The Christian Apologetic Skeptics Still Can't Crack

[@ancalagonyt]

When you mentioned the fact that scammers would be unlikely to fake an undesigned coincidence, I thought about it for a minute. I think this is the way we should phrase it: scammers would lie, but this is a high-effort, low-yield lie. Scammers would not make that kind of lie, because it's not worth their time.

[@eugenetswong]

I think that the UC perspective is looking like trash, because for largely discussed issues, 2 sides could each produce undesigned coincidences. I, a defendent, could mention a nursery for prisoners to raise their babies, while another mentions a stage for prisoners to make performances, while a ghost writer sues over contractual issues regarding adding text to the diary. Does this all convince you that the diary is fake? It should, but it won't.

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu It doesn't matter whether they were scammers by name. The point is that it would be lying. (Claiming fiction as fact as a lie, just as scamming people uses lies.) So it's still true: the gospel writers would have to have used high-effort, low-yield lies in order to create these undesigned coincidences. It just wouldn't be worth it if no one is going to notice your undesigned coincidences during your lifetime.

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@eugenetswong Maybe I'm just tired, but your comment does not make any sense to me. It's to the point where I'm seriously considering whether your comment is made by a bot. (Why are you a defendant? Why would prisoners perform on a stage? Contractual issues about adding text to a diary? What diary? What ghost writer? I don't see how any of this is related to undesigned coincidences beyond "a diary is like a biography, and the gospels are biographies of Jesus".)

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Why do you say the gospels are not reportage? It very clearly seems like reportage to me, especially Luke and John. And if they’re not reportage, why are there undesigned coincidences? It doesn’t make sense.

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu If the "supposed authors" of the gospels were added later, then why are there no ancient manuscripts of those texts with different names than how we know them today? For example, why is the Gospel of John never attributed to anyone else if the name was added later? You'd expect a great deal of disagreement if there was no name for any significant amount of time. But we don't see any of the four canonical gospels attributed to anyone else except for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. How do you explain this if the names were added later?

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

There is also the limited amount of time the Apostles had to "get their story straight," and to March around everywhere repeating everything without emails to check each other strongly supports them going off their own memories, as memories are easier to remember than lies. The fact that none of the accounts outright contradict is further evidence against fabrication.

[@EmeraldEyesEsoteric]

Christians love to threaten eternal fire if you reject Jesus, but the opposite is True. Gal 3:13 Christ became the curse. Hosea 13:4 there is no other savior. Hosea 13:7-8 He admits to being the LION LEOPARD BEAR BEAST of Revelation 13:1-8, and in the original Greek 666 is Chi X Stigma meaning Jesus on the Cross is Mark of the beast. 34 Verses in OT say Jehovah is a fire breathing dragon! Jehovah the Dragon gave his kingdom to the Jesus Beast. Isaiah 1 God doesn't want offerings. "Who demanded this of you?" So the God of Moses is Satan! No Engraven Images yet Moses uses a Serpent on the pole because his God was a Serpent!

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

@@soarel325 no. Look up Frank Turek on contradictions, or Dr. James Tour on "Is the Bible Reliable." Look up Detective Jim Wallace on contradictions from eye witnesses. Look up the video "Were the Pyramids built before the Flood?" By Nathan89 and he'll demonstrate how the Jews altered their holy book POST CHRIST in an effort to debunk him, with your example of Geneologies. You have differences in presentation, then you have contradictions. There ARE no flat out contradictions.

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

@@soarel325 sorry. NathanH83's video, not Nathan89.

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

​@@soarel325look up Nathanh83 and ask him even.

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

​@@EmeraldEyesEsotericyeah whatever dude. The man came back from the dead and evidence corroborates this. I'll go with him versus you.

[@fluffysheap]

One of the craziest things about the so-called scholarship is that they insist that the things that oral tradition preserves poorly are the things that were in the oral tradition, but they make up the completely un-evidenced Q source to explain the things that oral tradition is good at (quotations).

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@StudentDad-mc3puI rarely saw anyone understanding the basis for Q online, unfortunately. Also - there will never be evidence for it, just as we have no complete gospels from the 1st century. The material didn't last that long. Q was always a (well established) hypothesis. Nobody claimed any "evidence" for it in the form of actual texts on papyrus.

[@LeoAnimationsTMNT]

well of course they were. Mark and Luke weren't eyewitnesses, they were gathering information from eyewitnesses. They made that clear. Matthew wasn't even with the group, but he was most likely the most literate due to his tax collector background. Even if he copied from Mark, Mark's resource came from peter. Matthew also lists his own experiences as well. And, we don't even know if Q exists. There's no evidence that it ever did. Just people making plausible explanations that don't seem very plausible.@@StudentDad-mc3pu

[@praevasc4299]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu But to believe that similarities between them must absolutely mean they copied each other, it must mean a rejection of the very idea that they have been just witnessing the same events. Why is the very idea of them having witnessed the same events so inconceivable? It's just like the hypothesis (often presented as undeniable Truth) that everything about Jesus was made up after 70 AD, because Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and it happened in 70 AD. But this all hinges on the assumption that there was no way Jesus could have predicted this. Which is quite silly, because even without any divinity there would be plenty of other explanations. A lucky guess. Or that it happened before, and tensions were rising, so it will likely happen again. Or that it was mostly metaphorical, because it was not about the physical temple but about a spiritual rebirth of faith, etc.

[@dale1963.]

Have you ever heard of the Holy Spirit. He has a good memory

[@truncated7644]

@@dale1963. And that ends the discussion. Why do you engage in logical or historical arguments if that is your answer?

[@Datroflshopper]

The end section is very powerful - I think when you're dealing with one undesigned coincidence it is fair to say that the "just-so story" explanation is stronger, but when there are tens of UC's together it becomes a clear Occams Razor scenario. The idea that the gospel accounts are reliable accounts from eyewitnesses requires far fewer assumptions (and has equal explanatory power) compared to multiple "just-so" stories stacked on top of each other. It looks complicated at first, but actually the solution turns out to be both simple and elegant - exactly what good mathematicians and philosophers look for

[@jhurt3824]

I think ocams razor describes creation much more than spontaneous combustion. The million millionth chance of the big bang for which there is no undeniable evidence beside a heat signature which has been described but not proven. Then the same odds for what is currently a swirling cloud of nitrogen iron and "other elements" which created life that somehow survived this big bang and made it to a planet that may have been the collection of matter at low gravity that attracted itself together and the list goes forever. None of these are evidence. Just notions.

[@EmeraldEyesEsoteric]

Nothing is more powerful then my content, and no one can beat me in a biblical debate. My teacher was a priest for 30 years before he fell away. Gal 3:13 Christ became the curse. Hosea 13:4 there is no other savior. Hosea 13:7-8 He admits to being the LION LEOPARD BEAR BEAST of Revelation 13:1-8, and in the original Greek 666 is Chi X Stigma meaning Jesus on the Cross is Mark of the beast. 34 Verses in OT say Jehovah is a fire breathing dragon! Jehovah the Dragon gave his kingdom to the Jesus Beast. Isaiah 1 God doesn't want offerings. "Who demanded this of you?" So the God of Moses is Satan! No Engraven Images yet Moses uses a Serpent on the pole because his God was a Serpent!

[@rubricon3491]

​@@EmeraldEyesEsoteric ...what?

[@jhurt3824]

@@EmeraldEyesEsoteric that rant feels manic

[@malirk]

Check out my undesigned coincidences in Islam post. We should be considering Islam as true!

[@catholicgamer1345]

i dont understand, the amount of evidence for Jesus Christ being God is crazy, yet people dont believe. is it a pride issue?

[@lsixty30]

Yes. Facts can’t cause you to love. You have to meet Christ for yourself. I love God because I know Jesus, and I was shocked at just how good he is.

[@nevermind824]

This video series has a few views. Other "scholars" have Millon's of views. Hardly anyone is looking for the response to the accusations. They enjoy the "hitch slap" video unaware that often Hitchens was a sophist. The anti Jesus videos enable people "freedom" from Jesus so they accept it as fact

[@ericdanielski4802]

​@@nevermind824Nice information

[@InitialPC]

yep, ask an atheist if God existed would they follow Him, most say no

[@Th3BigBoy]

​@@nevermind824 Good rhetoric. I think these are powerful and true words.

[@TheStarshipGarage]

Skeptics on their way to do the most drastic mental gymnastics to deny the truths of the Bible: Great series! I loved it! Keep it up!

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

@@soarel325absurd hypotheticals….

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Don’t tell me you both believe the writer meant Jesus rode two at once

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

@@soarel325 so a more common sense view of this could be an absurd idea, but seeing it to be a mistake and nothing else should be the norm. I see problems with that.

[@itslit1998]

There are no trutha in the bible at all. And yes this bs makes me even more of a sceptic because of the insane Moral Gymnastik someone would need to do to think that christanity is something good😂

[@genericscout5408]

@@michaelsbeverly writing that he sat on them, is not proof that it's impossible to sit on the animals. It's not proof that the events didn't happen. He could sit on one animal with the other trailing, or he could swap animals thus sitting on both of them at different parts of the journey.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Secularists always pretend that these authors somehow knew there was a "Bible" coming, where all these letters would be collected together.

[@midimusicforever]

Well, maybe they did know, if they were divinely inspired to know. But it would be quite self-defeating for a secularist to go that route.

[@flameguy3416]

A man claims he is God. They call him a blasphemer and kill him. 3 days later his body is gone from his tomb. Then hundreds of people claim they saw himpost mortem for 40 days after. Some of those people get tortured and killed for that claim. People STILL claim they saw him alive post mortem even after other claimants are punished, tortured and killed for making those claims. Imagine being with your friends at night at a park and suddenly you see a tic-tac shaped UFO. The next day all of you start claiming that you saw a UFO at the park at night. And in the coming weeks, one by one your friends get tortured and killed for making those claims. Would you still claim you saw that UFO if you were not 100% sure? And how easy would it be to just avoid that torturous death if you just dropped your claim? This isn't theology, this is psychology.

[@zachov2931]

you can’t be serious with this analogy 😭 if you believe in Christian doctrine, and hold the Christian church as sole divine authority, how do you explain martyrs for other faiths? At bare minimum, there is be a psychological function which propels people to be willing to die for spiritual beliefs; Christianity is not unique in this regard, and your UFO analogy does not prove that Christian believers are unique in the strength of their conviction

[@mistersandman3446]

@@zachov2931 it's not about dying for what you believe. It's about dying for what you claimed to see. Not a belief, but an observed fact

[@iraqiimmigrant2908]

🤯🤯🤯

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

​@@mistersandman3446 OK. How do you tell apart the claim from the observed fact? People claim all kinds of thing. Some are even willing to die for it, as the claim becomes part of their identity.

[@itslit1998]

No its bullshit. Its some made up fairytale and there is Not proof that any ever died for Jesus. Its all just stories like lord of the rings is also a Story. Lord of the rings also describes things in great detail so does that mean everything in tlotr acually happend?

[@johnv5275]

I was talking with someone about the quote "Q bible" and he said all these details were in the orginal gosple and copied. I told him this is pure conjecture but worse for him,this would make you have to believe the original gospel is older than 70ad and contains all the same details of the 4 gospels plus more information that can only prove Jesus as more true.

[@hamnchee]

The Q source is a hypothecized collection of sayings of Jesus, not the entire gospel narrative of the passion or the life of Jesus. So it wouldn't contain all, let alone more, details of the canonical Gospels, it would contain much less.

[@johnv5275]

@@hamnchee I should have said two gosples( Matthew and luke) of course it would have all of what is in Matthew and Luke has,plus more being they were supposedly copied from the Q source and Mark. Are you saying having another authentic gospel of Jesus would hurt the stories credibility?

[@hamnchee]

@johnv5275 Matthew and Luke have Q source material, but they also include revised Markan material as well. Q if it existed, wouldn't have the gospel narrative account, just collected sayings of Jesus and maybe some other characters.

[@hamnchee]

@johnv5275 And it doesn't necessarily hurt the credibility of the narrative per se, but it is clear evidence of revision and redaction depending on the motives of the authors. Fot instance there were some theological/christology differences between the early churches founded by Paul, and the Jerusalem Church headed by James the brother of Jesus and Peter regarding Jewish law and some other stuff, and the specific additions/redactions from Q and Mark sources illustrate these tensions.

[@johnv5275]

@@hamnchee this wouldn't be outside of what we know already though. This would fit with the book of Acts account of the discussions between Paul ,James and Peter. I would find this absolutely fascinating. Regardless,I still don't believe there is a Q source because all of this doesn't fall outside of the fact Mark, Matthew and Luke all knew each other and would have been well aware of any works they would have done. It's possible Mark was the first written account along with the oral tradition and luke and Matthew took that and added their account into it also.(i dont see that as an issue either)At the end of the day I don't see how this couldn't do anything but strengthen the authenticity of the gospels.

[@michaelg4919]

this argument is actually amazing! thanks so much for providing us with the information to defend our faith! God bless you :)

[@lsixty30]

Oh this is the end of the playlist 😅

[@TestifyApologetics]

congrats you found the free way to see early videos. LOL.

[@darkwolf7740]

*Loophole intensifies*

[@through-faith-alone]

this is funny

[@vibeamv859]

4 days ago lol

[@Biblestudies658]

Amen. What a great series this has been!

[@Locustandhoney]

Full on Elijah mode!! 😂. That story is a fav. Monty Python’s version with the prophet throwing random fireballs was a classic. Of course I don’t want to feel guilty for laughing about serious things so I will just close off with a thumbs up and a word of encouragement as I see your talents increasing for the Kingdom!

[@Logan-br3jb]

Praise Christ

[@midimusicforever]

Awesome stuff! This channel deserves way more attention!

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

I would love to see a diagram or infographic illustrating all the undesigned coincidences and their intertextual qualities at a glance.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

I have been in too many debates about the Bible where the skeptic was cornered, and their only retort was “but thats not the scholarly consensus.”.. thats it.. no argument, no evidence.. just “cOnSeNzEs” chants based in absolutely no knowledge. That doesn’t bode well for the “scholars” in this field.. it makes the field of study look more and more like a joke.

[@MrSeedi76]

You're insulting the very people Testify bases his whole channel on. Scholars. I myself have 2 degrees in the field and believe me - it's the most interesting field I ever studied and highly rewarding. And honestly - the "consensus" itself is an illusion that has been overused. The old saying was (based on a Jewish saying) - 'put 2 theologians in a room and they come up with 3 opinions'. I disagree with quite a lot of the "consensus". And I learned all about the German higher criticism as I'm actually German and studied here. So I know all of the arguments used by anti-christian apologists like Ehrman and others. They have no leg to stand on.

[@truncated7644]

You are simply dealing with skeptics who don't have the citations in hand. The citations exist, you need to do the work.

[@praevasc4299]

People who say that the Bible is "just a fairy tale" or a fantasy book, show only evidence that they haven't read fairy tales and fantasy books (or the Bible), because the differences in style, focus, and attention to detail are completely different, they are completely different genres, even if one would disbelieve in the truthfulness of the Bible, it's still obvious that it's a completely different genre. And all the details some medieval monks were in no way knowledgeable about, and the message itself (if it was just designed to help oppressing people then the core message would not be that all are the same in front of God, the first will be the last, etc, but it would be that you will serve your earthly masters in the afterlife too, like many pagan religions teach), and the undesigned coincidences presented in these videos, and the fact that the believers were keen to give their lives for their beliefs, are for me an ample proof that the WORST one could say about the disciples and apostles is that they misunderstood some things, and it definitely cannot be said that they just made it up (or that they did not exist and it was all made up later).

[@truncated7644]

So, have you read ancient near eastern religious texts that aren't associated with the Bible to determine how different OT texts are from texts such as Assyrian, Babylonion, etc.?

[@mrnaizguy]

Fairy tales don't conquer the world, build civilizations and elevate human morality beyond all probability

[@jsto6056]

Love the videos. Saw you on the BlessGod video! Well done!

[@DanielApologetics]

👏👏👏

[@jerrybessetteDIY]

The "anti-believer," a more accurate term than "skeptic," confuses possibility with probability. Will he not use the switch to his light because it is possible the switch won't work or the light is burnt out.

[@SDsc0rch]

love your content! you have a gift thank you for sharing : )

[@Chordus_Gaius]

He embraced the memes! Video is great by the way

[@Lecommandant_camroun]

God bless❤❤

[@chipperhippo]

My issue is that I think the conclusion at 1:05 needs to be fleshed out a little more. At least a priori, UCs only undermine the notion that the agreements we observe are the result of a deliberate effort on the part of the author to appear more reliable by transplanting details; but of course that's not what most skeptics of the argument are suggesting. If we understand UCs as instances where two authors appear to take the same piece of information for granted (and are partial to the hypothesis that the gospel authors are decades removed, relying on a variety of overlapping and interacting sources (written and oral) as well as one another), it's hard to a imagine a situation where we wouldn't observe some distribution of UCs.

[@eugenetswong]

To test out the idea UCs, we just need to look at conflicting testimonials. This would show us how far we could use them.

[@MrGoodwell]

If you trust the testimony of the early church, they even say Matthew was written first but as a list of acts of Jesus and that Mark borrowed this while writing his Gospel after the style of action stories of that time. Then, inspired by the narrative style of Mark's Gospel Matthew turned his into a narrative as well.

[@truncated7644]

That's a great reason not to trust the testimony of the early church.

[@TheLazyCowboy1]

I'm really curious to know where I can find any sources for this information. Do you remember where you heard this?

[@dale1963.]

Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth. The unbelievers know that God created the universe and they are without excuse seeing the things that are made but rather they worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator who is blessed forever

[@truncated7644]

That's gotta make you feel good to know the Grace of God miraculously has shined on you. Otherwise you might think about the world differently just like the majority of humans on earth that have a different understanding or no understanding at all or your specific religious beliefs. It must be humbling.

[@dale1963.]

@@truncated7644 I know men have suppressed the truth in their sinfulness

[@dale1963.]

@@truncated7644 all you have to do is look up and ask who are you God? He that made the ear can he not hear? God can hear you and will show himself to anyone that asks and that promise is in John chapter 14: 21.

[@truncated7644]

@@dale1963. But you don't?

[@truncated7644]

@@dale1963. That is something one human wrote, why do you think it is true? And how exactly can he show me himself, if no one as seen God? John 6:46

[@truthmatters7573]

perfectly explained! Great as always :)

[@Terabapu3156]

Thanks brother ❤✝️🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@sacktheargonian]

Star Wars and Warhammer 40K can’t keep their lore consistent on whether lightsabers emit heat or whether Leman Russ is alive. How could ancient Christians keep fictional lore so consistent?

[@НиколайНиколов-ь5ч]

Hey, whats your take on paulogia and do you think he makes good points at some moments? Love from Bulgaria☦️

[@TestifyApologetics]

Paul and I have had conversations on his live channel and on MythVision. We disagree a lot but I enjoy our discussions

[@MrSeedi76]

As a theologian I rarely saw Paulogia make any good points ever. It's great, Testify does debate him. I couldn't. I'm getting too annoyed with the anti-apologists. They too often misrepresent the actual scholarship for their agenda. Granted, some apologists might do the same but the problem is that the anti-apologists try to make it seem like "we just follow where the scholarship leads" without realizing that the scholarship they use is just as biased as what they try to criticize. The whole German higher criticism (on which ALL of their arguments are based) was itself based on an anti-supernatural bias. That was also the basis of the "historical critical method". So the whole base of the debate IMHO is that we as Christians do believe that God showed Himself in history and particularly in Jesus while some of the scholars (certainly not all) argue from a position of "methodical atheism". There is a reason why the Eastern Orthodox believe that only saints can do theology and the title "theologian" is kind of an honorary title. Not something you could study. Only the Holy Spirit can grant us insight into these truths expressed in the new testament (and the old). Therefore a purely "scientific" approach of reading the gospels will probably not end in the person becoming a Christian. He or she might even lose the faith.

[@Greyz174]

@@MrSeedi76 im not really sure why a system where truth is only accessible by a small group of people who think they have privileged access to a mystical truth because they prayed and fasted about it really hard is going to be less suspect than the historical critical method especially since Bultmann isn't a saint canonized by a dogmatic authority so it's not like we have to pretend he was right about everything anyways. traditions where you don't have to pretend your predecessors are right about everything also can't be criticized by someone like you that says "aha you see i found out a bias your predecessors had, that means you're also wrong" because i can just like adjust my beliefs and have the probability of a miracle at nonzero but still be critical of claims in ancient texts

[@truncated7644]

@@MrSeedi76 If only the Holy Spirit can grant you insight into truths in the NT or OT, why do scholarly research of any type? Why even care about facts?

[@danielboone8256]

Lol I like your use of soyjaks. Also nice that you’re responding to the objections

[@richardokeefe7410]

The accounts even circulated separately so they couldn’t have been expected to link up.

[@vedinthorn]

Super Gospel nonsense is just Mr. Empty Conjecture in a suit. (Dr. Falk watchers will get this reference.)

[@grantbartley483]

Standard atheist 'reasoning': I'll ignore everything you say, insult you, and think I'm being clever. That just about sums up the value of new atheism. So thanks

[@stevej71393]

I'm always confused when people or articles say "the majority of scholars agree on some really skeptical position". What is our criteria for determining who is a biblical scholar and who isn't? Is a pastor with a PhD and an ability to read in Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew considered a biblical scholar, or not? What majority are we talking about? Who counted? Where is the list of these scholars? Without this information, the appeal to authority fallacy of "scholars agree" is useless.

[@igorlopes7589]

Only atheists and progressives count because they are iMpArTiAl

[@Spearmint22425]

It’s usually secular scholars

[@grantgooch5834]

It's easy: a biblical scholar is anyone who agrees with the skeptical "consensus" and anybody who disagrees is a dishonest apologist regardless of their credentials.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@grantgooch5834 Exactly

[@jhurt3824]

You just see these scholars more today because they have an opportunity to speak to other atheists. 30 years ago they'd be selling coffee at Starbucks like all the other phd's I knew at college who couldn't get teaching gigs. Now they can talk their nihilism to the masses.

[@jossdeiboss]

That's why I like the "Occam Razor": usually the most simple explanation is the true one. If you have to come up with hundreds of conspiracies to explain an event, you are probably wrong. There may be one conspiracy behind a specific historical/actual event, but if you think that for each undesigned coincidence there is a conspiracy or some intricated mechanism...well, you are probably wrong.

[@Darr_l]

Hey eric do recommend books for getting in depth and ofe theoriee about undesigned coincidences, i wanna go in depth i love this

[@TestifyApologetics]

Hidden in Plain View by Lydia McGrew

[@christiang4497]

Erik commonly recommends the following books for UCs: -Hidden in Plain View by Lydia McGrew -Undesigned Coincidences by JJ Blunt -Undesigned Coincidences in the Old Testament and New Testament by JJ Blunt -Horae Paulinae and A View of the Evidences for Christianity by William Paley

[@doughammond8932]

Excellent!

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@brendangolledge8312]

The best naturalistic explanation I can think of for the undesigned coincidences is that the gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, but that the disciples were excitable and impressionable, and sometimes interpreted natural events as miracles, and confirmed these false impressions to one-another by discussion. You say in your video that there are tons of undesigned coincidences in miracle stories, but I have seen several of your videos, and I only ever recall these coincidences taking place with regards to trivial details. For instance, with respect to the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, I recall one author said that the people sat down on green grass, and another said it took place around Passover. One author said that Jesus asked Philip where to get food in Bethsaida, and another mentioned that Philip was from Bethsaida. These coincidences don't directly corroborate the miracle. With regards to that particular miracle, I tried to imagine how it could have appeared that there was a miracle, but there really wasn't. Suppose townspeople from the surrounding area brought loaves and fishes to the crowd without telling the disciples. The disciples saw Jesus pass out the original baskets, and then saw that more and more baskets kept getting passed around, but they were unaware of the external source of these extra baskets. Then they concluded that a miracle had taken place. I once did a lot of research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in court cases. I recall one study where participants' detail recall was 79% accurate when reporting individually, but their accuracy dropped significantly if they discussed the video amongst themselves before reporting. This seems to indicate that our memories are easily corruptible by peer pressure. So, you'd actually expect that the things the disciples talked about with each other (such as miracles) would be reported less accurately than the trivial details that they did not discuss. As for the BIG miracle (the resurrection), my personal favorite naturalistic explanation is still swoon theory, although I understand that this is not popular today among scholars. I imagine maybe it's possible that Jesus wasn't whipped so badly (doesn't seem impossible to me, since the Bible testimony itself indicates that Pilate wasn't really thrilled to crucify him), and he was taken off the cross after only a few hours, so it's possible he survived. Suppose the disciples put whatever narcotics or painkillers were available at the time in the sponge in order to ease his passing. Having received narcotics, Jesus passes out, and I guess the spear doesn't quite pierce his heart. Then, after receiving the "body", Joseph of Arimathea realizes that Jesus was alive, and conspired to make everyone believe he was dead. After a few days, Jesus partially recovers, goes to his disciples to tell them that it's alright, but that he really has to go (he doesn't want to get crucified twice), and the disciples interpret this as a resurrection from the dead. I understand that Joseph of Arimathea died shortly thereafter, so he would have been unable to clear up the disciple's confusion. There is testimony in the Bible itself to make you think that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus was talking about. For instance, they scolded the woman who bought the expensive perfume for Jesus, and tried to turn the children away. Even after the crucifixion, they thought that Jesus' return was imminent, but it wasn't. So, this doesn't give great confidence that they ever understood what Jesus meant. Even if I did decide to believe everything that the Bible said, I'd be very concerned about the confusion in the church. Historically, most of the churches anathematized each other, so there is no clear way forward with respect to the doctrine of salvation, proper church authority, the nature of the sacraments, etc. Supposing the church was divinely inspired, it seems bizarre to me that God would allow such confusion to reign in his chosen representatives on Earth. What makes the most sense to me is that Jesus was a real person, and his disciples wrote the gospels based off memory. However, they never really understood what Jesus meant, and they were excitable and sometimes interpreted mundane events as miracles. A series of extraordinary coincidences created extreme confusion, and this lead to the foundation of the religion. This explains the sincerity of the disciples, the consistency of their testimony, the similarity of some aspects of the Jesus story to prior myths (when in doubt, the disciples interpreted what happened with respect to their prior knowledge), the confusion that exists in the modern day church, as well as divine hiddenness.

[@thelastbandicoot]

Do you actually think that the Romans “did not whip him so badly” and that he survived a spear to the side after hanging on the cross? That would be more of a miracle to believe a regular man suffered crucifixion and survived than the resurrection. You got them good blinders on buddy but you need to let some faith reveal Jesus to you and stop giving Satan that doubting foothold. I don’t think you realize the lengths you are going to to remove the truth of the gospels with a modern “guess” of what actually happened at Calvary despite what the written Word states from 4 different authors

[@TestifyApologetics]

I appreciate the time you took to type this out and your respectful demeanor, but honestly, this side explanation requires a whole heckuva lot more faith than I have, bud. I think you just convinced me even more that the argument is good when one has to resort to his kind of thing. Maybe this is the at least part of evidence that God ain't so hidden after all.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

That's a lot of stuff that I think takes more faith than simply to believe the accounts. The miracles were such that many people saw them, even Jesus's enemies acknowledged them. Swoon theory is very weak. The Romans knew what they were doing, but to be safe, the soldier pierced Jesus's heart. This was because if they made a mistake, they could literally get the death penalty. It had to happen that way though, to fulfill scripture that no bones were broken. As far as Jesus coming back, He did in AD 70 just like God judged in the Old T using armies. Read Luke 21 to see this plainly. This is a common view in Christianity, sadly the church today is simply on average not as academic. This lead to Dispensational teaching becoming popular over the last 100 years, but its a new teaching with false premises.

[@caos1925]

Faulty memory kind of argument here. Ask an American who was over the age of 10, what they were doing and where they were on 9/11 and they'll be able to tell you. People remember traumatic events like their messiah being killed, very well.

[@brendangolledge8312]

I'm not sure that anyone really rebutted anything that I said. I did a quick google search and see that approximately 10 000 people are mistakenly pronounced dead every year. There were fewer people back in the time of Jesus, but they probably were mistaken about people being dead more often. So, that probably means that there were thousands of people mistakenly pronounced dead every year. After a few thousand years, that leaves easily millions of chances for someone to have appeared to have come back from the dead in a miraculous fashion. It would indeed be an extraordinary event for the disciples to have been mistaken about the resurrection, but the history of the world is long, and there have been many chances for such things to have occurred. I know there is at least one testimony of someone surviving crucifixion. Josephus was friends with a Roman authority and he asked him to take down 3 of his friends who he saw crucified. 2 out of 3 of them died anyway, but one survived. Crucifixion usually takes days to kill somebody, but Jesus was only there for hours. So, it does not seem impossible for me that he survived. Yes, I believe Jesus probably was stabbed, but that they probably just missed his heart by a small amount. I am convinced by the arguments that Jesus was not a myth, and that the disciples were sincere. So I have two choices: 1. Either the disciples were mistaken about what they thought they saw. 2. Or God is content to let there be confusion. If I choose 1, then I do not have to worry about questions of salvation or which church to choose. If I choose 2, then I have a whole other host of problems I need to tackle, such as how it is that probably most Christians alive today are anathamatized (and therefore damned to hell) according to the historical teachings of all the churches prior to the Protestant reformation. I cannot perform a scientific experiment to discover the correct church, or the correct doctrine of salvation. Then it comes down to the testimony of the different churches, and then I have to become a scholar to even have an educated opinion about which church to be in.

[@ericdanielski4802]

Interesting video.

[@minifox3603]

Thank you for your videos man, God bless, genuinely, God bless! I have felt as though a ton of scholarly arguments have always been weird, but now it makes sense that it is ad hoc, and it always seems to reject the conservative opinion, even when the conservative opinion does make the most sense given the evidence like you said its all too natural, and some scholars want to complicate maybe because they have a philosophy that lines with life and history being heavily complex.

[@tomteacher5885]

Just brilliant stuff...

[@ThisDonut]

I mean when we say its an old argument its to point out that most apologists dont use them anymore, and there are usually good reasons for why arguments stop being used. 1. Its my belief, and the scholarly consensus i believe, that what we have in the gospels was passed down by oral tradition, and that they are not eyewitness testimonies. These traditions, at minimum, were put into the book of Mark, and Matthew/Luke copied and added to Mark. It would not be strange for Matthew and Luke to add an undersigned coincidence (intentionally or not) since they already have Mark in hand. I assume you dont believe Matthew/Luke copied Mark which is why you dont accept this line, but what evidence do you have for that? I think most apologists accept Mark came first and thats why no one talks about UC's anymore. I dont see Trent Horn, Kent Hovind, ApologeticsRoadshow, RedeemedZoomer, or any of the other apologists talking about UC's at all. Tell me why that is. 2. Lets assume the gospels are all eye witness testimony. Lets even assume that the naturalistic explanations of the miracles are inferior to the supernatural ones (however thats possible). How does one such as yourself discredit every other UC that supports a miracle for another religion, or a concept of the supernatural you dont agree with? Do any two accounts given that seem largely truthful, just get full respect for their outragous claims? Think of the people who claim to see the virgin Mary aberrations, or aliens. Thousands of them, and all of them no doubt give accounts that often compliment one another. Are we suddenly supposed to believe these things just because the things they say jive with one another? I think not.

[@MrSeedi76]

First - nobody ever claimed that all gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Second: assuming an 'oral tradition' in a culture that already had holy scriptures and in which quite a lot of people could read is highly problematic in itself. I have 2 degrees in the field and read a ton of books on the matter. I have yet to find a convincing argument for "oral traditions" apart from some short collections of Jesus sayings. The gospels themselves were always works of literature.

[@ThisDonut]

@@MrSeedi76 no, something like 3% of israels population was literate at the time, and plenty of people argue that the gospels are first hand testimonies.

[@grantflippin7808]

@@ThisDonut source needed

[@ThisDonut]

@@grantflippin7808 search "History of education in ancient Israel and Judah" first wiki link

[@ThisDonut]

@@grantflippin7808 google "History of education in ancient Israel and Judah", first wiki link

[@glennsimonsen8421]

good job

[@StorytimeJesus]

The first example, imo, is an example of a later author expanding on what he sees in his source. In this case, Luke expands on the name sons of Zebedee, giving an instance where they fit the name. It is nice that you recognized the reliance on Elijah, as Mark uses the Elijah-elisha narrative... maybe 25 times in constructing Jesus. John's Baptism of Jesus is a combo of Elijah-Elisha along with David in Absalom's Rebellion. Both narratives are used extensively to construct a literary Jesus of Nazareth.

[@StorytimeJesus]

the idea that details mean something is real is troubling when reading fictional accounts like Harry Potter. I know you are basing this on the idea that there are separate, individual accounts being used, but it is just as easy to show, methodologically, that Mark was the first Jesus of Nazareth fiction and others used his account in their writings. I don't see a way to prove either case.

[@StorytimeJesus]

Your production is quite good. I have some slides that probably a middle schooler could outdo as far as production value on my channel, but at the heart of it is an attempt to put out evidence that a mythology of Jesuses existed long before the era of Jesus of Nazareth (real or fiction). The earliest Jesus killed the king of Jerusalem, hung him on a tree, took him down at evening, put the body in a cave, and put rocks in front of the cave. A Son of David died hung in a tree, pierced through with a spear. One of his advisors died by hanging himself (Judas in Matthew), another died gutted, wallowing in a field (Judas in Acts) after being fooled by a false kiss (Judas in Mark). The soldier who exposed the position of the son of David was told he would have received money if he had just killed the son (~Judas in Mark, who was offered money AFTER deciding to expose Jesus), to which the soldier responded that he would have suffered greatly if had done anything to the son (Jesus proclaiming that the one who betrayed him would rather not have been born- Mark). Also, this son of David earlier probably rode into Jerusalem on a mule triumphant, as king, just like Jesus does. This is preceded in Mark by a blind man shouting "Son of David." Mark wants the reader to SEE that he is using the son of David story of Absalom's rebellion.

[@caos1925]

Huh so what series is next then?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'll be talking about how the gospels corroborate with secular history

[@quagsiremcgee1647]

Say there's this big super source where we have all the info. Something like an event that happened.

[@rothgang]

The difference between the gospel and holocaust is that people are jailed and killed for believing one, and people are jailed and killed for doubting the other. For the record, I am not making any statement regarding the validity of either, simply pointing out the interesting dichotomy.

[@justinyashan1172]

Can you review that atheist youtuber “prophet of zod”?

[@christiancrusader9374]

He named himself after a Superman villain?

[@justinyashan1172]

I think so

[@DaBestSquigma]

Testify had a video on him about the cosmological argument, needless to say Zod assumes naturalism as true to debunk the idea that the mind is non-physical.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Not interested he doesn't say anything devastating

[@christiancrusader9374]

@@justinyashan1172 why?

[@catholicgamer1345]

can you make a video on if Daniel 9 is prophetic? some argue Daniel 9 was a forgery or was written after the events that proceed what was written in it. Can you demonstrate this may not be the case?

[@truncated7644]

Watch some of Dr. Kipps you tube videos on this to get started, unless you just want answers that make you feel comfortable.

[@JM-19-86]

The book of Daniel is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls that predate Christ, so nobody can argue that's it's a Christian forgery.

[@gglesucks9462]

I love how if they applied their "solutions" to other times in history, they'd sound like childish nonsense 😅

[@truncated7644]

Can you give an example?

[@MeTooMan]

I get what your point is but who cares what you can prove using methods of man? People either believe it or they don’t. You aren’t going get someone to believe by using man’s methods over speaking scriptures to them. It seems like trying to argue someone to the point where they accept the Gospel is discounting the spiritual aspect of the Bible, which is the whole point: the Spirit.

[@thevfxwizard7758]

I think it’s important to remember that the Spirit can use the means of rational argumentation, as we see all throughout the apostles preaching in the book of Acts. Having reasons to believe is foundational to being taken seriously and making an opening to share the gospel.

[@MeTooMan]

@@thevfxwizard7758you think their preaching was using rationale? Maybe rationale of prophecy but they were using empirical evidence or man.

[@excellenceadigun9093]

Remember, you came to believe, most likely, via methods of man. Did Christ appear to you like He did with Apostle Paul? The way you came to believe was different than this way of reasoning, but it still took the Holy Spirit reaching you through “the methods of man” for you to heed His call. Isn’t the written Scripture a “method of man”? What need does God have for reading books or language? So, speaking/witnessing/evangelism is also a “method of man”. Apostle Paul used philosophy to witness in Athens. Apostle Matthew used typology, besides prophecy to spark Jewish conversion. Apostle John used semi-theological philosophy at the beginning of his Gospel account because it was relevant in that day - look at how he uses Filo’s understanding of the 'Logos'! Jude even used the mythological off-theology of I Enoch to rebuke those erring (he didn’t co-sign the book; just quoted it). The very fact that Christ condescended into humanity to minister, relate to, teach and save us is enough reason to understand, beloved, that these “methods of man” are feeble nonsense that become mighty in the Holy Spirit’s use

[@MeTooMan]

@@excellenceadigun9093knocking on doors, we’ve never won anyone over with argument. Every time has been straight from reading them the scripture. So, I am speaking from experience. Maybe your’s is different.

[@excellenceadigun9093]

@@MeTooMan Yh, people have different experiences, encountering different people in different postures, mindsets and environments. I think that’s important for us to consider. I remember when I was younger and went to cadet camp, people would mock coz I was the only Bible-believing Christian. But thru good character and prayer with unashamedness, they came to see there was value in what I was saying. We ended up having 1 night in almost every camp where the guys would sit around and ask me questions about Christ, the Bible and Christianity. Being an undeveloped apologist, I tried to answer and relate where possible, and prayed where I couldn’t. I thank God, He used my tiny knowledge and fumbling understanding to draw some back to Him, some to seek Him for themselves, some to just go to church, and even one to repentance, who called me to confess his belief when I was on holiday abroad. So, yh, “different strokes for different folks.” We just pray God uses them all to the glory of His Name and the salvation of many Btw, going door to door is super hard and intimidating. God bless you for having that courage and faithfulness to do that. Grace + peace from Christ, our GOD and King 🙌🏾

[@doofusrick5998]

Yet the Gospels also give conflicting accounts of the last words of Christ before his death, and who discovered the tomb after the resurrection. This is mostly just cope for Christians, and this guy openly admits he doesn't care about scholarly consensus

[@ultraviolett2489]

They don’t give conflicting accounts over Jesus lasts words most of them don’t even claim to have recorded his last word you have to read that into the text. Also the scholarly consensus view is often based on unjustified dumb presuppositions

[@SanctifiedDaily]

To further help clear the confusion with apparent confliction in the gospel accounts. A lot of the times it is different perspectives and not different accounts. For example, while I might say there was a car that wrecked down the street while someone else says that many cars wrecked, we are not contradicting each other. Rather, one is choosing to exclude less important details. Similarly, in the gospel account of how many angels there were in the tomb and who saw the body, while some people are left out such as one angel vs 2 there are no contradictions. Such as "there was only one angels in the tomb" vs "I saw exactly 2 angels in the tomb". I hope this cleared up some confusion.

[@DerickTherving]

It's not a coincidence that a growing contingent of holocaust denial has arisen on the internet in circles that are derivative of the internet new atheism of the 2010s

[@rockzalt]

I think it also means that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the elephant in the room and the skeptics are blind.

[@deeveevideos]

The gospel or good news is that of apokatastasis. We are to have a ministry of reconciliation. God is the savior of all. Amen 1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Cor 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive 1 John 2:2 New International Version 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[@LucaTigli]

I'm writing this just in cause people uses the Argument of Genealogies. In Luke 3 the Genealogy is presented with the verbe TO SUPPOSE. It is described as the "Supposed son Joseph, which was son of Heli." To suppose. In supposition, something that even if Generally believed might not be TRUE. THIS GENEALOGY DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FACTUAL LIKE THE ONE FROM MATTHEW. LUKE RECORDED WHAT THE PEOPLE GENERALLY THOUGHT JESUS GENEALOGY WAS. So no Luke and Matthew don't contradict eachother. After all one is claimed as a statement. The other as a Supposition with the implication that might not be true.

[@Greyz174]

on that example, he'd leave out the original detail about the nickname because he doesn't need it. he's got a picture in his head about the character of the boys from the prior source and uses that to write about them in a particular situation there's no "oh no, they're going to be confused if i don't spell everything out" he's not a picture in his head that makes sense, he writes down enough of it to move his point along, and then he goes on because he's not neurotic about making every possible detail explicit also, just to be clear, this is really important, just everyone is on the same page, im not a soyjack youre a soyjack

[@TestifyApologetics]

I have depicted myself as the chad and you as the soy wojak, so you see, you have already lost

[@Greyz174]

@@TestifyApologetics no!

[@joshd3502]

7:19 Is the title of "Biblical Scholar" given by mailing in 5 cereal box tops?

[@MrSeedi76]

​​​@@soarel325😂 tell me you know nothing about the field of theology without telling me. There is no "scholarly consensus on the side of skepticism" as you seem to think. Most apologists I follow on KZbin do actually have degrees. So what are you even talking about? Except trying to score points with wrong info.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

:cheering for Testify

[@JTF_TheChristianAndVtuber]

Love these videos but, I think the argument against the undesigned coincidences that that's all they are, coincidences, while there's a lot of them I can say there's a lot of undesigned coincidences in Vedas, does that make every single claim of the Vedas true? no. And most of them are talking about things that we can see and hear for ourselves but miracles and The Resurrection is something that's not the norm that's why it requires Faith and that's why a miracle is a miracle.

[@TestifyApologetics]

For starters, faith isn't blind. The apostles preached the resurrection based on their own witness, and they appealed to the public data of prophecy as well. Second of all, if God acted in history then it wouldn't be surprising if the Gospels have the texture of histories. There are no undesigned coincidences in the vedas. Finally, you're missing my point. My point is two stage. One, establish what the authors were like which gives us reason to think what the disciples claimed is what is recorded in the gospels. Two, that the content and context of their claims makes it unlikely to think the apostles were mistaken.

[@JTF_TheChristianAndVtuber]

@@TestifyApologetics I never said Faith is blind, I just said Faith is not facts. Witnesses and prophecies are not invalid but they're not necessarily evidence or good evidence at least, because what you just said was the apostles have claims and those claims are founded by older claims. I think the reason why we basically just have claims when it comes to the evidence of the resurrection is because it's based on Faith and not facts. It says whoever believes in Him, not whoever has the most empirical evidence, not saying you can't have evidence but I think it'll ultimately be based on Faith. Again you just said if the claim of God is something then the claim of the Gospels is something as well then yes I agree. Have you read the Vedas? If not then how can you substantiate that claim? I am reading the Vedas and I can say there has been some undecided coincidences but it doesn't mean the Vedas are true. Yes what they said is what they said. Yes, they knew their land and they knew certain things but I think the mistaken part is mainly the miracles which I don't think they were mistaken but a can't factually prove that.

[@hiddenrambo328]

Guys playing pool: Black ball corner right pocket (black ball goes in corner right pocket) that is what I meant to do, (guys) well done, nice shot, that is skill.. Same guy same shot but doesn't call his shot before hand the (white ball bounces around hits many balls and sinks the black ball in the back right pocket) that is what I meant to do (guys) Yeah right, sure buddy, you just got lucky...

[@alanpickett9706]

As an atheist, the argument from undesigned coincidences seems to be one of the easiest apologetics to refute. The obvious explanation is that the gospels and epistles are bases on earlier common tradition(s). This explains why many of the non-supernatural claims are historically accurate and consistent (except where they aren't, which is often), and the supernatural claims are somewhat consistent. It's strange that you call this ad hoc. It seems like a straightforward inference to the best explanation, especially for someone whose prior probability of a person being god or breaking the laws of nature is very low. Am I missing something here?

[@TestifyApologetics]

yeah you're missing something. there are UCs in all kinds of accounts, supernatural or not, and earlier common traditions about what? What town Philip was from, or what question Jesus asked Philip? You think there was some long chain of reliable oral tradition that remembered that Jesus had a female disciple named Joanna who was married to Herod's household manager, and that Herod asked a question to his servants? Or that there was this big oral tradition that John, the beloved disciple, earned the nickname "son of thunder"? Or that the disciples wanted to put the hurt on the Samaritans when Jesus wasn't allowed to walk through their village? These are not really the kind of details that these guys would be carefully memorizing, passing on, through some long chain.

[@alanpickett9706]

@@TestifyApologetics Why is that implausible? I'm happy to grant that everything you mentioned in your comment is historically reliable, which explains the UCs. In fact, I'm happy to grant that a great deal of the gospels is reliable, except supernatural claims and provably false or contradictory claims (trip to Bethlehem for the census of Quirinius, irreconcilable genealogies in M vs. L, etc.) What is the alternative? Jesus is crucified ~30, Paul writes his epistles ~45-70, the gospels are written ~70-90, the apocrypha somewhere in there, and there's no other oral or written traditions during that entire time? Isn't it more plausible that there are lost accounts of Jesus, especially considering that most writings from that time period were lost to history? I think we agree that the best explanation for the UCs around the wedding of Cana is that Jesus really went to a wedding at a place named Cana, and that people spoke and wrote about it after his death. Why does accepting that require me to accept that he repeatedly broke the laws of nature and was God?

[@alanpickett9706]

@TestifyApologetics What basis do you have for asserting that these details wouldn't be held onto? Clearly they came from somewhere, given that the gospels were written 70-90 and Paul's letters weren't written until the 40s or so. Why is it unreasonable to assume that there were previous written and or oral accounts, given that most such accounts from that era do not survive to the present? Furthermore, if it's true, as I believe it is, that Jesus actually went to a wedding at a place called Cana, how does it follow that he also broke the laws of nature while he was there? How does proving that the gospels are reliable on some of their naturalistic claims prove any of the supernatural claims?

[@AWW8472]

Skeptical liberal Christians will express more faith in a hypothetical Q gospel while simultaneously dismissing the valid attribution or early dating of the the gospels we have.

[@mmtt2866]

Algorhithm :)

[@TestifyApologetics]

Comment

[@Flammenhagel]

these gospel videos are great entertainment, but you shouldnt need material proofs to arrive at these conclusions, the material world does not correspond to the glory of god

[@TestifyApologetics]

The Word became flesh and said if I don't do the works of my Father then don't believe me

[@Nomatophobic]

Using the wildly conflicting holocaust testimonies mixed with propaganda, rumour and institutional support is a poor comparison to the truth of scripture.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Found the anti-semite conspiracy theorist

[@Nomatophobic]

@@TestifyApologetics Without wading into the same letter boxing, you are accusing me of not believing in a conspiracy and then calling me a conspiracy theorist. A little dishonest.

[@bskec2177]

This only works if the authors where unaware of each others works, and the gospels were independent accounts. They absolutely were aware of previous writings, and copied each other, and built upon, and offered explanations for parts the previous writers didn't. This is like arguing that there are "undesigned coincidences" between the "Sensational Spider-man" series and "The Amazing Spider-man" series that support the existence of an actual Spider-man. The Anne Frank analogy falls flat on it's face, as any historian worthy of the title would look at the thousands of other testimonies available to be able to piece together what happened, and not just rely upon two or three sources. We don't have any of that for the gospels. The closest thing we have is Josephus writing about what Christians already believed, not providing any support for it actually happening.

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's almost like I addressed that in the suggested video at the end. I also never said UCs prove the holocaust, just that it's evidence for the particular stories about the division of young and old being told. There are many other examples from her narratives and other secular historical stories. I wanna know how something like UCs isn't evidence for eyewitness testimony because that's pretty absurd to me to say it isn't

[@bskec2177]

@@TestifyApologetics I don't even want to call these connections between the gospels "undesigned coincidences". They're not. The gospels are not separate eyewitness accounts. They were written at different times, and some parts are obviously copied over, and other parts stand in obvious contradiction to each other. (How many women went to the tomb, and how did Judas die). If you want to use "UC"s as evidence for something, what you need is sources that aren't connected to each other. For example, If I got testimony from person "A", who claimed to be there, and then I talked to person "B" who also claimed to be there, and there stories lined up -AND they didn't know each other, or talk to each other about it before meeting with me, that's what would qualify as "Undesigned coincidence". What you have in the gospels is "A" who wrote a book about an event, and then "B" talked to "C" and "D" people who claimed to have spoken with someone else who was there, and "B" also read "A"'s book, and then wrote their own book, based on A, C, and D. There is no way to claim these coincidences between A's book and B's book are "undesigned." (also not a real word). "B"'s book wouldn't necessarily be a "fictionalization" either, as they were using the best information they had. However, they aren't an independent source.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

You dismiss the argument of a q source but whether this was an actual document or just the stories being told through the traditions that were being spread at the time, to say that it's not plausible that they got their information from this source is presumptuous and a statement based on subjectivity. Many of these so called undesigned coincidences are nothing of the sort like the sons of thunder. Luke says nothing of being sons of thunder. You are stretching it big time and showing how desperate you are to find things. But even if they did match, there's no reason whatsoever not to assume they all got this from the traditions of the time which could have easily been fanciful stories and legends which were all made up. The gospels all knew these stories and were making up their books based on this. Some put certain details in their stories and some had other details. Why is that so difficult? In other words, the q source argument explains it perfectly and while we don't know if this is true nor can we know this, to say they aren't and the seemingly matching gospels shows the authenticity of them is far from evidence. Especially since they don't always match and they have contradictory stories but we won't bother going there

[@TestifyApologetics]

this has nothing to do with Q. No one thinks Q contained all four gospels, or all three Synoptics. It just has the double tradition that is *shared* in Matthew and Luke. I'm not dismissing Q, although I'm skeptical of it, as are many other scholars. Q, real or not, does not touch my argument in the least.

[@WayneRossi]

“We could make up meanings for things endlessly and dismiss a lot of actual history if we overuse our imagination.” Honestly this is how I, and I imagine a lot of skeptics think about undesigned coincidences. All of these puzzle pieces seem to fit because humans are really good at pattern matching - unfortunately it’s just an exercise in imaginative storytelling by the apologist.

[@jhurt3824]

Maybe but it takes me back to graduate school. I went to a large research institution. People love to comment their faith in science and that science was all in agreement about things. That wasn't my experience. I saw narcissism. I saw passive aggression between them. That would talk badly about each other in class and I remind myself of this when people disregard things based upon a limited amount of knowledge. Not everything is what it seems. Humans really aren't that smart. I'm saying saying this in defense of anything. I'm just saying that neither side really has all the information needed to make an informed decision. I'd guess that there won't be a single person arguing about God now will find out one way or another before we die. So what's the point

[@nerdy_crawfish]

These techniques are used in both history and trials to judge the reliability of witness accounts especially in cases where we can’t cross examine the witnesses. Either these techniques are valid meaning it gives credibility to the gospel accounts or these techniques are flawed so they can’t be used for history or criminal justice.

[@jhurt3824]

My problem with all of this is related to the loss of knowledge over the years. We only have the survivors both biblically and scientifically. Libraries are destroyed in war. Hitler wasn't the first to destroy books and reading and writing amongst the massss are new to mankind. Journalism hasn't been around very long. Most discoveries have never been written about at all

[@christiang4497]

Give your evidence.

[@jhurt3824]

@@christiang4497evidence of what? You didn't state what evidence your searching for

[@Redtornado6]

You’re presupposing that they had the truth instead of just a false source.

[@malirk]

Undesigned coincidences should convince everyone Islam is true.

[@malirk]

The Quran briefly mentions 'The People of the Elephant' in Surah Al-Fil, which refers to an event where Abraha's army, which included elephants, marched on Mecca. An unrelated hadith provides a timeframe by mentioning that Prophet Muhammad was born in 'the Year of the Elephant'. These independent sources support each other: one mentions an unusual event involving elephants without context, and another situates Muhammad's birth in relation to this event.

[@malirk]

In various hadith collections, there are accounts of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muslims and Quraysh. Specific details such as the negotiation terms and participants are mentioned sporadically. Early biographies like Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah provide additional details about the context, such as political relations before the treaty that help explain why certain terms were agreed upon. When these sources are combined, they create a coherent narrative suggesting authentic remembrance of complex historical circumstances.

[@malirk]

The Quran speaks generally about protection for those who were persecuted for their faith but doesn't detail specific incidents. Independent reports from Hadiths and early Islamic history (Seerah) describe some early Muslims fleeing to Abyssinia seeking refuge due to persecution in Mecca. Another source might mention how a Christian ruler provided asylum without directly stating it's related to Muslim refugees.

[@cannonbolt14]

Bro, the Prophet went to bed with a 9 year old. There’s no undoing that stain. All other apologias you want to present can wait until we are done addressing that elephant in the room. Respectfully sir.

[@worldexposed7]

Also in the quran, muhammad steals made up stories about Alexander the great almost 1:1. Muhamad copy and pasted from talmud, steals tales abt Jesus being born under a palm tree, or speaking when he was a baby(this one is very known to be just a story, it was made up by early christians) I can stay here all day and point up to historical error (the fact that some arab dude comes 600 yrs after the death of Jesus without no eyewitnesess testymony just to tell us that allah pranked all the ppls in Jerusalem at that time, no wonder why he calls himself the best of all decivers Qur'an 3:54), i can point up to the fact that he stole stories and practices that were popular in 7th century pagan arabia. But this comment is uselles sience i could just say that the quran is false because it confirms the bible and the bible contradicts the quran and has nothing to do with it 2:41, 2:89, 2:91, 2:97, 2:101, 3:3, 3:81, 4:47, 5:48, 6:92, 10:37, 12:111, 35:31, 37:37, 46:12, 46:30. And i wanna add a cherry on top, sahih al bukhari 5134, how can you follow this man