances get more and more detailed and impressive as the story is told over time," you can't cherry-pick and line things up in any old row you want to. Beware of development stories that are too easy to make up.

[@apo.7898]

Tell him that he needs to prove it is the earliest account first and not just assume it.

[@Yipper64]

@@TestifyApologetics So Mark maybe didnt finish his part? That is so fascinating to me. I wonder why God did that. Like, are we supposed to find it some day? Or does the bible simply stand with the other gospel accounts? I know its a little reckless to speculate in this way but I just find that very interesting. A part of the bible that could have been written but for whatever reason we dont have it, so we must not need it.

[@esromzerihun3572]

@@TestifyApologetics thank you so much. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Brother, don't you think that you should make video about this topic? It may help a lot. I'm sorry but let me add a question here. Once i heard Bart Ehrman say that the degree innocence of Pilate increases when you read mark then mattew then luke, john and even in latter forgery gospels his innocence increases. Can you please address this brother?

[@fluffysheap]

Regardless of what was going on with the ending of Mark - personally I think the shortest ending is exactly what Mark intended - it doesn't indicate legendary development. 1) Mark says Jesus will appear to the disciples, it just doesn't describe the appearances. So obviously Mark knew about them and just left them out for some reason. 2) Paul writes about post resurrection appearances - and not only to him - and his letters are earlier than the late dates of the Gospels that atheists have imagined. This strongly disproves this atheist claim. 3) Any atheist claim based on dates of the Gospels is a good opportunity to demonstrate the complete dishonesty of the atheist so-called scholars, because there is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. Zero, zilch, nada, bupkis. And it's foundational to almost everything they say.

[@nunyabiz5880]

I copy/paste/print landscape view, left hand justified verses n put in vertical scroll form Matthew's account, from "Nigh to Jerusalem" to the Last Supper. I then did same for Mark "Nigh to Jerusalem" to Last Supper, then Luke "Ascending to Jerusalem" to the Last Supper n finally John "Then Jesus, 6 days before the passover" to the Last Supper. I laid these 4 vertical scrolls side by side n aligned them. They don't align at "Nigh, Nigh, Ascending". The DO align at the Pharisees asking "By wat authority?". This alignment gives us this: Aviv 3) Mark n Luke record Bethphage donkey ride on a wild donkey. Aviv 5) Matt gives us the Bethany donkey ride on a colt Aviv 10) John tells us Jesus "found a donkey" n rides into Jerusalem. Let's stream yard sometime n I can explain it perfectly. Cuz the prophesy is two different donkeys in Zech.9:9.....a donkey AND a colt....in the Hebrew. Grace to y'all

[@unsightedmetal6857]

Summary (at least in my understanding. I'm writing this more for myself than for other people): In John 12, Jesus is anointed at Bethany 6 days before Passover. The same chapter then says that "the next day" was when Jesus came to Jerusalem as King. With the palm branches and stuff. This necessarily means that Jesus's entry into Jerusalem was 5 days before Passover. Mark 11 is a parallel passage for Jesus's entry into Jerusalem. Look for these phrases in Mark 11: "the next day" (verse 12) -> If both books are true stories, this means that "the next day" is 4 days before Passover because it's the day after the Jerusalem entry which was the 5th day before Passover. "when evening came" (verse 19) -> This indicates that the morning had ended at this point. It is still the 4th day before Passover. "In the morning" (verse 20) -> This is the next day. This means it is 3 days before Passover. Then Chapter 12 seems to take place all on the same day: 3 days before Passover. The day has not changed. Chapter 13 portrays even more Jesus narrative on the same day. It is still 3 days before Passover. Mark 14 starts off with: "Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away". Extra: There it talks about Jesus's anointing at Bethany, meaning that this occurred 2 days before Passover. It SEEMS like it contradicts John 12. From this (excluding the last bit), we can see that Mark has the days counted correctly in his narrative. Good. So if John is right that the entry happened on the 5th day before Passover, and Mark correctly counts down the days, then either: 1) These are true accounts of the history of Jesus, or 2) John closely examined Mark's gospel and counted back the days to make his own gospel juuuuuuuuust right. And then he somehow proceeded to leave an extremely obvious and seemingly massive contradiction very close by. (When did Jesus's anointing at Bethany happen? How many times did it happen? I plan to watch a Mike Winger video about it today because I don't know how to reconcile it.)

[@seanhogan6893]

Thanks for writing it down. How would you explain Mark and Matthew and Luke leaving out that Jesus headed toward Jerusalem in response to Lazarus dying and that Lazarus was resurrected and that in response the Jews wanted to kill them? Did the authors not know? Or forget? Or not think it significant?

[@alanmiller7875]

Why would John not have read over Mark carefully? Why would it have been difficult to count the days? You assert that this would be a "twist." Wouldn't it just be John making sure his writings matched previous ones to ensure they are accurate? I mean, when I write to people on reddit I do research to make sure I am being accurate... why wouldn't the author of a religious text? The level of awe you have for two tellings of the same story having significant overlap is confusing to me. If I wrote a new gospel based on the four canonical ones I would read them very carefully and ensure that the parts I agreed with were close if not identical, and I would only endeavor to change the parts I had issue with... like making sure that the crowd specifically called Jesus the king of Israel.

[@arthurbringel8610]

I think the main problem is that you are looking with modern eyes in another time's context, culture and technologies. They did not have all of our technologies and the way you said you would do is just not how other people naturally would do this, this is more a modern thing specially in the internet, and furthermore with the technology that makes this more easy to do.

[@alanmiller7875]

@@arthurbringel8610 literally having the book on a shelf next to you makes research pretty easy. Or, I guess, scroll on the table next to you. My point remains, there is no reason to believe that the gospel authors didn't literally have the gospel story right next to them when they wrote their own version.

[@arthurbringel8610]

@@alanmiller7875 i will answer you better in a minute.

[@darcash1738]

I still don’t get why John wouldn’t want it to look real by verifying it with Mark. How long did he spend working on this? It can’t be held to the same standard as court testimonies where details fitting in like this would be difficult without extensive pre-planning or it actually being the truth. But here there’s no real time pressure to publish right? Idk the timetable exactly so this would be helpful to see how much time Johnny boi had to think about matching up details. I don’t know how all this biblical lore works with these testimony figures, but what would happen if someone added a conflicting testimony? What are the chances that something like this would be piled into irrelevance by those in power because it doesn’t align with the narrative they want? It would seem that we have only kept the best possible assortment to make it look as real as possible. There are so many extra layers of information I would like to hear about how these testimonies even came to be the most important and the process of these becoming the popular biblical canon before saying these overlapping details are truth. It would be quite possible if the selection process of such testimonies would only allow for proper alignment that it would be properly aligned. Once again I don’t know how these testimonies actually came into prominence from each of these biblical authors, so if you are aware of the selection process, please let me know. I would find it strange that random figures would be allowed to publish writings, and I find it quite possible that conflicting testimonies would be hidden or simply never raise to prominence because *they* would appear like the ones lying. Yeah so lmk how the selection process works and then we might have a better understanding of how it all works and if such overlap is only natural or construed to look natural.

[@KevCraven]

You should check out Bart Ehrman. He has answers for all your questions. Most Christians would be quite shaken by what scholars and historians say. Did you know that there are over 80 gospels, the newest of which were discovered as late as the 1940s? None of them are written until 30-50 years after Jesus and yes, the ones that made it were selected by councils. There wasn’t no such thing as a Bible until about 300 years after Jesus. It’s fascinating stuff.

[@PCHerc]

Did anybody spot the reference to the 80's HAIR BAND Tesla at 2:44?

[@cutethulu_xo]

Caught it. Lol

[@smlbaron]

I like your series! I think maybe you should challenge the most common problems too - like two versions of Judas death (that not necessarily contradict each other but are a bit problematic for some), the identity of the woman that put nard oil on Jesus head. Or was Judas given the bread and wine during the last supper - or wasn't he? 😊 I'd be glad to hear your insight. To me (as a christian) the most interesting part of the series was the episode about feeding the 5000. it was really thoughtful. But not all the episodes are as convincing. Anyway - keep up the good work! Thank you for what you do!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I have videos on contradictions but perhaps I'll do a series in the future. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@fluffysheap]

I am pretty sure the two stories of the death of Judas contradict. There's no sensible harmonization there. And that's fine, Luke and Matthew each reported the version of the story they found more credible. This scene is important to the overall story but nobody was there so it's not surprising that there would be different versions of the story. If anything it is the exception that proves the rule for gospel reliability - one of the few places where there's a serious disagreement is one where there were no eyewitnesses! Jesus was anointed twice. Mike Winger did a good video about that a couple of years ago. The two anointings took place at completely different times! Of course Judas participated in the first communion. Is there something that says he didn't?

[@smlbaron]

@@fluffysheap well, about judas participating in the communion - it's a complicated issue and a subject to many discusions among the christians i know from various churches. According to Luke the part with the wine/blood happened after the supper (Luke 22, 20). But John says Judas went away during the supper, after Jesus gave him a piece of bread (John 13, 30) so some say he couldn't have been there for at least half of it. Anyway I heard all sorts of opinions about it! that judas wasn't there because it all happened after the meal, that he was because it happened during (i mean - there are hints about it even in John 13, 18) or that he ate with them but was intentionaly sent away to be excluded by Jesus. Or that he had just the bread but no wine which was given later. I mean - i have my opinion about it but i would be interested in authors perspective. And yours of course:)

[@Logic807]

⁠@@fluffysheapI didn’t know there was an issue here. I reread the passages , no issue at all. As you said, they reported what they heard or remembered.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

Can you coordinate this with the chronology in Matthew? Jesus curses the fig tree on the morning of the 3rd day and immediately it withers.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Matthew probably compresses the fig tree curse into happening all at once.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@@TestifyApologetics If that is the case, it would seem that Matthew is not very accurate as one would wonder which day Jesus cursed the tree.

[@Trendsthismonth]

Jesus is the only way.

[@davidmadge5811]

It says so right there in Mark, so it must be true.

[@clutchmaster6000]

But the gospel of mark came before the gospel of John so John could have copied the countdown from Mark instead right?

[@scottarivett496]

No moveable type printing press for another 1400 years. There were not mass copies of texts in those days. A church would have one, maybe more. That alone would lead to an almost certain probability that John the Apostle never laid eyes on John Mark’s Gospel. Another reason would be he didn’t have use for a second hand account of events that he was a major participant in.

[@clutchmaster6000]

@@scottarivett496 scribes made copies, i think it’s pretty clear all 3 other gospels were based on the gospel of mark. Most scholars agree with this. Not that I dont think there are undersigned coincidences, and I do think this is one of them but atheists could argue that John read mark and then just counted down the days(which would still seem very tedious for him to do so)

[@jaycampbell6402]

@@clutchmaster6000 Most scholars believe that Luke and Matthew referenced Mark. Luke actually makes mention of other accounts, so most likely he read Mark. I do not believe your assertion that most scholars agree that John is based on Mark is correct. It is radically different from Mark and does not suggest even a common source with Mark. Most scholars view John as completely separate from the synoptics.

[@Greyz174]

This one is actually the best candidate for a genuine undesigned coincidence that I have seen so far, but also it's not even that crazy that people would have noted a fuller chronology of the last days of Jesus from Mark in the ~20yrs between its writing and John's writing, since Mark has chronological markers. So its not that crazy for someone out of hobby/interest to have noted each of the days (its not that hard or tedious to do this if youre doing it out of genuine interest, fund thing to do quickly) and have that inform the writing of this one. And like ive been alluding to in other comments if this were the case he wouldnt be super obtuse and heavy handed about "LOOK LOOK AT WHAT I DID HERE" in order so everyone knows it wasnt a waste of time. This one could preserve a memory too though. the other ones are weaker and can easily be explained as an author grtting background knowledge by reading one text and casually writing down the bits that fit, but this one is a better example for sure

[@Yipper64]

I do have to wonder, do other religious texts have similar undesigned coincidences? Obviously the truth of the gospel rules out the truth of most other faiths, but I cant help but be curious.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I haven't seen any, but the first video in the series goes over some in secular history. Lydia McGrew also has several secular history examples on her channel, too.

[@fluffysheap]

There is at least one in the Old Testament on, IIRC, this channel - about Korah's rebellion against Moses in Numbers 16 - but otherwise, no. All other religious texts are fictional, or take the form of life instruction. There aren't any undesigned coincidences in Proverbs either.

[@Yipper64]

@@ramigilneas9274 I would think so. Doesnt make this evidence any less good but it is something to note isnt it? I think the main thing is the heretical gospels contradict both eachother and the real gospels. So even if you can find "undesigned coincidences" in them, they still cant be trusted because they are actively contradictory. And you know the kind of contradiction that just cant stand.

[@Yipper64]

@@ramigilneas9274 Well no only one of those heretical gospels would be correct, making the rest incorrect. Because again, contradictions. Which doesnt make a lot of sense, throwing away what has been tested to be true for one that only stands for itself. Undesigned coincidences arent the sole burden of truth, its just a factor.

[@seanhogan6893]

It's a micro-fad in Christian apologetics. For some reason mainstream apologists don't encourage people comparing and contrasting the texts too intently.

[@danielmalinen6337]

The Simon of Cyrene and his sons Alexander and Rufus are still the most random part of the Passover narrative. Nobody has any idea who they were, where they came from, why they have been included and what their significance and familiarity was in Mark's community. Some modern young skeptics have suggested that they are just some insignificant and unnecessary NPCs like those background NPC assets in modern video games and movies. But majority of the older generation of skeptics still agree that the Passover narrative is slightly based on to the eyewitness account, but is colored by added tradition and occasional needs over years.

[@Aldry44]

Hi there ! Your work is amazing thanks a lot. Quick question, on the other hand, is there ANY contradictions of events in the 4 gospels ?

[@darkwolf7740]

From what I've seen, there may be, there may not be, but frankly, most of the so called 'contradictions' tend to come from people who've never actually studied the text properly.

[@EstebanPinilla-cw8xq]

There are contradictions/differences in the nativity narrative, Judas's death, Jesus's last words, resurrection accounts, and there are others but these are most commonly brought up

[@rookiecookie722]

@@EstebanPinilla-cw8xq Differences for sure, but it isn't a contradiction to receive additional information unless the information is contrary in nature. If there were two men there was also a man, and that man can be addressed as a man. If someone says, "That man jumped in the busy street" and someone else says, "There was a dog in the street", the biblical skeptic says, "Contradiction", but I say, "Additional information" If the information is, "Judas was walking along and he tripped and his guts burst open" and the other info is, "Judas hung himself" then that looks like a contradiction, but the story isn't that he was "walking along", the information given is "He fell and his guts burst open" and the additional information is where he fell from, "He hung himself", and the branch, rope, or knot didn't hold forever. Additional information is not contradictory information, just additional, and it is very normal when receiving true eyewitness accounts from various people to get lots of additional information.

[@rookiecookie722]

@@modernatheism See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Matthew may have simply omitted the initial statement of Jairus and instead focused on the second one, which he alone recorded, although it is inferred from Luke 8:50. This theory has merit because Matthew is the only one to also omit that some people came from Jairus’ house and told him that his daughter had just died (Mark 5:35-36; Luke 8:49-50). So chronologically, Jairus told Jesus his daughter was near death (and this was recorded in Mark and Luke), and then when he got word his daughter was dead, he told Jesus the second time and used the phrase that is recorded in Matthew. Luke 8:50 corroborates this by stating that Jesus answered (replied back to) Jairus after he had learned of Jairus’ daughter’s death. It also is worth noting that in Mark and Luke the man begged Jesus to come while his daughter still lived, but in the Matthew account he was “worshipping” Jesus and believed that Jesus could resurrect his daughter. This would further confirm that Matthew omitted or condensed the first discourse with Jairus and focused on the second one after Jairus had been told of his daughter’s death. And if you have some understanding of Greek... The translation of the phrase “just died” in Matthew could also be translated “near death.” Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as “henceforth” or “hereafter.” If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus; there was just a different point of emphasis. I personally believe that both Greek phrases were used, once before the messengers came, and once after. Additional information.

[@Charles-tv6oi]

If I say that Pufferpeeps CANT jump up on my couch due to being disabled from birth? But the day before someone heard me say Pufferpeeps jumped up on my couch? This is a lack of info n not contradiction. She CAN'T jump up on the TOP of my couch ( when someone was coaching her to do so) but she CAN jump up on the side with her four paws when trying respond to the same coaching. No errors in bible either

[@victorobasa7072]

Well done! I thank God that you have discovered this. The Holy Spirit who inspires all scripture ALWAYS SAY THE TRUTH. John wrote an account of the Gospel and his style focused on Christ's Divinity because that is what he was INSPIRED TO DO BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Why do you think scripture is always spot on? Because it is INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Another thing, I believe is that all 4 Gospels DOVETAIL into one another. How, I cannot prove it. I believe they just do.

[@Muckelienchen]

How do you know that this evidence was unesigned coincidences and not designed?

[@gergelybakos2159]

Well, I can see the match. However, several details in John suggests that he knew well the synoptic tradtion, in fact he presupposes that his readers know it as well. So I do think that both Mark and John basically write about a real story, one that really happened, but the match pointed out here stritcly speaking is no proof of this, it only makes this perhaps more probable.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I've already dealt with the "while copying Mark" objection in this series.

[@gergelybakos2159]

@@TestifyApologetics Thanks. I'm not sure that John is "copying" Mark, rather he is aware of the synoptic tradition, which version I do not know. But of course, saying this comes very close to your point. The matches ultimately point to a shared (oral) tradition, a story remembered if you like and if this story is plausible, then it is justified to think that it really happened. As such this is a sound argument, but I see no logical necessity. Keep up good work and may God bless you!

[@nathanlidgett5688]

your timing the 10 days before Passover is also = 10 days before YOM-KIPPUR, done at the same time the spring and fall feast timeline is the same.

[@DoloresLehmann]

But the fact that three gospel writers only mention one donkey and Matthew mentions two is not important? Or the fact that, according to John, the crucifixion took place on a totally different day than according to the other gospel authors? In such a fashion that the reported series of events, if you take all authors seriously, would exclude the events even taking place the same YEAR?

[@TestifyApologetics]

See the pinned comment I've addressed this in another video

[@seanhogan6893]

I don't think they rule out the basic historicity of the reports. OTOH John says that Jesus and the disciples headed towards Jerusalem because of Lazarus dying and that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because Lazarus had been raised. It doesn't seem plausible that all the other gospels would leave that out if it happened. But John is weird like that.

[@DoloresLehmann]

@@seanhogan6893 No, I'm also convinced of the basic historicity. That's not my problem. My issue is, why take such a minor coincidence as evidence, like the days prior to the crucifixion event lining up, while dismissing those major discrepancies?

[@DoloresLehmann]

@@TestifyApologetics OK, first, I didn't mock Matthew claiming Jesus rode the two donkeys because of the misunderstanding parallelisms thing. I said, he is the only one who mentions two donkeys, while the other gospel writers clearly mention only one donkey. If we're talking eyewitness testimony here, it's hard to believe they would disagree on such a major detail, while getting such a minor detail as the lining up of the days correctly. Second, even if the "them" refers to just the clothes, it is clear that the clothes were put over both donkeys, so that still implies Jesus sitting on both donkeys. And third, Bart Ehrmann is by no means the only scholar who puts forward this contradiction. Again, I don't care about how many donkeys Jesus rode. I'm talking clear contradictions vs. minor "undesigned coincidences" and which one have the bigger evidential power. As for the day Jesus died, if I understand you correctly in your video on this topic, the whole argument hinges on the assumptions that a) the meal the Jewish authorities didn't want to be defiled before eating it was not Passover Seder, but the actual Feast of the Unleavened Breads, and b) that the "preparation day" didn't mean preparation for Passover, but just for the Sabbath. While the first argument sticks, the second doesn't, as John 19:14 clearly states: "Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover". That's unambiguos. Later, in John 19:31, the text also unambiguously talks about the preparation day for the Sabbath ("... because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)"), which implies it was BOTH preparation day for Passover AND for Sabbath, therefore it being a special Sabbath, a "high day". I would have a different solution that would explain that seeming contradiction, and that's looking at the odd place this one verse (19:14) stands in. It makes no sense within this context. It looks like an interpolation. This would make your whole argument flawless, but you can't accept that someone meddled with the text now, can you?

[@jaycampbell6402]

@@DoloresLehmann I appreciated reading your thoughts on the question of the day differing in John's Gospel. But I just had to wonder how anyone would conclude that the actual number of donkeys is a "major detail". Seems pretty minor to me. Most gospel writers just wanted to convey that he got a donkey because that is how the ancient judges rode in. Whether he actually borrowed two donkeys is pretty minor and is not really a "clear contradiction" at all. Its like saying "Cesar rode into Rome on a horse" and "Cesar took two horses with him to Rome." Not a contradiction at all, one just gives more detail than the other.

[@daviddrew3372]

Today is actually the anniversary of this event.

[@daviddrew3372]

That is the date Jesus came to Bethany.

[@bobbobski7291]

Its highly likely that the authors werent the apostles, and that they copied each other😐

[@TestifyApologetics]

watch the rest of the playlist

[@MrTnnr]

Love how theist are always trying to prove their dogma with "evidence", yet believe in a supernatural deity who performs miracles. Um, if you want to believe, just believe. Trying to "prove" validity with evidence is simply redundant, and quite frankly ridiculous. Your doctrine even commands you that you must have faith- the very act of believing in lieu of evidence!

[@TestifyApologetics]

uno reverse card

[@MrTnnr]

??@@TestifyApologetics

[@dulls8475]

Where did your universe come from?

[@MrTnnr]

@@dulls8475 maybe the same place your God came from?

[@dulls8475]

@@MrTnnr So you might as well believe in God then. At least you have a first cause.

[@markhorton3994]

There are no unplanned coincidences in the Bible. It just looks that way to us limited humans. God planed everything.

[@rookiecookie722]

Right, but the biblical skeptic who does not believe in God who planned everything, looks at what looks to them like unplanned coincidences that would prove that the various writers are legitimately recording history, and because the unbeliever doesn't want to accept it they decide that what looks unplanned must have been a grand scheme devised to deceive them. And their blind faith that it was a grand plot to make people believe a lie outweighs any amount of evidence that suggests that it is legitimate history. Ultimately this is because no amount of evidence will ever convince someone in denial of the facts, because they want to be god of their own lives and have no room for the repentance that would become necessary if they believed.

[@christopherscallio2539]

Yeshua Ha Messiah rode the Donkey from Bethany to Jerusalem's gate. Then rode the Donkey's Colt for the last mile uphill to the Temple. That is how He rode both.Every year the High Priest would go to Bethlehem to choose a 1 year old male Lamb for national Israel's Sacrifice. As the High Priest approached Jerusalem's gate. The Priests & Levite had already lined the path from gate to Temple winding through the streets shoulder to shoulder with palm fronds & Shofars. When the High Priest enters they always shouted out Blessed is HE who comes in the Name of the Lord! Yet that particular year Yeshua's Disciples & Yeshua got there just moments before the High Priest. The Disciples shouted Blessed is HE who comes in the Name of the Lord (Yehovah). Then the 2 Million plus worshipers rushed out from their rented areas & followed in behind the procession shouting & rattling their palm frons winding all the way up to the Temple. The aligned Priests & Levites heard the shout go out and the began shouting out. The High Priest couldn't even get into the gate of the city for some time and was last to the top. When the High Priest finally got to the Temple he was irate at Yeshua. He ordered Yeshua to rebuke His Disciples for ruining this grand rehearsal that they practiced every year for Messiah's visitation.

[@danielparsons955]

Just curious where you learned this / where I can learn this as well. It’s very interesting, and I would love to dive more into it!

[@christopherscallio2539]

@@danielparsons955 Old Rood Awakening Videos by Michael Rood.

[@Yipper64]

I found an undesigned coincidence recently involving both the beginning and the end of the bible. Like ok so in genesis God says "let there be light" before making the sun or the stars. We know the light comes from the sun and the stars so that doesnt make sense does it? But somewhere in the bible I forgot where, it says that there wont be night time in heaven, nor a sun or a moon, because it will all be lit by God's light. So light and the celestial bodies that create it are still separate, its consistent. I dont know if this is exactly an undesigned coincidence but I think its pretty cool.

[@jeremysepicrun]

It says there that in Revelation, my friend

[@rookiecookie722]

Yeah, I always found this interesting. And light isn't understood, as far as we can measure it we've decided that nothing material can surpass the speed of light. I don't think light has a speed, there's nothing we can do to actually test the speed of light without relying on the limitation of light speed to begin with, and the material world, but I'm not so sure that light is material. Depending on how we observe it it can be either a particle or a wave, I believe it is both, and much more. I am of the belief that light exists in all things and nothing can exist without it, and energy that is concentrated simply illuminates what is already all around us all the time. Also, did you know that everything vibrates? And if it stops vibrating it would collapse into nothing. Sound is vibration, I think that everything vibrates with the word of God that was and is from the beginning, and if God were to withdraw his breath, all life would perish together and return to dust. Literally.

[@geordiewishart1683]

The chronology of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 doesn't appear to make sense if you consider it to be a description of creation itself. I read an article on the gap theory which considers Genesis 1: 2-25 to be a restoration narrative. That is to say, it starts with the earth having been in turmoil due to a previous judgement. So the rest of the heavens, including the stars, planets and our moon had already been formed. But the earth was covered in water. So when God said let there be light, he was indicating that he was changing the moist atmosphere so as to allow the rays of light to penetrate and to be seen. This is how grass etc could be created on the earth on the third day. Although verse 16 talks about the lights being created on the fourth day, this is not the creation of the sun and moon, but rather setting the orbits so that the sun would sustain life during the day, and be at the correct setting to strike the moon and so give illumination at night.

[@Yipper64]

@@rookiecookie722 Yeah in a sense. I'd be careful not to go in the eastern "we are all part of God" (in a literal sense) type of direction. You know the hyper collectivist "you have no identity of your own" thing.

[@Jaytee.]

@rookiecookie722 The speed of light is known. It's 186,000 miles per second. Do you believe this is wrong, or did you not know?

[@Gabriel_Micah]

The horse’s name was friday

[@freshbakedclips4659]

The "die, tree" got me laughing

[@scottshanahan3827]

I have a question - Okay, so I see in Mark 11 there is the triumphal entry, cleansing of the Temple, and then Jesus returns to Bethany. John 12 says that Jesus was in Bethany six days before the Passover, and entered the next day, which puts Mark 11 at 5 days before the Passover. John says the anointing by Mary was this day, six days before Passover. But, then Mark has the anointing in chapter 14, two days before the Passover. It is clearly the same anointing. So, while the dates you're referring to line up, this seems to undo that. So how do you square this? Was the anointing two days before Passover or six?

[@TestifyApologetics]

This is a very good question, there are a few options here. Craig Blomberg suggests that Mark might be arranging events out of chronological order for thematic reasons. He points out that Mark 14:3 seems loosely connected to verse 2 and describes an incident during Jesus' time in Bethany. Blomberg notes that both Mark and John depict Jesus interpreting the anointing as preparation for his burial, which could explain why Mark places this story right before describing other events foreshadowing his death, like his last meal with the Twelve. Another idea, proposed by the late Steve Hays, also suggests a non-chronological approach. Hays suggests that Mark may have written 14:1-2 first and then later added the story of the anointing at Bethany as another event during Passion week, without intending a direct connection to verses 1-2, which state that the Passover was two days away. However, if Mark were narrating events out of order, one might expect more information about what happened on Wednesday before discussing the anointing. Instead, there's very little narrative in Mark between the clear chronological marker in verse 2 and the anointing at Bethany. Mark simply mentions that “the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, for they said, ‘Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people,’” (Mark 14:1-2). Lydia McGrew comments on this inconsistency, questioning why Mark would introduce the day in verse 1 and then only narrate the decision of the Jewish leaders on that day, interrupting the flow to discuss something that happened earlier, and then returning to Wednesday's events in verse 10. Lydia McGrew wonders why Mark wouldn't provide a better time indicator when resuming Wednesday's narrative in verse 10, especially since Mark had been clearly indicating the days of Passion Week from Sunday to Wednesday. It seems unlikely that Mark would suddenly start narrating events out of order in 14:3, even if he had paused and then resumed writing. It's more straightforward to interpret that Mark intends all the events at the start of Chapter 14 to take place on Wednesday. In her mind, this would be a strong candidate for a contradiction. She believes this is an error by either Mark or John, but only a minor one. She writes: "It's reasonable to think that this is an instance in which either Mark or John has simply made a minor, good-faith chronological error, and one that would be quite easy to make. Mark's Gospel makes it clear that Jesus stayed for the night in Bethany more than once while he was in Jerusalem for this Passover (Mark 11.11,19). In fact, on the first occasion when he does not do so (Thursday night), he is captured in the Garden of Gethsemane. If John is correct that Jesus stayed in Bethany for one night before the Triumphal Entry, then it appears that there were at least five evenings on which Jesus was in Bethany. Given his closeness to the family of Mary and Martha, confirmed by both John and Luke (see Luke 10.38- 42), and given that Lazarus had recently been raised from the dead, it is not at all unlikely that Jesus ate with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus on more than one occasion. He may have done so on every evening from Saturday through Wednesday. Though Mark recounts that at this dinner they were officially at the home of Simon the Leper (Mark 14.3) this does not preclude the presence of the now-famous Lazarus and his sisters, as mentioned in John 12.2. With several of the same people present at dinner with Jesus on multiple evenings during the same week, in the same small town, it would be extremely easy for an honest witness (perhaps Peter or John), recalling the dinner some years later, to misremember on which night Jesus' feet were anointed. I lean slightly toward the conclusion that it was John who misremembered in this case. Here I would consider the probability that John was recollecting the events later, perhaps considerably later, than the time when Mark was written. There is also the fact that, if the author of Matthew was a disciple, he made no attempt to correct Mark's apparent chronology (Matt. 26.1-7) even though he would have been present. Matthew includes an additional prediction by Jesus of his own death, with specific reference to the fact that the Passover is coming in two days (Matt. 26.1-2). If Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse of the previous chapters late on Tuesday, ending after sundown, he might have made this prediction after sundown on that night, as they walked back to Bethany, which would have been considered on the Jewish reckoning to be the beginning of the next day. The meeting of the chief priests and elders, said by Matthew to have gathered together in the court of the high priest (Matt. 26.3), would have probably happened during the day on Wednesday, with the anointing of Jesus' feet occurring at dinner in Bethany that evening." McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask, pg 496

[@scottshanahan3827]

@@TestifyApologetics I think the idea that Mark arranges things out of chronological order makes the most sense. He seems to have a loose chronology, but he seems more concerned with connecting events than he does with constructing a timeline.

[@keith6706]

@@TestifyApologeticsIn other words, in order to explain contradictions, you just make stuff up that isn't in the Bible.

[@tmo2213]

​​@@keith6706 thats exactly what I see. As a person who used to believe undoubtedly the doctrine of inerrancy, the more study I do, academically and on my own, I see that there are big problems with this doctrine. He states that there are several possibilities to this seemingly contradiction but is unwilling to say there could be another. And that other option is that someone has their dates/time lines wrong....I mean he didn't even consider that is also an option 🤦🏾‍♂️...which is just as probable (if not even more likely) than the other solutions he gave. The ONLY reason he won't consider this is because of his commitment to inerrancy and the Bible being univocal. In my opinion its an intellectually dishonest way of approaching the texts as one is not seeking for "truth" in a way that a forensic scientist and/or investigators are supposed to come across a crime scene and put together the most likely scenario to solve a crime, rather folks who are theologically committed to a certain doctrine will put all evidence UNDERNEATH their commitments, even if it goes against rational thinking.

[@Hayahwassa-t9j]

what i found out really amazing is the donkeys that brought Jesus into Jerusalem are types like parables of the two witnesses. all the donkey stories are about them and there are over 100 whole chapters about the wits in the bible. there are jokes about the two witnesses in the bible even! they were anointed with buckets of oil of gladness so all heaven jokes around with them.

[@johnmichaelson9173]

I don't know, isn't it crazy that all this time after the fact & it's up in the air whether they're genuine or not?

[@TestifyApologetics]

it's not up in the air, it's just people are making something simple harder than it really is

[@Ansatz66]

It is clear that the details line up when two people tell two versions of the same story, but it is less clear why this indicates that it is a real history. If two people tell two stories of Paul Bunyan and both stories happen to coincidentally mention him having a blue ox, in what way would this suggest to us that these stories were real history? Of course, regarding honesty, the authors probably believed that these stories were true, since they were Christian, just as someone who believes in Paul Bunyan might honestly mention the blue ox thinking it was a real fact of Bunyan's life, but that does not mean the ox ever actually existed.

[@TestifyApologetics]

🤦

[@ThisDonut]

Its not the fact that they mention the same thing, its that they suggest the same thing without being explicit. Heres a simple example "Jesus instructed the blind man not to enter Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) because He condemned it (Matthew 11:21)." The two verses support one another which suggest it was an actual event. Sometimes this can happen between all 4 gospels. Still, this kind of argument doesnt move me. Its too bad Testy isnt more patient with non-believers, considering most want to believe. I wonder what Jesus would think.

[@Ansatz66]

@@ThisDonut: I see how these two verses support each other and fit together neatly into a single larger narrative, probably coming from the same religious tradition, but how does that help us to guess whether that tradition originated in actual reality? You say "suggest it was an actual event" but could you elaborate upon that? Where do you see this suggestion?

[@scottarivett496]

@@ThisDonut Jesus would think you’re going to take your agnosticism with you to your grave and you will never know him. That’s ok if that’s what you really want. It ain’t for everybody. If it were, his mission was not needed and his resurrection was in vain. It is offered for all to take, but in the end The Way is for the few, not the many.

[@ThisDonut]

@@scottarivett496 it sure is for the few! just like a loving god would design right? thankfully according to the real bible, the tanakh, even a atheist/agnostic like me can enjoy the world to come.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

Just getting into the series however, I didn’t quit understand this video between John and Mark.

[@Tekoa80]

Some people think that one gospel writer cribbed their ideas from a different gospel that was already written. If Mark was written earlier, John could have copied some bits into his own writing. However, in the verses discussed in this video, John is very specific about a date, which Mark isn't...but if you follow the accounts through (through Mark's repeated "The next day...") they match up. It wouldn't make sense for John to have done that deliberately, so it shows that they were both giving an accurate account of an historical event.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@Tekoa80 Thanks. Appreciate it. Another point to make is that John is almost certainly independent from the synoptics, which is unanimously a wide spread agreement amongst the majority of New Testament scholars.

[@Tekoa80]

That's true 😊

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@Tekoa80 Are you being sarcastic?

[@Tekoa80]

No... I'm agreeing with you.

[@atheistboomer7700]

Neither of these authors were eye witnesses. Both books were written decades after the events depicted, and Mark’s book was well known to John, so accidental overlap of information isn’t really that surprising is it?

[@TestifyApologetics]

literally addressed this in previous videos

[@atheistboomer7700]

@@TestifyApologetics this is the first video of yours to pop into my feed, and I won’t be watching any more of them if this is the level of nonsense you espouse.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

I don't understand: why do implied parallels count in favor of historical accuracy, but obvious differences don't count? Let's focus on one important segment of text mentioned in your video: In John the people say to Jesus, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord-the King of Israel!.' In Mark they say, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!.’ Now, of course the part about "the one who comes in the name of the Lord" is the same because it's a direct biblical quotation (Psalms 118:26), but from that point they differ significantly. Why? It doesn't sound like careful, eyewitness testimony. It sounds more like different statements are written corresponding to different christologies.

[@darkwolf7740]

Mainly because implied parallels on their own don't fill gaps in our knowledge indirectly, unlike undesigned coincidences. Besides, undesigned coincidences on their own are very weak as evidence, but when they continue to pile up, it presents a very strong case. Think of it like this. For book X to be true, it must have 100 points. An undesigned coincidence in the account may be worth 5 points, so once there are 20+ undesigned coincidences, then it is most likely that book X is true.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@darkwolf7740 I don't think you addressed my question, but let me put in in the terms you used: If "undesigned coincidences" (assuming they exist) count as points toward proving a book's truth, why don't differences and conflicts and contradictions count against the book's truth?

[@nostalgic9597]

This is because differences like this one can be explained within the framework of eye witness testimony. If you collect 4 eye witness testimonies of the same events, you'll get 4 stories which vary to some degree. This is largely because humans don't remember everything verbatim. It could easily be the case that Peter remembered more of what people said about Jesus, and was able to transmit that to Mark. Meanwhile, John, who was writing later, may have forgotten the particular details of what was said at Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem and summarized it to "the king of Israel". It's also possible different people said different things, and while Peter heard one thing, John heard another. There's also the issue of space, for example, the reason that Luke and Acts are separate books is that Luke couldn't fit it all on one scroll. The other gospel authors were also aware of this fact, and each of them abridged the story where they thought proper in order to write their gospels. So the differences are entirely accounted for under the framework of eye witness testimony. In fact, the existence of these differences show the gospel authors aren't just copying from each other, clearly they all have independent sources of oral tradition or eye witness testimony. Meanwhile, un-designed coincidences are only reasonably explainable if the gospel writers are using a legitimate oral/eyewitness account.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@KingoftheJuice18They would, but only if they're unresolvable. In most cases, they're not.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@nostalgic9597 Thanks for your reply. I have questions about what you wrote, particularly about why the authors couldn't be working from written or oral traditions that earlier people made up or that are based partially on truth and partially on invention. I don't see why if both Mark and John thought Jesus came to Jerusalem 5 days before Passover (but John said it outright and Mark only implied it) that this makes it likely that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead...But I want to ask something else that jumps out at me from from your reply: Is it fair to assume, based on your naturalistic account, that you do not believe the Gospels are the inspired, "inerrant" word of God?

[@SenhorTudo]

Here is my big problem with the Bible: God's attributes (you know: the omni-everything claim) are ATTRIBUTED to Him by men. Never does God apply these qualities to Himself. Nowhere does GOD inform anyone that Adam and Eve were pure and perfect and "had communion" with Him. Why did God make childbirth so difficult and agonising if His son was supposed to descend from the first woman - why was he PUNISHING her for being the primary progenitor of this prospect? I have so many questions, but no one can answer them with anything approaching rationality.

[@iamnotmyown]

The bible says all creation was good and that adam and eve were very good, and that he walked with them in the cool of the day. you could say pure and perfect and communion are inferences but considering how big a deal is made over later encounters with God that are one-offs like moses and Gods glory or Isaiah 6 i dont think its a stretch to call Him walking with them each day in the Garden 'communion'. and the curse is punishment for sin He doesnt punish them for their role in redemption but if you look more you will see far more connections between the curse (note the curse language is 'because you have done this cursed are you' nowhere does God say 'I curse you') but anyway. eve ate from a tree christ died on a tree. man was cursed with thorns those thorns pierced His brow. sin severely disfigured man and so christ was unrecognizeably disfigured. sin brought us death so christ took death to overcome sin. eve was tested in the garden and failed christ was tested in a garden and passed. i think pain in childbirth for eve and then mary is to be expected...sin wasnt pretty. and it explains the ridiculous amount of suffering humans have in childbirth compared to other mammals

[@mikelowery3361]

If you are serious about getting real answers I would advise you to find a good Bible teaching pastor, like Jack Hibbs or Dr John MacArthur to learn from. These guys can be found on KZbin if you're having trouble finding a local pastor. Also Dr MacArthur has a great study Bible available. Good luck with this and be open to the answers you get but check them against the Bible.

[@SenhorTudo]

@@mikelowery3361 Don't think I have not approached priests, prelates, pastors and a bunch of other apologists with my questions. They have not yet been sufficiently answered in fully SIXTY FIVE years! I have watched countless videos and all the uploaders ever do is bounce around in the Bible, from one verse to another, quoting words from anonymous authors, which proves nothing. I PROVED to the girl who would become my wife that snakes are not "out to get us" by actually SHOWING her how to react in their presence. A deadly Snouted cobra reared up within a few centimetres of my right leg, looked around to see where I had gone, couldn't see me because I was too close, decided that any danger had passed and slithered off into the grass. I then put a cross-marked grass snake into her hands and told her to hold it while I examined an injured Herald snake. V stood there counting the FIFTEEN times the snake struck at her hands, but held on anyway! Later examination showed that the snake's dentition had been too small to inflict even a single mark on her skin. She now has absolutely no fear of snakes. I gave her a baby bat to raise and as a result she now loves these creatures. THAT, @mikelowery3361, is what I call "proof", not words in an ancient book that has not been updated for nearly two millennia and that needs all kinds of mind-bending verbal gymnastics to explain.

[@SenhorTudo]

@@iamnotmyown EVE did not "eat from a tree". There was nobody by that name in the garden at the time. I still don't see why God would cause discomfort to the woman's REPRODUCTIVE organs when the fruit was not introduced into her body via THAT orifice! Surely a sane God would have blighted her with chronic indigestion, heartburn, bloat, excess gas or something to do with her ALIMENTARY CANAL or her DIGESTIVE SYSTEM if she ATE the fruit? She stole a single fruit and to punish her your deity commuted her trespass onto all of humanity for ever and ever, amen? Just how paranoid can any being BE?

[@SenhorTudo]

@@mikelowery3361 I have been seeking rational answers for the past 65 YEARS, @mikelowery3361. All I ever get are the same tired old answers gained from leaping about from text to text in a book that was compiled from the writings of anonymous authors almost two millennia ago. There have been no addenda, no amendments, no updates, no nothing in all that time. Jesus hasn't been seen for around 2 000 years while his father hasn't made his presence known for almost a millennium longer! Even when he was supposedly "active" your deity disappeared for close to 1 400 years. At least he did nothing worth writing about in that time. Are you certain you're not flogging the splintered bones of a long-dead horse?

[@joserivera8429]

This channel is so underrated

[@jperez7893]

mark was actually narrating according to the essene calendar while john narrated according to the jewish calendar. this was unknown until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. the essene passover was tuesday. jesus died friday. jesus was arrested tuesday night after the last supper. mock trial was that night extending to midnight. jesus was then tried before the sanhedrin on wednesday from 9am to 3pm. jesus was presented before pilate and tried in the morning. pilate then presented him to agrippa in the afternoon, right across his palace in the praetorium, the former twin palace of herod the great. jesus was condemned to death on friday morning and died at 3 pm on friday, 14 nisan, 3rd april 33 ad, passover of the jews

[@slowixxxx]

Can you make a video (or just respond to this comment) about the alleged contradiction between Deuteronomy 13 and Jesus’s ministry?

[@slowixxxx]

for context, Jesus says no food is unclean, but the chapter says do not listen to prophets who speak against the law.

[@hyponomeone]

I'd say probably it's overruled by stuff like psalm 22, which predicted the son of man as christ himself, other such passages that pointed clearly to him. Plus the going law also stated that an adulterous woman be stoned, and the famous response from christ that we all know came up there and therefore contradicted religious law. It's a question of like, alright am I gonna question the son of God when he's so thoroughly evidenced. Like the pharisees were putting him to challenge on the basis that he wasn't adhering to the traditional law and stuff. I think it's just better to disregard that sort of small stuff and understand what Jesus was trying to teach wholeheartedly. Hoped this helped, bless 🙏

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Nice pfp lol

[@slowixxxx]

@@hyponomeone I think i figured it out. Christ was prophesying the end of certain laws because if we had to keep to them the entire world would be damned. R.L. Solberg goes over it nicely on his channel.

[@slowixxxx]

@@OrthodoxJoker 💀

[@sjl197]

Cool, I just learnt the ever loving jesus killed a food tree out of spite.

[@TestifyApologetics]

is that what he did?

[@sjl197]

@@TestifyApologetics it’s that or allegorically cursing Israelites in Jerusalem, either way not very hippie like

[@lucamaddalena8357]

is lil bro St. Thomas Aquinas reincarnate cus he's cooking

[@head85]

But still doesn't solve the mystery of the "anonymous writer" of the Gospels. We know how Moses peace be upon him got the commandments and how Muhammad peace be upon him got the Quran. But the Gospel.....?

[@johncampbell9120]

Still its so hard to keep a story straight and so many people wrote and translated and retranslated and its too much to take in. However as a back up plan if i find myself in judgement on high, i will simply say "lord you didnt give us enough evidence".😊

[@TestifyApologetics]

good luck with that bud

[@saullopez3780]

idk why, but i didnt understand 😢😢 i will have to watch it again. you jump around alot.. and i dont get it

[@labeilleautiste6318]

Hello

[@stevenswitzer5154]

The fact that a book has internal continuity is no evidence. You are still assuming these ARE the people the book says they are. Every honest theologian will yell you we dont know who wrote the gospels. I can find 2 books that describe dragons similarly, thats not proof of dragons. We have not moved the goal post, this guy fumbled the ball

[@sjl197]

And I can find at least five different religions that give the same concept of a dying god and resurrection 😊 it doesn’t make any of them true.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Oh boy I've never considered and addressed these points before

[@KestyJoe]

I don’t think you know what the phrase “fact-check” means. John was written decades later by someone who knew the Gospel of Mark (or its original source).

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't think you watched my previous videos to know why this isn't at all a problem.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

I still don’t buy into the idea that Jesus was a historical figure. The gospels read like stories that were riffing on a previous work. I have said it many times, it reminds me of an assignment a teacher gave us in school. We students had to write a story based on a story he wrote when he was in middle school. We had to use a certain amount of his story points and details. Did we kids come up with similar sounding stories? You bet we did. I can’t ignore Christopher Hitchens suggesting that “… the fakery of the story…” may serve as proof of a historical Jesus. People do lie to get their point across. It is possible that there was just some bloke called Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. I don’t think he was a miracle worker though.

[@lethompson]

you can argue whether or not he was the a miracle worker and/or the son of God, but most Christian and non-Christian historians these days agree that the Jesus written about in the Bible was a real person and was crucified for supposed blasphemy.

[@ejajafrozarb]

How many eyewitnesses does it take to confirm that an event that violates the laws of physics such as stopping the sun or resuscitation really happened?

[@DontHateGod]

None, because nobody will believe them anyways

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's not really about a set limit of eyewitnesses, but yes we want more than 1. We just need to rule out lies or honest mistakes from the witnesses, but multiple attestation is better. If a set of facts can be easily explained by assuming a miracle happened, but it's very hard to explain those facts if we assume no miracle happened, then this is strong evidence that the miracle did occur.

[@darkwolf7740]

How does a man coming back from the dead violate the laws of physics when the laws of physics are simply descriptions of our current observations of matter and energy in the universe 🤔

[@henryy-tq8tn]

This begs the God question a creator could easily manipulate the physics and biology you’re crying about

[@ejajafrozarb]

@@henryy-tq8tn the fact that he can do it is implicit, the question is how many eyewitnesses have to see him do something like that for us to say it actually happened?

[@jaywinters2483]

Wish you showed a timeline instead of children characters. It did not do your good work justice.

[@thomasehrlich8623]

Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. He wasn’t a direct descendant of King David because of the virgin birth. He didn’t have a human father.

[@feliperodriguez4187]

👍👋

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

Sorry, but this is minor and not a very good proof. They all had previous experience with things like gematria, and they certainly would have focused on the numbers and duration of everything. They would have focused on making it match because it was important to culturally, even before Christ, whether it was true, false, or allegory. You also seem to forget Luk1 predates Luk2...

[@TestifyApologetics]

lol ok so symbolic numbers explains the interlocking right right right right

[@thehopelessdeterminist]

In Matthew it's two donkeys and John has the crucifixion on a different day. How do we adjust the weight of the evidence when there are contradictions or stories that don't necessarily align together in contrast to undesigned coincidences? It's not really fair to have it both ways so what gives?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I've literally addressed the two donkey thing like 4 times in other videos. You guys keep repeating the same nonsense, plz stop.

[@thehopelessdeterminist]

@@TestifyApologetics well, you said "a donkey" in the video but Matthew says it was two donkeys so which is it, one or two?

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@thehopelessdeterminist see the pinned comment. This whole thing has been discussed at ad nauseum by now. Why it keeps coming up is really baffling.

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@thehopelessdeterminist I also have discussed the John and Mark being crucified on a different day in my response to Useful Charts. Just do a little digging.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@thehopelessdeterministYou do know that the same literary technique used in Matthew is also used in Genesis 1:27, right? As with Matthew repeating the mention of the Donkey, the phrase "in the image of God he created them" in Genesis 1:27 emphasises a point highlighted by repetition. The same thing happens in Matthew. Repeating an idea in order to emphasise a point, rather than stating 2 seperate ideas. In Matthew, as with Genesis, the phrase, "a colt, the foal of a donkey" is the repetition emphasising the point that Jesus rode on the Donkey. Once you know the context... your argument falls apart.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

First of all, I have no idea how you could say "there's no way" John would have counted this. It sounds pretty logical that if he's reading the account by Mark, that he would want to know when this happened. Also, there's no way you could know that each of these events in Mark transpired in one day each especially the story of the figs withering in the morning. Why couldn't the discourse have happened the same day? So for all we know the real date of the triumphant entry by Mark was really 3 or 4 days before Passover and John got this all wrong. He already contradicts Mark with the crucifixion date so why not with this too? The point is that this is far far from any type of evidence to its authenticity

[@TestifyApologetics]

Check the pinned comment.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@TestifyApologetics Oh I am sure you have an answer for the crucifixion but that doesn't make this any better. You call this an undesigned coincidence to try and use it as some sort of evidence that it can not have been made up. But as I explained, this is not true at all. It makes perfect sense that it was entirely fabricated and I'm not sure how you could disagree

[@TestifyApologetics]

​​@@nothingbutthetruth613You think John did all that detective work very carefully from another fictional story to make up his own version of a fictional story but leave out all the other references to the other days, and he just slips this in super casually without any appearance of design? Lol ok. And this isn't an isolated thing the case is cumulative. Sorry but this is just overly dismissive

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@TestifyApologetics "You think John did all that detective work very carefully from another fictional story to make up his own version of a fictional story but leave out all the other references to the other days, and he just slips this in super casually without any appearance of design?" Definitely. I don't know for sure but I don't see why not and this is not being dismissive. To use this as some sort of evidence to it's truthfulness is the problem. We know all the gospels used Mark so it seems pretty probable that he would have used him here too and in stead of repeating stories already known, he simply added a new one. Why doesn't this seem plausible to you?

[@usaspy5941]

@@nothingbutthetruth613But the question we have to ask ourselves is why? When we see greek myth stories written by different author's, we usually see a number of different contradictions. However the testimony that John has written is in precision with the other testimonies. So why would he go through the effort to align what is seemingly a fabricated story with the other gospels? Is it to decieve the world? If so, why? And how was he able to forsaw that the accounts he has written would become popular?

[@shanehanes7096]

Undersigned coincidences on work in a court of law, not skeptical academia.

[@darkwolf7740]

I don't think they're intended to be. Academia doesn't work in the same way as a court of law.

[@AmmoDude]

Yeah, ya skipped over the part where Jesus is descended from David through his "father" Joseph. Um, Joseph was not his father so no relation can be derived; he was born from an "unwed" mother (Mary) and it can not be contrived that Joseph was the father. The Gospels list (twice, with errors) Joseph's lineage. And the Gospels testify, repeatedly, that Mary conceived through holy intervention. So what if donkeys and palm leafs where there, they are still there today. Grass grows green around the world, does not mean that because grass grows green in the middle east that Jesus was the son of god.

[@dulls8475]

Look up the laws of Jewish adoption. Or even Biblical old testament adoption. Jesus was Josephs son but not biologically.

[@AmmoDude]

@@dulls8475My point exactly. Not descended from David.

[@dulls8475]

@@AmmoDude Not even through Marys line??

[@AmmoDude]

@@dulls8475Mary's line is not cited, only Joseph's. I guess one could argue that in a biblical sense, we are all (Jews, gentiles, everyone) descended from Adam. According to the Bible, that was 6,000 years ago, according to science, some 200 - 300 thousand years ago. Maybe the genetic line (of Joseph) listed in the Gospels disagree for a reason, maybe God is sending a message that it is all a bunch of made up mythology. There are just too many errors to be "inspired." It is much more logical that man made god vs god made man.

[@chutasan8299]

Is nobody going to point out the fact that Jesus said, nobody had ever rode this donkey? That means that donkey was NOT trained to be ridden. Try and ride a donkey like that and see how it goes for you! LMAO!

[@coot22cat61]

For the sake of the argument, I am granting that the Bible is God's word. I would say the main things that should be coincidental are things that can't change due to interpretation, such as generations, in which we have two contradictory accounts of Joseph's heritage in the New Testament. Now let's give that one of them was written for number reasons. I always then ask myself if I was an all powerful being who wanted all to come to me and believe in me (I'm going off a tri-omni God), and I knew that this would be one of many sticking points for many nonbelievers why would I make someone record it wrong? It seems highly illogical, or in some point that this being is lying to us to make a point of numbers. Now in reality we have other things we have used to dissuade skeptical questions, such as context or bad translations, let's focus on the latter. Judges 11, God earlier had people groups killed for sacrificing children for to win battles Jephthah vowed to give the first thing out of his house as a burnt sacrifice to God in which God accepted, knowing it was going to be Jephthah's daughter. Now a certain translation makes it a little better but the story itself isn't the problem, it's why it was allowed to be translated in that way in the first place. An analogy would be the best. You are a great parent and love your kids but can never see them because your working hard to provide them a good life, but you wrote this book that explains what you did to other people and what your doing now for them. Then you have someone write it down for you and can look at exactly what you wrote and it looks exactly what you said, now your children speak a different language and you have someone who knows you and whats to tries to perfectly translate it into the correct language for your children to read. You also know this language and now there are things that make you look inconsistent, or even a bad parent to some of your kids, wouldn't you ask the person to change the bad translations in the first place? Let's get the obvious counter out first it was translated by skeptics in an attempt to discredit this God, in which it could be a good point if God couldn't make people feel as if the bad copy is off, or even just change it himself in the first place, he's all powerful and this is his word, he wouldn't let false copies flow through circulation and destroy peoples faith in him, because he wants everyone to be saved. Even if there were Christians who tried to translate it the best they can and failed in certain points, you could have helped them translate it properly by inspiring them with the holy spirit, or just change it yourself. If you made it this far thank you for atleast giving this me this opportunity and hopefully you have atleast considered the points or if you find any failings in my argument I would love to hear it

[@InfinityExt]

Yeah but the synoptic problem. Matthew is clearly copying mark here

[@SenhorTudo]

I see that my comments to this video have been deleted. This inevitably happens when I address apologist and evolutionist nonsense, but that's okay because it proves that none of you can handle my penetrating insights. Anyway, I immediately take screenshots after I post comments, so I nevertheless have full records of all of them.

[@TestifyApologetics]

lol ok if you say so bro

[@SenhorTudo]

@@TestifyApologetics Are you denying that my comments are being taken down? If you ARE denying it, then I wonder how that sits with your God. I DO have the screenshots, so that I CAN prove that I posted comments that have obviously scattered your thoughts all over the place. You apologists cannot stand up to me, so you do the only thing you CAN do: you run and hide because you KNOW that I will smash your faith to smithereens. You are terrified of me because I ask questions and provide insights that place you into an extremely thorny corner. That's okay, though, because it just goes to reinforce my stance that you are all a bunch of charlatans that prey upon the weak-minded and the gullible.

[@dulls8475]

@@TestifyApologetics I also lose posts when talking about Christ. They do disappear.

[@TestifyApologetics]

ooh i'm so scared of screenshots. this is a known issue with KZbin. Kipp Davis, an atheist friend of mine, is having the same issue. grow up with your silly threats. I don't care.

[@SenhorTudo]

@@TestifyApologetics It's not only on this channel, but it also occurs when I confront Voddie Baucham, Frank Turek, John Lennox and a bunch of other apologists. It doesn't happen on any other channels except those dealing with Christian apologetics, which I find very strange indeed.