Surprising Details That Show the Gospels are True

There are some surprising hidden details in the Gospels that back them up as true eyewitness accounts. These come in the form of unexplained allusions. In this video, I break down what unexplained allusions are, why they matter, and share several examples from the Gospels.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...

[@freddurstedgebono6029]

My favorite is where John says he ran faster than Peter lol. Absolutely unnecessary, but exactly something a lay person would throw in

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Ah yes. John the Beloved.

[@povilzem]

​@@noahtylerpritchett2682And Peter the Out-of-shape

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@povilzem haha 😂

[@AnHebrewChild]

Peter would not have been out of shape. He was a young strapping fisherman who then walked upwards of 20 miles a day with Jesus (including up and down mountains etc) I realize many people think it's funny to bag on Simon Peter, but it's not cool. And extra-biblical writings describe Peter as quite the physical specimen.

[@anon9060]

@@AnHebrewChild He still lost to John according to John lol

[@markus5237]

And not to mention John bragging about him beating Peter in a race to the tomb

[@andrewson5330]

This is proof the Bible remains factual to this day

[@LionOf.Christ]

يسوع المسيح هو الطريق والحق والحياه ☦️

[@theepitomeministry]

This is one of the strongest arguments from Paley, the McGrews, etc. in my opinion. Skeptics want to say that the Gospels are elaborate, fictional narratives. Talented fictional authors wouldn't write like this. This evidence very obviously cuts against their theory. Also, as you said at the end, it doesn't read like a fairy tale, but straight forward history.

[@adamstewart9052]

Not all sceptics but it seems to be a bias against the miraculous that makes some sceptics generalise it as "magic" or "superstitions".

[@theepitomeministry]

@adamstewart9052 Any skeptic that doesn't grant the Gospels are elaborate hasn't studied the topic seriously at all. But I agree, they right them off as superstition, etc.

[@TheTemplar168]

The inclusion of the supernatural or themes of theology should never be a reason to write off a source as unreliable. There may have been a scientific explanation that we now know today, or maybe it really happened. Jesus did rise from the dead, and He’s coming back.

[@theepitomeministry]

@@TheTemplar168 Amen! I agree with everything you said

[@theepitomeministry]

@Boundless_Border What talented fictional author would mention something like a debate among people and then not even say what the debate was about or what was said? It serves NO purpose to the narrative whatsoever. You could remove that verse altogether and it wouldn't change anything. Talented fictional writers don't write like that.

[@paulyoder604]

I like how John 3 mentions John the Baptist’s Big Chungus t-shirt

[@TestifyApologetics]

​@@JesusSavedYouuI thought it was kinda funny tbh

[@Hikkomo]

@@JesusSavedYouuSo true, I hate it when people make jokes about and/or disrespect the Bible, or God, or any righteous man in the Bible. You’re clearly not a true Christian @paulyoder604 (if you’re even one at all), and just some atheist trying to make a joke out of something you deem to be, in itself, a joke (or something that is so ‘obviously’ wrong).

[@Hikkomo]

⁠@@TestifyApologeticsThat ‘joke’ you’re talking about is claiming that an event that obviously never happened, actually did happen. And this guy talks about the event jokingly as if it did happen. The problem is, it’s clearly a comment made out of hate. The comment has nothing to do with the video, or the lesson in the video. This guy left it there (probably without watching even 5 seconds of the video) to basically call Christianity a joke, and claim the gospels are false (which is the exact opposite of your video title, and the point you were trying to make).

[@jacobbeers5889]

@@Hikkomo and @JesusSavedYouu you guys are overreacting to this in a big way. Claiming someone is not a "true Christian" because they were more casual than you like is bogus. I don't think his statement was even offensive personally, it was meant to be lighthearted, but even if you are offended isn't the Christian response to talk to the person with charity and encouragement?

[@gwapohuevo7816]

🤦‍♂️

[@abietemalum5366]

Matthew, Mark, Luke: one of the disciples struck the servant of the high priest. John: It was Peter, Peter did it.

[@adamstewart9052]

Also pretty much the fact that the disciples were hesitant to accept the reality of a literal resurrection in the middle of history of what they would have thought was a failed Messiah, until it happened. If someone having had that happen, personally presented themselves to you, you would naturally find it quite hard to initially grasp, they knew dead people normally stayed dead before the general resurrection.

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

Why are the replies to jokes so mad? Literally dad jokes and people get mad.

[@doinic09]

I guess they feel like any joke about anything Christian is blasphemy or something.

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

@@doinic09 ikr not everything is blasphemy

[@Harbingerofd00m]

Because they're a bunch of humorless Pharisees, constantly judging other people's salvation. Something they themselves didn't earn whatsoever, but somehow feel worthy and qualified to examine others. The absolute irony is that these same people will mock Sabbath-observing Jews for their legalism.

[@coconut7630]

truly a "welcome to the internet" moment

[@Trendsthismonth]

Love your enemies. Jesus

[@Cookiedon15]

In Genesis, Abraham is offering a sacrifice, and depending on the translation, the scene is followed by other animals trying to take the sacrifice, but Abraham shoos them away. This is omitted from the NKJV (probably because they thought the scene was irrelevant), but it adds the realism of the event

[@TheTemplar168]

It’s also interesting how this particular story relates directly to John 8:50-58. Another undesigned coincide

[@AWW8472]

My NKJV has the part about the vultures trying to take the portions of the sacrifice. What printing are you talking about?

[@chuchip9633]

What passage please

[@AWW8472]

@@chuchip9633 Genesis 15:7-12 Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.” And he said, “Lord GOD, how shall I know that I will inherit it?” So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. (New King James Version)

[@dodleymortune4312]

@@TheTemplar168 How are they related ?

[@JabberW00kie]

Another unexplained allusion is when Jesus bent down to write on the ground in John 8:6. We are left guessing on what exactly he wrote, and why - no explanation is given in the text. There is debate on why that detail was even included. Even more interesting is that we know this passage was probably not in the original Gospel of John. Yet, a detail like this implies that even though it might have been added later, it was probably still based on a real account.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Lewis mentioned this one in his essay on biblical criticism

[@JabberW00kie]

@@TestifyApologetics Interesting. I’m a big fan of Lewis, so I will definitely have to read that essay.

[@camelotenglishtuition6394]

Sam Shamoun did a great video about this. It connects to the old testament where God used his fingers to write the law for Moses. Now, YHWH in the flesh, was writing law. Now stopping the practice of stoning. The words he wrote are of little significance. It's the action.

[@narrowistheway77]

There are some great videos debunking the claim that Jesus forgiving the adultress wasn’t originally in the gospel of John. That claim falls to pieces when you pour over the manuscript evidence we have and remember that early church bishops were also aware of the story in many of their letters

[@narrowistheway77]

@@camelotenglishtuition6394it’s all theories, I’ve heard many great theories on the matter, but we don’t know for sure until we die and ask Jesus ourselves ❤️

[@SDsc0rch]

re Alexander and Rufus... I've heard it was a custom of the time to honor a contributor of a story (eyewitness in this case) by naming them in the work so.. Simon of cyrene was tasked to carry yeshuas cross, but the people actually relating the story to mark may have been his sons

[@TestifyApologetics]

Bauckham articulates this argument well in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

[@jgrahamiii7749]

Consider that if the Holy Spirit is indeed the Author of scripture, then it follows logically that the words or names have a reason to be included. He didn't just have some left over and wanted to use them up. Names are a great way to follow what is happening in the case of the New Testament because they help the reader to trace the comings and goings of the "players". Just because the casual reader does not understand why something is recorded does not make it irrelevant.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

One thing I learned recently was that Onkelos (a Jew who lived around the time of Jesus) when writing the Targum on Deuteronomy put in a dig at Jesus when translating the part about "cursed is every man that hangs on a tree". This would be one more example of a nonChristian historical evidence of Jesus' existence since it confirms with what Paul was saying. I heard this in the One for Israel discussion on the Christian roots of the Jewish faith.

[@ketaminefrog3897]

I love how you get a sense of the apostles personality in the Bible

[@birmax5420]

Another couple of details I'd like to add: 1) Let's remember that the Jews were not the Greeks, a country of philosophers, they were mostly fishermen and shepherd. The one who could have had the culture to really create such a tale would have been the high priests and the nobles, both of whom would have against their interest such a story. 2)but let's suppose that they falsified: the kind of falsification that they could have been inspired off would have been roman annales or Egyptian chronicles and all of them glorified the politican (in an "artsy" way, as the video said) as all might hero, the exact opposite of Jesus. Heck, one of the reasons the Jewish priets rejected Jesus was because they perceived him as weak, not in one billion years a faker would have glorified a "weak" person, someone who underwent the worst of the humiliation, crucifixion. So, in addition to the video, I would add that a falsified gospel would have been drastically different.

[@migamings5158]

An event that comes to my mind that back up your reasoning is from Mark 14:51-52. Mark is explaining the arrest of Jesus and then, randomly starts talking about a man who flee away when he saw Jesus being taken away. This event and many more gives a lot of authenticity and historical reliability of the gospel.

[@tarjan68]

Yes, I was thinking about that as well.. also, the guy lost his clothed and ran away naked.

[@TheGoodShepard31]

On a roll brother I binge this like Netflix. Keep up the great work! Hallelujah

[@vladislavstezhko1864]

Thank you very much! Makes a lot of sense.

[@chrisazure1624]

I am studying Esther. In chapter 1 it lists several names of Chamberlains and Advisers. How do we understand this? Does it suggest the book was written at a time when the names were still known and relevant? I don't see the Hebrew meaning behind the names to have significance. Any suggestions?

[@Konxovar0]

Esther, to me, seems like a really bad way to make something up. Who's making up a story with concrete details and then saying "all of this can be fact-checked in the chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia" at the end. That would be as incompetent as Muhammed's "trust me, I'm in the Gospels" thing. That bluff only worked because 1. He probably actually thought he was in there and 2. Nobody could check for a while. (I've also heard that several Mordechais have been found in Xerxes', probably Ahaseurus, records, serving in his court.)

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

Keep up the good work guys. These videos are needed.

[@user56233]

Ur channel is amazing man, found it yesterday and have been watching all ur stuff. God Bless bro🙏

[@Stonfasti]

The one that always surprised me was Mark 14:51-52.

[@tofi5952]

It is the same Rufus, I don't remember the cite but Paul literally says it was his father that helped with the cross (In the king James translation and Reina Valera)

[@annag2333]

thank you for your work!!!! i have read many books and watched lots of videos, but your videos in particular have made me start to actually believe the Gospels are true. thank you for all the work you have done and continue to do ❤️

[@Aldry44]

Great video as always ! Suggestions for next video : Top 3 or 5 of the best undesigned coincidences that are easy to remember and share in a debate 😄

[@GuidanceforGuardians]

I need to learn something from every video I watch. I automatically hit the like button when he gave me a term I hadn't heard before: Unexplained allusion. Must add to my quiver.

[@Lord9Genesis]

Love these undesigned coincidences and random irrelevant details!

[@Dylan_Devine]

Hey Testify, I love your videos--would you ever consider doing a few videos covering the Book of Mormon / Pearl of Great Price etc., and how it lacks the historical verisimilitude of the New Testament? Since you covered Islam, it seems only logical to cover the American version of Islam.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'll do Mormonism at some point Lord willing

[@ericdanielski4802]

Nice video.

[@dartharpy9404]

Thanks

[@jimurban5367]

Take the elevator example with the big chungas t-shirt lady. If after they mention that little detail, they then say that lady opened the elevator doors with her mind, does the detail about her t-shirt convince you of the telekinesias?

[@moczs]

Yes. Because Chungus is pretty powerful and can compete with Shaggy.

[@Munchrr789]

Not sure if this is a good example but the passage where it says John ran faster than Peter to the tomb

[@teddyboi001]

4:55 This was a reference to Jesus sending his disciples out and saying to carry nothing but their coats

[@AnHebrewChild]

Great video here Erik - man I feel like a broken record saying this, but you are definitely my favorite YT apologist. Thank you for always speaking so highly of JESUS and his salvation. > - Daniel

[@ycvgggfffty]

unknown writers, contradictions, false prophecies, fabrications, jewish supremacy, paganism...etc imagine going to hell over this 😕

[@hmetv8619]

@@ycvgggfffty these are all assertions. What false prophecies! What paganism? What fabrications?

[@lolaanfer88]

4:53 I mean, John does say Peter was naked at that moment

[@midimusicforever]

The Gospels are legit!

[@WarriorcatGerda]

Nice

[@CD-CH-EB]

what do you say to muslims when they use this argument as well as the undesigned coincidences between the hadiths and quran? What should our response be to show them its not the same or of a different quality?

[@ShadowArk606]

I never thought about this. Very interesting............... 🙃

[@thebatman2405]

Hi testify! I have a question. If humanity started with Adam and then the flood desyroyed almost all mankind, then how could people be in different continents when they were discovered? If anyone can answer pls do. Youve been a blessing from God. Love what u are doing! God bless u!

[@willolol3353]

Isn't there like, myths of the floods in almost every ancient civilizations ?

[@Dylan_Devine]

Not Testify, but AnswersInGenesisCanada explained it brilliantly. Basically, the tower of Babel was AFTER the flood, not before--so originally, the descendents of Noah after the flood were one civilization, but after God confused their languages they split off and formed their own tribes which became their own civilizations. That also explains the ethnic variety we see, because they likely inbred for the first few generations with only those who spoke their same language, which made some genetic features get amplified and others removed, which is why you also have different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, heights, etc. To this day every civilization has a flood story, even the native people of Hawaii have a version of the flood story, and theirs also includes legend of a righteous man who built an ark. What are the odds that the native tribes of an island like Hawaii would just so happen to have the exact same legend as ancient Jews?

[@Lord9Genesis]

Simple answer is that immediately after the Flood, a lot of its water was trapped in Ice causing a mini ice age. The continents were (and technically still are) connected as people spread out. After a few hundred years, probably during the time of Peleg in Genesis 10:25, the ice melted and the ocean levels rose.

[@NovaSoldier]

@@Dylan_Devine i dont get it, how does inbreading lead to this diversity of traits? I thought inbreading lead to loss of diversity of genetic traits

[@TestifyApologetics]

This isn't an area of interest of mine, to be honest. If Jesus is dead and the flood was global, none of this matters. If the flood story was meant to be interpreted locally but Jesus is risen from the dead, then who cares about the flood? It's an issue of minor importance.

[@joe-cm4lz]

Why didn’t the creed in 1 Corin 15 mention the women? It’s a question on my mind any help is appreciated thanks

[@johnmarkharris]

Another subtle reason to believe the gospels are genuine. The names. Their usage fits our historic understanding of the names of the time. Names are popular in waves. Someone named “Pearl” probably is 85 not 15 today. You see the same popular names in the same proportions as you’d expect at the times the New Testament represents compared to extra biblical sources. No one writing a forgery would be able to make names up that accurately.

[@unknownyoutubechannel6196]

Please make a video on the Johannes Comma and also the Periscope Adulterae. I’ve lost my faith because it seems that the books in the bible have been manipulated with added verses. Even my bible says that the adulterous woman story isn’t in the earliest tmanuscripts

[@fluffysheap]

Yes, it's true, and there are other changes too, the most obvious but not the only one being the long ending of Mark. The Comma Johanneum is just a fake, while the Pericope Adulterae is (probably) a true story about Jesus that just wasn't written by John. The way to understand it, IMO, is that while there are these changes, we also understand that they are changes. There is always more to learn, and the process of doing so continues to reveal God.

[@Trashtatine]

Video idea: make a video about Mohammed hijabs crucifixion contradiction. He said a passage in the psalms was a contradiction to the crucifixion and Islam’s view makes it correct. It would be a super cool video

[@Mike00513]

I've seen that, his arguments are extremely weak. The Psalm he was quoting from isn't even a Messianic prophecy. It's a Psalm talking about God's general protection over people who put their trust and faith in him.

[@ozAqVvhhNue]

One criticism I might add is that these unexplained allusions show that some parts of the gospels are very likely true, but not the complete gospels. There might be some parts of the gospels that are true and others that might be false.

[@colancole5277]

Your argument isn’t wrong or bad. I understand the logic behind, but I feel like you’re jumping to conclusions. Fictional stories can also have unexplained allusions in it as well to either contextualize the story or add additional insight to a character. I do believe that Jesus was a real person and so were his disciples. The only problem that I’ve heard from other Atheists were discrepancies within the Gospels. I definitely agree with Alex O’Conner on his takes. If you want to clarify some of these discrepancies, you definitely can, and I’ll lend an ear.

[@TestifyApologetics]

You need to provide evidence for your assertions. Cite specific ancient made up stories with similar things. Don't just gesture to vague they did it too stuff

[@matthewnitz8367]

@@TestifyApologetics I've made a comment directly replying to the video with references from the Odyssey showing exactly the types of allusions the OP here is talking about. Just one example from it so people in this thread can see that this is indeed a thing in fictional literature of the time (and very common, I did not have to read back through much of the story to find these): Book I, it is talking about Euryclea leading Telemachus, and then just randomly mentions that "Laertes had bought her with his own money when she was quite young; he gave the worth of twenty oxen for her, and shewed as much respect to her in his household as he did to his own wedded wife, but he did not take her to his bed for he feared his wife’s resentment." Why mention specifically twenty oxen? Why mention he feared his wife's resentment and then never bring anything up about that in relation to the story ever again? There is no apparent explanation for why these specific allusions are made to past events that I think we all would agree never actually happened historically. In my main reply to the video, I give examples of this for events and details about things and places in the Odyssey as well.

[@idkbro-n5c]

Give me some discrepancies and I'll be happy to explain them the best I can. I am not Testify and am not at well versed in the Bible as many so while likely I can explain it some maybe not. But I believe I got this

[@TestifyApologetics]

And I corrected you in the original comment, but I"ll post it here too: If anything, all these pauses to tell backstories are the exact opposite of unexplained allusions. Homer can't mention a faithful old servant without pausing to tell you her life story and how she's related to the household. On the other hand, John brings up a debate about something that launches John the Baptist into talking about how Jesus must increase, without even telling you what the debate was about or how it relates to what John the Baptist said! The bit about the doors is obviously part of a catalog of all the wonderful things about the storerooms. Whatever "opening in the middle" means, it's clearly supposed to be yet another thing that is beautiful, well-built, well-kept, etc., about the storeroom. On Euryclea's backstory: When you read it in context, you see that this is about Telemachus's old nurse. She's very old and goes back to the time of his grandfather, who bought her as a slave. She nursed Telemachus when he was a baby. Homer dives into her backstory a bit, showing how she is a valued part of the household. Even though she was purchased as a slave, she was treated with respect. She was a housekeeper and high-ranking slave but not used sexually. The "twenty oxen" indicate her value as a slave. The overall intention is to portray a well-ordered household where everybody has their part to play and where an old slave/housekeeper/nurse is valued and loves the family in return. The scene with Menelaus similarly shows the glory and status of Menelaus's household and his connections with other Greek allies, such as Achilles. Sending his daughter with chariots and horses is part of this picture of Greek nobility and honorable arranged marriages. We're not saying that anything unnecessary to the larger story automatically indicates factuality. Homer does tend to pile on details, pausing and relating backstories. In the present tense, Homer likes to go on a bit with his details, somewhat like modern fiction. Here, one notices the "Goldilocks zone" point I make in _Testimonies_. The Gospels' unnecessary details tend to be more isolated. They "pop out" of the story but are not maintained in equal detail throughout a scene. For example, Peter puts his coat on (a weird detail since it would be easier to swim without it) before jumping into the water to go see Jesus. The fire is a charcoal fire. They capture 153 fish. But then the breakfast itself isn't described in any detail. We jump to the conversation after breakfast. Combined with the fact that the Gospels present themselves as history, unlike Homer, the nature and distribution of unnecessary details are more characteristic of memoir than fiction, including Homeric fiction. For example, with Homer, notice how he describes the well-ordered, beautiful household with the "good old woman" (the slave who had been Telemachus's nurse). We see how "tidy" she is, how nice the door latch is, the woolen blanket he's given. This creates an atmosphere of comparative wealth, well-being, and comfort, contrasted with Telemachus's unsettled frame of mind: "She it was who now lighted Telemachus to his room, and she loved him better than any of the other women in the house did, for she had nursed him when he was a baby. He opened the door of his bedroom and sat down upon the bed; as he took off his shirt, he gave it to the good old woman, who folded it tidily up and hung it for him over a peg by his bedside, after which she went out, pulled the door to by a silver catch, and drew the bolt home by means of the strap. But Telemachus, as he lay covered with a woolen fleece, kept thinking all night through of his intended voyage and the counsel that Minerva had given him." In contrast, the Greeks coming to Jesus and his cryptic words afterward leave us guessing about the connection. Your commentator thinks it's "obvious" that John portrays Jesus as glorified by the Greeks wanting to see him, but that is by no means clear. The relevant point is that the Greeks themselves are simply dropped from the story. They don't request a miracle or ask Jesus a question, or anything of the kind. If John made up the Greeks for the purpose the commentator gives and made up Jesus' words, he could have made this much clearer in what he "makes" Jesus say. There is nothing "atmospheric" about the Greeks' approach to Jesus, unlike Homer. You've compared apples with oranges here. Also, again, you've confused unexplained allusions with unnecessary details. If you want more details I'd just recommend Lydia McGrew's book Testimonies to the Truth.

[@margherita2349]

Jesus IS Truth.

[@jfr45er]

Good use of various memes! 👍

[@Kanthon]

I see Big Chungus, I click thumbs up. Thems the rules.

[@DrM-j8c]

Sometimes I get bored, especially because of the genealogy And mention the family tree of the prophets. I mean, what's the use of this?

[@maxmaximum-sh4bx]

For the algorithm

[@SonGoku-777]

Y'all didn't mention the disciple who ran naked?????????????

[@matthewnitz8367]

I at least understand the idea behind the undesigned coincidences, even if I don't think they get you where you want to go. But I have to say, from my reading I really don't see what how you think these examples help your case in the slightest. Fictional books allude to something seemingly irrelevant as a lead-in to the next thing they are talking about, or mention seemingly unimportant events and details that never come up again, ALL THE TIME. Just looking at the Odyssey as an example. Book I, it is talking about Euryclea leading Telemachus, and then just randomly mentions "Laertes had bought her with his own money when she was quite young; he gave the worth of twenty oxen for her, and shewed as much respect to her in his household as he did to his own wedded wife, but he did not take her to his bed for he feared his wife’s resentment." Why mention specifically twenty oxen? Why mention he feared his wife's resentment and then never bring anything up about that in relation to the story ever again? I'm sure the author had their reasons, and I could make some educated guesses. But I don't think it means those details are most likely based on a memory of actual events that happened, and there was a Euryclea and Laertes did pay twenty oxen for her. Book II, Telemachus goes down to a store room to get some supplies. It then says that "The room was closed with well-made doors opening in the middle; moreover the faithful old house-keeper Euryclea, daughter of Ops the son of Pisenor, was in charge of everything both night and day." He goes on to talk to Euryclea, so it makes sense she is mentioned. But what is up with the well-made doors opening in the middle? Who cares how they opened? Is this a sign there WERE well-made doors that actually opened in the middle? Again, the fact that I personally don't understand why the author chose to put that detail doesn't in any way seem to me to justify me jumping to "Maybe those things actually existed and that is why he mentioned them!" Book IV, Telemachus shows up in Lacedaemon where Menelaus reigns. As introduction the text says that they "found him in his own house, feasting with his many clansmen in honor of the wedding of his son, and also of his daughter, whom he was marrying to the son of that valiant warrior Achilles. He had given his consent and promised her to him while he was still at Troy, and now the gods were bringing the marriage about; so he was sending her with chariots and horses to the city of the Myrmidons over whom Achilles’ son was reigning. For his only son he had found a bride from Sparta, the daughter of Alector. This son, Megapenthes, was born to him of a bondwoman, for heaven vouchsafed Helen no more children after she had borne Hermione, who was fair as golden Venus herself." Alright, so they are feasting because of the wedding of the son and daughter. But if this is just a story, what is up with the reference to the daughter anyway? The son has later parts in the story, and it makes sense to explain that he is getting married and they are having a celebration now because of it. But why mention the daughter was marrying a specific person, and that she was being sent over by chariot to a specific city? She's never mentioned in the entire story ever again. And you can't just say that the author was trying to get rid of her for the rest of the story, because that would mean she DID exist. If the author didn't want to have to mention her any more, why even add her to the story in the first place? Does this mean that she actually did get married, and the author is just recounting some other events he recalls happening involving her at this time as well? Again, I can think of and have seen other explanations for why this seemingly irrelevant detail would be included. The fact that the allusion seems irrelevant and unexpected does not in any way seem to make it more likely that the details are a reference to actual historical events that happened and the author is just remembering and mentioning them. I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think that gives the general idea. To me at least, it seems just as plausible that there reasons other than "this is a true historical detail the author is remembering" for why the allusions you mention that on first glance may not seem fully fleshed out to us are made. Take the John 3:25-26 example. Sure, it doesn't come out and directly say what the discussion about purification was about. But then right after it starts talking about baptism, which had a lot of relation to purification rites. Would this reference have been completely clear to the audience of John, who were used to disputes about baptism versus other purification rites, and thus didn't need any further explanation in their mind? I can't say that is most likely the case. But in the same way I'm definitely not comfortable saying it is most likely that the author is just remembering an actual discussion he heard and therefore mentions it in the story. Trying to say this verse specifically demonstrates that one or the other is more likely just seems silly to me, either one is entirely possible. Same thing in John 12:20-23. You ask what Jesus' answer has to do with the Greeks coming and asking to see Jesus, as though there is no possible good answer that could be given besides "well, that is just what Jesus actually said so they are relating the actual events that happened". That's simply not the case though. In fact, the way I personally naturally read that verse was that what Jesus said is OBVIOUSLY related to the Greek's coming. The Greeks are mentioned as asking about Jesus. Jesus is glorified by all the people of the earth coming to him as their savior. The author is having him say that his glorification in having all people on earth come to him has begun, as even Gentiles come to seek out the Savior. Is that actually what the author intended? Again, I'm not going to say absolutely that is the reason the author wrote those words, because that is silly. I'm not a mind reader. But I don't see any way you could possibly say that the clearly more likely reading is that this is just an event that happened so the author recounted it even though the two don't seem that connected. And what seems to be an additional problem to me with this approach is that even GIVEN your interpretation that these events actually happened, it doesn't explain the choice of the author to include those specific details AT ALL. The author of John necessarily left MANY details out of his stories. It is simply not possible or reasonable to recount every single minutia occurring in the events of life. So even assuming he is drawing from actual memory, he STILL made the purposeful decision to say that some Greeks came to Jesus, and he also then chose to mention a specific set of words Jesus said afterwards. He's not just choosing what events and details he mentions willy-nilly, HE certainly saw something meaningful in this interaction and Jesus' response as well. But if there is a connection and good reason to include it in the story, that reason exists regardless of whether or not the events actually happened historically in that exact way. The whole idea of getting from "I don't know the answer" to "therefore the answer is most likely this" has always struck me as a futile methodology. The allusions are "unexplained" to you because YOU (and some others you are quoting) can't think of another explanation for them. That doesn't mean that one does not exist, or that therefore by default "historical accuracy" is the most likely explanation. Especially since it doesn't seem like you put even a week's worth of effort on trying to figure out what the explanation might be. Figuring out why people thousands of years ago wrote what they did is often extremely difficult. Failing to figure out the reason for an allusion in a few days of just thinking about it, or even a few days of very intensive study, could in fact be extremely difficult or downright impossible. People spend literal DECADES building up the knowledge they use to try do so, and still sometimes just don't have enough data left that has been saved from the ravages of time to be able to pin down one most probable answer.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't think you even get what unexplained allusions are. The whole point is that even the original audience probably didn't understand the allusion. For instance, what was the debate between John the Baptist's disciples and another Jew about purification, and how does it relate to Jesus? You also seem to mix up unexplained allusions with unnecessary details, but the former is an even stronger argument. Sure, I use unnecessary details too, but mine are usually more specific and pointless than these. Just because you wonder "why mention x" doesn't automatically make it an unexplained allusion. Seems like this went over your head.

[@matthewnitz8367]

@TestifyApologetics Yep, I get that. Perhaps I didnt make this explicit enough, but my point was that all you were demonstrating is that you didn't understand the allusion. That doesn't mean that it is likely the original audience didn't understand the allusion. I even gave an example for the purification debate that it could have been entirely clear to the audience that the debate was about Jewish purification rites vs purification through baptism and the efficacy or reason for each based on the context. Again, I don't KNOW that was what the author thought and the audience understood. But literally the only support I see you giving for the hypothesis you have that the audience wouldn't understand the allusion is that you can't explain the allusion. And that means essentially nothing for whether the audience in the cultural context of the original author would have understood the allusion. Your distinction between "unexplained allusion" and "unnecessary detail" does not seem very clear to me based on your examples. I feel like you could easily say the reference to the purification debate is an unexplained allusion to an event. But on the other hand you could say it would make more sense if it was just introduced by saying it was a debate and not what about, so from that perspective the purification reference looks like it is just an unnecessary detail if you don't understand it. What you categorize it as seems entirely subjective. But perhaps you could give me a more objective set of criteria to distinguish between the two?

[@lorenzo8208]

The problem with this is that originally the Odyssey (and the Iliad by extension) was not a book, but a sung poetry that was often recited during some occasions. It originated in the dark ages of Greece where no alphabet existed, and so the grammar is quite different from standard ancient greek. It was only written down as commissioned by the tyrant Pisistratus, thereby rendering the written down version the standard. The frequent use of repetitions, names for herpes and gods, and the existence of weird details isn't there because it comes from memory, but because it helped the poets during recitation. You can see it even in Beowulf. Now, the Gospels were authored books that weren't meant to be recited, so the argument doesn't really follow; the details are there not because of an oral tradition, but because of eyewitness testimony

[@TestifyApologetics]

If anything, all these pauses to tell backstories are the exact opposite of unexplained allusions. Homer can't mention a faithful old servant without pausing to tell you her life story and how she's related to the household. On the other hand, John brings up a debate about something that launches John the Baptist into talking about how Jesus must increase, without even telling you what the debate was about or how it relates to what John the Baptist said! The bit about the doors is obviously part of a catalog of all the wonderful things about the storerooms. Whatever "opening in the middle" means, it's clearly supposed to be yet another thing that is beautiful, well-built, well-kept, etc., about the storeroom. On Euryclea's backstory: When you read it in context, you see that this is about Telemachus's old nurse. She's very old and goes back to the time of his grandfather, who bought her as a slave. She nursed Telemachus when he was a baby. Homer dives into her backstory a bit, showing how she is a valued part of the household. Even though she was purchased as a slave, she was treated with respect. She was a housekeeper and high-ranking slave but not used sexually. The "twenty oxen" indicate her value as a slave. The overall intention is to portray a well-ordered household where everybody has their part to play and where an old slave/housekeeper/nurse is valued and loves the family in return. The scene with Menelaus similarly shows the glory and status of Menelaus's household and his connections with other Greek allies, such as Achilles. Sending his daughter with chariots and horses is part of this picture of Greek nobility and honorable arranged marriages. We're not saying that anything unnecessary to the larger story automatically indicates factuality. Homer does tend to pile on details, pausing and relating backstories. In the present tense, Homer likes to go on a bit with his details, somewhat like modern fiction. Here, one notices the "Goldilocks zone" point I make in _Testimonies_. The Gospels' unnecessary details tend to be more isolated. They "pop out" of the story but are not maintained in equal detail throughout a scene. For example, Peter puts his coat on (a weird detail since it would be easier to swim without it) before jumping into the water to go see Jesus. The fire is a charcoal fire. They capture 153 fish. But then the breakfast itself isn't described in any detail. We jump to the conversation after breakfast. Combined with the fact that the Gospels present themselves as history, unlike Homer, the nature and distribution of unnecessary details are more characteristic of memoir than fiction, including Homeric fiction. For example, with Homer, notice how he describes the well-ordered, beautiful household with the "good old woman" (the slave who had been Telemachus's nurse). We see how "tidy" she is, how nice the door latch is, the woolen blanket he's given. This creates an atmosphere of comparative wealth, well-being, and comfort, contrasted with Telemachus's unsettled frame of mind: "She it was who now lighted Telemachus to his room, and she loved him better than any of the other women in the house did, for she had nursed him when he was a baby. He opened the door of his bedroom and sat down upon the bed; as he took off his shirt, he gave it to the good old woman, who folded it tidily up and hung it for him over a peg by his bedside, after which she went out, pulled the door to by a silver catch, and drew the bolt home by means of the strap. But Telemachus, as he lay covered with a woolen fleece, kept thinking all night through of his intended voyage and the counsel that Minerva had given him." In contrast, the Greeks coming to Jesus and his cryptic words afterward leave us guessing about the connection. Your commentator thinks it's "obvious" that John portrays Jesus as glorified by the Greeks wanting to see him, but that is by no means clear. The relevant point is that the Greeks themselves are simply dropped from the story. They don't request a miracle or ask Jesus a question, or anything of the kind. If John made up the Greeks for the purpose the commentator gives and made up Jesus' words, he could have made this much clearer in what he "makes" Jesus say. There is nothing "atmospheric" about the Greeks' approach to Jesus, unlike Homer. You've compared apples with oranges.

[@MatthewFearnley]

I "like" this objection - in the sense that it shows some research - and is not just someone making up a ridiculous short story, contriving in one unexplained allusion, and asking why we don't think the story is true. I think your examples at least show that there's a need to distinguish between "unexplained allusions" and (I'm not sure what to call them) "unnecessary but story-enriching details".

[@Weavileiscool]

I’m kinda happy the Islam series is over I like this stuff more

[@TestifyApologetics]

I might touch on some islam stuff in the near future but just how unitarians in general butcher certain passages

[@HandledToaster2]

So you're telling me Big Chungus is real,

[@Idunnohowabout7364]

This doesn’t confirm the Gospels because even Atheists agree that Jesus did exist Buddha,Muhammad, etc were all real people the real question is if their claims were true when I see other Christians try to 100% prove the Bible it just makes me annoyed we will never know if we were correct or not until we pass away and get to see for ourselves like the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is true but we don’t know if Moses actually did split the Red Sea apart

[@DomainofKnowlegdia]

There are several unexplained illusions (details that are not relevant and don't seem necessary to the main plot in the story) in the gospels but guess what we also find such unexplained illusions in Shakespeare's plays such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth there are several details in those stories that the author doesn't bother to explain does that mean that we should also accept them as divine and literal historical accounts even though they are completely made up stories. There are several details which the author doesn't bother to explain which creates further speculations. Their are several fairy tales or historical fiction shows, literature and books that have many unexplained illusions which makes the reader speculate. At the end of the day, this video is just speculative and does not prove anything just a desperate attempt to prove that Christianity's central claims are true but nice try only those who are deluded and are desperatly trying to hold on to their faith will accept what Eric Manning is saying.

[@TestifyApologetics]

What examples are you thinking of in fictional stories?

[@imbored6638]

I read all that and you out here just yapping and I know you don’t know what you’re talking about

[@survivordave]

Adding irrelevant details to make fictional stories sound more like eyewitness accounts is a very recent innovation with the modern novel ("Modern" in this sense being within the last 500 years or so). If the gospels were fiction, then they were including unexplained allusions in fiction with no precedent and it took ~1500 years before anyone else started doing it. If you're just using "fiction" to mean "untrue" rather than "a genre in which author intends and the audience understands that the narrative is not historical" the whole point of the video is that unexplained allusions are marks of true accounts. It's one type of thing historians look for when they're trying to differentiate between true history and fabrications.

[@DomainofKnowlegdia]

@@TestifyApologetics Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, christmas carol, Lengeds of king Aurthur and other legends that were ciculating around the time the gospels were written I might actually make a video explaining more about the New testement.

[@glassesinthetubathome]

@@DomainofKnowlegdiablind lost and hard hearted

[@srinugrohoprahastono7701]

Speaking of details. There are some historically false details in the bible

[@wraves693]

Like what?

[@idkbro-n5c]

@@wraves693 In context none I could find. The Hebrews are the closest I could find but theres explanations for that one.

[@nungus145]

BIG CHUNGUS

[@EldersXD_08]

152 views in 8 minutes fell off

[@EldersXD_08]

@@JesusSavedYouuWho said i am not a Christian?

[@TestifyApologetics]

​@@EldersXD_08it's all good. Lol. Just a weird meme that I'm not a fan of...unlike big Chungus

[@Devonlewis537]

Fell off so hard😂

[@rusluck6620]

1 like fell off edit realized a ratio